Notes

Write a note in this area. It's really easy to share with othExpanding White Racial Identity Theory:
A Qualitative Investigation of Whites
Engaged in Antiracist Action
Krista M. Malott, Tina R. Paone, Scott Schaefle, Jennifer Cates,
and Breyan Haizlip
This article presents outcomes of a qualitative exploration of White racial identity. Ten participants whose characteristics
were reflective of Helms’s (1990) autonomy status defined their racial identities and related lifestyle choices.
Findings are conceptualized within the framework of Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory of White racial identity development.
Suggestions are intended to enhance White racial identity theory and provide empirical support for characteristics of
Whites who are engaged in antiracist activities.
Keywords: White racial identity development, Whiteness, multicultural counseling, racial identity, antiracism
At the other end of the continuum, characteristics of the
autonomy status were defined by Helms (1990, 1995) as
(a) a sophisticated racial awareness of self and one’s racial
privilege, including an “informed positive socioracial-group
commitment” (Helms, 1995, p. 185); (b) an establishment of
cross-racial friendships, marked by flexible interactions and
an appreciation of the complex identities of people of color;
(c) the abandonment of personal racism and racial privileges,
including avoidance of life options that entail participation
in racial oppression or racially oppressive organizations;
(d) an understanding of the effects of racism on people of
color; and (e) an engagement in antiracist actions. Whites
who engage in behaviors that intentionally, strategically,
and consistently strive to dismantle racism are described
as antiracists (Ayvazian, 2010). Antiracist individuals often
serve as allies to people of color and strive to challenge White
individuals’ racist beliefs and actions (Trepagnier, 2010).
White antiracists also understand that their racial privilege
can lend additional power and influence to their antiracist
actions (Ayvazian, 2010).
Scholars across disciplines have begun to examine experiences
of Whites who exhibit characteristics of the autonomy
status (O’Brien, 2001; Smith & Redington, 2010; Warren,
2010). Conceptual and empirical scholarship have, in part,
aligned with autonomy-related characteristics as noted in
Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory, including Whites’ awareness
of structural racism and internalized White superiority, re-
334 Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93
Malott, Paone, Schaefle, Cates, & Haizlip
jection of a color-blind racial ideology, and engagement in
antiracist actions (Ayvazian, 2010; Barry, 2008; McKinney
& Feagin, 2003; O’Brien, 2003; Smith & Redington, 2010;
Trepagnier, 2010). Researchers have also found that Whites
will exhibit traits of more than one status simultaneously,
albeit with traits from one status as more dominant, and with
a corresponding information-processing strategy that governs
their race-related interactions (Carter, Helms, & Juby, 2004).
Over the years, critiques have emerged regarding Helms’s
(1990, 1995) model. Scholars have noted limitations in the
model’s ability to concretely operationalize the experiences,
lifestyles, and perceptions of Whites (Leach, Behrens, &
LaFleur, 2002; Miller & Fellows, 2007). For instance, Rowe
(2006) criticized the autonomy status as a simplistic description
of Whiteness that was developed “in the absence of
supporting evidence” (p. 242). Miller and Fellows (2007)
suggested that the autonomy status provides limited descriptions
of how Whites engage in antiracist activism. Scholars
have argued that the theory tends to focus on how Whites
develop perspectives toward other racial groups, rather than
delineating Whites’ definitions and experiences of Whiteness
(Miller & Fellows, 2007; Rowe, Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994),
thus inadvertently perpetuating the notion of “other.”
An additional challenge to Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory
is that Whites in the autonomy status are described as having
a positive racial-group association. This is problematic for
educators striving to support White students in understanding
and developing their WRIs (Miller & Fellows, 2007) because
of a dearth of White antiracist role models with well-defined
and positive identities (Tatum, 1994). Some scholars have
even cautioned that a positive Whiteness should be discouraged,
because individuals with positive White identities may
inadvertently accept and enact myths of racial supremacy
and superiority (Croll, 2007; López, 2006). Roediger (1999)
concurred, insisting that Whiteness in and of itself embodies
unfair privilege and, consequently, a healthy White identity
cannot exist. Conversely, Whites who eschew a positive racialized
discourse may be left with a sense of shame related to
Whiteness as being affiliated with the oppression of people
of color (Rose, 1996). Rose (1996), a scholar of color, cautioned
that, for Whites who are unable to experience a sense
of racial pride, “our pride will always threaten you. It will
always feel as though people of color are something because
you are nothing” (p. 45).
Consequently, there is a great deal that is unknown regarding
current WRID theory. First and foremost is the absence
of empirical evidence supporting the many tenets of the
autonomy status (Rowe, 2006), which limits understanding
and insight into the essence of an antiracist White identity.
For instance, Helms’s (1995) model purports that antiracist
Whites will possess a positive racial-group commitment, yet
there is limited understanding of how, or even if, this develops
over time. Furthermore, there is a lack of detail regarding what
this positive perception of self and one’s Whiteness actually
entails. Hence, there is a need for a more complex and nuanced
understanding of how Whites in the autonomy status
make meaning of their own Whiteness. Beyond the racial selfawareness
elements of WRID, there is a need to concretely
operationalize how antiracist Whites engage in the world,
including lifestyle (job, living) choices and relationships
with others. Such information would offer a more realistic
model for those who are striving toward a more holistic and
multidimensional antiracist White identity (Tatum, 1994).
The current study sought to address those many needs
through a qualitative investigation with 10 Whites who
self-identified as antiracist. Through in-depth, individual
interviews, we sought to explore the perceptions and experiences
of lived Whiteness for Whites committed to antiracist
activism in both their personal and professional lives. Meanings
gleaned from those interviews were explored to identify
answers to the overarching research question of the study,
namely, what are the actual, lived tenets of an antiracist
White identity?
Method
We applied a phenomenological approach (Morrissette, 1999)
in the current study in an effort to gain deeper insight into
those many missing pieces. A phenomenological approach
strives to explore and elucidate the essence of a phenomenon.
The goal is not to test a hypothesis, but rather to ask questions
that “allow the data to speak for themselves” (p. 3) by
eliciting the real and lived experiences of the participant. The
meaning assigned to individual experiences can emerge and
generate a concrete and detailed analysis of a phenomenon
(Osborne, 1990). The overarching research question of this
study was “What are the actual, lived tenets of an antiracist
White identity?” The specific interview protocol (see Appendix
A) derived from this question sought to elucidate three
main areas identified as missing in the current literature: (a)
meanings assigned to personal White identities, (b) racial
development processes over time, and (c) how participants’
lived experiences (e.g., behaviors, relationships, and life decisions
such as career or housing choices) are influenced by
their antiracist White identities (Helms, 1995).
Participants
Participants were purposefully selected and were identified
because of their visibility as antiracist activists and through
snowball sampling (e.g., referred by others; Merriam, 1998).
Selection criteria included persons whose characteristics
reflected Helms’s (1995) autonomy status according to a
demonstrated knowledge (through interviews) of a complex
understanding of race, racism, and racialized systems of privilege,
as well as a recognition of their effects on both Whites
and people of color. In addition, participants had to show
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93 335
Expanding White Racial Identity Theory
evidence of a commitment to, and a sustained engagement
in, antiracist activities. Antiracism entails efforts to eradicate
racism through actions such as teaching others about racism,
interrupting episodes of racism (e.g., racist jokes), participating
in public speaking, writing antiracist articles or books,
taking legal action, or participating in rallies (Ayvazian,
2010; Kivel, 2002; Smith & Redington, 2010). Antiracist
efforts were verified through identifying public evidence,
such as books or articles written by or about participants,
media outlets (e.g., television, news, or newspaper articles
by or about them), or websites verifying jobs that entailed
antiracist activism.
Although White racial self-identification was a homogeneous
participant demographic, we sought to achieve maximum
variation by selecting participants of varying gender and
age. Hence, a total of 10 participants were selected (five men
and five women) with the goal of achieving redundancy or
saturation of data. Data saturation emerged at approximately
six participants, with an additional four participants selected
and analyzed to verify saturation (Merriam, 1998).
Participants’ ages ranged between 25 and 69 years, with the
majority (n = 6) being 50 years or older. They resided in three
of the five U.S. regions: Five lived in the Northeast, three lived
in the West, and two lived in the Midwest. Reported childhood
socioeconomic status (SES) was predominantly middle
income (n = 8), with the remaining two participants reporting
their childhood SES as upper income. Most participants (n =
9) reported their current SES as middle income, whereas one
participant reported his or her current SES as lower income.
Half (n = 5) had earned bachelor’s degrees; two had earned
master’s degrees; one had earned a doctoral degree; and two
at the time of the interviews were studying for a master’s or
doctoral degree, respectively. Participants predominantly
reported their current religion as Christian (n = 6), followed
by Jewish (n = 2), atheist (n = 1), and agnostic (n = 1). Eight
participants reported that their religious or spiritual values
informed and inspired their antiracist activities, and that
their values created a moral imperative to address oppression
and honor the values of “unity,” “justice,” “inclusion,”
“compassion,” “sacredness of life,” and “worth and dignity
of every person.” Diversity trainings taken by participants
ranged in number from one (n = 1) to an unspecified descriptor
of “hundreds” (n = 1), with all reporting engagement in
antiracism-related leadership roles as trainers or consultants.
All of the participants reported U.S. citizenship status, and all
of their parents were at least second-generation U.S. citizens.
Interview Protocol and Procedure
The first two authors developed a semistructured interview
protocol (Seidman, 1998) that was informed by the literature
on WRI. In this protocol (see Appendix A), participants were
asked to explore (a) the meaning assigned to their White
identities, (b) their racial developmental process, and (c) how
their lived experiences (e.g., behaviors, relationships, and life
decisions such as career or housing choices) are influenced
by their antiracist White identities. The open format of the
interviews allowed for the exploration of topics that emerged
as meaningful to participants (Seidman, 1998).
Participants were provided written informed consent
forms, which were approved through a university institutional
review board process. No incentive was offered. Interviews
were audio recorded, via phone or in person, and entailed
at least two meetings for the majority of the participants (n
= 8). The interviews lasted between 1.5 to 3 hours (M = 2)
and were transcribed verbatim by master’s-level graduate
assistants. Each transcript was verified for accuracy by one
of the authors.
Researcher-as-Instrument Statement
A team of three coders (first, third, and fourth authors) and
two peer auditors (second and fifth authors) analyzed the
data. The team was composed of one White man, one Black
woman, and three White women, ages 34 to 46 years. The
researchers were counselor educators who worked in various
geographic regions of the United States, including the
Northeast (n = 2), the West (n = 2), and the Southeast (n = 1).
Two peer auditors were used in an effort to reduce bias, thus
enhancing the trustworthiness of the meaning derived from
the data (Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997; Morrow, 2005).
They were selected because of their WRI-related instructional
and research experiences, as well as their respective White
and Black racial identities, with an understanding that persons
of different racial identities may have varying perceptions of
race-related data because of their distinct socialization process
in a racially stratified society (Helms, 1995).
In phenomenological approaches, researchers seek to
bracket (i.e., identify and suspend) preconceived notions,
biases, assumptions, and beliefs regarding the phenomena
being examined to allow participants’ voices to emerge more
authentically (Creswell, 1998). The researchers’ beliefs
and assumptions regarding White identities and related life
choices included beliefs that Whites in a racially hierarchical
society harbor learned racism, and assumptions that the
study participants would experience race-related struggles
regarding lifestyle choices. The White researchers acknowledged
that their personal racism could potentially restrict
their perspectives when analyzing and interpreting the data,
thus calling for increased vigilance in the form of ongoing
reflexive conversation and journaling across the span of the
investigation (Morrow, 2005).
Analysis
The researchers in this study, who were all experienced with
the phenomenological approach, initially met to review the
analysis process. Analysis in phenomenological research entails
efforts at identifying meaningful and multidimensional
336 Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93
Malott, Paone, Schaefle, Cates, & Haizlip
participant experiences that serve to illuminate the “essential
structures of the phenomenon in question” (Morrisette, 1999,
p. 4). The researchers began with multiple readings of the
typed transcripts to gain a familiarity with the data. As they
read, they highlighted meaningful words, statements, and
sections, which were paraphrased and named. Paraphrased
excerpts were reviewed and discussed by the researchers until
consensus about their meaning was achieved. Excerpts with
similar meanings were then combined to form first-order
themes. First-order themes were reviewed by the researchers
until consensus was achieved and then placed beneath broader,
overarching clusters (called second-order thematic clusters).
For example, one study participant’s description of her
struggles related to lifestyle decisions (career, school, and housing
choices) was highlighted in the transcript as meaningful by
the researchers. That meaning was paraphrased as difficult to
make lifestyle choices that honor antiracist commitment and
does not reify Whiteness status quo, which was then assigned
the first-order thematic name of struggles to make lifestyle
decisions that honor antiracist beliefs. In reviewing the firstorder
themes that emerged across that participant’s transcript,
the researchers noted various experiences of struggles, some
related to lifestyles, others to relationships. Hence, those firstorder
themes related to struggles were placed beneath a broader
second-order thematic cluster, which was assigned the name of
struggles to live as an antiracist White. Following the individual
analysis of each transcript in this way, the researchers met and
reviewed their findings line by line, dialoguing until reaching
consensus on first- and second-order themes.
Following the identification of these first- and second-order
themes for each participant, the research team engaged in a
synthesis of protocol (called a within-person analysis; Morrisette,
1999). In this process, team members reflected on
and summarized each participant’s thematic experiences to
create a summative picture. Team members then reflected on
the themes among the participants to compare and contrast
experiences. The researchers engaged in regular and sustained
dialogue regarding their findings in light of the current
literature, returning to the participants’ transcripts or to the
scholarly literature to gather additional data or information,
until coming to a final consensus on the first- and second-order
themes. Through this inductive and reiterative process, themes
emerged from the data, rather than being imposed on them,
and multiple and conflicting perspectives were considered
(Merriam, 1998). In this way, a more “global picture” (Morrissette,
1999, p. 5) of the participants’ experiences emerged.
Efforts at Establishing Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness was sought through efforts at securing the
dependability and credibility of the findings (Morrow, 2005).
Dependability was achieved through the use of a detailed
audit trail (e.g., a detailed written account of the study’s steps;
Merriam, 1998), maintained by the first author, as well as the
writing of ongoing notes in a reflexive journal (Creswell &
Miller, 2000). In addition, throughout the study, the researchers
consulted with two auditors, who separately reviewed the
transcripts and the coders’ results to assess for bias, clarify
or verify certain codes, or suggest additional themes. Indeed,
although the auditors verified that the themes aligned with
their own findings, the auditor of color uniquely identified
participant language and actions that reflected unconscious
White supremacist perspectives. The identification of this
language and these actions did not alter the findings reported
in the study, because her findings aligned with the participants’
own admissions of possessing unconscious racial bias.
Efforts at achieving confirmability were made through
triangulation, which entailed the use of multiple researchers,
and attempts to manage subjectivity with the use of an audit
trail, member checks, and peer auditors (Morrow, 2005).
Credibility was sought through prolonged engagement with
the participants through lengthy and multiple interviews.
In addition, the researchers engaged in member checking,
whereby participants were asked in person (n = 2) or via
phone (n = 2) or e-mail (n = 6) to verify the accuracy of the
within-person summary of their transcripts, which highlighted
major thematic findings for each participant, as well as to
clarify any questions the researchers had regarding the interviews
(Morrissette, 1999). Questions were largely related
to clarifications of ambiguous language. For example, one
participant was asked to clarify specific antiracist values he
referred to multiple times. Half (n = 5) of the participants
provided feedback or clarifications. Their responses were
uniformly positive and indicated that each analysis accurately
represented their experiences and perspectives. No additional
themes emerged from the member-check responses.
Findings
Findings in the overall data included nine broader second-order
themes, under which fell 35 first-order themes. We selected six
first-order themes (defined and illustrated in Appendix B) for
presentation in this article because of their representation of this
study’s research inquiry (e.g., meanings assigned to personal
White identities, racial development processes, and lifestyle
choices informed by antiracist identities). The themes are as
follows: (a) Whiteness as oppressive, (b) reconstructing White
identity, (c) antiracism as essential to a positive self-concept,
(d) WRID as ongoing and nonlinear, (e) struggles to make
lifestyle decisions that honor antiracist beliefs, and (f) struggles
with relationships. In the following paragraphs, we review
those themes, providing participant statements to illustrate
their meaning. Pseudonyms are used to protect confidentiality.
Whiteness as Oppressive
As a central part of this study, participants were asked to
define their White identities. Initial responses indicated a per-
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93 337
Expanding White Racial Identity Theory
ception of Whiteness as oppressive because of its association
with racially hierarchical systems. For instance, Liz defined
her Whiteness as “the advantages I’ve been given because
of the way that people see me and the work that my ancestors
have gotten because of their white skin.” Similarly, Meg
defined her Whiteness as “part of a monolithic obstruction,”
and Rob refused to racially self-define, explaining, “I have a
problem basically with the word White . . . because [it was]
constructed to promote things that I don’t believe in, so I have
a problem with, you know, White identity per se.”
Whiteness was seen as a phenomenon that infiltrated participants’
learned perspectives and behaviors. For example,
Sam explained that “I was conditioned to operate from a
colonialized state of mind.” Terms used by many to describe
this Whiteness included “oppressor,” “White supremacist,”
and “internalized racial superiority.” In turn, a focus on identity
work was difficult to embrace, because many feared that
such efforts served to divert attention from antiracist action
while reifying the oppressive elements of Whiteness. Dan’s
comments illustrated this perspective:
I take [racial identity reflection] seriously, and I do a lot of
personal work in writing about it. But it wasn’t that we [activists]
were focused on the identity part of it so much. . . . It
was about what is your role in these struggles [of racism]? .
. . What should you be doing? . . . It’s very easy for people to
get stuck in an individualistic place around this concept of an
identity . . . [and then] the attention is back on White people.
Reconstructing White Identity
Despite the negative traits ascribed to White identity, or perhaps
because of them, participants noted efforts to reconstruct
a personal racial identity through assuming a separate, more
positive definition of Whiteness. Jim stated, “I . . . have the
assigned identity of Whiteness that totally privileges me. But
I can choose a political and cultural identity. . . . Everyone
has the opportunity for choosing an identity.”
Self-constructed White identities included multiple, intersectional
identities and their related cultural tenets. A representative
statement by Dan was that “White identity is . . . complex. . . .
People have multiple identities, and we don’t shift around between
them. We don’t move in and out of them. We always are all of them.
So . . . White Christianness is different than White Jewishness.”
Identities varied across participants in their intersectionalities. For
instance, Jim described his Whiteness as composed of an intersection
of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and class. Jen emphasized
that “my Whiteness is completely enmeshed with the fact that
I’m a woman.” According to Dan, his Whiteness was informed
by his class, gender, and racial privileges, along with his Jewish
traditions and contemporary and historical experiences of
religious persecution.
Deb described her Whiteness as a “White Anglo-Saxon
Protestant” identity, which, for her, included SES, race, religion,
her British origins, and their related cultural tenets.
Several participants defined their Whiteness according to the
norms, values, and practices inherited from their immigrant
ancestors. Across the interviews, nearly all of the participants
acknowledged that their White identities and corresponding
behaviors were informed by dominant U.S. norms. Those
norms were described as Western or Eurocentric, and they included
being individualistic, competitive, and future oriented,
with an internal locus of control and a strict adherence to time.
Participants viewed others’ Whiteness as equally complex
and distinct, informed by each individual’s unique traits and
context. As Meg explained, “My version of Whiteness isn’t
the same, you know, as [that of] the woman in Appalachia
who [struggles] to get enough food on the table.”
Antiracism as Essential to a Positive Self-Concept
When considering the positive aspects of their racial identities,
participants described engaging in antiracist action as an
antidote to the negative (e.g., oppressive) aspects of Whiteness.
This perspective was aptly illustrated by Pam, who
explained that her antiracist identity “gives me a positive way
of being White in the world.” Some deemed their antiracist efforts
a role, rather than an identity. Dan stated, “It’s a practice;
it’s not an identity. It’s not something you are; it’s something
you do. And you do it in different ways and at different times.”
Some participants assumed antiracism as an identity that was
separate from their Whiteness. Rob explained his antiracist
identity as “trying to not connect with Whiteness per se, to
try to be aware of what being categorized that way has done
to [my] sense of privilege, and how it affects other people.”
However, most participants deemed antiracism as being
affiliated with their White identities. For example, Jim stated
that, “politically, I choose to be a racial justice activist, educator
. . . to be part of a solution, a sort of positive change. So
that’s . . . how I choose to be White.” Similarly, Deb noted
that her racist and antiracist White identities were contingent
on each other, because they “codefine one another. . . . The
ability to do better [fight racism] is of equal sort of power to
the horror of doing bad [by enacting White supremacy].” Both
Sam and Deb described that complex, White self as “schizophrenic,”
inferring that their racial identities were composed
of distinct and conflicting parts: the racist and the antiracist.
Engaging in antiracist action was essential for participants,
because this action allowed them to gain a sense of redemption
as self-identified racially privileged and racist Whites.
For example, Jen noted that
part of my identity . . . was robbed because it wasn’t actually
me. . . . It was part of this oppression that affected me. It affected
the way I was brought up and [it] affected how I had
acted. And so now . . . I’m just trying to think how can I use
myself and my own White identity to have the arrow go the
other way and shape White culture.
338 Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93
Malott, Paone, Schaefle, Cates, & Haizlip
Several participants described their antiracist identities
as a newer and more positive version of Whiteness, or what
participants variably called a “redeemed” or “new Whiteness.”
In describing this cultivated antiracist identity, Jen remarked,
“Now [my White identity] feels much more in my control,
much more customized to actually me. . . . I’ve gotten to work
on it, I’ve shaped it. . . . I feel ownership of my own White
identity at this point.”
In describing tenets of antiracist identities and behaviors,
participants largely noted that the values of social justice, love,
compassion, unity, fairness, and equity fueled ongoing efforts
to address and eradicate White supremacy across systems, in
other individuals, and in oneself. A representative definition
of antiracist activism was given by Rob as an ongoing process
in “becoming continuously aware of what the aspects [are] of
being White, and categorized as White, given the privileges
that are undeserved . . . to reverse the structures that are in
place.” Such practice, according to participants, required a
constant assessment of, and openness to, “understanding how
our system perpetuates racism and how to undo that.”
WRID as Ongoing and Nonlinear
Participants perceived their racial identity development as a
lifelong process, with a positive trajectory. As noted by Deb,
“what we are [as Whites] is the opportunity to change.” Many
described development as a journey toward more effective
antiracist actions or, as Rob noted, “growth in learning to be
an [antiracist] ally.” Participants described the racial identity
development process as beginning with an early awareness of
their own and others’ racism. Through trainings or readings,
they expanded their understanding of White supremacy as a
systemic phenomenon. Then, many participants engaged in
what they described as zealous, angry, or guilt-induced behaviors
perceived by some as efforts at being a “White hero,”
whereby they enacted White supremacy through striving to
“save” people of color from racism. Over time, participants
noted a shift that entailed eschewing zealotry and other paternalistic
behaviors to embrace antiracist activism for the
betterment of oneself and the community. Antiracist action
was described as efforts at constant vigilance of the presence
and effects of White supremacy, both in oneself and across
varied systems.
Participants noted that the process of identity development
is nonlinear. As Jim explained, “You make some progress. .
. . Be ready for having to take one step back, then two more
forward. It’s not a real linear and predictable path.” That
process was described by many as a kind of repetitive or
cyclical growth pattern, whereby an observed racist event
or cross-racial interaction revealed to them their own racism
or called to light their own failed efforts in addressing
others’ racism. Participants would then process what several
described positively as “new information,” often with support
from a community of antiracist allies, to reduce personal racism
or to improve antiracist tactics. Participants acknowledged
such a process as ongoing, stressing that one never “arrived”
to emerge fully and perfectly nonracist and successful at
antiracist efforts. However, the cycle seemed to be one of
positive growth. Pam, for example, described it as a “cycling
through [to] go deeper and deeper.” Similarly, Ted stated that
“I see myself learning throughout my entire life, changing
throughout my entire life,” and Jen noted, “Having to know
that I’m going to be racist forever sucks, but I don’t feel bad
about it because . . . I’m being proactive and I’m learning.”
Struggles to Make Lifestyle Decisions
That Honor Antiracist Beliefs
Participants described myriad challenges in efforts to align life
choices with antiracist values, such as finding integrated and
equitable working and living communities. Participants found
that their values were often at odds with reality. For instance,
Ted noted how difficult it seemed to find work that did not
somehow sustain or promote racially hierarchical systems,
noting that “to some extent, everything’s compromised.” Jim
explained that “the norm across society is segregation, and,
hence, efforts at integrating one’s work [do] really require
continual work and commitment and courage, to go against
the grain and come up with a different result.”
A formidable challenge noted by participants was finding
an integrated living community that was consistent with
their personal values and beliefs. Liz, unable to find a racially
integrated neighborhood to live in, initially bought a home in
an all-Black community. However, she quickly realized that
such a move led to gentrification, with its resulting pushing
out of long-term Black residents. As a result, she moved to
an all-White community, noting, “It’s not something I’m
resolved around, like, ‘Oh, now I live in a predominantly
White community and am totally okay with that and that
doesn’t impact my life at all.’” Conversely, participants
with school-age children who did live in racially integrated
neighborhoods struggled with underfunded school systems.
For example, Ted stated,
We were constantly faced with school decisions about how
important was a diverse educational experience for our kids
compared to the perhaps better educational experience they
might get in [better funded] suburban schools or private
schools . . . with all the pressure and expectations from family
and friends that you’re not doing right by your kids . . .
you’re not exposing them to the opportunities they might have.
Struggles With Relationships
Participants’ efforts at same- and cross-racial relationships
were plagued with challenges related to their antiracist beliefs
and/or actions, leaving them, at times, frustrated because they
felt isolated or disconnected from others. Concerning their
same-race (White) peers, participants struggled to make and
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93 339
Expanding White Racial Identity Theory
maintain relationships with individuals whom they perceived
as, at times, oblivious to their own racial privileges and racism.
Jen aptly illustrated this sentiment, noting, “There are
a lot of White people I don’t like. I mean, I don’t like their
culture, that they’re unaware of race, that they’re in their
privilege bubble.” Often, however, there were other Whites
who seemed to eschew the participants. Backlash, or alienation
from White peers, colleagues, and family members,
was a common result of their antiracist efforts. In describing
the general responses of Whites to his antiracist actions, Jim
noted, “I’ve been in situations where people really wished I
wasn’t in the room anymore or wished I wasn’t part of the
group anymore because I brought [race issues] up.” Similarly,
Deb explained, “I’m alienating a lot of people. . . . There’s a
cost with it; no doubt about it.”
Struggles in relationships with persons of color were
described differently from those with Whites, such as dealing
with the distrust and suspicion from persons of color,
particularly regarding the authenticity of their own antiracist
efforts. As Dan noted in regard to connecting with persons of
color, “It takes time. Trust comes over time as you continue to
show up.” Liz noted struggling with multiple internal questions
in regard to reaching out to peers of color, wondering
aloud, “Am I approaching this person of color just because
they’re a person of color? . . . Or am I not approaching this
person of color because I’m afraid of them or because I think
that they don’t want me to approach them?”
Multiple participants noted conflict in cross-racial relationships
that was related to their antiracist efforts. In such situations,
peers of color questioned the validity or authenticity
of participants’ antiracist efforts, calling their efforts out as
reenactments of White power and privilege. Rob described a
situation in which a Black colleague defined his attempts at
antiracist advocacy as “a symbol of White privilege. [She was
critiquing] that I felt empowered to speak out like that. I think
there was probably truth in that. . . . She saw it as, you know,
hurting her efforts.” Meg similarly noted regular questioning
of the validity of her antiracist efforts from people of color:
People of color [were asking], “Who are you to lead this?” or
“What do you know about this?” or “Stop trying to talk from
my experience.” All those really valid critiques and questions,
like “What do you think about being a White person making
money doing antiracism work?”
Discussion
This article sought to extend theory and research regarding
WRI through examining how Whiteness is defined and
lived by those who evidence traits of Helms’s (1990, 1995)
autonomy status. Participants’ experiences and perspectives
seem to both extend and contradict what is currently understood
about WRID. In the following paragraphs, we apply
Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory as a framework for discussing
selected study outcomes.
Whiteness Defined
Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory of WRID has focused on how
Whites perceive and interact with people of color, with little
description about how Whites may define their own and others’
WRIs (Leach et al., 2002; Miller & Fellows, 2007). The
findings from our study extend understanding of how Whites
who demonstrate characteristics of the autonomy status develop
and make meaning of their WRIs. Themes indicated
perceptions of Whiteness as multidimensional, including
oppressive, in its correspondence with White supremacy;
antiracist, in relation to a self-selected definition; and complex,
in its incorporation of multiple sociocultural identities.
Despite similarities across participants in this study, no
two self-definitions of WRI were identical, suggesting that
the definition of WRI is more widely variable than Helms’s
(1990, 1995) theory hypothesizes. However, our findings
do correspond with scholarly suggestions that WRI is malleable
and influenced by context and intersecting identities
(Bonnett, 2008; Duster, 2001; McDermott & Samson, 2005;
Rose, 1996; C. E. Thompson, 2003; Toporek, 2011; Twine
& Gallagher, 2008). Corroborating these assertions is an
emerging body of literature indicating that Whites’ racial
identities are influenced by intergroup differences, affiliations
with other racial and ethnic groups, and social characteristics
such as class and educational levels (Croll, 2007; McDermott
& Samson, 2005; Miller & Fellows, 2007; Warren, 2010).
Development of a Positive and
Nonracist White Identity
Two related tenets of Helms’s (1995) theory are that Whites
in the autonomy status possess a nonracist White identity as
well as an “informed positive socioracial-group commitment”
(p. 185). Participants in our study perceived achievement
of these tasks as difficult, if not impossible. Whiteness was
viewed by the participants as inherently negative because of its
roots in a racially hierarchical or what many called a “White
supremacist” system, leading them to eschew a positive
racial-group commitment. They believed that such a system
continually reinscribed their own personal racism, according
them unearned privileges despite their antiracist efforts.
Such perspectives expand the understanding of Whites’
possible self and other definitions and perspectives of
Whiteness, while also seeming to contradict some of what
is inferred in Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory (e.g., a positive
orientation to WRI). These findings align with other scholarly
thought, such as Roediger’s (1999) assertion that Whiteness
connotes unfair privilege and, thus, a positive White personality
cannot exist. Although they eschewed a fully positive
racial-group identity or commitment, participants reported
that the process of unveiling White supremacy in self and
340 Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93
Malott, Paone, Schaefle, Cates, & Haizlip
society was an ever-expanding journey that provided a more
realistic understanding of the world and ways to change it.
This trajectory of WRID is consistent with the idea that “the
general developmental issue for Whites is the abandonment
of entitlement” (Helms, 1995, p. 184).
Living as a Nonracist White
Helms (1995) asserted that Whites can learn to “avoid life
options that require participation in racial oppression” (p.
185). The participants in our study perceived avoidance of
oppressive life options as an impossibility, because they
viewed every system as premised on, or influenced by, an
unequal racial hierarchy. Hence, complete self-removal
from society and its structures as a whole seemed unlikely
to them. They believed that a more realistic goal was to
seek work and living spaces that were less oppressive,
while continuing efforts at eradicating White supremacy
in those systems.
Helms (1995) cited the importance of participation
in integrated work and living spaces, with ongoing engagement
in antiracist activities and positive cross-racial
friendships as elements of autonomy status. Participants
described struggles in their efforts to make those kinds
of life choices, with many of the difficulties coming from
the system itself. For instance, cross-racial relationships
were reported as challenging because of the distrust of
persons of color and the participants’ own personal racism.
In addition, participants perceived that the system was set
up in such a way that efforts at authentic cross-racial relationships
and racial integration were likely to be difficult
throughout their lives.
These findings enrich Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory by
lending insight into the challenges faced by some antioppression
activists. Our findings also counter aspects of the
theory that assert that Whites, when acting primarily from
the autonomy status, can assume a nonracist and integrated
lifestyle. Other studies have found similar dilemmas and
conflicts experienced by Whites (B. Thompson & White
Women Challenging Racism, 1997; Todd & Abrams, 2011;
Warren, 2010). Todd and Abrams (2011) referred to such
race-related struggles as a “dialectical process” (p. 355),
whereby Whites experience ongoing tensions, some that
overlapped with those in this study, in relation to the many
contradictions inherent in being White. Todd and Abrams
asserted that such tensions emerge from “contradictions . . .
as White people implicitly or explicitly struggle with the
dilemmas of having social power” (p. 356).
Dilemmas and tensions in our study emerged through
participants’ contradictory experiences of being committed
to antiracism while simultaneously recognizing the impossibility
of refraining from participation in a racist system.
Such tensions were illustrated in the contradiction between
participants’ attempts or stated desires to live in racially
integrated spaces, while ultimately deciding to live in White
communities because of the negative impact of gentrification
or other value conflicts. Todd and Abrams (2011) asserted
that Whites can, at times, strive to alleviate such tensions
by finding ways to live authentically in the world (aligning
beliefs with reality), but that, at other times, they will simply
need to learn to live with the continual struggle borne from
uncomfortable tensions and ambiguities.
Implications for Counselor Education
Our findings indicate that the participants’ experiences and
meanings of their WRIs are more problematic than what is
predicted in Helms’s (1990, 1995) theory. Counselor educators
seeking to support White students in racial identity
development may want to present a more descriptive, albeit
potentially disconcerting, picture of WRID. At the least, instructors
may wish to refrain from expecting certain outcomes
related to the racial identity development of White students,
such as a positive racial-group identity, and to attend to what
Miller and Fellows (2007) called “potential dilemmas of
Whiteness” (p. 54) that can emerge for Whites as they explore
race and racial identity topics in the university classroom.
Specific to the potential challenges experienced by Whites
engaged in antiracism, counselor educators should provide
time for dialogue that acknowledges and explores issues
related to living an antiracist White identity in a racially
hierarchical society. Potential challenges would ideally be
recognized by all faculty members and infused across the
curriculum. For instance, counselor skills and dilemmas related
to antiracism will likely surface differently in a career
course than in a group course. In addition, counselor training
programs or the university itself would ideally offer forums
or supportive groups for engagement in such dialogue.
These dialogues could normalize and promote exploration
of problem resolution in regard to dilemmas, contradictions,
and tensions that emerge for individuals engaged in efforts
to address racism.
A study of White college students by Todd and Abrams
(2011) identified similar racial identity struggles that could
be useful in understanding and supporting Whites engaged
in antiracist action. Todd and Abrams defined this struggle
as “the process of transforming apparent contradictions by
engaging two opposing ends of a continuum” (p. 355). They
recognized the value in normalizing the dialectical process,
describing it as difficult, cyclical, and hopeful in that it is
indicative of racial identity growth and efforts at White
authenticity. They asserted that the achievement of White
authenticity (an ultimate goal) required Whites to “hold the
tensions of a privileged position while engaging in antiracist
behaviors to effect sociostructural change” (p. 385). They
further suggested the use of mindfulness as a means for
processing and accepting, in a nonjudgmental manner, the
Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2015 ■ Volume 93 341
Expanding White Racial Identity Theory
ambiguity and emotions that surfaced when trying to hold
both elements of the dialectic. A similar approach was described
as helpful by some of our participants in dealing with
race-related struggles. Hence, the common themes found in
the current study and Todd and Abrams’s work suggest that
counselor educators could support students by providing
strategies for attending to the ongoing tension surrounding
racial identity development.
In congruence with findings in our study, Miller and
Fellows (2007) asserted that WRI may not develop in a
sequential manner and that identity models may need reformulation
and reconsideration to allow for greater variability
in understanding WRID and its related dilemmas. In turn,
the current findings will help educators to recognize that
various WRID-related dilemmas may occur simultaneously
for students, with a corresponding need for support as they
work through those dilemmas. Educators can communicate
to students that development will happen differently for
different individuals at different times, ultimately implying
that multiple solutions exist to one’s racial identity growth
(Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998).
Finally, in regard to the call for presenting antiracist role
models in an educational manner (Tatum, 1994), findings
in our study suggest the need to present WRID and White
role models in a way that reflects complex, positive and
negative aspects of White identity. Presentation of role
models will facilitate the consideration of the possibility
that, regardless of antiracist effort, Whites are supporting
the racist system simply by existing in it and benefiting
from it, with the understanding that one cannot cease to
exist within it. Hence, there is a continual risk of reifying
racially hierarchical systems while simultaneously working
to dismantle them, and antiracist Whites will remain
Whites while simultaneously striving to redefine Whiteness.
Not even antiracist role models seem to be exempt
from such struggles. White role models are flawed because
the system is flawed, but the trajectory is hopeful, positive
even. Students can benefit from understanding and
emulating our participants’ awareness and understanding
that commitment to antiracism work and positive identity
development is challenging and that imperfection still
permits growth.
Limitations and Future Directions
Participants in this study represented a small number of
Whites who resided in a limited set of geographic locations
and who were educationally homogeneous (e.g., all
were college-educated professionals). Hence, additional
research is warranted to determine whether larger and
more varied populations of Whites who meet the criteria
for Helms’s (1995) autonomy status possess perspectives
similar to those of the participants in this study. Future
research could also focus on solutions for Whites in managing
race-related challenges, or what Todd and Abrams
(2011) identified as dialectical tensions, in regard to WRI.
Such studies could draw from a wider range of Whites who
identify as antiracist, with efforts at determining differences
and similarities of Whites with certain traits (e.g.,
age, class, religion, and gender). There is also a need to
define a model of support, specific to White counseling
students, to facilitate and sustain WRID, and to determine
how such educational interventions affect learning and,
ultimately, clinical outcomes.
Finally, we attempted to address a problematic topic,
WRI, in a racially hierarchical society. This may be problematic
in that a focus on Whiteness may ultimately serve
to reify White supremacy (Tuck, 2009). In addition, certain
dilemmas experienced by the study participants, such as
the inability to refrain from reifying Whiteness because of
one’s participation in a racially hierarchical system, and the
potential harm in basing one’s career progress on a focus
on Whiteness, were also present for the White members of
the research team. In addition, we recognized that limitations
existed in selecting language (e.g., antiracism) for
this article, because any and all language options seemed
imperfect because of the risk of reifying a racial hierarchy.
Efforts at establishing trustworthiness, such as the use of two
peer auditors, were made to protect against enacting harmful
researcher bias. However, similar to the participants in this
study, we recognized total absence of bias as an impossibility
in an imperfect system.ers. Click here ...