Critique of Ways of Being White: A Practitioner’s Approach to Multicultural Growth

Key points:
- “acting White” – has multiple, contradictory meanings, no single way
- Whites in one stage of identity often experience conflict with White peers in other stages
- We go through personal and professional growth relative to racial and cultural diversity (p. 98)
Three distinct White identity orientations:
1) fundamentalist
2) integrationist
3) transformationist
All differ in terms of how Whites feel, think and act.
Fundamentalist White Identity:
a) thinking – fundamentalist whites are literal and linear, fixed and rigid, assume White supremacy
b) feeling – strong, emotional commitment to own perspective, assume White superiority, respond to different cultures and definitions with fear, hostility and avoidance
c) acting – overly racist, hostile toward other races, covertly well intentioned, claim they do not see differences
Integrationist White Identity:
a) thinking – acknowledge diverse approaches, acceptance of differences is shallow, aware of pain, but no grasp of inequality
b) feeling – interest in other cultures/races, curious, distance selves from racism at personal/emotional levels
c) acting – open to cross-racial interactions but not personal, well-meaning but haven’t confronted White privilege, “colour of guests change, rules of the house remain the same” (p. 105)
Transformationist White Identity
a) thinking – actively seek to understand diverse points of view, challenge legitimacy of White dominance, self-reflective, authentic, anti-racist
b) feeling – growth and learning, guided by empathy and respect, motivated by social justice
c) acting – advocates, committed to social action for the purpose of dismantling racism, enjoy learning from and with other cultures, not just about them (p. 107)
Rhetoric of Whiteness
- enemies of multicultural healing are dominance, ignorance and racism
- Whites have a choice to become champions of justice and social healing

Critique:
The author, Gary R. Howard, acknowledges that once you achieve transformationist white identity, it is not the end. Transformationist identity is an “ongoing process of change and growth” (p. 108) I think that all of White identity is ongoing. I didn’t like the idea of identifying Whites’ feelings, thinking and actions as categories. I don’t think that I fall into one category. I am integrationist in my feeling and emotional response, yet transformationist in my thinking and construction of truth. My identity is a knapsack. I am always adding to it or “unpacking”.

I felt that Howard also used words that have negative connotations when he described fundamentalist and integrationist identities. Words like “anger, defensiveness, hostility, avoidance, shame, guilt” (p. 100) are used to describe these identities, while he uses very positive words to describe transformationist identity: “holistic, enthusiasm, active, enlightened, challenge, advocate” (p. 100). When I read this, I felt some bias. I think these categories generalize. Just because you are not actively seeking transformation doesn’t mean that you aren't a transformationist. I also don’t believe it is possible for a person to be just one identity. I believe we waver from one identity to another.

Gary R. Howard states that his hope in establishing this White orientations model is to “facilitate and encourage the process of growth toward greater multicultural competence among White educators” (p. 110) Establishing this model can’t do that. Labelling orientations won’t improve the situation. How can Whites grow in multicultural competence simply by being labeled? Growth requires education. If I label students as smart or learning disabled, does that help them grow? Howard has the groundwork for progress, but he falls short and neglects to give readers all of the tools they require for achieving growth.