sexist. However, these analogies are useful because they highlight the forces that
recreate and extend the kinds of “unthinking” assumptions and actions which mean
that most heterosexuals are homophobic and most men are sexist. It is possible for
white people to take a real and active role in deconstructing whiteness but such “race
traitors” are relatively uncommon. It is, of course, also possible for people who do not
identify as “white” to nevertheless actively reinforce and defend whiteness.
Whiteness studies is a growing area but, in relation to CRT, it is the nature of
the questions and analyses that are important. It is insufficient to merely state a
concern with how whiteness is organised and understood. What matters for whiteness
studies within CRT is the deeply critical and radical nature of the questioning. In
some hands, whiteness studies can become just another exercise of whiteness itself; as
Michael Apple has warned:
... having Whites focus on whiteness can have contradictory effects, ones of which we
need to be well aware. It can enable people to acknowledge differential power and the
raced nature of everyone . It can just as easily run the risk of lapsing into the possessive
individualism that is so powerful in this society. That is, such a process can serve the
chilling function of simply saying “but enough about you, let me tell you about me”.
(Apple, 1998b, p. xi)
Conclusion
Although Critical Race scholarship differs in object, argument, accent and emphasis, it is
nevertheless unified by two common interests. The first is to understand how a regime of
white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and
maintained in America . The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed
bond between law and racial power but to change it. (Crenshaw et al., 1995, p. xiii)
The language and achievements of CRT are not widely recognised outside North
America. Nevertheless, there is a great deal to be gained by a dynamic understanding
of how antiracists and critical race theorists have approached certain key issues and
dilemmas. Both schools share a concern not merely to document but to change: they
are engaged in praxis. Building upon this common commitment, this paper has argued
for a conscious and reflexive engagement between antiracism and CRT.
This is a field where perspectives can quickly become confused and
misunderstood. So let me end by stating, as clearly as possible, the key points that I
have been trying to make. First, it may be useful to clarify what I am not saying. I am
not arguing for an abandonment of antiracism. Following the Burnage inquiry, and the
media’s manipulation of the tragedy, many writers were quick to write off antiracism
in the 1990s. The gains made following the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry demonstrate
that real and important changes are possible. However, antiracism must remain a
critical perspective concerned with a radical analysis of power and its operation
through racialised processes of exclusion and oppression.
Second, I am not seeking to establish an antiracist rule book nor blueprint.
Racism is complex, contradictory and fast-changing: it follows that antiracism must
be equally dynamic. What works in one place at one time may not work at another
place or another time (Gillborn, 1995, 2000). But we are not faced with an all or
nothing choice. In seeking to promote a wider understanding of Critical Race Theory
beyond North America I am not suggesting that CRT is in any sense a complete and
unproblematic approach. CRT is a relatively new and developing perspective. Even
the limited set of theoretical starting points outlined here would almost certainly be
challenged by some within the field. Nevertheless, this level of complexity is no
excuse for the continued absence of CRT from the vast majority of work on race and
education outside the US.
14