Whiteness

Whiteness is studied through a variety of fields and perspectives. Robyn Wiegman, whose primary field of study includes women's studies and literature, theorizes whiteness through small details in "Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity." She tells the story of a southern town and analyzes the lynch rope that hung outside of the white perimeter on the way to the predominantly black neighborhood. Through the analysis of this small detail, she makes it clear that whiteness is not only "always already" present but a power that must be dealt with. Margaret Andersen, who studied sociology, brings her studies into the conversation on whiteness in "Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness." Andersen's tone suggests that sociology should be the only way to look at whiteness, not a field of study that is mostly ignored.

Through her annoyance with the lack of research, Andersen defines race as a social construct. Wiegman and Andersen present whiteness through their different intellectual and academic backgrounds but unite on the theme of the white person as a victim. Wiegman discusses the supposed injury of the white male when she analyzes Forrest Gump. Andersen argues that a sociological study would rid white males and females of this injured state of mind. Although the two authors unite on the idea of victimized whiteness, they present their argument in opposing research styles; Wiegman writes in a qualitative way while Andersen's essay is quantitative. Wiegman and Andersen discuss whiteness in a formal manner while also using their own background and interests to make their argument.

Both Wiegman and Andersen write an academic essay about whiteness that is formal yet readable. The accessible language used in both essays allows the reader to follow the argument on whiteness easier than heavily theorized articles. Both essays capture the audience's attention while still proving a point. Wiegman narrates real events in a manner that ensnares the audience. Her stories, you can discover from the footnotes, are intriguing not only to the reader but to her as well. Through this use of storytelling and the close analysis on Forrest Gump, Wiegman immediately caught my attention. Andersen does not use storytelling but instead carries the essay with her strong emotions. Her tone makes it apparent that she is a sociologist and not happy with the lack of sociological research done in the study of whiteness. I could relate to both authors because of their handling of the formal essay. Wiegman uses first person and although her text at times is not the easiest to read, it still is approachable. Andersen also writes in first person and writes in a relaxed manner that is similar to speech. Wiegman and Andersen discuss whiteness in an approachable yet formal manner.

One way in which Wiegman's essay is approachable is through her educational background. Since Wiegman's fields of study were women's studies and literature, I am confused on why her essay is linked to race and film. Although she occasionally discusses the feminist perspective or alludes to women's studies, her essay is not focused on the disciplines that she harbors from. Wiegman tells an interesting story of a Klan museum to begin her essay. Her narrative approach uses her literature background and cases her essay in a different light than Andersen's. Wiegman theorizes whiteness through an analysis of small details - the lynch rope outside of the small town, the TV screens in a Birmingham museum, and the act of mobility in Forrest Gump just to name a few. Her analysis of small details helps me agree with her argument. If she is paying so close attention to the repercussions of Nike versus another tennis shoe or the colors of the bus that pass by Forrest on the bus stop bench, I am more inclined to believe that she cares about her argument and has worked hard to perfect her theories.

Her attention to detail also helps persuade me that she knows what she is doing. When I read Wiegman's article I would not have guessed her background was in women's studies and literature. Through her close attention to detail in the analysis of Forrest Gump I would have assumed she had training in film studies. Wiegman writes an accessible essay on whiteness while successfully tying in studies in which she had no formal training.

Andersen's study of sociology, on the other hand, is prevalent in her essay and cannot be separated from her argument. She states that she will do a sociological perspective on whiteness and makes it seem obvious that such a study should exist. She discusses the lack of research that has been done on sociological work in whiteness studies and presents the research she has done to fix this issue. Andersen situates her argument in a social and political context stating that intellectual movements within the academy reflect political and social changes in society, therefore the study of whiteness should be examined in a social and historical light (22). She wants the study of whiteness to have a sociological background; to have more social research so that race will not be one sided. By reading Andersen's essay it is hard to separate her sociological background from her argument on whiteness.

Not only are Wiegman and Andersen's personal and educational interests shown in their essays, but their preferred research styles are prevalent as well. Robyn Wiegman and Margaret Andersen focus on whiteness through two different techniques: qualitative versus quantitative research. Wiegman tells a story while also presenting an argument. She analyzes a popular film while theorizing deep political issues but tells it through a narrative. Her research is mostly qualitative with a small section classifying and criticizing other whiteness scholars. Wiegman does not use many quotes and states no empirical data, nor is she doing a study that requires that type of research. Andersen gives a political and social read on the research that has been done in whiteness studies and quantitatively presents her essay into the discussion. Just as Wiegman does not use empirical data for it is not necessary, it would be out of place for Andersen to slip into a narrative form. Both Wiegman and Andersen are making an argument about whiteness studies but each approach the field of study from a different style of research.

Wiegman's argument about whiteness is shown through her historical, theoretical, and descriptive and perspective claims. Her first claim is historical and states that the typical "southern white supremacist identity...hinges on a repeated appeal to the...injured 'nature' of whiteness" (117). Since the Civil War the southern white male has re-contextualized their role in society. Through the freeing of the slaves, the white men felt pressured to succeed. The black man could now own property and in some cases was more successful working their land than the white man. This economical struggle led the white men to believe they were the victims - a concept that can still be found today which Wiegman addresses in her analysis of Forrest Gump. The second claim Wiegman addresses "is theoretical: To the extent that critical race theorists have assumed that the power of whiteness arises from its appropriation of the universal and that the universal is opposed to and hence devoid of the particular" (117).

The theoretical claim is hypothesizing that if whiteness were to be brought into the spotlight that it would lose its power; if white supremacists were pointed out and the power was given to them, that the power would not exist anymore. Wiegman's third declaration is that whiteness caused whiteness. The control of whiteness, the act of forcing whiteness into the shadows, has acted as "both provocation and context for the emergence of the academy's latest and - in nearly everyone's opinion - rather confounding antiracist venture, whiteness studies" (Wiegman 121). Wiegman describes whiteness on three levels: the historical aspect that has existed since the Civil War, the power it has and the conflict that surrounds this power issue, and the belief that the issue of whiteness sprung from whiteness.

Andersen believes that whiteness studies are a way for white people to find their place in the race issue. She argues that never before have white people had to classify themselves, they were white and as for as they were concerned that was not a race. Now, through whiteness studies, white is also becoming a race. Andersen describes three contributions that came out of whiteness studies:

First is the recognition that 'white' is ubiquitous, though typically not acknowledged. Second is that whiteness is a system of privilege, mapped on to the domination of 'others' - that is, people of color. Third is an emphasis on race as a socially constructed category; just as people of color have been 'racialized,' so have white, although with radically different consequences (24).

Andersen's view of whiteness closely resembles Wiegman's in that: her first claim is similar to Wiegman's descriptive and prescriptive assertion; her second idea is similar to Wiegman's first; and the third statement, which is the base of Andersen's argument, is an idea that Wiegman discusses thoroughly in the latter part of her essay. Andersen ties the definition of whiteness to social construction by saying we must study whiteness to figure out on what race was socially built. She compares whiteness studies to feminism and discusses how women focused on the masculine image in order to discover their place in the world, so too do other races focus on whiteness. As long as white people remain race-free they are normal, when white people have a race assigned to them they become just like all the other races. Andersen's main complaint is that whiteness must be connected to "material structures and the operation of power" in order to fully understand race as a social construct (27).

Some scholars say the study of whiteness will point out the wrongs of the white people and they will change their ways but Andersen argues: What if they don't? What if the consciousness of white privilege leads to white supremacists? (25). Andersen's main argument that race is a social construct reveals an emotional attachment to her study. Her attitude when presenting this final part to whiteness is almost condescending. She says that "race is a social construction, news perhaps to some, but a point known by sociologists since the founding of the discipline" (26). Although tone cannot be read in the written text, reading this sentence suggests bitterness about the misunderstanding of what her discipline is and does. I know that in film studies people assume we sit around and watch movies all day. This is not the case and when people assume this film scholars are likely to get angry. The same tone seems to come out of Andersen's snip about sociologists. Although Andersen seems annoyed that the literature on whiteness does not include a sociological perspective, she still writes in an accessible and relaxed manner.

Although Wiegman and Andersen are both approachable and show me that you can write a formal essay using your personal interests, I have to choose favorites based on my own personal interests and background. I have always had a love for film and feel that my decision to get my Masters in Screen Studies here at Oklahoma State University was one of the best decisions I ever made. In that respect, Wiegman's article appeals to my film nerd side. I find her close attention to detail compelling and it helps her argument in my eyes. If I had known her schooling was in women's studies and literature before reading I probably would have been more critical of her film analysis. Because I did not, I was more open-minded and took her analysis as a fellow scholar. I was convinced with her analysis because it was simple enough for me to think through. Complex, heavy theorized analysis can lose my interest because of the specificity of it. Although Wiegman's essay is specific she is applying general theory to a film that most everyone has seen or at least knows about. Any essay that analyzes film is going to peak my interest but Wiegman's close attention to detail and her accessible theory made it a compelling and fun read. At the same time, Andersen's use of empirical data and her strong emotion dealing with the lack of sociological research made me understand her point of view in the essay more than I understood Wiegman's. While reading Andersen's article I can easily pick out what her interests are and why she is writing the essay like she is. Wiegman's article is less easy to read and I do not understand how her background led her to the topic of whiteness in Forrest Gump. Going off of my personal interests and what I like to read, I find Wiegman's article compelling and fun to read; Andersen's article is more logical, it is a quicker read and she brings in multiple sources to support her evidence.

I was intrigued by Wiegman's essay on Forrest Gump not only because it was a film but because it was a popular, well-known film. As I stated earlier, film studies has many assumptions that are made about it constantly. Wiegman's analysis of Forrest Gump negates what I hear all around me from teachers and fellow students. I am being trained to think that in order to analyze film it must be considered a "classic" or "independent." If the film is hailed by critics everywhere and is hard to find, then it can be analyzed in an appropriate manner. Films such as National Treasure and Enchanted are deemed "crap" by film scholars until stated otherwise. Unlike our justice system where you are innocent until proven guilty, in the world of film studies a popular big-budget film is deemed unworthy until it is nominated for prestigious awards.

I have also been trained to think that critiquing a film means tearing it to shreds. I was a film critic for three years in the small town I grew up in and I never tore a movie apart. Maybe I am a fool, I like to think of it as optimism, but I believe there is something good in every film. I cannot let myself tear apart every film because you can only go down from there. I am being told that popular culture has nothing to offer and I refuse to believe that. Popular culture is a rich area that demands attention and by looking at pop culture we can see what America wants. Analyzing pop culture enriches are idea of the society we are living in. Hollywood, especially around war time, puts out films with an underlying propaganda. This has happened since the Second World War and will continue to do so until everyone stops and takes notice. With this thought, I believe it is important to look closely at the films we enjoy and analyze why we like them. At the same time, I do not think it is okay to condemn a person for the films they like nor would I ever condescendingly tell someone what they should or should not watch. I look at pop culture as something worth studying and I will never make someone feel like a fool for liking what they like.

I had many assumptions when the semester began and although some are dissipating others are appearing. I had not thought about race in strong definitional terms and now I cannot stop imagining what America's history would be like if slavery had never existed. After class a few weeks ago, I went home energized by the discussion that had occurred. I felt like a dumb American but was glad to have my eyes opened to situations that had only bumped my peripheral before. I started multiple conversations with my friends about the history of America and whiteness in literature and film. I was having one of these conversations with my friend from Australia when I realized that African Americans are called Indigenous Australians there. Obviously they would not have American in their name but I had never thought of this before. Even now it is hard for me to both admit and grasp. I was unaware of whiteness as a study before this class and still feel unsure about the exact meaning, since it seems to alter depending on what essay and in what view we are reading. I find it illuminating to see whiteness applied to different genres in the English department (literature, film, etc.) as well as different fields of study (history, sociology, etc.). Upon entering the course I assumed race would be discussed but not whiteness, now I know the general overview of whiteness and wonder what will come up in weeks to come when we apply whiteness to the Oklahoma City Bombing, etc.

I am interested to see what my background and experiences will bring to the discussion of whiteness. I grew up in a musical household, my dad has been a band director for almost forty years, and therefore relate everything back to my experiences as a band nerd. I have always wanted to write and therefore studied English as an undergraduate. I know that my main interest is film and my studies of film theory and analysis can contribute to conversations of whiteness similar to Wiegman's; however, I do not know what I can offer up in the scholarship of whiteness. One thing I know about is popular culture - I can relate everyday events to popular films, television shows or songs. While pondering this essay I kept thinking of an episode of my favorite television show. Last Friday Psych made a subtle commentary on race. The two main characters of the show are best friends - one black, the other white. In last week's episode they posed as a male modeling company called "Black and Tan." Throughout the episode someone would address the white man as "Tan" and he would make a sarcastic remark about how he was "Black" and they really needed to think twice before making hasty assumptions. I would have to watch this again, specifically looking at those scenes, to see if the naming happens with the other character. Even though I do not come to the table with extensive knowledge on history or politics, I feel my study of film can help me identify racial issues in the media and analyze what these issues are saying about society as a whole.

My background and interest in film gives me insight into racial studies in the media as well as an understanding of articles such as Wiegman's. Although I made assumptions with Wiegman and Andersen's essays, I broadened my mind on the second reading and found their interaction with whiteness and their selective backgrounds refreshing. In the classes I have had lately, formal writing, even when written in first person and more engaging than the highly-theorized "stuffy" voice, seems devoid of the author's interests other than the subject at hand. Wiegman and Andersen prove that a formal essay on an important subject does not have to be boring and can engage the audience through narration or empirical data.

Works Cited
Andersen, Margaret. "Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness." White Out: the Continuing Significance of Racism. Eds. Ashley Bonilla-Silva. 2003. 21-34.
Wiegman, Robyn. "Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity." boundary 2. 26.3: 1999. 115-150.