New Whiteness Study Released

Sociology professors (and graduate students) at the University of Minnesota have released to first major random sample study of whiteness. Here is summary of some of the key findings:

In fact, the researchers found that a majority of whites (74 percent) felt that their own racial identity was important to them, and that a similar majority were able to see prejudice and discrimination as important in explaining white advantage. At the same time, minorities are more likely to see their racial identities as important and to see structural reasons for racial disparities.

The research also suggests that awareness of white identity and awareness of white privilege are not the same. “The fact of the matter is that people claim white identity for defensive as well as progressive reasons,” said survey co-author Paul Croll, University of Minnesota graduate student.

Age and income have little impact on a white person’s awareness of their racial identity, the study found. But Southerners and social conservatives place more emphasis on their racial identity than other white Americans, while those with more education place less. Republican and male respondents most strongly resist claims that discrimination in legal and financial systems can explain white advantage. Additionally, respondents–regardless of their racial identity–believed strongly in the importance of individual effort, hard work and family upbringing in achieving success.

I have requested a copy for my use because I would like to see further details. In particular, I’m curious to know if the survey asks about ethnic identity, and I would like to know how whiteness, and white privilege are conceptualized in the study. Many whiteness theorists have argued that European ethnic identities have largely been replaced by a racial identity. For example, they say people are more likely to identity as white rather than Italian, Irish, German, etc. This has been a point debated in whiteness studies, and the survey may shed some light on this. One of the more interesting ideas that the study seems to suggest is that the “normavity of whiteness” is not as strong as has been theorized. Personally, I am doubtful about this claim, but I am hesitant to critique the study until I can see the actual survey instrument and statistical analysis. After all, it is hard to get everything into a press release.

This entry was posted in Race, racism and related issues. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to New Whiteness Study Released

  1. ARConn says:

    Many whiteness theorists have argued that European ethnic identities have largely been replaced by a racial identity. For example, they say people are more likely to identity as white rather than Italian, Irish, German, etc.

    It could also be that it’s just easier to identify U’rself as White when U’re a Euro-mutt, rather than trying to explain that U’re an Irish-English-Scottish-French-Dutch-Polish-Italian, by heratige.

  2. perianwyr says:

    No kidding. Something like, say, Lithuanian-Scottish doesn’t have the same conceptual meaning in America.

  3. Rachel S. says:

    This is a valid point. I would just add that there are also political reasons that groups embraced whiteness, mainly because when they were not considered white, they faced more discrimination.

  4. RonF says:

    For example, they say people are more likely to identity as white rather than Italian, Irish, German, etc. This has been a point debated in whiteness studies, and the survey may shed some light on this.

    Hm. I’m interested in the methodology that they used to determine this. Anecdotally, it’s been my observation that most Caucasians in the Chicago area identify with their heritage (Irish, Polish, German, Lithuanian, etc.) rather than “white”. But I wouldn’t pretend that I’m accessing a representative sample.

  5. carlaviii says:

    >For example, they say people are more likely to identity as white rather than Italian, Irish, German, etc.

    Well, if you’re predominantly Irish or Italian, it’s easier to identify yourself as that nationalitiy in specific… but when you’re equal parts of lots of nationalities (Norwegian-Scots-Irish-et-al, here) it makes sense to use “white” as a synonym for “European mutt”.

    I mean, assuming they knew their tribal origins, how many African-Americans would rather say “Maasai” or “Tutsi”? (and just to balance that out, I know plenty of white mutts with only the vaguest idea of their family origins)

  6. Rachel S. says:

    Carlaviii,
    There is really no fair comparison between whites and blacks on this one because slavery very intentionally wiped away the ethnic origins of African people in the US. They couldn’t practice religions, could speak languages, and were stripped of their ethnic names. For lack of a better example, think Kunta Kinte in roots. Euro-Americans had many more options, even though they were encouraged to assimilate, they were not under the same sort of force to abandon their ethnic identity.

    However, if you are saying there are many whites who don’t know their ancestry I think this may be true, and it is indeed an empirical question.

  7. carlaviii says:

    I don’t mean to compare how whites and blacks lost track of their origins when they came to the US — stripped of them or by neglect, they are obviously not equivalent experiences.

    But families do lose track of these things. I only know so much about my family because my grandmother took up geneaology as a hobby.

    I mean to say that “white” is as non-specific as “black”, really, in the US, and I wonder how that “racial idendity” varies between people who can specifically say they’re Irish and people who don’t know their origin.

    I know my origin, but I’m enough of a mutt that I consider myself a pretty generic white person. And certainly generic enough to sometimes wish I had an ethnicity to hang my hat on.

  8. La Lubu says:

    Anecdotally, it’s been my observation that most Caucasians in the Chicago area identify with their heritage (Irish, Polish, German, Lithuanian, etc.) rather than “white”. But I wouldn’t pretend that I’m accessing a representative sample.

    I’d say this is pretty representative of most of Illinois. You’d have to go south of St. Louis before you could find a majority of Caucasians who would primarily identify as “white” rather than Polish, Irish, etc. I couldn’t conceive of identifying as “white” rather than Sicilian; when folks think of “white woman”, they are almost never thinking of someone who resembles me physically (or any other way). Maybe it’s a Illinois thing because so many people here are first- second- or third-generation Americans. There’s still a lot of ethnic organizations and ethnically-oriented churches here.

  9. SamChevre says:

    Southerners (in my experience) by state and, if the state has significant divides, by region. This is the case for both black and white Southerners.

    In other words, Tennesseans (I’m one by birth) identify as East, Middle, or West Tennesseans; Virginians (my wife is one, and I live in VA now) identify as Valley, Eastern, or Hill Country. These distinctions map to ethnic distinctions to some extent (Valley is German, Tidewater English, and Hill-Country Scots-Irish, to overgeneralize), but map pretty accurately to cultural differences (accent, economic organization).

  10. darthdorkus says:

    One thing about this that I’ve noticed, is that we’re trained not to make that sort of cultural/origin based differentiation if we’re of European descent. As a kid I checked “other” and wrote in Italian/Irish/German and was corrected by teachers- in hindsight this sort of thing seems grossly inappropriate, but I highly doubt my experience is terribly unique.

Comments are closed.