The Possessive Investment in Whiteness

20 Pages·2010·1.42 MB·English

The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: Racialized Social Democracy and the "White" Problem
in American Studies
Author(s): George Lipsitz
Source: American Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 369-387
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2713291 .
Accessed: 01/09/2011 14:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
The PossessiveI nvestmenint Whiteness:
RacializedS ocial Democracya nd the
"White"P roblemin AmericanS tudies
GEORGE LIPSITZ
Universityo f California, San Diego
SHORTLY AFTER WORLD WAR II, A FRENCH REPORTERA SKED EXPATRI-
ate Richard Wright his opinion about the "Negro problem" in the
United States. The author replied "There isn't any Negro problem;
therei s only a white problem."' By invertingt he reporter'sq uestion,
Wrightc alled attentiont o its hiddena ssumptions-that racial polariza-
tion comes fromt he existence of blacks rathert hanf romt he behavior
of whites, that black people are a "problem" for whites rathert han
fellow citizens entitledt o justice, and thatu nless otherwises pecified,
"Americans" means whites.2 But Wright's formulationa lso placed
political mobilizationb y AfricanA mericansi n context,a ttributinigt to
the systemicp ractices of aversion,e xploitation,d enigration,a nd dis-
criminationp racticedb y people who thinko f themselvesa s "white."
Whiteness is everywherei n American culture,b ut it is veryh ard to
see. As Richard Dyer argues, "white power secures its dominance by
seeming not to be anythingi n particular."A3 s the unmarkedc ategory
against which differenceis constructedw, hitenessn ever has to speak
its name, neverh as to acknowledgei ts role as an organizingp rinciplei n
social and culturalr elations.4
To identify,a nalyze, and oppose the destructivec onsequences of
whiteness,w e need whatW alterB enjamin called "presence of mind."
Benjamin wrote thatp eople visit fortune-tellernso t so much out of a
desire to know the futureb ut rathero ut of a fearo f not noticings ome
George Lipsitz is a professoro f ethnic studies at the Universityo f California, San
Diego. His publications include Time Passages: Collective Memory and American
Popular Culture (Minneapolis, Minn., 1990), Rainbow at Midnight (Urbana, Ill.,
1994), and Dangerous Crossroads (New York, 1994).
AmericanQ uarterlyV,o l.4 7, No. 3 (September1 995) ( 1995A mericanS tudiesA ssociation
369
370 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
importanta spect of the present." Presence of mind,"h e argued," is an
abstracto f the future,a nd precise awareness of the presentm oment
more decisive than foreknowledgeo f the most distante vents."' In our
society at this time,p recise awareness of the presentm omentr equires
an understandingo f the existencea nd the destructivec onsequences of
"white" identity.
In recenty ears, an importantb ody of American studies scholarship
has startedt o explore the role played by culturalp ractices in creating
"whiteness" in the United States. More than the product of private
prejudices, whitenesse mergeda s a relevantc ategoryi n American life
largely because of realities created by slavery and segregation,b y
immigrationr estrictionan d Indian policy,b y conquest and colonialism.
A fictivei dentityo f "whiteness"a ppeared in law as an abstractiona, nd
it became actualized in everydayl ife in many ways. American eco-
nomic and political life gave differenrta cial groups unequal access to
citizenshipa nd propertyw, hile culturalp ractices includingw ild west
shows, minstrels hows, racist images in advertising,a nd Hollywood
filmsi nstitutionalizedr acism by unitinge thnicallyd iverse European-
American audiences into an imagined community-one called into
being throughi nscribeda ppeals to the solidarityo f white supremacy.6
Althoughc ross-ethnici dentificationan d pan-ethnica ntiracismi n cul-
ture, politics, and economics have often interrupteda nd resisted
racialized white supremacistn otionso f American identityf, romc olo-
nial days to the present,s uccessful political coalitions servingd omi-
nant interestsh ave oftenr elied on exclusionaryc oncepts of whiteness
to fuse unitya mong otherwisea ntagonistici ndividualsa nd groups.7
In these accounts by American studies scholars, cultural practices
have oftenp layed crucial roles in prefiguringp,r esentinga, nd preserv-
ing political coalitions based on identificationw ith the fiction of
"whiteness." Andrew Jackson's coalition of the "common man,"
Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom,"a nd FranklinD . Roosevelt's New
Deal all echoed in politicst he alliances announcedo n stage and screen
by the nineteenth-centurmyi nstrels how, by D. W. Griffith'cs inema,
and by Al Jolson's ethnica nd racial imagery.8T his impressiveb ody of
scholarship helps us understand how people who left Europe as
Calabrians or Bohemians became somethingc alled "whites"w hen they
got to America and how thatd esignationm ade all the differencein the
world.
Yet, while culturale xpressionsh ave played an importantr ole in the
THE POSSESSIVE INVESTMENT IN WHITENESS 371
constructiono f whites upremacistp olitical alliances, the reversei s also
true (i.e., political activity has also played a constitutiver ole in
racializing U.S. culture). Race is a cultural construct,b ut one with
sinisters tructuracl auses and consequences. Conscious and deliberate
actions have institutionalizedg roup identityi n the United States, not
just throught he dissemination of cultural stories but also through
systematic effortsf rom colonial times to the present to create a
possessive investmenitn whitenessf orE uropean Americans.S tudies of
culturet oo far removed froms tudies of social structurele ave us with
inadequate explanations for understandingr acism and inadequate
remedies forc ombattingi t.
From the start,E uropean settlers in North America established
structurese ncouragingp ossessive investmentin whiteness.T he colo-
nial and early-nationall egal systems authorized attacks on Native
Americans and encouraged the appropriationo f their lands. They
legitimatedr acialized chattels lavery,r estrictedn aturalizedc itizenship
to "white" immigrants,a nd provided pretextsf or exploiting labor,
seizing property,a nd denying the franchise to Asian Americans,
Mexican Americans,N ative Americans,a nd AfricanA mericans. Slav-
ery and "JimC row" segregationi nstitutionalizedp ossessive identifica-
tion with whitenessv isibly and openly,b ut an elaborate interactiono f
largelyc overt public and privated ecisions duringa nd aftert he days of
slaverya nd segregationa lso produceda powerfull egacy withe nduring
effectso n the racializationo f experience,o pportunitiesa,n d rewardsi n
the United States possessive investmentin whitenessp ervades public
policy in the United States past and present-not just long ago during
slavery and segregationb ut in the recent past and presenta s well-
throught he covertb ut no less systematicr acism inscribedw ithinU .S.
social democracy.
Even thought hereh as always been racismi n Americanh istoryi,t has
not always been the same racism. Political and culturals truggleso ver
power shape the contoursa nd dimensionso f racism in any era. Mass
mobilizationsa gainst racism duringt he Civil War and civil rightse ras
meaningfullyc urtailedt he reach and scope of white supremacy,b ut in
each case reactionaryf orcest hene ngineereda renewalo f racism,a lbeit
in new forms,d urings uccessive decades. Racism changes over time,
taking on differentf orms and serving differents ocial purposes in
differenetr as.
Contemporaryr acism is not just a residual consequence of slavery
372 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
and dejure segregationb utr athers omethingt hath as been createda new
in our own time by many factorsi ncludingt he putativelyr ace-neutral
liberal social democraticr eformso f thep ast fived ecades. Despite hard-
foughtb attlesf orc hange thats ecured importancto ncessions duringt he
1960s in the formo f civil rightsl egislation,t he racialized nature of
social democraticp olicies in the United States since the Great Depres-
sion has, in myj udgment,a ctuallyi ncreasedt he possessive investment
in whitenessa mong European Americans over the past half-century.
The possessive investmenti n whiteness is not a simple mattero f
black and white; all racialized minorityg roups have sufferedf romi t,
albeit to differendte grees and in differenwt ays. Most of my argument
here addresses relations between European Americans and African
Americans because they contain many of the most vivid oppositions
and contrasts,b ut the possessive investmenti n whiteness always
emergesf roma fused sensibilityd rawingo n manys ources at once-on
antiblackr acismt o be sure,b uta lso on the legacies of racializationl eft
by federal, state, and local policies toward Native Americans,A sian
Americans, Mexican Americans, and other groups designated by
whites as "racially other."
During the New Deal, both the WagnerA ct and the Social Security
Act excluded farmw orkersa nd domestics fromc overage, effectively
denyingt hose disproportionatelym inoritys ectors of the work force
protectionsa nd benefitsr outinelyc hanneled to whites. The Federal
Housing Act of 1934 broughth ome ownershipw ithinr each of millions
of citizens by placing the credit of the federal governmentb ehind
private lending to home buyers,b ut overtlyr acist categories in the
Federal Housing Administration's(F HA's) "confidential"c ity surveys
and appraisers'm anuals channeleda lmost all of the loan moneyt oward
whitesa nd away fromc ommunitieso f color.9I n the post-WorldW ar II
era, tradeu nions negotiatedc ontractp rovisionsg ivingp rivatem edical
insurance, pensions, and job security largely to the mostly white
workersi n unionized mass-productioni ndustriesr athert han fighting
for full employmentu, niversalm edical care, and old age pensions for
all or for an end to discriminatoryh iringa nd promotionp ractices by
employers.10
Each of these policies widened the gap between the resources
available to whitesa nd those available to aggrievedr acial oommunities,
but the mostd amagingl ong-terme ffectsm ay well have come fromt he
impacto f the racial discriminationco difiedb y the policies of theF HA.
THE POSSESSIVE INVESTMENT IN WHITENESS 373
By channeling loans away fromo lder inner-cityn eighborhoodsa nd
toward white home buyersm oving into segregateds uburbs,t he FHA
and privatel endersa fterW orldW ar II aided and abettedt he growtha nd
development of increased segregationi n U.S. residential neighbor-
hoods. For example, FHA appraisersd enied federallys upportedl oans
to prospective home buyers in the racially mixed Boyle Heights
neighborhoodo f Los Angeles because it was a "'melting pot' area
literallyh oneycombedw ith diverse and subversiver acial elements."1
Similarly,m ostlyw hite St. Louis County secured five times as many
FHA mortgagesa s the more racially mixed city of St. Louis between
1943 and 1960. Home buyersi n the countyr eceived six times as much
loan money and enjoyed per capita mortgage spending 6.3 times
greatert han those in the city.12
In concertw ithF HA supportf ors egregationi n the suburbs,f ederal
and state tax monies routinelyp rovided water supplies and sewage
facilitiesf orr aciallye xclusive suburbanc ommunitiesi n the 1940s and
1950s. By the 1960s, these areas often incorporatedt hemselves as
independentm unicipalitiesi n order to gain greatera ccess to federal
fundsa llocated for" urbana id."13A t the same timet hatF HA loans and
federalh ighwayb uildingp rojectss ubsidized the growtho f segregated
suburbs, urban renewal programs in cities throughoutt he country
devastatedm inorityn eighborhoods.
During the 1950s and 1960s, federally assisted urban renewal
projectsd estroyed2 0 percento f the centralc ityh ousingu nitso ccupied
by blacks, as opposed to only 10 percento f those inhabitedb y whites.14
Even afterm ost major urbanr enewalp rogramsh ad been completedi n
the 1970s, black centralc ityr esidentsc ontinuedt o lose housingu nitsa t
a rate equal to 80 percento f what had been lost in the 1960s. Yet white
displacementd eclined back to the relativelyl ow levels of the 1950s.15
In addition,t he refusalf irstt o pass, thent o enforce,f airh ousing laws,
has enabled realtors,b uyers,a nd sellers to profitf romr acist collusion
against minoritiesw ithoutf earo f legal retribution.
During the decades followingW orld War II, urban renewal helped
constructa new "white" identityi n the suburbs by helping destroy
ethnicallys pecificE uropean-Americanu rbani nner-cityn eighborhoods.
Wrecking balls and bulldozers eliminateds ome of these sites, while
othersb ecame transformedb y an influxo f minorityr esidentsd esper-
atelyc ompetingf ora decliningn umbero f affordableh ousingu nits.A s
increasingn umberso f racial minoritiesm oved into cities, increasing
374 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
numbers of European-American ethnics moved out. Consequently,
ethnicd ifferencesa mong whitesb ecame a less importantd ividingl ine
in American culture,w hile race became more importantT. he suburbs
helped turnE uropean Americans into "whites" who could live near
each other and intermarryw ith relativelyl ittle difficultyB. ut this
"white" unityr estedo n residentials egregationa nd on shareda ccess to
housing and life chances largelyu navailable to communitieso f color.16
During the 1950s and 1960s, local "pro-growth"c oalitions led by
liberal mayors oftenj ustifiedu rban renewal as a programd esigned to
build more housing for poor people, but it actually destroyedm ore
housing than it created. Ninety percent of the low-income units
removed for urban renewal were never replaced. Commercial, indus-
trial,a nd municipalp rojectso ccupied more than8 0 percento f the land
cleared for these projects, with less than 20 percent allocated for
replacementh ousing.I n addition,t he loss of taxable propertiesa nd tax
abatementsg rantedt o new enterprisesi n urban renewal zones often
meant serious tax increases for poor, working-class,a nd middle-class
home ownersa nd renters.17A lthought he percentageo f black suburban
dwellers also increasedd uringt hisp eriod,n o significantd esegregation
of the suburbs took place. From 1960 to 1977, four million whites
moved out of central cities, while the number of whites living in
suburbsi ncreased by twenty-twmo illion.18D uring the same years,t he
inner-cityb lack population grew by six million, but the number of
blacks living in suburbsi ncreased by only 500,000 people.19B y 1993,
86 percent of suburban whites still lived in places with a black
populationb elow 1 percentA. t the same time,c ities withl arge numbers
of minorityr esidentsf oundt hemselvesc ut offf roml oans by the FHA;
in 1966, because of theirg rowingb lack and PuertoR ican populations,
Camden and Paterson,N ew Jerseyr, eceived no FHA-sponsored mort-
gages between them.20
Federally fundedh ighwaysd esigned to connect suburbanc ommut-
ers with downtownp laces of employmentd estroyeda lready scarce
housingi n minorityco mmunitiesa nd oftend isruptedn eighborhoodl ife
as well. Constructiono f the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles, the Gulf
Freeway in Houston, and the Mark Twain Freeway in St. Louis
displaced thousands of residentsa nd bisected previously connected
neighborhoods,s hoppingd istrictsa, nd political precincts.'Thep rocess
of urban renewal and highway constructions et in motion a vicious
cycle: population loss led to decreased political power, which made
THE POSSESSIVE INVESTMENT IN WHITENESS 375
minorityn eighborhoodsm ore likelyt o be victimizedb y furtheru rban
renewal and freewayc onstructionn, ot to mentionm ore susceptiblet o
the placemento f prisons,w aste dumps,a nd otherp rojectst hatf urther
depopulated these areas.
In Houston, Texas-where blacks make up slightlym ore than one-
quartero f the local population-more than 75 percent of municipal
garbage incineratorsa nd 100 percento f the city-ownedg arbage dumps
are located in black neighborhoods.21 A 1992 studyb y staffw ritersf or
the National Law Journal examined the EnvironmentalP rotection
Agency's response to 1,177 toxic waste cases and foundt hatp olluters
of sites near the greatest white population received penalties 500
percenth ighert hanp enaltiesi mposed on pollutersi n minoritya reas-
an average of $335,566 for white areas contrastedw ith $55,318 for
minorityar eas. Income did nota ccountf ort hesed ifferences-penalties
forl ow-incomea reas on average actuallye xceeded those fora reas with
the highest median incomes by about 3 percent. The penalties for
violating all federal environmentalla ws about air, water, and waste
pollutioni n minorityc ommunitiesw ere 46 percentl ower thani n white
communities.I n addition,S uperfundr emediesl eftm inorityc ommuni-
ties withl ongerw aitingt imes forb eing placed on the nationalp riority
list,c leanups thatb egin from1 2 to 42 percentl atert hana t white sites,
and a 7 percent greaterl ikelihood of "containment"( walling off a
hazardous site) than cleanup, while white sites experiencedt reatment
and cleanup 22 percentm ore oftent hanc ontainment.22
Urban renewalf ailed as a programf orp rovidingn ew housingf ort he
poor, but it played an importantr ole in transformintgh e U.S. urban
economy away fromf actoryp roductiona nd towardp roducers ervices.
Urban renewalp rojectss ubsidizedt hed evelopmento f downtowno ffice
centers on land previouslyu sed for residences, and they frequently
created bufferz ones of empty blocks dividing poor neighborhoods
fromn ew shoppingc entersd esigned for affluentc ommuters.I n order
to help cities compete for corporate investmentb y making them
appealing to high-levele xecutives,f ederalu rban aid favoredc onstruc-
tion of luxuryh ousing units and culturalc enters,s uch as symphony
halls and art museums, over affordableh ousing for workers. Tax
abatementsg rantedt o these producer-servicesc entersf urthera ggra-
vated the fiscal crisis that cities faced, leading to tax increases on
existingi ndustriesb, usinesses, and residences.
Workers from aggrieved racial minoritiesb ore the brunt of this
376 AMERICAN QUARTERLY
transformationB. ecause the 1964 Civil Rights Act came so late,
minorityw orkersw ho received jobs because of it found themselves
more vulnerablet o seniority-basedla yoffsw hen businesses automated
or transferreodp erationso verseas. Althought he act initiallym ade real
progress in reducing employmentd iscrimination,l essened the gaps
between rich and poor and black and white,a nd helped bringm inority
povertyt o its lowest level in historyi n 1973, that year's recession
initiated a reversal of minorityp rogress and a reassertiono f white
privilege.23In 1977, the U.S. Civil RightsC ommission reportedo n the
disproportionatiem pacto f layoffso n minorityw orkers.I n cases where
minorityw orkersm ade up only 10 to 12 percento f the work force in
theira rea, theya ccountedf orf rom6 0 to 70 percento f those laid offi n
1974. The principleo f senioritya, social democratict riumph,in this
case workedt o guaranteet hatm inorityw orkersw ould sufferm ostf rom
technological changes because the legacy of past discriminationb y
theire mployersl eftt hemw ithl ess seniorityt han white workers.24
When housing prices doubled duringt he 1970s, whiteh omeowners
who had been able to take advantageo f discriminatorFyH A financing
policies receivedi ncreasede quityi n theirh omes, while those excluded
fromt he housing marketb y earlier policies found themselvesf acing
higher costs of entryi nto the market in addition to the traditional
obstacles presentedb y the discriminatorypr acticeso f sellers, realtors,
and lenders. The contrastb etween European Americans and African
Americans is instructivien this regard.B ecause whitesh ave access to
broader housing choices than blacks, whites pay 15 percentl ess than
blacks fors imilarh ousing in the same neighborhoodW. hite neighbor-
hoods typically experience housing costs 25 percent less expensive
than would be the case if the residentsw ere black.25
A recent Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study showed that
minoritya pplicants had a 60 percentg reaterc hance of being denied
home loans than white applicants with the same credit-worthiness.
Boston bankers made 2.9 times as many mortgage loans per one
thousand housing units in neighborhoodsi nhabited by low-income
whites than they did to neighborhoods populated by low-income
blacks.26I n addition, loan officersw ere far more likely to overlook
flaws in the credit records of white applicants or to arrange creative
financingf ort hemt hant heyw ere withb lack applicants."
A Los Angeles studyf ound thatl oan officersm ore frequentlyu sed
dividend income and underlyinga ssets as criteriaf or judging black
THE POSSESSIVE INVESTMENT IN WHITENESS 377
applicantst han theyd id for whites.28In Houston, the NCNB Bank of
Texas disqualified 13 percento f middle-incomew hite loan applicants
butd isqualified3 6 percento f middle-incomeb lack applicants.2A9 tlanta's
home loan institutiongs ave fivet imesa s manyh ome loans to whitesa s
to blacks in the late 1980s. An analysis of sixteen Atlanta neighbor-
hoods found that home buyersi n white neighborhoodsr eceived con-
ventionalf inancingf ourt imesa s oftena s those in black sectionso f the
city.30N ationwide, financiali nstitutionsg et more money in deposits
fromb lack neighborhoodst hant heyi nvesti n themi n the formo f home
mortgage loans, making home lending a vehicle for the transfero f
capital away fromb lack savers and towardw hite investors.3I"n many
locations, high-incomeb lacks were denied loans more oftent han low-
income whites.32
Federal home loan policies have placed the power of the federal
governmentb ehindp rivated iscriminationU. rban renewala nd highway
constructionp rograms have enhanced the possessive investmenti n
whiteness directlyt hroughg overnmenti nitiatives.I n addition, deci-
sions about the location of federal jobs have also systematically
supported the subsidy for whiteness. Federal civilian employment
dropped by 41,419 in centralc ities between 1966 and 1973, but total
federale mploymentin metropolitanar eas grewb y 26,558.33W hile one
mightn aturallye xpect the location of governmentb uildingst hats erve
the public to follow population trends, the federal government's
policies in locating offices and records centers in suburbs helped
aggravate the flighto f jobs to suburban locations less accessible to
inner-cityr esidents.S ince racial discriminationi n the private sector
forcesm inorityw orkerst o seek governmenpt ositionsd isproportionate
to theirn umbers,t hese moves exact particularh ardshipso n them. In
addition, minoritiesw ho follow theirj obs to the suburbs generally
encounteri ncreased commuterc osts because housing discrimination
makes it harder and more expensive for them to relocate than for
whites.
The racialized aspects of fiftyy ears of these social democratic
policies became greatly exacerbated by the anti-social democratic
policies of neoconservativesi n the Reagan and Bush administrations
duringt he 1980s and 1990s. They clearly contributedt o the reinforce-
ment of possessive investmentsin whitenesst hrought heirr egressive
policies in respect to federal aid to education and their refusal to
challenge segregatede ducation, housing, and hiring,a s well as their