olson whiteness participation

8/4/2019 Olson Whiteness Participation

1/27

Whiteness and the Participation-Inclusion DilemmaAuthor(s): Joel OlsonSource: Political Theory, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 384-409Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3072591 .

Accessed: 23/08/2011 15:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3072591?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3072591?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/27

RACE AND HOMELESSNESS: CONTEMPORARYDYNAMICS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

WHITENESS AND THE PARTICIPATION-INCLUSION DILEMMA

JOEL OLSONArizonaState UniversityWest

In order to maintainan integratedschool district,in 1972 the New YorkCitycentralBoardof Educationassigned thirty-twoBlack and PuertoRicanyouthsto JohnWilson JuniorHigh School 211, locatedin theCanarsiesec-tionof Brooklyn.TheCanarsie chool boardrefused o admit hem,however,fearingthatenrollinganymore BlackorPuertoRican students n its schoolswould "tip" he 95 percentwhitecommunity, eadingto whiteflight.Whenthe state educationcommissionfinallyordered heCanarsieboardto acceptthestudents, he boardcalled for a boycottof eightschools. Thepresidentofthe boardexplainedthattheyacted not outof racismbutin accordancewiththeprincipleof decentralization f schoolgovernance,which"givesthe com-munities herightto control heirowndestinies,"ncluding"aright o controlour own integration."The boycott was justified, he argued,because theattempt oassignthestudents o JohnWilsonunderminedhe democraticwillof the community.1Under severepressure romcity and stateofficials, theCanarsieboardfinallyagreedto end the seven-day boycott.Yet when theypresented he agreement o Canarsieresidents,2,000 enragedwhiteparentsshouted down the board,vowing to continuethe protest.The next day,600white parentsformeda new organization,ConcernedParentsof Canarsie,

AUTHOR'SNOTE: Thanksto Lisa Disch, Lawrie Balfour,Bruce Baum, Joseph Lowndes,AugustNimtz,RamseyEricRamsey,DavidRoediger,and StephenK. Whiteor help improvingthisessay.POLITICALTHEORY,Vol. 30 No. 3, June 2002 384-409? 2002 Sage Publications

384


3/27

Olson / THE PARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMA 385

thatpledgedtoprevent urther nflux of BlackandPuertoRican childrenandto hold the local school board accountable o the community.2Thecontroversyn Canarsieshows that white resistance o thefull inclu-sion of people of color continues to challenge prospects for Americandemocracyeven afterthe civil rightsmovement.But the means used in thisstrugglealso presenta democraticproblem.Decentralization,participation,civic associations,andcommunitycontrol-long the watchwordsof partici-patoryand radicaldemocrats-were used to perpetuateracial discrimina-tion. The expansion of citizen participationin overwhelmingly whiteCanarsie-from thecreationof local school boards o a strongPTA to massmeetings-did not lead to inclusion andracialharmonybut reinforcedwhitedomination.This essay explores the tension between participationand inclusionwithin a white-dominatedpolity.Withthepassageof the CivilRightsAct of1964and theVotingRightsAct of 1965, whiteness,orthe conditionof racialprivilege n ademocraticpolity, ost its statesanction.Statepolicy todayaimsto ensurea "colorblind"ociety in which race has no negativebearingon thesocial, economic,orpoliticalstatusof individuals.Nevertheless,choose anyindicator-infant mortalityrates, prison sentences, traffic stops, collegegraduation ates,wealthaccumulation, ife expectancy,SATscores, unem-ploymentrates-and the resultis the same: thepersistenceof white advan-tage and Black disadvantage.3Although no longer a publicly recognizedpositionof status,whitenesspersistsateverylevel of Americansociety,con-tinuing ooperateas a norm hatsedimentsaccruedwhiteadvantagesnto theordinaryoperationsof modemsociety, makingthem seemlike the"natural"result of individualeffort.

Unfortunately, emocratic heorygenerallyhas not confronted hepersis-tentproblemof whiteness. This is because,I argue,muchof democratic he-ory has reliedtoo heavily on a politics of inclusion to resolve problemsofrace and difference. Such a politics understands acial discriminationas aform of exclusion from thepublic sphereto which the solutionis inclusion.Whitenessis certainlyan exclusionarypower,but it is also a form of privi-lege. Lackingananalysisof racialprivilege,thepoliticsof inclusion cannotgraspthe full scope of whiteness. Furthermore,t offers little in termsofincreasedparticipationn politics. In fact, I argue,the quest for inclusionoftenprecludesgreaterparticipation, ince thegoal of thatquestis to attainstandingrather hanempower.Butas theCanarsieboycottmakesclear,par-ticipation n itself is also insufficient oresolvethewhitenessproblem.In thehandsof awhitemajority,"community ontrol"of schools can become a toolto enforcesegregationandperpetuatewhite domination.


4/27

386 POLITICALTHEORY June2002

The result s apeculiardilemma.Ina white-controlledpolity,a strategyofinclusionmay undermineexplicit racialdiscrimination,but it does little tounderminewhiteness as a norm. Nor does it increase participation.Yetexpandingparticipationnitself is insufficient oresolve the whitenessprob-lem. In a racistpolity,thequestforgreaterparticipationmay actuallyserve tostrengthenthe tyrannyof the dominantrace. The key to resolving thisdilemmabetweenparticipation nd nclusion,I argue, s through hedissolu-tionofwhitenessasasignificant ocial-politicalcategory.Dissolvingor abol-ishingwhitenessnotonlyincludestheexcluded, t undermines hetyrannyofthe whitemajorityandexpandsdemocraticparticipation.My argumentbeginsby usingrecentworkin the field of criticalrace the-ory to explainhow whitenesshas shifted from aformof standing o a normafter the civil rights movement. I then examine the politics of inclusionthroughananalysisof recentworks on thepoliticsof difference.I argue hatWilliamConnolly's"ethosof pluralization" olds muchpotential o dissolvewhiteness,buthis ownapplicationof thisethos endsup sustainingan undem-ocraticwhiteidentity nstead, n partbecauseit remains ethered o thepoli-tics of inclusion.I thenturn o Iris MarionYoung'sJusticeand the PoliticsofDifference.Youngovercomesthe limits of inclusionby smartlyredefininginclusionfrom an endin itself to a means towardaparticipatory olitics.Themissingingredient o heranalysis s acritiqueof privilegethatcould connectherargument orparticipationo theproblemof whiteness. This connectionis madeby Lani Guinier n herworkon thetyrannyof themajority.Guiniershows that theproblemwith whitetyranny n the electoralprocessis not somuch that it excludes African Americans as it preventstheirparticipation.Her workis significantbecause it links the dissolution of whiteness to theexpansionof participationn thepublicsphere.In so doing,it overcomestheparticipation-inclusionilemmaandsuggeststhatattempts o abolishwhite-ness notonly fightracism, hey potentially low over thecontainersof liberaldemocracy.

THEDEATHOF HERRENVOLKDEMOCRACYThe rise of masscitizenshipbeganin the Jacksonian ra. "Universal uf-frage,"however,wasnot universal. t excludedwomenandAmerican ndiansand went to great lengthsto disenfranchise ree Blacks.4Slaves, however,were not only excluded;they were the antithesisagainstwhich citizenshipwas defined.


5/27

Olson / THEPARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMA 387

[B]lack chattel slavery stood at the opposite social pole from full citizenshipand sodefined t. Theimportance f what I call citizenshipasstandingemergesout of thisbasicfact of ourpoliticalhistory.Thevalueof citizenshipwas derivedprimarilyrom tsdenialto slaves, to some white men, and to all women.

Inorder o assertone's rightto citizenship,then,it wascrucialto distinguishoneself fromslaveryandthe slaves. Giventheclose associationof blacknesswithslavery, hisrequireddistancingoneself fromBlackpeople.Ineffect, itmeantprovingthat one was white. Althoughthe race of Europeansseemsself-evidenttoday,the whitenessof many European mmigrantswas by nomeans automaticallyassumedupon their arrival n America.For the Irish,Italians,Jews, and others, whiteness was a status that had to be earned.6Along with thenation's mmigrationaws (whichrestrictednaturalizationo"whitepersons"), lavery orgedan ironbondbetweenwhitenessandcitizen-ship in law and the Americanpolitical imagination.7Thus, citizenshipnotonly distinguished hose whoenjoyedfullpoliticalrights romthose who didnot, it helped to define race itself, for proof of citizenship was proof ofwhiteness.Whitecitizenshippersisted hrough heCivil War. t wasbriefly disruptedby Reconstructionbut resumed hereafter, uaranteedby segregationaws inthe South and extralegal means of exclusion, intimidation, and terrorthroughouthenation,all tacitlysanctionedby thefederalgovernment.Thiscoexistence of democraticcitizenshipand whitesupremacy esulted n whatsociologist Pierrevan denBerghecalls a "Herrenvolk emocracy," regimethat is "democraticfor the master race but tyrannical for subordinategroups."8The function of Herrenvolkdemocracywas to tampdown classconflict. Its linchpinwas whiteprivilege,or whatW.E.B. Du Bois terms the"publicand psychological wages" grantedto whites in exchangefor theircomplicity with the social order.9 n the Herrenvolk,poor whites receiveracialprivilegesfrom elites andin exchangeguarantee hepoliticalstabilitynecessary or theaccumulationof capital.Stability s ensuredby subordinat-ing people of color andby pinningone's aspirations or a better ife to indi-vidual effortrather hanclass solidarity.As AnthonyMarxwrites,"Toholdtogether henation-state,preserving tabilityneededforgrowth,whites wereunifiedacrossclassbyrace.... Economic nterestsweresubordinate o whiteracialunity,withthis class compromisemadeexplicitandenforcedby statepolicy varying in response to ongoing class tensions."'?These "wages ofwhiteness"arepublicprivileges nthattheygrantwhitesa statusanddignitydenied to thosewhoarenotwhite,expressed n theright oparticipatenafullrange of civic activities and to enjoy equal access to public accommoda-tions."1This also includesmaterialbenefits such ashigher wages, theability


6/27

388 POLITICALTHEORY June 2002

tocompeteforjobsin an unrestrictedmarket, xclusive accessto certainobs,therightto the best schoolsandneighborhoodsmoneycanbuy,andanequalopportunityo become a capitalist.Theyarepsychologicalprivilegesin thatthey enable the white citizen to feel himself equal to any otherwhite andsuperior o anyonewho is notwhite,regardlessof wealthor social status.Inthe Herrenvolk ra, the wages of whiteness meant thatthe poorest,lowest,meanestwhitepersonwas heldinhigheresteemthaneven the mostsophisti-cated,prestigious,andwealthyBlackperson.The structure f Herrenvolk emocracy uggestsa definitionof whitenessas a cross-classalliancebetweencapitalandonesection of theworkingclass.A majorityof the workingclass allies itself with the capitalistclass on thebasis of race rather hanclass.Thisgroup s "white,"while all othersarenot-white.Membersof theallianceenjoyall the satisfactionof membershipn anexclusive club:theright o fraternizewith othermembers,vetpotentialmem-bers, anddenigratethose who are not allowed to join. Whiteness, then, isessentiallyapoliticalrelationship ather hanabiologicalor culturaldentity.It is the dominant ategory n ahierarchical rder. trepresentsboth an inter-est in and anexpectationoffavoredtreatment.Thisenjoymentorexpectationof the "systematicconferral of benefit and advantage"'2defines what itmeans to be white rather han skin color,ethnicity,or culture.Whitenessistheparadoxical onditionof racialprivilege n a societythatdeclaresall mencreatedequal.The essentialprincipleof Herrenvolk emocracy-democracy forwhites,tyranny oreveryoneelse-was finallyoverthrownby the civil rightsmove-ment. With thepassageof civil andvoting rights legislationin 1964-65,thestandingof the white citizen was officially abolishedand the state becamecommitted to protectingthe rights of all ratherthan the privileges of themajority.13 evertheless,the victories of the civil rightsmovementdid notabolish thecross-class alliance.Instead,whitenesshasmetamorphosedntoless visible butno less real forms. Whiteprivilegemaybe overtandexplicit,as in thedaysof "whitesonly"facilities,but itmayalso consistof covertandtacit advantages hat whites enjoy with or withoutconscious acknowledg-ment,such as redlinedneighborhoods rexemption rom criminalprofiling.This latter form dominatesthe post-civil rightsera. Contemporarywhiteprivilege s like an "invisibleweightless knapsack"14f unearnedadvantagesthat whites drawon in theirdaily lives to improveor maintain heirsocialposition,even astheyhold to theideals of political equalityandequal oppor-tunity.The simultaneous ense ofequalityandprivilege hatmarkswhitenesspersistsas one of today'smost formidablechallengesto amore democraticsociety.


7/27

Olson/ THEPARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMA 389

FROMSTANDINGTONORMALIZATIONWhitenesspersistsbecause the colorblinddemocracypresupposesracialdistinctionsrather hanovercomesthem. It does so in a fashion similar o the

way in which privateproperty s presupposedby the state even after it is"emancipated"rom it. As Marxargues,when property s abolished in thepublic sphereby eliminatingthe propertyrequirementor suffrage,privatepropertytself is not abolished.Instead, t thrivesas therulingprincipleof theprivate ealm.When the stateabolishesdistinctionsof property, irth,educa-tion,andoccupationby grantingall adultmalesequal politicalrights, t freesprivate nterests o act unfettered.Social distinctionsof property, ducation,andoccupationcontinue to exist but nowthey are"private"matters hat lieoutside thejurisdictionof thepoliticalrealm,immunefrompublicaccount-ability."Far romabolishingthese realdistinctions,the stateonly exists onthepresuppositionof theirexistence;it feels itself to be a politicalstate andasserts its universalityonly in oppositionto theseelements of its being."15The relationshipbetween race and the state is similar.Once "emanci-pated" romthe state,race is cast intotheprivaterealm. But as withprivateproperty, t does not disappearwhen it is freedfrom the state.Instead,thecolorblinddemocracyredefinesrace from a relationshipof superiorityandinferiority o apoliticallyneutralcategory.An individual'srace nowappearsas a "natural" ttribute hat shouldhave no bearingon one's politicalor eco-nomic life. Rather than eliminating race, the colorblind state makes itprepolitical: tunderstands aces as formedprior o thepublicsphere hroughessentially"private" r naturalmeans such as biology, ancestry,culture,orevenpersonalchoice. Thepoliticalemancipationof raceis, of course,a bigstep forward.Nevertheless,transforming ace into a prepoliticalcategorydoes not abolishits politicalinfluence.Just as theemancipationof propertywithdrawsnequalitiesof wealth frompublicdeliberation, heemancipationof race removes the cross-class alliance frompublicscrutiny.16Theprepoliticization f racehasthree mportant onsequences.First,raceremainspublicly significanteven as it becomes aprivatematter,or the test ofa successful colorblinddemocracy s how well racialdiversity s accommo-dated.Thepeacefulcoexistence of variousracial dentities s asignof a stablesocialorder,while the absenceof diversity ndicates hepotential orinstabil-ity.Obligationsof diversity ustify extensive stateregulation.Decisions thatwere once the ultimateprerogativeof theprivate ndividual-whom to hire,whom to allow to dine in yourrestaurant,whom to sell yourhometo, whomto allow inyoursocial club-are nowpubliclyregulated.Numerousrelation-ships-student andteacher,school andneighborhood,neighborandneigh-bor, owner and customer,employer and employee, cop and suspect, real


8/27


estateagentandbuyerand seller-are subjected o increasedstatescrutiny,albeit for colorblindpurposes.Justas Foucault maintains hat sex was notrepressed in nineteenth-centuryEurope but proliferatedthroughvarioustechniquesanddeployments,race is reproduced hroughthe variousprac-ticesof the colorblinddemocracy.17econd,aprepoliticalconceptionof raceredefines racism from white supremacy to discrimination in general.Ignoringthe historyof the Herrenvolk, he stateassumes that all prejudiceand discriminationareequallynoxious. Anti-whiteattitudesare as signifi-cant as anti-Blackracism.Racism is no longera social structure ut a matterof individualcharacter.Theproblem s no longersegregationbut"hate," otsystematic nequalitybut"intolerance,"otprivilegebut"extremism."Rac-ism, as Lewis Gordon writes, becomes an "equal-opportunity ffair."18Finally, in regulatingnondiscrimination nd diversity,the colorblind stateredefineswhiteness from a privileged dentityto a politicallyneutralracialcategory.Thewhite racebecomessimplyone raceamongothers,andthe his-torical effects of three hundredyearsof systematicwhite privilegeare ren-deredpoliticallyinvisible.Thus,thetransformationf race ntoaprepolitical ategorydoes not elim-inate thesignificanceof whitenessso muchas it normalizes t. Rather hanaformof public standing,whiteness n thecolorblindstatefunctionsas a normin which whiteprivilegeis sedimented ntothebackgroundof social life asthe "natural utcome"of ordinarypracticesand ndividualchoices,making tdifficult o discernany systematicexplanationor theadvantageswhites con-tinuetoenjoyafter he civilrightsmovement.9The state'sofficialpositionofcolorblindnessand its interest n regulatingdiversitymask the fact that the"normal ndividual" s still the white individualandthat thefreedom of thewhite individual remains the standardagainst which social progress isjudged.Whiteness as norm functions in at least two ways. As Cheryl Harrisargues, t is apropertynterest hat orms thebackground gainstwhichlegaldisputes, rights claims, and equal opportunitiesare framed,defined, andadjudicated.20t is a formof propertybecauseit sharesthe samepremiseasproperty:heright o exclude.Inthe Herrenvolk ra,whitenesswasliterallyapropertynterest hatstood for theexpectationof favoredstatus,protectionoflegalclaimsonNative and,andtheprospectof owninganotherhumanbeing."Whitenesswas the characteristic,he attribute,he propertyof free humanbeings."21The colorblind state changed the form of whiteness, Harrisacknowledges,butkeptitsexclusivecharacter ntact.While courtsno longerprotectexplicitformsof discrimination,heystillrefuseto eliminate nequal-ities of resources hatwhiteshavebuiltupovertime. The colorblinddemoc-racythusprovidesfor formalpoliticalequalitybutnot substantive quality,


9/27

Olson/ THE PARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMA 391

or the redistribution f resourcesto rectifywhite advantage."Whitenessaspropertyhas taken on more subtle forms" since the civil rightsmovement,"but it]retains ts core characteristic-the legallegitimationof expectationsof powerand controlthat enshrine he statusquoas a neutralbaseline,whilemaskingthe maintenanceof whiteprivilegeand domination."22Whitenessalso acts as a filter thatprovideswhites an edge in an "equalopportunity" ociety.23 n the Herrenvolkera, standingwas akin to aristo-craticprivilege.Onceachieved, t was stable,inheritable,andenduring.Butas white standingwas swept awayby the civil rightsmovement,"thepossi-bility of aristocratization"hatwhiteprivilegeoffereddisappearedas socialadvancementbecame subjectto the competitiverules of the marketratherthaninheringpartially n racialprivilege.In the absenceof racialstanding,access to statusshifts to institutionsof "merit" uch as theuniversityandthejob market.Yet as ImmanuelWallersteinargues,in a world with too manyqualifiedpeople seekingtoo few status-holdingpositions,"merit," desert,"and"qualified" ecomepoliticalterms.Withthe talentpooltoo largeandtoodeep, it has to be skimmedsomehow,essentially throughmeans that seemarbitrary nd unfair o its victims.In such a context,whitenessoperatesas afilterthatreducesthepossibilitythat whitesor theirchildrenwill fall victimto the "arbitraryriage" hatparesthe pool of status seekers that merit canonlytrimby so much.Rationalwhites actto securewhateveradvantagesheycanbyopposingthosepoliciesthatunderminewhiteadvantage, uch as affir-mative action and school desegregation,althoughsuchstrugglesareusuallycarriedout on the groundsof "individual ights"or "communitycontrolofschools" rather hanexplicit appealsto white supremacy.Whiteness s reproduced hrough heseprocessesof normalizationvenasthe colorblinddemocracyoutlawsracial discrimination.Whiteadvantagesdeposited nto the social structurehroughmeansasostensiblyraceneutralasthe generationaltransfer of wealth, criminal profiling, college entranceexams, andtracking n schools. These advantagesarematerial,yet they arealsopublicandpsychological,forwhiteness does notguaranteewealth,onlythepotential o acquire t. This is why whiteness is both an interest n and anexpectationof favored reatment.Suchexpectationsarecognatesof thedualsense of equalityandsupremacy hatcharacterizedwhiteidentity n the Her-renvolkera.The result is a racialorder n which, as LawrieBalfourwrites,"thepersistenceof hierarchy s simultaneouslycondemned and takenforgranted."24Forthose who are not white, the normalizationof white privilegeoftenfeels like the same emperorin new clothes, as whites continue to enjoyadvantagesn nearlyeveryaspectof social life. Meanwhile,personsof colorcontinue to sufferHerrenvolk-era umiliations ike racialprofilingandper-


10/27


sistentfits of whiteterror nflictedby racial "extremists." orwhites,on theother hand, normalization is standing's poor cousin. In the Herrenvolkdemocracy,standingwas an individualizing orm of power.Its functioningrequired hatevery individualwhite person enjoy standingover every not-whiteperson.Justa few exceptionsthreatened he entiresystem.By grantingstandingto whites collectively, the Herrenvolkgrantedstatus to each andeverywhiteindividually.The colorblinddemocracy,however,by definitionrequires hatsome not-whitesenjoy greaterstatusthansome whites,other-wise the "colorblind" tate would still be a Herrenvolk ystem. Whitenessthus tends to shift from anindividualizing o an aggregateformof power.Guaranteedtanding s replacedby statisticaladvantages.Poverty,violence,inferiorschooling, poorhealth,highincarceration ndunemployment ates,income disparities,and substandard ousingcontinue to disproportionatelyaffectthose who are not white, while whites continue to disproportionatelyescape them.But becausethey areprobabilities,not guarantees, he aggre-gated advantagesof normalized whiteness hardlyseem like privileges. Itmeans almostnothingto a particularwhite man to know that,on average,white males live almost ten years longer thanBlack males. The statisticallikelihood that a white child will score 200 pointshigheron her SAT thanaBlack child is no guarantee hat the white child will actuallyperformat thatlevel, much less get into the school of her choice. Such statistics,howevertellingtheyare of thecontinuingwages of whiteness,are smallcomfort to aworld used to more.In thisway,normalizationontainswithin tthe seedsof future nstability.The result could be a reactionaryeffort to reestablishHerrenvolk orms ofwhite privilege;evidence of this possibility is easily perceptible oday.Yetinstability s also anopportunityo expanddemocracy f whites can be con-vinced thatshort-term acialprivilegesare not worth theirlong-termcosts.Overcomingthe material,public, and psychological wages of whiteness,then, is not only crucial to eliminatingracism, it is a vital componentofefforts to expanddemocraticparticipation.Attemptsby theorists o connectanti-racismwith a radicaldemocraticpolitics,however,have been thwartedby a peculiardilemma.

THEPARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMAToconsider hechallengewhitenessposes for democratic heory,we mustturn o the work of JudithShklar.AmericanCitizenship tandsas one of the

strongestchallengestopoliticaltheories hatargue, n onewayoranother,ormoreparticipationby ordinarypeople in those affairsthat affecttheirdaily


11/27


life.25Shklararguesthat the primaryvalue of Americancitizenshipis thesocial status t confers,not thepolitical powerit bestows. Theoriesof demo-craticparticipation eek an ideal form of politicalactivitythat emulates theancient Greekpolis, but the disenfranchised n Americanhistoryhave notstruggled orparticipationbutstanding.Theconceptof the Aristotelian itizenasrulerhas notreallyhadmuchbearingonAmer-icans.... [DisenfranchisedAmericans]have asked orsomethingquitedifferent, hatcit-izenshipbe equallydistributed, o thattheirstandingmightalso be recognizedandtheirinterests be defended andpromoted.The call for a classical participatorydemocracymay,therefore,be farfromdemocratic,becauseitdoes notcorrespondo theaspirationsof most Americansnow and has never done so in the past.26

Theoristsandactivistsof democraticparticipation ften have tolearn his les-sonthehardway,whentheydiscoverthat hepeoplefor whomtheyarefight-ing to empoweroften do not seem interested n greaterparticipation.The exclusive characterof citizenship,rooted in the antithetical elation-ship between the citizen and the slave, representsthe basic challenge ofAmericandemocracy orShklar.The democratic ask s not toimplement ar-flung models of strong democracy but to achieve the full inclusion ofexcludedgroups norder ograntall Americansequalstandingas"independ-entcitizen-earners." he minimumrequirementsorstanding, heargues,aretherightto vote and therightto ajob.Whatone does with thevote-or evenwhetherone uses it-is relativelyunimportant;whatcounts is the status hatcomesfrompossessingit.Likewise,one'sjob neednot be fulfillingorenjoy-able,only recognizedas essential to a sense of belonging.27Shklar'sargumentposes a dilemma between inclusion andparticipation.A politicsof inclusionholds that hecentralproblemof moder democracy sthe numeroussystemsof exclusion thataccompany t and thattheprincipalmeans toward a more democraticsociety is the full inclusion of excludedpopulations nto the polity. The "questfor inclusion,"Shklarargues,is tograntequal standing o all. Yet theproblemwithinclusion,as Shklarreadilyconfesses, is that ttendstoproduceapassiveformof citizenship hat s disin-clined towardexpandedparticipation ecause its objectiveis thepossessionof statusrather han heexerciseof one'spower npublicaffairs.On the otherhand,apoliticsof participation ssumesthatsubstantive itizenparticipationin deliberationand decision makingis the benchmarkof a democraticsoci-ety.Accordingto Shklar,argumentsorparticipation o notspeakto the realpolitical desires of Americans,who seek standing.But the problemrunsdeeperthan that.Theories of democraticparticipation arelyconfront theproblemof racialstanding. nawhite-dominated olity,expandingparticipa-tion strengthens he gripof the white majority,since whites set the agenda


12/27


and determinewho participatesandhow. Afterall, Black and PuertoRicanchildrenwerekeptout of Canarsie choolsthroughmassmeetings.By ignor-ing theproblemof whiteness,a strategy orparticipationmaycontribute othe tyrannyof the whitemajority.Of course, inclusion andparticipation re not necessarilycontradictory.Inclusion s aprerequisiteor democraticparticipation-one cannotbe activein aclub unless onehas beenlet into it-and thepurposeof inclusion is oftento empowertheformerlyexcludedto act in thepublic sphere.Thedilemmabetween them is a historicalconsequence of racializedcitizenship in theUnited States,not an inherentcontradiction.Nevertheless,the dilemma isimpressive.Thequestfor inclusionexpands hemembership f thepolitybutdiscourages greaterparticipationn it because it reproducescitizenshipasstanding.The questfor participationpromisesmoredemocracy,yet it doesnot confront heproblemof racialstanding;hus, tmayenduptightening hetyrannicalgripof the whitemajority.As presentlyconstructed,neitherholdsout much hope for a more democraticsociety. How, in a polity in whichwhiteness anddemocracyhave beeninextricably onnected,cangreaterpar-ticipationbe achieved withoutinvitinga lynch mob?The dilemma between inclusion andparticipations most evident wheneach is understoodas a strategy ora democratic ociety.A strategyof inclu-sion seeks the full admissionof allpersons ntothepolity,while a strategyofparticipation ims toexpandparticipationwithinthepolity.The former endstoemphasize he needtoguaranteepoliticalequalityandequalopportunitynthe face of discrimination,while the lattertends to emphasizethe need toexpanddeliberationand decisionmakingby ordinarypersons.These strate-gies shouldbe complementary,but the historyof white supremacy n theUnited Statesplaces them atcross-purposes.28The strategyof inclusion fails to resolve the dilemmafor two reasons.First,it may eliminate white standing,but it does not abolishwhiteness asnorm. For example, Shklarrecognizes that racial inequalitypersists evenafter heCivilRightsandVotingRightsActs,but hersolutionfor it-a state-guaranteed ob for everyone-does not necessarilyabolish white privilege.Such aguaranteewould no doubtaidmanypeopleof color,perhapsadispro-portionatenumberof themcompared owhites,buttheright oajob or even aliving wage does notnecessarilyunderminewhites'privilegedaccess to thebestjobs, thehighestsalaries,and the most lucrativecontracts.Nor do suchmeasuresnecessarilyundermine"firsthired, ast fired"policies, glass floors,orwealth mbalances hatfavorwhites. The secondproblem s that nclusionis not a strategy orgreaterparticipation.The absence of substantivepartici-pationby ordinary itizensin theaffairs hataffect them is notaproblem or


13/27


Shklar's"dystopic iberalism," ut t is forany theory hatseeksto stretch helimits of liberaldemocracy.29A strategy o dissolve or abolish the cross-classalliance thatconstituteswhiteness addressesboth of theseproblems.Whiteness s thedominant ate-goryinthe racialorder.Abolishingthecategoryeliminates he social signifi-cance of white identityand hence "abolishes" he identity tself. Practicallyspeaking,anabolitioniststrategyhas two prongs.It seeks to eliminateovertor normalizedsystemsof whiteprivilegesuch as redlining,racialprofiling,andtracking n schools, and it implies support or any policy or program,such as affirmative ction andreparations,hatundermineswhiteadvantage.It calls attention o and seeks toredressanyoutcome(suchasraciallyskewedmortgage rejection, unemployment,and life expectancy rates) in whichracialprivilegeis evidentyet is explained awayas the "natural utcome"ofmarketsor theaggregationof individualchoices. The secondprongopposesany attempt o reconstitutewhitenessin the post-civil rightsera. Efforts toresuscitatea "progressive" r "anti-racist"white identityhave gainedcur-rencyin the educationfield, but this noble cause faces historicalforces toostiff to overcome.30Whiteidentityin the United Stateshas alwaysreflectedan interest n and anexpectationof favored reatment.This historicalburdenof privilegepresentsan almostinsuperableobstacle to transforming white"intoaradicallydemocratic dentity. nthe absence of ausablepast,effortstoreinventwhitenesstemptto raisedemons that should ratherbe exorcised.The firstprong s essentiallya thoroughcivil rights agendaandis consis-tentwitha strategyof inclusion.The secondprong,however, s distinct n itsattemptto "exclude"(by dissolving) dominant identities from the publicsphere.The strategyof abolition is also different n terms of its objectives.One of its ends is to breakup the cross-classalliancein orderto eliminateovertand normalizedsystems of white privilegeand to expandthe publicsphereto include subordinatedgroups.Yet it is also a strategyfor greaterdemocracy.Abolishing the cross-class alliance opens up opportunities oforgenew relationswith moredemocraticpotential.Replacingwhite racialunitywith class unity,forexample,wouldgo along waytowardchallenginginequalitiesof wealththat democratic heoristsrecognizeas a crucialobsta-cle to amore democratic ociety.Further,topensupopportunitiesoexpanddemocraticparticipation.Thesimultaneous xistence of racialprivilegeandpolitical equality thatcharacterizeswhiteness inhibitsattemptsto expanddemocracybecause it gives whites an interest n preserving heirprivilege,often at the expense of expandingdemocracy.Dissolving whiteness elimi-nates these competing interests andthus holds potentialto expanddemo-craticparticipation.


14/27


Of course,ajust distribution f wealth andgreaterdemocraticparticipa-tion do not follow automatically rom the dissolution of whiteness;theyareonly possibilities.Further, readilyacknowledge hat the notionof abolish-ingwhiteidentity s difficult oimagine.Nevertheless, t is not withouthistor-ical andphilosophicalprecedent.The abolition of feudalism abolished ordandserf. Theabolitionof slaveryabolishedmasterand slave.The abolitionofcapitalismpromisesto abolishbourgeoisandproletarian.nmuch the sameway, the dissolutionof whiteness suggests the abolition of the categories"white"and "not-white" hemselves.As the dissolution of the aristocracypaved the way for representativegovernmentand the abolitionof slaveryinauguratedRadical Reconstruction,the dissolution of whiteness couldpotentiallyexpandtheboundariesof contemporarydemocracy.I hasten o addthatabolishingwhiteness s not the same asabolishingraceperse.Althoughdissolving hecategory"white"mpliesdissolving tsantithe-sis "not-white"as well, it does not requireabolishingBlack, Chicano/a,Indian,or othersuchidentities,since theyhave a culturaland social contentindependent f theirsubordinate tatusas not-white.Butsince the white cate-goryhas little contentindependentof its positionof privilege,it could con-ceivably disappearas a viable identity.Despite the strategyof inclusion's difficulty in eliminatingnormalizedwhiteness andin expandingdemocraticparticipation,he politics of inclu-sion dominatesdemocratic heory'sapproacho race.Meanwhile, hehistor-ical dilemma between it andparticipations rarelyconsidered.Some con-sider racism to be symptomaticof broaderproblems.31Others scarcelymention it.32Still others assume thatinclusion andparticipation resymbi-otic: the politics of inclusionareslowly, if unevenly,removingdiscrimina-tion fromAmericansociety,which in turnencouragesparticipation,whichfurtherreduces discrimination.33 n increasinglycommon response is todefineracialdiscrimination s aproblemof difference.According o thisper-spective, the plurality of identities-ethnic, national, racial, cultural,gendered,religious-is boththe centralproblemandgrandopportunityofcontemporary olitics.Modemsociety is pluralanddiverse,yet it restson aseriesof exclusions.Thephilosophical-political hallengeof theoriesof dif-ference is to constructa politics that understandsdifferenceas an asset todemocracyrather hana threat.34heoriesof differencearepotentiallyusefulin cuttingthrough heparticipation-inclusionilemmabecausetheytendtobe more attuned o the limitsof inclusion,sometimesapproachingpositionssimilar o a strategyof abolition.Nevertheless,even thepoliticsof differencecan be trippedup by the problemof whitenessandthe dilemmait creates,sometimes n spiteof itself.An exampleof this lies in one of the mostimpor-


15/27


tant texts on the politics of difference,William Connolly's The Ethos ofPluralization.

DIFFERENCEAND THEPOLITICSOF INCLUSIONThe Ethosof Pluralizationbegins as a conversationwithpluralism.Con-nolly acknowledgesthat conventionalpluralismhas its strengths: t is pre-mised on the irreduciblediversityof the social sphereand oftenencouragesthe developmentof difference,especially in situations where culturalcon-sensus is impossible. Nevertheless, conventionalpluralismassumes thatdiverse dentities, nterests,andculturesorbitarounda "universal"deal,likereason,civic identity,or rational elf-interest,and t tendsto assumethat ndi-viduals' identities are coherentandfully formedpriorto theirentrance ntothepublic sphererather hanconstructedn thepublic sphere tself. As such,conventionalpluralism reats dentitiesaslargelystaticandunchanging.Thisassumptionof stable dentitygives rise to the constructionof a "normal ndi-

vidual" against which "abnormal" dentities are measured. This is the"unconscious onservatism" t thecenterof the conventionalpluralist magi-nation:new additions o thepublic spheremustcomportwith thenorm,elsethey are considereda potentialthreat o social stability.35Connolly characterizesconventionalpluralismas "arboreal."Arborealpluralismassumes a tree-likeconceptionof difference:multipleand diversebranches ut outeverywherebut areconnectedto a common trunkof values.Arboreal pluralism's fear is that diversity can be taken too far: theoverproliferation f identities canfragment he public sphere ike too manyheavybranches,burdening he trunk o thepointwhere it splits.This fear isunnecessary,Connollyargues.It reflects the limitsof the arborealmagina-tion rather hanthe amountof diversitya societycanactuallyaccommodate.Heproposesa "rhizomatic luralism"o overcome helimits of conventionalpluralism.A rhizome is a plantthathas no centraltrunkor stem but insteadconsists of a networkof roots below and shoots abovethatspread hroughoutthe environment,appearing n a varietyof locations and connected onlythroughthe networkitself. A rhizomaticpluralism rejects the notion thatthere can be too much diversity.A public spherewill fragmentunder thestressof differenceonly if its identitiesdeclare hemselvesnormalor truthfulandexclude other dentitiesasabnormal, alse,or deviant."Topluralize s notto fragmentize," e writes."Todogmatize s to fragmentize."36 rhizomaticpluralismavoids this sort of fundamentalismby embracingpluralization,


16/27


which notonly encourages heproliferation f identitiesbutrecognizesthatchangesin relationsamongidentities alter identitiesthemselves. Pluraliza-tion restsuponan "ethosof criticalresponsiveness"hat"opensup culturalspace throughwhich new possibilities of being might be enacted"andrespectsthepluraland "multifariousways of being."37 hedemocratic ask,Connollyasserts, s to pluralize hepoliticalrealmby "[striving] o cultivatean ethosof criticalresponsiveness o politicalmovements hatchallengetheself-confidenceandcongealedjudgmentsof dominantconstituencies."38The ethos of pluralizations animportant evisionof pluralism.Connollyconvincingly arguesthat it is fundamentalism,not diversity,that threatenssocialstability.Hepointsto normalization sacentralproblem orexpandingdemocracy.Further,while conventionalpluralismunderstandsdiversityasthe presenceof multiplebut fixed, alreadyformed identitiesin the publicsphere,pluralization ssumes thatsuchidentitiesare"self-revisionary."hatis, theemergenceof a new identityor changesin anexistingone inevitablymodifyother dentities,sincetheyareconstructed ndreconstructedhroughrelationsof difference. Forexample,a rhizomaticpluralismwould notjustincludeoppressedracesin thepublic sphereon anequalfootingwithwhites,it wouldreconfigure"Angloidnationality"tself by compellingit to shed itspresumptionsof superiorityandnormalcy.

Thelongtermresultof sucha series of shifts [intheself-recognitionof adominantcon-stituency] nseveraldomainswouldbe the historical ransition f Americafroma major-itynationpresidingover numerousminorities n a democratic tateto a democratic tateofmultipleminoritiescontendingandcollaboratingwitha generalethosofforbearanceand critical responsiveness.39

The ethos of pluralizationwould not merelywelcome otherpeoples into apolity once reservedexclusively for whites, it would alter white identityaswell. "Thepoliticsof enactment... presseshegemonicidentities,whicharealways dependent upon the very differencesthey define, to translatethisexperienceof disturbancento awill tomodifythemselves o that heynolon-gerremainexactlywhattheywere."40The termsConnollyuses todescribechangesin dominantdentities,suchas "modify""self-revise,""reconfigure," nd "transition,"re not whollyequivalent o termssuch as "abolition" nd "dissolution."Nevertheless,hisclaimthat he entranceof newidentities nthe socialspherecreates"newpos-sibilities of being"for existing identitiessuggests a compatibilitybetweenrhizomaticpluralismanda strategyof abolition."Critical esponsiveness otheinjuriesof Otherness," ewrites,"impliesacomparative enaturalizationandreconfiguration f hegemonic identitieswhose characterdependedon


17/27


these specificationsof difference."41f a dominant dentity possesses littlemeaningoutside a system of subordination, s in the case of whiteness,its"denaturalizationndreconfiguration"ouldeasily be read to implyits dis-solution.Afterall, whiteidentity s notso much a signifierfor apinkishpeo-ple of predominantlyEuropeanancestryas it is for a system of powerthatconstructsrelationsof subordination ndprivilege. Dismantlingthese rela-tions leaves whiteidentityas little morethananempty signifierthat s barelyuseful to describea skin color.Theethosof pluralizationpointsin the direc-tion of white abolition, since it holds that a politics of racial differenceimplies the erosion of whitedominance-and thus white identityitself.Notwithstanding this compatibility, however, Connolly's argumentarrives at political conclusions that, if followed, would solidify whitenessrather han dissolve it. A rhizomaticpluralism,he maintains,wouldmodify"Angloid dentity"andcompel it to shed its presumptions f supremacyandnormality.Giventhis,thepoliticaltaskwouldseem to be to encourage hoseactivities that confrontand undermine such presumptions.Yet Connollyrejectsa directapproach o confrontingwhiteness. He arguesthat theissuesaddressedby welfareliberals in the post-civil rightsera-women's rights,racism,ecology, discrimination-ignore the hardships aced by the whiteworkingclass,pushing t intotheopenarmsof theright."Thepoliticsof wel-fare iberalism romthe latesixtiesonwardbetrayed he whiteworkingclass,drivinga section of it toward a fundamentalismof gender,self, race, andnation."42e suggeststhat he "fundamentalisms"f the whiteworkingclasscould be "renegotiated" y retooling programscurrentlyaimed at womenandpeopleof color,such asaffirmative ction,so that heyincorporate classor income dimension.Thiswould"goa long waytowardeasingthe sense ofinsult and discriminationamong ReaganDemocrats,for theirchildren ...would no longerbe singledout as the only constituency hat deserves to bestuck in thecrumby obs now availableto it."43This indirectapproachof combatingwhite racismby expandingrace-specific programso incorporate classdimension s increasinglypopular nleft-liberal circles. Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers, for example, arguethatalthough he whiteworkingclass comprisesabout55 percentof the elector-ate, its needs havelong been ignored by thepoliticalsystem.Thepartythatcan win over this"forgottenmajority"will dominate hepolitical landscapewell into thetwenty-firstcentury.44 oing so will requireadvocatinga stron-ger government hatcanimprovebasicaspectsof workers' ives, from healthinsurance o educationto retirement o a healthybalance between workandfamilylife. The Democratsareideologicallybettersituated o carryout sucha program hanthe Republicans,but to do so Democrats will have to shift


18/27


theirfocus from theconditionof gays, women,andminorities owardadvo-cating "universal"programs hathelp all of the workingclass. Thus, theyshouldreplace programssuch as affirmativeactionandbusing with class-based affirmativeactionand "class-based ntegration" rograms.45This argument s ironicbecause the Americanwelfare statehistoricallydid not ignorethe whiteworkingclass but catered o its racialinterests.TheSocial SecurityAct excluded farmworkers and domestics (most of whomwereBlack)fromreceivingbenefits.The FederalHousingAgencypromotedresidentialsegregationand channeledmoney toward white suburbs. TheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency located garbage dumpsand toxic wastesites away from white neighborhoods,while the federal highway systemdestroyedhousingin Blackneighborhoods o connect whitesuburban om-mutersto theirdowntown obs. All of these welfare liberalprogramswerepremisedon theconsolidationof the"possessive nvestment"n whiteness.46Giventhis, the whiteworkingclass's alienation romprogressivepolitics ismore likely due to theirresistanceto programs hat erode theirprivilegedstanding han an overemphasison subordinated roups by welfare liberals.Confrontingwhites' expectations of favored status is key to expandingdemocracy,buta "universal" rclass-basedprogramdownplayswhites'his-toricalprivileges.Insodoing,itappeaseswhiteexpectations ather hanchal-lenges them.This is not tosaythatclass-basedprogramswould nothelpAfricanAmer-icans and otherpeopleof color.They likely would,andthey mighteven dis-tributebenefits topeopleof colordisproportionately ompared o whites,asTeixeiraandRogerscontend.Nevertheless, he success of suchprograms tilldependson how well theycomportwith what DerrickBell calls the "whiteself-interestprinciple":whites will supportsocial and political programsaimedatAfricanAmericansonly if theystandto benefitfrom them as well.This leaves suchprogramspoliticallyvulnerableshould whites' support orthemwane.Thisvulnerability ignifiesthecontinuingpowerof whiteness.47Anethosof pluralizations equipped o avoid thesepitfalls.It underminesthepowerof dominant dentitiesby challengingthem to notmerelyincludenewidentityclaims within ts spherebutto transformtself in the face of suchinclusion.Unfortunately,Connollydoes not follow throughon the implica-tions of his argumentas it relates to white identity.48 ursuingclass-basedprograms hatinclude all of the poor rather hanprograms hatunderminewhite advantagemayappear o be more inclusive and less divisive, but dueto the historical dilemma between participationand inclusion in a white-dominatedpolity,such inclusion does notnecessarilyunderminewhite nor-malizationbutcanunintentionally erpetuatet.Giventhe limitsof inclusionin the face of theparticipation-inclusionilemma,an ethos of pluralization


19/27

Olson / THE PARTICIPATION-INCLUSIONILEMMA 401

calls for a politics of differencethatdirectly challengeswhiteness and linksthischallengetoaparticipatory olitics.The basis of such apoliticslies inthework of IrisMarionYoungand Lani Guinier.

PARTICIPATIONND THEPOLITICSOFDIFFERENCE

Young'sargumentorparticipationmergesoutof hercritiqueof whatsheterms the distributiveparadigmof justice, which understandsustice as thefair and ethical distributionof benefits, burdens,and resourcesamongthemembersof asociety. Young'smaincriticismof theparadigms that ts focusondistributiononstructsa modelof citizensaspossessorsandconsumersofgoods. This tends to depoliticizesocial life, as the emphasison distributiontakesprecedenceover otherissues, such as the organizationof productionanddecision-makingprocesses.49Young proposesa more activeconceptionof justice, a politics of differ-ence, thatimproveson the distributiveparadigmby includingdeliberationanddecision makingas elementsof justice in additionto distribution.Theprimary oncernof justice, Youngargues,shouldbe to confrontdomination("theinstitutionalconstrainton self-determination") nd oppression("theinstitutional onstraint nself-development").50ominationandoppression,she argues,aregroupconditions. Similarto Connolly'sconceptionof iden-tity,she understands ocialgroupsas"expressionsof social relations."51ndi-viduals do notjust constitutegroups;groupsconstitute ndividuals.Justice,then, is the elimination of the oppressionanddominationof social groupsthroughself-determination ndthe abilityto developone's capacities.It is"the nstitutionalized onditionsthatmakeit possiblefor all to learnandusesatisfyingskills in socially recognized settings,to participate n decision-making,and to expresstheirfeelings, experience,andperspectiveon sociallife in contextswhereothers can listen."52Thestrengthof Young'sarguments twofold.First, t emphasizespartici-pation as a key democratic ideal while acknowledgingthe importanceofpoliticaland socialequality.Redistributingwealth is not so much an endas itis a prerequisite o the abilityto participatedemocraticallyn the processesandinstitutionsof collective life.

Justiceequally requires .. participationn publicdiscussion andprocessesof demo-craticdecisionmaking.All personsshouldhave therightandopportunityoparticipatenthedeliberationanddecisionmakingof the institutions o which theiractions contribute


20/27


or whichdirectlyaffect theiractions.... Democracy s bothan elementanda conditionofsocialjustice.53Second, it challengesShklar'sconceptionof citizenshipas standing,not bymerelyexpressinga preferencefor participationover standingbutby con-nectingthe eliminationof oppression o thepracticeofparticipation. hklar'sremedy for the exclusion of African Americans and white women is toincludethemin thepolity.Young'sremedy s notjust their nclusion but alsotheirparticipation,which is necessaryfor a group'sself-determination ndthe developmentof an individual'scapacities.

Young'sconceptof a social grouphasbeenone of the mostcontroversialpartsof herargument.Liberalssuch as RonaldBeinercharge hat tpromotesthe"ghettoization"f identitiesandundermines hesignificanceof thestate.Postmodernists uch as ChantalMouffe criticize it as essentialistand unableto account for the constructionof new identities. Critical theorists such asNancy Fraserarguethat the concept is modeled too closely on the ethnicgroup,andas a resultgender,class, race,andsexualitydo not fit intoitwell.54Young'saccountof the socialgroupis problematic,particularlyor therea-sons pointedout by Mouffe and Fraser.The debate as it stands so far,how-ever,overlooksthe real limitationof the concept: t does not considerprivi-legeas aproblemofjusticeas well asoppressionanddomination.As aresult,like Connolly, Youngdoes not consider that a politics of differencemightimply the dissolutionof privilegedsocial groups.A critiqueof privilegeisimpliedin heranalysis,since the oppressionof one groupis almostalwaysdone for theadvantageof another.Anexplicitanalysisof privilege,however,would have avoidedmanyof the pitfallsof her concept of a social group,since it shifts the problemfrom subordinategroupsto the anti-democraticnatureof dominantgroups.It would also redress he centraldifficultyof hercontroversialproposalforgrouprepresentation,which wouldgrantspecificrepresentationor oppressedgroups.The paradoxof thisproposal s thatitpresumes hepresenceof oppressedgroupsyet its purpose s toendoppres-sion;hence theproposal nitiates ts own obsolescence.A political programfor the dissolution of theprivilegedgroup,however,does notrequiregrouprepresentation,or abolitiondoes notbringaboutequalitybetweengroupssomuch as it transformshe very structure f grouprelations n thepolity.Nevertheless,Young'semphasisonparticipation elpstorevealthelimitsof inclusion in challengingthe whiteness of Americandemocracy.Com-bining Young'sorientationowardparticipationwith acritiqueof privilege,Isuggest, can overcomethe participation-inclusion ilemma. The latterele-mentof thesynthesis s found n LaniGuinier'scritiqueof majorityyranny.


21/27


THE TYRANNY F THEWHITEMAJORITYIn TheTyranny f theMajority,Guinierarguesthatthe centraldangerof

majorityrule is notthat t threatensherightsof individualsor minoritiesbutthatit is a winner-take-all ystemin which 50 percent+ 1 of the voters wineverythingwhile everyoneelse gets nothing.This turnspolitics into a zero-sumcompetition orpowerrather han a means of includingeveryonein theprocessesof governance.Thisdanger s exacerbated n a polity in which themajority s raciallyprejudicedagainsttheminority o such an extent thattheminorityis consistentlyexcluded from representationand policy making.Whenthishappens,majorityruleperpetuates acial nequality,as the combi-nationof a winner-take-allystemandwhiteprejudice urnsAfricanAmeri-cansintopermanentpoliticalminorities.PermanentminoritystatuspreventsAfrican Americans fromparticipatingmeaningfullyin politics, even whentheirpolitical rightsareguaranteedby theVotingRightsAct. Whether n theHerrenvolkor colorblinderas, "Racialpolarization n the electorate andinthe legislative body ... [transforms]majorityrule intomajority yranny."55Guinierproposesaprocedural emedy or theproblemof (white)majoritytyranny.Democraticprocedures, he holds,are ust as important s substan-tivevalues orideals,for"proceduralules, naveryrealsense,shapesubstan-tive outcomes."56 liminating permanentmajoritiesrequires turningzero-sum electoral outcomes into "positive-sum"outcomes,or results in whicheveryonewins or at leasttakesa turnatwinning.She proposesreplacing50percent+ 1majoritiesand the territorialdistrictingof representativeswith asystem of cumulativevoting, in which voters receive the same numberofvotes as thereareseatstovotefor,butrather hanbeinglimitedtovotingonlyforrepresentativeswithintheirgeographicdistrict, heycan vote forany rep-resentative.Further, oters candistribute heirvotes as theyplease, "plump-ing"them with one candidateordistributinghemamongseveralaccordingto theintensityof theirpreferences.Suchasystem,Guinierargues,would notonly make it likely thatat least one of a voter's candidateswill be elected, itencouragesgreaterpoliticalparticipation.Cumulativevoting providesciti-zens withan incentivetoorganizealliances to voteasa singlebloc or to formstrategiccoalitions with other groupsto gain mutualbenefits, since "anypoliticallycohesive groupcan vote strategically o win representation."57twouldencouragepeopleto voteaccording o their nterestsrather hanwheretheylive (as geographicdistrictsdo) orwho theyare(asrace-baseddistrictsdo). Itwouldeliminategerrymanderings well as "safe"districtscontrolledby one partythat are largelyimmune to political competition.Cumulativevoting,Guinierargues,would makeelectionscompetitiveandgive citizensan incentive to participatebeyond simply voting.


22/27


Guinier's argumentdemonstratesthat majoritytyrannydoes not justexclude minorities; t builds white advantage nto the electoralprocessandinhibitsparticipation, ven given the protectionsof the VotingRightsAct.White privilege is normalizedthroughostensibly race-neutral egislativedistrictingand a winner-take-all ystem.Guiniermakes a qualifieddefenseof race-consciousdistricting n Tyranny f theMajority,arguing hatgiventhe current ystemof territorialdistricting,racialgerrymanderingo createmajority-Blackor Latinodistrictsis sometimesnecessaryto ensure Blackand Latinopoliticalrepresentation.5Ultimately,however, his solution can-notdislodgewhiteadvantagebecausethe creationof majority-Black istrictsonly includespeople of color into representative odies (andas permanentminoritiesat that).It does nothingto enhance the extent or qualityof theirparticipation.A bettersolution,she argues,would be to scrap group-basedrepresentation ltogether(geographicas well as racial)andreplaceit withinterest-based epresentationhatemployscumulativevoting.The problemof the white majority,Guiniershows, cannot be resolvedthroughnclusion alone.Inclusion,of course,is preferableo life prior o theVotingRights Act, yet for Guinier,like Young,the goal is not simply toensurerepresentationorminoritygroupsbut to enhancetheirparticipation."Therightto a meaningfulvoice does not measureparticipation implybycountingcompetitivevotes;it examines the extentto which a systemmobi-lizes broad-based oterparticipation,osterssubstantivedebate rom arangeof viewpoints, and providesand reinforcesopportunities or all voters toexercisemeaningfulchoice throughouthe processof decision makingandgovernance."59uinier'sproposalsare aimednotso much atsecuringrepre-sentation orpermanentminoritiesbuttowardeliminatingpermanentmajor-ities.Thisrequiresundermininghepowerof whitenessthroughproceduresthat fostertheparticipation f everyone.Guinieroffersherproposals n the spiritof fairnessandin the belief thatthey will fulfill the potentialof moderndemocracy.As such,her argumentdoes not necessarilytest the boundariesof liberaldemocracy.Nevertheless,her critique of majority tyrannydoes have radical democraticpotentialbecause it connectsa critiqueof racialprivilegewith an orientation owardparticipation.Guinier'scontributiono democratic heory s notherspecificproposals,whichareoverly proceduralist ndhave beensuggested(andevenimplemented)elsewhere,buther theoreticalorientation.6She demonstratesthat hetyrannyof the whitemajority emainsa centralproblemof Americandemocracyandshows how it is a problemof privilegeandparticipationaswell asone of exclusion and nclusion.Herargument uggeststhatabolishingthe white majoritywould not only includepeople of color, it would under-mine normalizedwhiteadvantage. n so doing,it couldexpandparticipation


23/27


and fosterpolitical conditionsthatmakemore radical formsof democracypossible. Guinierdoes notmake thisargument xplicitlybut she hints atthetransformative ossibilitiesof herproposalswhen she writes,"The winner-take-some-but-not-all pproachcontemplates'strongdemocracy,'meaninganinvigorated lectorate hatparticipatesas opposedto spectates) hrough-out the politicalprocess."6'Thedemocraticproblemof whitenesspersistsafter heHerrenvolk ra.Itsshiftfrom a formof standing o anormhasobscuredandweakened hevalueof whiteness in someways,butthecross-classalliancecontinuesto functionthrough he normaloperationsof contemporarydemocracy.It persistsas aproblemfor democratictheoryas well, not only in thatit is the engine ofracialdiscriminationbut also in that it continuesto drivea wedge betweeninclusion and participation.Strategiesto include personsof color into thepolity bygivingthemequalstandingwithwhites dolittle toexpandparticipa-tion.Yetstrategies o expandparticipationaneasilyendupbolsteringwhitemajorityyranny, sGuinierandtheCanarsieboycottreveal.Neitherstrategyalone, then, s sufficient ordemocratic heory.A politicsthatemphasizes heabolition of whiteness,however,directlyconfrontsracialprivilegein a waythatincludes theexcluded andencourages heexpansionof democraticpar-ticipation.Itresolves theparticipation-inclusionilemmaandsuggestsa cri-tiqueof liberaldemocratic nstitutionsas theypresentlyexist.This is not to say that dissolving whiteness would be easy. It can beachieved npart hroughactivities hatundermine hewagesof whiteness,butit also requiresthe creation of a new politicalhegemonythatgoes beyondcolorblindness n opposingnormalizedwhiteness. Thisis undoubtedlya dif-ficult task, particularlygiven the public and psychological attachments owhite identity.Yet I submit thereis little alternative.So long as the whitecitizen simultaneouslyinsists on his privileges and denies they exist, thepotential for white reactionremains. So long as the politics of inclusiondominatesthinkingon race,democratictheorywill continue toruninto theparticipation-inclusionilemmaandcontinue o havedifficultystretchingtsimaginationbeyond the boundariesof liberal democracy.A participatorypolitics must be an abolitionistpolitics.

NOTES1. "Viewof Head of CommunityBoard,"New YorkTimes,October30, 1972, 24.2. LeonardBuder,"CanarsieReportsAttendanceGains,"New YorkTimes,November9,1972, 1. Fora full account,see JonathanRieder,Canarsie:The Jews and Italiansof BrooklynagainstLiberalism Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1985), chap.7.


24/27


3. ThroughouthisessayItypicallyfocus on the AfricanAmerican xperience ncontrast othatof whites.Indoingso, Ido notmeanto reinforce heassumption hatraceis onlya matterofBlack andwhite.As I arguebelow,race is a relationship hatdistinguishesamongwhites andnot-whites, he latterof which can describea varietyof ethnicor culturalgroups.I use Blackasthe archetypeof not-whiteness n this essay because,as I explain,whitenesswas largelycon-structed n thecontextof slaveryandsegregation.4. RogersM. Smith,CivicIdeals:ConflictingVisionsof Citizenship n U.S.History(NewHaven,CT: YaleUniversityPress, 1997), chaps.8 and 9.5. JudithN. Shklar,AmericanCitizenship:TheQuestforInclusion(Cambridge,MA:Har-vardUniversityPress, 1991), 16.6. Noel Ignatiev,How theIrishBecame White NewYork:Routledge,1995);MatthewFryeJacobson,Whiteness fa DifferentColor:European mmigrants nd theAlchemyofRace(Cam-bridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1998).7. Joel Olson, "TheDemocratic Problem of the White Citizen,"Constellations8, no. 2(June 2001): 163-83.8. Pierre L. van den Berghe,Race and Racism:A ComparativePerspective(New York:JohnWiley, 1967), 18.9. W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstructionn America: 1860-1880 (New York:Atheneum,1992), 700-1.10.AnthonyW.Marx,MakingRace and Nation:A ComparisonofSouthAfrica,the UnitedStates,and Brazil(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1998), 14-15.11. Thespecificphrase"wagesof whiteness"comes from DavidR. Roediger,TheWagesofWhiteness:Race and theMakingof the AmericanWorkingClass (New York:Verso,1991).12. StephanieM. Wildman,with contributionsby MargalynneArmstrong,AdrienneD.Davis, and TrinaGrillo,Privilege Revealed:How InvisiblePreferenceUnderminesAmerica(New York:New YorkUniversityPress, 1996), 29.13.While I assumethat he dissolutionof the Herrenvolk y the civil rightsmovement s per-manent,numerousscholars have noteduncannysimilaritiesbetweenthe aftermathof Recon-structionand thepost-civil rightseratoday.My argumenthatthe civil rightsmovementstandsas a watershed n Americandemocracyshould be readwith this warning n mind:we can goback.See, forexample,RobinD. G. Kelley,Yo'Mama'sDisFUNKtional!Fightingthe CultureWars n UrbanAmerica Boston:Beacon, 1997);PhilipA. KlinknerwithRogersM. Smith,TheUnsteadyMarch:The Rise and Decline of RacialEquality n America(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1999).14.PeggyMacintosh,"WhitePrivilegeand MalePrivilege:A PersonalAccount of Comingto See CorrespondencesThrough Work in Women's Studies" (Working Paper No. 189,Wellesley College Center or Researchon Women,1988), 1-2.15. KarlMarx,"Onthe JewishQuestion," n Karl Marx andFrederickEngels, CollectedWorks, ol. 3 (New York:International, 975), 153.16. Neil Gotanda,"ACritiqueof 'OurConstitution s Color-Blind,'"StanfordLawReview44, no. I (November1991): 1-68.

17. Michel Foucault,TheHistoryof Sexuality:Volume .An IntroductionNew York:Vin-tage, 1990).18.Lewis R. Gordon,BadFaithandAntiblackRacism(AtlanticHighlands,NJ: HumanitiesPress, 1995);Peniel E. Joseph," 'Black' Reconstructed:WhiteSupremacyn Post CivilRightsAmerica,"The Black Scholar25, no. 4 (Fall 1995):52-55. The crowning glory of this conse-quenceis thateffortsto eliminateaffirmative ction havebeen redefinedby theirproponentsas"civilrightsinitiatives."


25/27


19.Mydistinctionbetweenstandingand normalization s not meantto implythatnormaliz-ing practicesareexclusive to thepost-civil rightseraor thatstandingbelongsonlyto the Herren-volkage. The residuesof white standingcontinueto operate n racialprofiling,INS raids,and"drivingwhile Black."Likewise,Du Bois alwaysunderstood hat he basisof whitepower s notso much its official backing by the state as it is the fact that the white world's dominationappears-especially to whites-as the normal conditionof society. "Thepresentattitudeandactionof the white world s not basedsolely uponrational,deliberate ntent.It is a matterof con-ditionedreflexes;of long followedhabits,customsandfolkways;of subconscioustrainsof rea-soningandunconsciousnervousreflexes."W.E.B.Du Bois, DuskofDawn:AnEssaytowardanAutobiography fa RaceConcept NewBrunswick,NJ:Transaction, 995), 171-72.My point snot so muchthatnormalizations a "new orm"of racism hathasreplacedan"old orm"butthattheshift from the Herrenvolko the colorblinddemocracyhas beenaccompaniedby a changeinthe generalmeansby which racialpower operates.20. CherylHarris,"Whitenessas Property,"HarvardLaw Review 106, no. 8 (June 1993):1713-14.

21. Ibid., 1721.22. Ibid., 1715.23. Thisanalysisis suggestedby ImmanuelWallerstein'sworkon themeaningof thebour-geoisie in history.ImmanuelWallerstein,"TheBourgeois(ie)as ConceptandReality,"n Race,Nation, Class:AmbiguousIdentities,ed. Etienne Balibarand ImmanuelWallerstein London:Verso,1991).24. LawrieBalfour," 'A Most DisagreeableMirror':Race Consciousness as DoubleCon-sciousness,"Political Theory26, no. 3 (June 1998):347.25. I assume thatparticipations at the heartof proposalsfor a more radical,deliberative,communicative, gonal,stronger, rdeeperdemocracy.Democratic heoryhas otherconcernsaswell, such as a moreequitabledistribution f wealth,the educativeeffects of participation, ndthe expansionof individualrightsto include "social"or welfarerights.Nevertheless,whetherthrough itizenship,civic associations,workplacedemocracy, ouncils, collectives, communes,deliberative paces,orcoalitions,democratic heory s definedby thequest,in some manner, ogo beyondthe limits of citizenparticipation nderexistingliberaldemocracies. norder o avoidconfusion between thisobjectiveandthephilosophyof participatory emocracyassociatedwithCarolePateman,C. B. Macpherson,andothers,I will generallyrefer to "democratic articipa-tion" instead of "participatoryemocracy."26. Shklar,AmericanCitizenship,30.27. Ibid.,94.28. This dilemma s usuallyposedas a tensionbetweenpolitical participation nd ndividualrights:can a participatory emocracyprotectan individual'srights againsta majority yranny?Yet this version incorrectlyassumes thatrightseffectively preventwhite tyranny.The Bill ofRightsexistedalongsideslaveryand ynchlaw,thuspittingrightsagainstparticipations not thebest way to understand he dilemma.29. The phrase is from Seyla Benhabib, "JudithShklar'sDystopic Liberalism,"SocialResearch11, no. 2 (Summer1994):477-88.30. See, forexample,HenryA. Giroux,"WhiteNoise: TowardaPedagogyof Whiteness,"nRace-ing Representation:Voice, History, and Sexuality,ed. Kostas Myrsiades and LindaMyrsiades(Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield,1998).31. BenjaminBarber,StrongDemocracy Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1984).32. RobertA. Dahl, OnDemocracy(New Haven,CT: YaleUniversityPress, 1998);JiirgenHabermas,TheInclusionof the Other:Studies n PoliticalTheory Cambridge,MA: MITPress,


26/27


1998); David Held, Models of Democracy,2d ed. (Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress,1996).33. MichaelWalzer,On Tolerance New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress, 1997).34. SeylaBenhabib,ed.,DemocracyandDifference:Contesting he Boundariesof the Polit-ical (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1996); William E. Connolly,Identity/Differ-ence: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca,NY: Cornell UniversityPress,1991).35. WilliamE. Connolly,TheEthosofPluralization Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress, 1995), xiv-xv.36. Ibid., 197.37. Ibid., 180.38. Ibid.,xv.39. WilliamE. Connolly,"Pluralism,Multiculturalism ndtheNation-State:Rethinking heConnections," ournalof PoliticalIdeologies 1, no. 1 (February1996):61.40. Connolly,Ethosof Pluralization,180.41. Ibid., 184.42. Ibid., 113.43. Ibid., 129.44. RuyTeixeiraand Joel Rogers,America'sForgottenMajority:Why he WhiteWorkingClass Still Matters(New York:Basic Books, 2000).45. Ibid., 162-63.46. GeorgeLipsitz,ThePossessive Investment n Whiteness:How WhitePeople Profitfrom

IdentityPolitics (Philadelphia:Temple University Press, 1998); Michael K. Brown, Race,Money,and the AmericanWelfare tate(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1999);RobertC.Lieberman,Shiftingthe Color Line: Race and theAmericanWelfareState (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1998).47. DerrickBell, Faces at the Bottomof the Well:The Permanenceof Racism(New York:Basic Books, 1992). Bell suggests that race-basedprogramsmight actuallybe more inclusivethan class-based ones becauseprograms hatexpandthe rightsandpowersof people of colorultimatelyexpand herightsandpowersof everyone,while class-basedor "universal" rogramscan actuallysustainwhiteness.

48. I deliberatelyadd"as it relates to whiteidentity"becauseI do not mean to suggestthatmodifyingdominant dentitieswill result n the dissolutionof such identities n all cases. Argu-ments for the abolitionof other dentitiesrequirea separate ustification hanthe one presentedhere.49. Iris MarionYoung,Justiceand the Politicsof Difference Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUni-

versityPress, 1990), 66, 74-75.50. Ibid.,37-38.51. Ibid.,43. She defines a socialgroupas "acollective of personsdifferentiated rom at leastone othergroupby cultural orms,practices,or way of life."52. Ibid.,91.53. Young,Justice andthe Politicsof Difference,91. Further,Youngpointsoutthatat timesjustice requires nequality.EchoingMarx,shewrites,"Apoliticsof differenceargues hatequal-

ity as the participation nd inclusion of all groupssometimesrequiresdifferenttreatment oroppressedor disadvantagedgroups.To promotesocial justice, I argue,social policy shouldsometimes accordspecial treatmento groups" Ibid., 158).54. RonaldBeiner,"WhyCitizenshipConstitutesa TheoreticalProblem n the Last Decadeof the TwentiethCentury,"n TheorizingCitizenship, d. RonaldBeiner(Albany:State Univer-sity of New YorkPress, 1995);ChantalMouffe, "Feminism,Citizenship,and Radical Demo-


27/27


craticPolitics," n FeministsTheorizethe Political, ed. JudithButler and JoanW. Scott (NewYork: Routledge, 1992); Nancy Fraser, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the"Postsocialist"Condition New York:Routledge,1997), chap.8.55. Lani Guinier,The Tyrannyof the Majority:FundamentalFairness in RepresentativeDemocracy(New York:FreePress, 1994), 103.56. Ibid., 103.57. Ibid., 15.58. Ibid., 137-42.59. Ibid.,93-94.60. Forcriticismsof theproblems nimplementingGuinier'sproposals, ee MarkA. Graber,"ConflictingRepresentations: ani Guinierand James Madisonon ElectoralSystems,"Consti-tutionalCommentary 3,no. 3 (Winter1996):291-307;PamelaS. Karlan,"Democracy ndDis-Appointment,"MichiganLaw Review93, no. 6 (May 1995): 1273-96; and John L. Safford,"JohnC. Calhoun,Lani Guinier,and MinorityRights,"PS: Political Science 28, no. 2 (June1995):211-16.61. Ibid., 112.

Joel Olson receivedhisPh.D.fromtheUniversity fMinnesota n 2001 and is currentlyvisitingassistantprofessorofpolitical theoryat ArizonaState UniversityWest.He canbe [email protected].

olson whiteness participation

Documents