Search results

Purpose – Are members of socially dominant groups aware of the privileges they enjoy? We address this question by applying the notion of hypocognition to social privilege. Hypocognition is defined as lacking a rich cognitive or linguistic representation (i.e., a schema) of a concept in question. By social privilege, we refer to advantages that members of dominant social groups enjoy because of their group membership. We argue that such group members are hypocognitive of the privilege they enjoy. They have little cognitive representation of it. As a consequence, their social advantage is invisible to them.

Approach – We provide a narrative review of recent empirical work demonstrating and explaining this lack of expertise and knowledge in socially dominant groups (e.g., White People, men) about discrimination and disadvantage encountered by other groups (e.g., Black People, Asian Americans, women), relative what members of those other groups know.

Findings – This lack of expertise or knowledge is revealed by classic cognitive psychological measures. Relative to members of other groups, social dominant group members generate fewer examples of discrimination that other groups confront, remember fewer instances after being presented a list of them, and are slower to respond when classifying whether these examples are discriminatory.

Social Implications – These classic measures of cognitive expertise about social privilege predict social attitude differences between social groups, specifically whether people perceive the existence of social privilege as well as believe discrimination still exists in contemporary society. Hypocognition of social privilege also carries implications for informal interventions (e.g., acting “colorblind”) that are popularly discussed.

The monograph argues that American racism has two colours (white and black), not one; and that each racism dresses itself not in one clothing, but in four: (1) “Minimal” negative, when one race considers another race inferior to itself in degree, but not in nature; (2) “Maximal” negative, when one race regards another as inherently inferior; (3) “Minimal” positive, when one race elevates another race to a superior status in degree, but not in nature; and (4) “Maximal” positive, when one race believes that the other race is genetically superior. The monograph maintains that the needs of capitalism created black slavery; that black slavery produced white racism as a justification for black slavery; and that black racism is a backlash of white racism. The monograph concludes that the abolition of black slavery and the civil rights movement destroyed the social and political ground for white and black racism, while the modern development of capitalism is demolishing their economic and intellectual ground.

This paper assesses how a social movement organization strategically framed its actions to simultaneously gain the support of multiple, diverse constituencies. The challenges associated with creating meaning and mobilizing potential partisans during the Indians of All Tribes (IAT) occupation of Alcatraz Island from November 1969 to June 1971 are examined through a qualitative analysis of movement-created texts. The IAT used a trio of distinct approaches to communicate with and gain the support of Native Americans and whites. Through inflection the IAT explained why they seized the island, emphasizing themes such as decolonization, democracy, and the importance of taking action. Through direction the IAT encouraged whites to write letters, sign petitions, and make donations while calling for a deeper engagement by Native Americans in the land seizure. Through deflection the IAT recounted normative stories to discourage whites and “wannabes” who failed to heed the organization's other directions about how best to participate in the takeover. These three framing processes build upon and extend social movement framing theory by complicating conceptualizations of allies and underscoring how movements seek distinct types of support from different adherents.

The authors of this paper are both white English education scholars with antiracist agendas. This conceptual manuscript aims – in part – to better understand the backlash both of them have faced in trying to contribute to antiracist teaching and research in English education.

This manuscript uses practices of narrative inquiry to tell and interpret stories about the authors’ work.

The authors hope to critique traditional notions of white resistance in favor of more careful theorizations of whiteness that can be helpful for teachers and scholars in English education and English Language Arts (ELA)with an interest in facilitation antiracist pedagogy.

Ultimately, with this work, the authors hope to provoke readers to consider how work with whiteness is processed by white people, especially in terms of teaching and learning in English education and ELA. They believe the field of English education should begin to discuss this issue.

This paper considers whether the term patrimonialism can be applied to one racially bifurcated aspect of Australian history: the relations between ‘squatters’ and those with competing civil and property claims. From the perspective of white settlers, the power of pastoralists who acquired use rights over vast stretches of land in late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries represented a challenge to rural settlement, economic development, the right to vote, workers’ rights and parliamentary democracy.

From the perspective of Aboriginal peoples who held traditional ownership of pastoral lands, squattocracy began with armed conflict and ended with practices aimed at detailed government of their everyday life. More generally, as white settlers consolidated property rights to land, they expropriated Indigenous peoples’ capacity to govern themselves.

The paper concludes that there have been two distinct histories of patrimonialism in Australia. The Australian colonies were among the pioneers of ‘universal’ male and later female franchise in the nineteenth century; Aborigines gained (de jure) full citizenship only in the late 1960s. While the squatter’s patrimonial rule over white settlers was short-lived, that over some groups of Aboriginal people persisted for more than a century.