University of Huddersfield Repository
Gill, Santokh Singh and Worley, Claire Louise
‘How did it go?’ Negotiating race, racialisation and identity when teaching issues of race and
equality in HE
Original Citation
Gill, Santokh Singh and Worley, Claire Louise (2010) ‘How did it go?’ Negotiating race,
racialisation and identity when teaching issues of race and equality in HE. Enhancing Learning and
Teaching in the Social Sciences, 2 (3). ISSN 1756-848X
This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/7576/
The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the
University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:
•
•
•
The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
The content is not changed in any way.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: E.mailbox@hud.ac.uk.
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
‘How did it go?’ Negotiating race, racialisation and
identity when teaching issues of race and equality in HE
Dr Santokh Singh Gill
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate
Huddersfield
HD1 3DH
Tel 01484 472794
Email s.s.gill@hud.ac.uk
Dr Claire Worley
Manchester Metropolitan University
799 Wilmslow Road,
Didsbury, Manchester
M20 2RR
Tel 0161 2472146
Email c.worley@mmu.ac.uk
Biographies
Dr Santokh Singh Gill is a senior lecturer in the Division of Criminology, Politics and
Sociology at the University of Huddersfield. He has previously conducted research
on political participation in black and minority ethnic communities, social capital and
faith, British Muslim communities, masculinity in Sikh communities and refugee
community groups. Santokh has a particular interest in British Asian communities,
specifically Asian masculinities. Recent publications include Lessons from West
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
1
Bowling Youth Initiative: then, now and the future, published by the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation in 2008.
Dr Claire Worley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work and Social
Change at Manchester Metropolitan University. She has a particular interest in
issues of race, ethnicity and gender and her current work relates to community
cohesion policies in the UK. She has published work on community cohesion,
urban regeneration, user involvement, housing, homelessness and substance
misuse. Recent publications include the 2005 article, „“It‟s not about race, it‟s about
the community”: New Labour and community cohesion‟ in Critical Social Policy, vol
25 (4), pp 483–496.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
2
‘How did it go?’ Negotiating race, racialisation and
identity when teaching issues of race and equality in HE
Abstract
This paper reflects on our experiences of teaching various aspects of race and
ethnicity within the higher education context over the past decade. We highlight
various ways in which teaching race and ethnicity is „sensitive‟, and reflect upon
our teaching practice. We also highlight some of the approaches that we use in our
teaching. In particular, we consider the value of a focus on „everyday‟ spaces for
teaching and learning about race and ethnicity. We also explore issues relating to
the positioning of ourselves, our ethnicities and social biographies, within the
context of our teaching. In so doing, we engage with issues relating to authenticity,
conflict, emotionality, racism and backlash narratives.
Key words: emotions, ethnicity, everyday, backlash
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
3
Introduction
Together, we have been active in teaching about issues of race1 and ethnicity for
the past decade, in various academic contexts. Our students have included those
on applied degree courses, such as those studying to be social workers, police
officers and lawyers, as well as those specifically studying sociology or, more
broadly, social studies. Our classes have included those that largely or exclusively
comprised students from majority ethnic backgrounds (white British), and we have
also taught on modules which comprised mainly students from black and minority
ethnic backgrounds.2 These contexts are hugely significant given the nature of the
subject. Jacobs notes:
Teaching ‘race’ and ethnicity is widely perceived by staff to be challenging
as well as rewarding, but the types of challenge vary a good deal according
to whether institutions are mainly ‘white’/ethnicity majority or whether a
number of EM students are enrolled.
(Jacobs, 2006: 344)
We have taught at various HE institutions within the UK, in large metropolitan cities
and in smaller towns, within both „new‟ and established universities, and at different
levels, including foundation year programmes and master‟s. Our engagement and
pedagogic practice has emerged and developed during this time, partly in
response to our own shifting epistemological/theoretical frameworks, but also in
response to who we are and the social changes taking place around us. Indeed,
our own ethnicities, identities, our „personhoods‟ to borrow from Stanley and Wise
We use the term „race‟ in this paper to refer to „a process, a set of discursive practices [as] a
concept that is both slippery and sticky … always aware that this phrase is contested in theory,
discourse, policy and the everyday, and yet [aware] that in the British context it has real meaning
and effect not only through claims to raced identities, but also through continued widespread
racism‟ (Ali, 2006: 473).
2
Following from Lewis (2000: 207), it is evident that there are limitations with the use of any
racial/ethnic categorisations and terminologies.
1
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
4
(1983: 162), are integral to this paper. In simplistic terms, we could identify
ourselves as a white female and Asian male; yet, within these overarching racial
categorisations, our biographies are shaped and disrupted through interrelated
aspects such as our social class, gender, sexuality, family histories and social
networks. These aspects of difference intersect and are played out, marked,
recognised and made real within the „everyday‟.
In the context of this paper, we want to draw particular attention to the complex
ways in which teaching race relates to the notion of teaching „sensitive issues‟, the
theme of this special edition. Despite Skinner‟s (2006: 13) argument that „we have
done to death the topic of what a „difficult‟ or sensitive subject race is‟, we feel that
there is more to be said here, particularly in the context of a rapidly changing social
world and changing HE context.
Our discussion of teaching race as a sensitive subject is divided into three
sections. First, we outline our theoretical location, which informs not only this paper
but also our teaching practice. Second, we reflect on our teaching experience to
consider the sensitivity in teaching around race and ethnicity in contemporary HE
settings. Finally, we consider approaches that we use in our teaching practice in
order to engage with the sensitivity inherent in teaching race and ethnicity.
There are several key elements that we seek to explore within these sections. The
study or talk of race and race-related issues is seen by many – both within the
academy, lecturers and students alike, and outside, within mainstream popular
media and politics – as „sensitive‟. Indeed, race-related issues continue to provoke
what can be described as emotive responses and debates. We also want to
suggest that teaching about race, racism and ethnicity differs from the majority of
teaching found within wider social studies syllabuses because of the complex ways
in which we engage with the subject in relation to our own identities and social
biographies (see also Jacobs, 2006) (although, of course, there are similarities with
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
5
teaching related to gender, sexuality and disability). Teaching about race in the
British context, with its histories of colonialism, empire and immigration, can also
evoke particular forms of classroom dynamics, which in some cases may result in
conflict, anger and distress. Indeed, drawing on a research project on teaching
race in HE, Jacobs (2006: 344) notes that such conflict can involve „heightened
emotions and more explicit expression of beliefs, perceptions and (sometimes)
stereotypes than is routine‟. In discussing these emotive experiences, we also
draw on our personal recollections of student narratives. It is necessary to note that
these comments are based on our reinterpretation of the events and do not arise
from a focused research project. They are therefore influenced by a range of
factors that affect retrieval, such as our emotional state, the perceived severity of
the comments to us, and the amount of time that has passed since their
occurrence.
Theoretical location
Our thinking (and teaching) about race and our pedagogies are informed by our
own theoretical locations, which could loosely be described as „critical
poststructuralist‟ (see also Williams, 2003). We are inspired and informed by the
work of contemporary theorists such as Caroline Knowles (2003; and with Claire
Alexander, 2005), Gail Lewis (2004) and Suki Ali (2006), as well as having a longer
history of engagement with the work of Stuart Hall (1992), Paul Gilroy (2004), Avtar
Brah (1996) and Mac an Ghaill (1999) in particular. Given this, we view race as
something which is socially constructed, yet something which continues to have
meaning. As Alexander and Knowles (2005: 1) argue, „race still matters‟ in
contemporary times as it remains „a definitive marker of identity, difference,
inequality and violence‟. Indeed it is also apparent that „race practices remain
integral to social and political formations‟ (Warmington, 2009: 283).
Race and the ‘everyday’
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
6
In particular, we are interested in how race and „race practices‟ operate within the
„everyday‟, in the mundane and the ordinary settings of social interaction. Here we
follow on from the work of Lewis (2004: 167), who talks of the „practices of the
everyday‟ as „a code for the taken for granted, ordinary ways of organizing living
and relationships in networks of intimacy (families, lovers, friendships etc.)
workplace relationships, schools, hospitals or other public institutions, communities
or other networks‟. Such a focus on „everyday‟ settings and experiences can also
be useful in shifting perceptions and for teaching and learning the „sensitive‟
subject of race and ethnicity, as we explore in this paper. Furthermore, developing
Giddens‟ (1984) work on structuralisation, the „everyday‟ can be viewed as a space
within which the dialectic relationship between structure and agency is
materialised.
Central to our understanding and pedagogic practice is an attempt to convey the
ways in which processes of ethnicity and race within „everyday‟ spaces affect both
hegemonic majorities and subjugated minorities (though in different ways). A focus
on the „everyday‟ is particularly useful here. As Warmington (2009: 284) notes: „If
... the everyday is acknowledged as being sinewed by raced practices then it
becomes less easy to take refuge in the position that race „happens elsewhere‟, in
exotic, marginal spaces, and that it couldn‟t „happen here‟, in the midst of our
everyday experiences.‟
Essed‟s (1991) work is also relevant to this discussion, particularly the concept of
„everyday racism‟ as a means of understanding how structural racism is normalised
within everyday practices and routines:
... everyday racism can be defined as a process in which (a) socialized
racist notions are integrated into meanings that make practices immediately
definable and manageable, (b) practices with racist implications become in
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
7
themselves familiar and repetitive, and (c) underlying racial and ethnic
relations are actualized and reinforced through these routine or familiar
practices in everyday situations.
(Essed, 1991: 52)
Our focus here is not on the existence of institutionalised racism within HE. Rather,
we want to point out how race matters within practices and interactions of the
„everyday‟, which includes HE and the processes of reproducing and remaking
race and racism (Essed, 1991). Moreover, this has particular currency in the
context of the classroom when teaching and learning about race and ethnicity.
In understanding the relationship between structural processes and the „everyday‟,
as configured in this paper, it is important to recognise that race, class and gender
are not separate entities. Rather, frames of difference are experienced in and
through each other in complex ways (McClintock, 1995). Moreover, as Mac an
Ghaill and Haywood (2007) point out, in terms of social relations, recognised
aspects of difference such as „ethnicity‟ are also understood through the
frameworks of gender and sexuality:
We can say that power is shaped by relationality: one group is both powerful
and powerless. For example, particular social relations of ethnicity
simultaneously ‘speak’ gender and sexuality; to be a ‘Paki’ is also to be a
‘poof’, is to be a ‘non-proper’ boy.
(Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007: 40)
Recognising the intersection of these (as well as other) aspects of difference has
implications for teaching and learning about race and ethnicity, and again we would
suggest that focusing on the racialisation of „everyday‟ spaces is an important tool,
as we will later explore.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
8
The teaching experience
We now want to reflect upon and engage with aspects of our teaching practice,
focusing in particular on the ways in which teaching race and ethnicity is a
„sensitive‟ subject. In particular, we explore the importance of our ethnicities and
social biographies, and we address issues relating to white backlash narratives.
Negotiating our ethnicities
The teaching of ‘race’ and racism, and perhaps of other subjects, such as
gender, cannot escape personal exposure and experience.
(Housee, 2008: 418)
Housee (2008) talks in some detail about the effect that „black‟ lecturers can have
on students when teaching race, as their racial categorisation can be seen to
provide some sense of validity to the experiences of being a racialised minority.
For example, in such situations, lecturers can draw on their own personal
experiences to illustrate the lived realties of theory and policy relating to
racialisation within schools (Housee, 2008). This is a practice which we have both
employed, not just in relation to race, but also in other aspects of our teaching,
such as gender. Using personal experiences can help provide a rich and engaging
space for understanding race, ethnicity, racialisation and racism. For example, as
an Asian, Sikh male, you can utilise your experiences or family experiences as
located within the south Asian diasporic experience. Issues of direct and blatant
racism within the workplace, which may for some be hard to comprehend in
contemporary social contexts, can then be explored through documenting the
stories with which we are familiar and are connected to our social biographies. This
places the lecturer overtly within the context of the subject being studied.
Consequently, the subjective position of being an „Asian man‟ when teaching
students about histories of south Asian migration, south Asian communities or
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
9
south Asian masculinities could be seen to provide a valuable position for teaching
and learning. Yet, similarly, the position of being a „white woman‟ could be
exploited when exploring issues of whiteness, white ethnicities, racism, and the
intersectionality of race with other aspects of identity.
In utilising ourselves and our social biographies, we do not want to suggest any
simplistic notion of authenticity. However, at the same time, it is apparent that this
can help to provide some grounding in subject matter which can, at times, appear
far removed from the „everyday‟ contexts of our students‟ lives. In this process, we
certainly draw on what Housee (2006: 38) has described and advocates as a form
of „engaged pedagogy‟, underpinned by „collaborative learning‟ which, „through the
generation and use of biographic stories, connects and challenges the academic
material with everyday experiences and stories‟. Again, the concept of the
„everyday‟ is apparent here, and this further supports our argument relating to the
importance of the „everyday‟ as a conceptual tool for teaching and learning about
race and ethnicity. Housee (2006) draws on bell hooks‟ (1994) argument that
critical pedagogy is rooted in engagement and inclusion: „[My] pedagogical strategy
is rooted in the assumption that we all bring to the classroom experiential
knowledge that can indeed enhance our learning experience‟ (hooks, 1994: 84–85,
cited in Housee, 2006: 38). As Housee rightly notes: „[I]f we want to encourage
students to speak on sensitive issues, such as 7/7, then we take the challenge to
vulnerability ourselves and share our thinking, our views, to initiate the dialogue‟
(Housee, 2006: 38). As previously argued, this is not necessarily an „easy‟ or
painless experience, but is often an emotional encounter.
However, it is also evident that the presentation of self within the teaching and
learning setting is one that is performed. It is therefore a process whereby we may
choose which personal examples are selected to convey racial „experience‟, while
other aspects of identity such as class or gender maybe underplayed. As Knowles
(2003, cited in Alexander and Knowles, 2005: 13) points out, „recognition of the
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
10
role of individual subjectivity is crucial to an understanding of the ways in which
race is „made‟, resisted and performed in the „rituals of everyday existence‟‟. At the
same time, it is also apparent to us, having engaged with teaching around this
subject area, that students may react negatively, at least initially, to being taught
about race/ethnicity by someone who they feel does not have the „authenticity‟ to
speak/teach this subject. In this context, being white and teaching a subject which
students may perceive as being specifically and only about black and minority
ethnic communities/histories/experiences can create tensions. For example, one of
our students asserted: „White people can‟t teach us about race.‟ Housee (2008:
417) also notes that, in such situations, students ‟drew on essentialist discourses to
argue that only blacks can teach race and racism and that white folks cannot
sincerely teach race/ethnicity/racism issues because they do not understand and
„feel‟ the issues in the same way‟. However, again, we would suggest that focusing
on race and ethnicity in „everyday‟ spaces, and particularly on ways in which race
and race practices affect both majority and minority groups, is useful here.
There is a further aspect to this however, which warrants some discussion. Being
positioned as a white lecturer, combined with being a woman from a working-class,
rural background, may create intrigue among students as to why one might be
interested in and committed to teaching about race, racialisation and inequality.
Such questions are unlikely to be directed towards lecturers from black and
minority ethnic backgrounds. This clearly relates to our racialised identities, but
also highlights the ways in which race is made and constructed within spaces of
social interaction, in the everyday, including within the classroom. In our
experience, students have probed: „Are you of mixed background then?‟, „Are you
Asian?‟ The implication is, you could not possibly be white English. In these
instances, if one was to reveal some aspect of being a racialised minority, it would
enable the students to fall back on simple and essentialised understandings of race
which often surface in seminar discussions. This process of racialisation, which
shifts from being identified as „white‟ to „something else‟, shows how racial
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
11
difference is not simply mediated by skin colour. Indeed, writers such as
McClintock (1995) and Roediger (1994) have documented the processes by which
various groups become white. Similarly, within the context of the everyday, we are
actively engaged in the process of constructing racial categories, and various cues
serve to mark and define boundaries of otherness.
In such processes, a whole range of intersecting markers of difference is at play.
There are particular discursive processes that allow us to „accept‟ who is authentic
for the role of lecturer and who can legitimately teach. Difference and the process
of othering complicates who should hold authority (Subedi, 2008). Indeed,
individual biographies differ. As Subedi (2008: 61) points out, „on the limits of the
biological conception of race, one may be „skinfolk‟ but not necessarily a „kinfolk‟‟.
In an effort to disrupt and challenge the assumptions within some students‟
perceptions, and those of some of our colleagues within HE past and present who
assume(d) that race/ethnicity should be taught by lecturers from racialised minority
groups, we have made a determined effort to engage with the notion of
racialisation within our teaching and to explore and deconstruct whiteness in
everyday settings as well as exploring blackness or Asian-ness. This is one way to
destabilise processes of race-making that essentialise, legitimate and reinforce
race as mattering only to racialised minorities. Therefore, within our teaching
practice, particularly on modules that focus on the study of race and ethnicity, we
also encourage students to engage with the study of whiteness and Englishness.
Challenges to our ‘personhoods’3
The pedagogy of race remains extremely emotive and „sensitive‟. Indeed, as
Housee (2008) skilfully and succinctly outlines:
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
12
Learning about racism often pulls on our emotional strings: black students
sometimes express their hurt and anger, while white students sometimes
remain silent or express their hurt, shame and discomfort. The lecturer’s
racialised identity is an important factor in these emotional exchanges. Black
lecturers are sometimes judged for their ‘loyalties and sensibilities’ with the
black community, while white lecturers are questioned for their
understanding and sympathies with ‘race’/racism issues.
(Housee, 2008: 415)
While as academics we may be given the position of „knower‟, the power dynamics
within the classroom are, of course, complex, in part reflecting the intersection of
race, class, gender and other aspects of social differentiation within „everyday‟
spaces. Our social biographies and identifications are infused with our practice
here, and this can place us in a vulnerable and open position. For example,
identifying oneself as an Asian man can enable students to make easy
associations between what is being taught and the Asian male doing the teaching.
When teaching about statistical evidence of continuing disadvantage within
employment for different minority groups, students have openly asked about
earnings, educational achievements and social class. There is a lot to make sense
of here, and we can only explore some of it in this paper. However, one reading
may be that this has taken place when students have wished to challenge the
validity of the academic material being presented, partly to deny the persistence of
racial disadvantage reflected in the question, „You‟re doing alright though, aren‟t
you?‟ This reflects the contradiction, as mentioned previously, that, on the one
hand, there is a problematic assumption that black or Asian lecturers may be best
suited to teach about race, yet there is also evidence of an underlying narrative at
work which suggests that they are not the most capable (Subedi, 2008).
3
Taken from Stanley and Wise (1983: 162).
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
13
From our experiences of teaching race and ethnicity over the past decade, we
could interpret and reflect on the reactions of some students within the framework
of subtle racism or even „aversive racism‟ (Mistry and Latoo, 2009: 20), which has
become more prominent as blatant forms are legislated against. Such subtle forms
of racism are played out in everyday cognitive processes. Mistry and Latoo (2009:
20) point out that „these feelings and beliefs are rooted in the normal psychological
processes of social categorisation, satisfaction of basic needs for power and
control, and socio-cultural influence‟. There is also evidence to suggest that some
students‟ engagement with the subject matter corresponds with what Gilroy (1992)
has described as „new racism‟ and is tied up with terms such as „culture‟ and
„identity‟. This discourse has found a new home within contemporary community
cohesion policy discourses, which are now seen as a legitimate and acceptable
way to discuss issues of race and ethnicity (Worley, 2006). Such diverse forms of
racism are maintained and reproduced through processes and rituals that
legitimate certain common sense and stereotypical assumptions about racial types
along with a continued belief that racism is dead. For Essed (1991), such forms of
everyday racism also problematise a distinction between institutional and individual
racism, as acceptable institutional practices legitimate individual action.
Research evidence suggests that being questioned on expertise and knowledge
appears to be a common reaction by students in these contexts, further reflecting
the sensitive nature of the subject. While focusing on the North American context
(which of course has different histories to the British context), Alexander-Floyd
(2008) describes a „cognitive dissonance‟ students have to black academics:
Cognitive dissonance can be defined as a profound disorientation that
occurs when our foundational modes of thinking are directly challenged ... or
our lived experience fails to conform to deeply ingrained beliefs and
assumptions. Blacks and other racial minorities in the U.S. occupy a lower
social and political status than Whites and are not typically seen as authority
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
14
figures, especially in the lives of most Whites. Given this fact, most White
students, and even students of color, experience cognitive dissonance when
they have people of color as professors.
(Alexander-Floyd 2008: 184)
Another aspect of what we might refer to as the „emotionality‟ inherent in this is that
our social biographies are tied to what we teach and we have a personal
investment in facilitating students to engage and make sense of the subject. When
we are teaching about south Asian immigration, for example, we may therefore
utilise case studies such as that of Anwar Ditta, a Rochdale-born Asian woman
who campaigned against the Home Office for six years in the 1970s and 1980s in
an effort to be reunited with her three children in Pakistan. She was eventually
reunited with them after being made to undergo various tests and an internal
examination. When faced with students defiantly asserting that „she should have
told the truth‟ or making statements like „all Asian women should learn to speak
English‟, this has an emotional impact on us as lecturers and can be extremely
difficult to engage with. This again partly relates to our personal social biographies,
as discussed earlier, and the investment we have with the area that we teach.
Moreover, it can lead to conflict within the classroom, something which we discuss
in more detail later in the paper.
As an „Asian‟, „black‟ or „white‟ lecturer, you can also be seen to embody and
indeed represent a particular discursive racial category. Embodying and being
seen in this position also lends itself to particular forms of representations that can
bring with them their own dangers. You are thus placed in a vulnerable position
whereby not only can your knowledge be contested, but also your experiences that
link you to particular religious, cultural and ethnic communities. It can get personal.
And it is overtly „sensitive‟, whether the discussions are based on simple
misunderstandings or a clear intention to provoke, which is often resolved by days
of reflecting on „how did it go?‟ It is in such situations that students may ridicule,
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
15
justify or support ideas that we feel are misinformed or even blatantly racist. These
have included discussions on the subject of arranged marriages and or
contemporary immigration for example. These issues are not only linked to our
own experiences, but are connected to our families, friends and communities. We
are not suggesting that students should remain „silent‟ in this context. But this
further highlights some of the factors which relate to race being a „sensitive‟ subject
to teach, and we would argue that this is especially the case when it is relegated to
a singular module or, even more challenging, a single lesson. Moreover, these
issues emphasise the place of emotions and feelings inherent in our approach.
Engaging with the white backlash
The specificities of the student cohort have also shaped our experiences of
teaching race over the past decade and our reflections/pedagogic developments.
As well as the obvious factors of race and ethnicity, geographic location, the
student‟s place of birth, social class and the nature of the degree (and specifically
whether it relates to a professional qualification with a practice-based aspect) are
also significant in shaping the ways in which teaching race becomes a sensitive
subject. Clearly these aspects of difference intersect (for example, with race and
gender) and could for some students provide a legitimate „counter-narrative‟ about
the realities of race, as reflected in the following student comments:
When do we forget history and can stop feeling guilty for being white?
Why don’t we get taught about all the racism that other groups have? Asians
don’t like other Asians … I asked (an Asian student) … if he was a Muslim
and he said ‘Don’t call me a paki, I hate Muslims’.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
16
Haven’t we got enough to think about as it is? Than thinking about taking
our shoes off or whether we will offend somebody if we shook their hand?
We’ve got a job to do.
Reflecting on literature about multicultural education in the USA, Spring (2006)
highlights the sense of guilt white students feel when exploring the realities of
racism. This can result in a display of resentment and anger towards black and
minority ethnic groups. Such narratives also reflect a wider backlash towards
multiculturalism and race equality measures. These are informed by a number of
discourses that Hewitt (2005) documents in his ethnography of a white workingclass community in Greenwich, London. Hewitt (2005) explores the growing
resentment towards black and minority ethnic communities and the perceived
positive discrimination and preferential treatment they are seen to receive. In
recent years, this sense of resentment has also led to increasing support for the
British National Party, particularly among 35- to 54-year-olds in skilled/unskilled
working-class occupations (Ford and Goodwin, 2010):
[This ‘white backlash’] may more accurately be described as part of a
socially disparate set of responses to equalities discourse as they unfold
from the 1960s to the present. The so-called ‘white backlash’ has not been
unitary, nor has it had the finality which its name seems to suggest ... It is an
international phenomenon whose history, despite often deep national
variation, continues to influence contemporary struggles over race and
justice, migration and settlement and national policies designed to address
them.
(Hewitt, 2005: 5).
From this perspective, the dynamics of race, class and geography play a role in
shaping experiences of race. Hewitt‟s (2005) study conveyed a range of anxieties,
such as a fear of being seen as racist, an over-resentment of cultures of „political
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
17
correction‟, a sense that Britishness/Englishness is a minority identity, and a real
sense of disempowerment and alienation. Such discourses have been a key
feature of extreme right political narratives, but have also more recently been
echoed in mainstream political parties. The communities secretary John Denham
has called for an increased focus on tackling disadvantage for white working-class
boys (Denham, 2009) alongside the need to develop „a better understanding of the
way in which race interacts with class and other factors‟ (Denham, 2010). In terms
of our practice, a similar sense of injustice and resentment has also been reflected
at times in our students‟ narratives, which, drawing on the work of Hewitt (2005:
75), could be seen as conveying an alternative „community-approved‟ narrative.
We would argue that these narratives certainly shape our experiences of teaching
race and further emphasise the ways in which race is a sensitive subject within the
context of teaching in HE. The community-approved version of truth being
constructed by our students in the classroom can be difficult to disentangle or
challenge. Just as teaching race for us relates to our social biographies and
identifications, so it does for our students, who often recite highly emotional
racialised encounters, experiences and stories. These may not always be the
stories that we want to „hear‟: for example, stories that highlight even more
„sensitive‟ aspects of the subject, such as sexual violence and masculinity or
victimisation. While some may vocalise their views, others may remain silent and
disengaged. This also has a particular impact in terms of group work within mixed
ethnicity and diverse HE settings. In such contexts, particularly when more vocal
and assertive students try to dominate discussions, we have noticed ourselves
becoming more aware of the potential for enhanced vulnerability and increased
visibility of black and minority ethnic students within the classroom. Such examples
include comments being made about the perceived „problems‟ of wearing the hijab
or perceptions of gender inequality within Muslim communities and so on. This
becomes highly „sensitive‟ when there are students in that setting who clearly can
be identified with the community or issue being discussed. Clearly, this highlights
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
18
the ways in which teaching race is a „sensitive‟ subject, but it also indicates the
ways in which the study of race can lead to conflicts within the classroom.
Jacobs (2006) explores the issue of conflict in detail and, drawing on a
classification used in earlier work around this topic (Jacobs and Hai, 2002), argues
that such conflicts can be either „overt/intentional expressions of racism by an
individual … indirect expressions of racism or of unconsciously held stereotypes;
and … overt group conflicts, whether involving direct or indirect racism‟ (Jacobs,
2006: 346). As previously indicated, within the contemporary context of community
cohesion discourses, the so-called „white backlash‟ and the rising popularity of the
British National Party, this has particular implications for teaching race and
ethnicity within HE contexts.
Approaches for teaching and learning
In response to the issues that we have discussed so far, we have sought to
develop strategies and practices which can enable the effective teaching of
„sensitive‟ issues such as race and racialisation to diverse student cohorts and in
diverse HE settings. However, even now, we sometimes feel uneasy and
bewildered by the situations we encounter. We would now like to consider in more
detail some of the approaches that we have found to be useful.
Utilising the ‘everyday’
As outlined throughout this paper, we have found a focus on the „everyday‟ to be
useful because it enables students to explore race as a lived reality and as
something with meaning (Alexander and Knowles, 2005) for both racialised
majority and minority groups. As a teaching tool, the concept of the „everyday‟ can
be used to illustrate the realities of „everyday‟ racism, and how these are
experienced, alongside enabling a exploration of processes of racialisation and
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
19
race-making. This also enables an analysis of the interrelationship between race,
class, gender and other aspects of difference that are at play within „everyday‟
settings. Following from Lewis (2004), we understand the site of the „everyday‟ as
primarily being about the ordinary ways of living in contemporary society. Our focus
in our teaching is to encourage students to recognise how these are racialised and
to explore how race operates in specific contexts. This might entail an analysis of
local communities and community relations or an exploration of individual
identities. One particular example we use focuses on a photography project in
Manchester which aimed to capture the diversity within the category „mixed race‟
by focusing on individuals‟ own descriptions of themselves and their „mixedness‟
(Lincoln, 2008). This enabled students to consider how processes of racialisation
continue to frame ordinary experiences and everyday lives and to engage with the
changing landscape of race and ethnicity in contemporary Britain.
We also make use of visual and textual materials about „everyday‟ and mundane
interactions that help to disrupt stereotypical ideas of the other and to enable
students to engage with the complex theories around race and ethnicity. For
example, we have developed discussions and practical analyses around the
gendered, racialised and classed construction of „chavs‟, a contemporary social
grouping, drawing on the work of writers such as Nayak (2006) and Tyler (2008).
We have also examined the historical racialisation of white working-class women
and Irish communities („white negroes‟), drawing specifically upon visual imagery
and the work of McClintock (1995). This is important in an effort to shift what are
still commonly held perceptions that the study of race and ethnicity means the
study of minority ethnic groups. This is in itself a „sensitive‟ task, as the gendered
and racialised constructions of „chavs‟ within popular discourses are highly
stigmatising and emotionally charged (Tyler, 2008).
Responding to the ‘white backlash’
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
20
We have come to anticipate a level of resentment and anger by some students
when engaging with issues of race. As previously mentioned, this anger and guilt
may be reflected in students feeling that they are being blamed for contemporary
racism or histories of slavery and colonialism. Therefore, in such instances, we
utilise approaches that include the analysis of case studies which provide
alternative perspectives and counter-narratives (see also Spring, 2006). For
instance, we may discuss examples whereby white police officers have
successfully engaged with black and minority ethnic groups. This helps to counter
the position that all white people are inherently racist. Recent research on
representations and public opinions on poverty has highlighted the advantages of
using real-life case studies and personal experiences to shift public opinions
around the persistence of poverty (Hanley, 2009). Within this, it is argued that the
media and new technologies play an important role (McKendrick et al, 2008;
Seymour, 2009).
We also encourage a reflection on the „everyday‟ nature of race, racialisation and
racism by utilising ourselves and our social biographies, real-life narratives and
case studies drawn from texts. For example, we have incorporated fiction such as
Andrea Levy‟s (2004) Small Island to explore post-war migration, and poetry such
as Jackie Kay‟s (1991) „So you think I'm a mule?‟ to explore issues of racialisation
and identity. We also utilise film and musical forms which are rooted in the
„everyday‟: for example, Shane Meadows‟ (2006) film This is England to consider
racism and social change, and musical artists such as Punjabi MC and Hard Kaur
to explore issues of cultural hybridity, gender and Britishness. At times, we also
incorporate an analysis of popular television shows into our teaching practice. For
example, we have used the example of Saira Khan, a former contestant on The
Apprentice, to facilitate a deconstruction of stereotypical constructions of
Muslim/Asian femininities. Alongside this, we have used case studies based on
academic research, such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation‟s Living in Bradford
documentaries (2008), which help to deconstruct and situate contemporary Muslim
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
21
male and female identities. This rather eclectic approach to teaching can help to
diffuse the sensitivities inherent within our subject matter, while the focus on race
and race-making in „everyday‟ spaces helps to facilitate a deeper understanding of
and engagement with the theories and concepts of race and ethnicity.
Conclusion
This paper has been a reflection on some of our experiences around teaching race
and ethnicity. Over the past decade, as lecturers in various HE settings, we have
become increasingly conscious of the „sensitive‟ nature of the subject we teach.
We are aware of the existing literature on this subject, and we used aspects of this
literature in developing this paper. However, unlike Skinner (2006), who asserts
that this area has been „done to death‟, we feel the continually changing social
world, HE context and, in particular, the development of ideas around emotion and
emotionality can be further explored. We have only just begun this exploration in
what we present here.
We have outlined our theoretical location, as this informs not only this paper but
also our teaching practice. We view race as social constructed, yet with continued
significance and meaning. As such, race is a key marker of stratification and
identity, and race practices (ways of making race and racial difference) operate in
complex ways within ordinary and „everyday‟ spaces. A focus on such „everyday‟
sites of interaction is useful in helping to challenge notions of race as being about
the study of „others‟, but also enables engagement and a productive space for
teaching and learning.
We have also sought to reflect on our teaching experience over the past decade,
particularly in relation to the positioning of race and ethnicity as a „sensitive‟
subject. We have considered some of the ways in which teaching race and
ethnicity is „sensitive‟ and emotive, and we have highlighted the complex ways in
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
22
which our racial and ethnic positionings and our social biographies are important
here. While we would challenge any simplistic notion of authenticity, we point to the
value of utilising ourselves as a teaching tool, whether we are part of a minority or
majority ethnic grouping. The concept of „engaged pedagogy‟ (Housee, 2006: 38)
informs our practice here, and while this is enriching and productive, it is often
emotional and sometimes painful, particularly in contexts where our identifications
and social biographies are challenged or devalued. At times, this has reflected a
revival of racist discourses alongside white backlash narratives (Hewitt, 2005). Yet,
by placing ourselves at the centre of what we teach, we too become the target of
such responses. Such encounters can be conflictual as well as emotional.
Given the „sensitive‟ nature of the subject we teach, we have therefore sought to
develop particular approaches to enable effective teaching and learning. We have
found that a focus on „everyday‟ and ordinary spaces of race-making is useful and
we take an eclectic approach to our teaching. In doing so, we utilise not only
ourselves but also examples of „everyday‟ racialised practices drawn from diverse
sources including film, music, photography and literature. This has helped us to
move forward with teaching the „sensitive‟ subject of race, while facilitating a more
dynamic space for teaching and learning.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
23
References
Alexander C and Knowles C (2005). Making race matter. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Alexander-Floyd N (2008). „Critical race pedagogy: teaching about race and racism
through legal learning strategies‟. Political Science & Politics, vol 41 (1), pp 183–
188.
Ali S (2006). „Racializing research: managing power and politics?‟. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, vol 29 (3), pp 471–486.
Brah A (1996). Cartographies of diaspora, contesting identities. London & New.
York: Routledge.
Denham J (2010). „Government is committed to tackling inequality and
disadvantage wherever it exists‟. Available at:
www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1432659
Denham J (2009). „Stephen Lawrence report – ten years on‟. Speech to the TUC
Conference, 30 November 2009, London. Available at:
www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/tucstephenlawrence
Essed, P (1991). Understanding everyday racism: an interdisciplinary theory.
California: Sage.
Ford R and Goodwin MJ (2010). „Angry white men: individual and contextual
predictors of support for the British National Party‟. Political Studies, vol 58, pp 1–
25.
Giddens A (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
24
Gilroy P (2004). After empire: melancholia or convivial culture. London: Routledge.
Gilroy P (1992). The black Atlantic: modernity and double consciousness.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hall S (1992). „New ethnicities‟ in A Rattansi and J Donald (eds) Race, culture and
difference. London: Sage Publications, pp 251–260.
Hanley T (2009). Engaging public support for eradicating UK poverty. Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. Available at:
www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/eradicating-UK-poverty-summary.pdf
Hewitt R (2005). White backlash and the politics of multiculturalism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
hooks b (1994). Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom.
London: Routledge.
Housee S (2008). „Should ethnicity matter when teaching about „race‟ and racism
in the classroom?‟. Race Ethnicity and Education, vol 11 (4), pp 415–428.
Housee S (2006). „Sounding out the silences in the classroom: reflecting on 7/7
with the spoken word‟ (workshop presentation) in M Todd and M Farrar (eds)
Teaching race in HE social sciences. What next? (conference proceedings).
Available at: www.csap.bham.ac.uk/resources/publications/samples/race_conference_june_06.pdf
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
25
Jacobs S and Hai N (2002). „Issues and dilemmas: „race‟ in higher education
teaching practice‟ in F Anthias and C Lloyd (eds.) Rethinking anti-racism. London:
Routledge, pp 166–188.
Jacobs S (2006). „Interactional issues in the teaching of „race‟ and ethnicity in UK
higher education‟. Race Ethnicity and Education, vol 9 (4), pp 341–360.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2008). Living in Bradford (DVD). Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. Available at: www.jrf.org.uk/communities-bradford
Kay J (1991). „So you think I'm a mule?‟ in The adoption papers. Sheba Feminist
Publishers.
Knowles C (2003). Race and social analysis. London: Sage.
Levy A (2004). Small island. London: Headline Books.
Lewis G (2000) 'Race', gender, social welfare: encounters in a postcolonial society.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lewis G (ed) (2004) Citizenship: personal lives and social policy. Bristol: The
Policy Press in association with the Open University.
Lincoln B (ed) (2008). Mix-d UK: a look at mixed-race identities. Manchester:
Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Education Trust.
Mac an Ghaill M and Haywood C (2007). Gender, culture and society:
contemporary femininities and masculinities. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
26
Mac an Ghaill M (1999). Contemporary racisms and ethnicities: social and cultural
transformations. Buckingham: Open University Press.
McClintock A (1995). Imperial leather: race, gender and sexuality in the imperial
contest. London: Routledge.
McKendrick J, Sinclair S, Irwin A, O'Donnell H, Scott G and Dobbie L (2008). The
media, poverty and public opinion in the UK. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Available at: www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2224-poverty-media-opinion.pdf
Meadows S (2006). This is England (DVD). Optimum Home Entertainment.
Mistry M and Latoo J (2009). „Uncovering the face of racism in the workplace‟.
British Journal of Medical Practitioners, vol 2 (2), pp 20–24.
Nayak A (2006). „Displaced masculinities: chavs, youths and class in postindustrial city‟. Sociology, vol 40 (5), pp 813–831.
Roediger D (1994). Towards the abolition of whiteness: essays on race, politics,
and working class history. London: Verso.
Seymour D (2009). Reporting poverty in the UK: a practical guide for journalists.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Available at: www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/reportingpoverty-journalist-guide-full.pdf
Skinner D (2006). „Conference reflections‟ in M Todd and M Farrar (eds) Teaching
race in HE social sciences. What next? (conference proceedings). Available at:
www.csap.bham.ac.uk/resources/publications/samples/race_conference_june_06.pdf
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
27
Spring J (2006). The intersection of cultures: multicultural education in the United
States and the global economy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stanley L and Wise S (1983). Breaking out: feminist consciousness and feminist
research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Subedi B (2008). „Contesting racialization: Asian immigrant teachers' critiques and
claims of teacher authenticity‟. Race, Ethnicity and Education, vol 11 (1), pp 57–70.
Tyler I (2008). „“Chav mum, chav scum”: class disgust in contemporary Britain‟.
Feminist Media Studies, vol 8 (1), pp 12–34.
Warmington P (2009). „Taking race out of scare quotes: race-conscious social
analysis in an ostensibly post-racial world‟. Race, Ethnicity and Education, vol 12
(3), pp 281–296.
Warmington P (2007). „Pointing to race: distinguishing race as a critical conceptual
problem in „post racial‟ classrooms‟. Paper presented at C-SAP conference,
Teaching race, 28 September, Birmingham.
Williams F (2003). Social Policy Association Research School conference
(plenary), 25 April, Birmingham.
Worley C (2006). Identity, community and community cohesion: a critical
engagement with policy discourses and the everyday. Unpublished PhD thesis.
University of Huddersfield.
ELiSS, Vol 2 Issue 3 – May 2010 ISSN: 1756-848X
28