we aren’t just color-blind, we are oppression-blind!
The ideology of color-blind racism, the contemporary framework for understanding and defending white privilege, is part of a broader, overarching ideology I refer to as “oppression-blindness.” It is not only race-based privilege that we actively render invisible today, but many other systems of oppression and privilege as well, including class, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, and religion. We have already examined most of these systems throughout this book, and read about many examples where these systems interact and intersect in shaping our lives. We have read important arguments by leading scholars compelling us to consider these social identities not as discrete, stand-alone properties, but as specific axes of power that imbue the social structures we shape and are shaped by day in and day out. In this chapter I will take these arguments further by examining the multifaceted ways in which the ideological justifications for each of these various systems of inequality work to reinforce one another. Each one is made stronger by its placement in the broader context of a hierarchically organized society with ever-evolving narratives that work to rationalize and justify inequality as natural and inevitable. Situating these specific systems of oppression and privilege within this broader narrative framework can help us to understand why each one remains so elusive and difficult to abolish despite the work of active social justice movements over the past three hundred years.
Intersectionality
Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality” to direct attention to the interaction of multiple social identities in shaping the reality of oppression and privilege (African American Policy Forum, 2009). She argues that we must embrace an intersectional approach to analyze social problems and develop more effective social movement responses. An intersectional framework can be employed at every level of analysis. Traditionally, analysts of racial inequality and racism have identified three levels for analysis: the individual level, the cultural level, and the structural level (Blumenfeld, 2006; Hardiman and Jackson, 1997).
Intersectional analyses focus most often on those who are multiply disadvantaged by numerous systems of inequality. There is less research, however, examining systems of privilege intersectionally (Coston and Kimmel, 2012). In this chapter, I examine privilege from an intersectional perspective and focus specifically on the level of culture. Culture gives meaning to our experiences and shapes the ways we make sense of the world. Race itself is a cultural construct, and it is through culture that we learn to “see” and “read” race (Ferber, 1998; Hartigan, 2010). Culture is key in socializing people into a system of racial inequality, and cultural constructions of race shape our own individual identities, as well as our participation in institutions and systems that reproduce inequality (Blumenfeld, 2006; Hardiman and Jackson, 1997).
Researchers from many disciplines identify racial ideology as one of the most important factors in ongoing racial inequality (Blumenfeld, 2006; Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Feagin, 2001; Ferber, 1998; Hartigan, 2010). Ideology is a central feature of culture that “consists of broad mental and moral frameworks, or ‘grids,’ that social groups use to make sense of the world, to decide what is right and wrong, true or false, important or unimportant” (Bonilla-Silva, 2010, p. 62). Racial ideology mediates individuals and institutions, providing rationalization for the nature of current race relations. It provides a system of assumptions and rules that inform individuals’ decisions, behaviors, and interactions. Racial ideology is an interpretive repertoire that provides story lines, narratives, and common frames for making sense of race relations.
The Defense of White Privilege: Color-Blind Ideology
Sociologists, psychologists, social workers, and economists continue to research the ways in which racial oppression remains entrenched in the United States (Feagin, 2001; Plaut, 2010). Centuries of what Feagin (2001) calls “undeserved impoverishment and undeserved enrichment” (p. 21) provide some people a huge head start and plenty of help along the way.
Yet many white people believe that discrimination against people of color is a thing of the past (Plaut, 2010). For example, despite all evidence to the contrary, white people generally believe that whites are actually more likely to face job discrimination than people of color (Pincus, 2003). As Collins (2004) argues,
Recognizing that racism even exists remains a challenge for most White Americans, and increasingly for African-Americans as well. They believe that the passage of civil rights legislation eliminated racially discriminatory practices and that any problems that Blacks may experience now are of their own doing. (p. 5)
To understand this gap between reality and the stories we tell, we need to examine the cultural framework informing our stories. Plaut (2010) argues that we must
[examine] the cultural ideas and beliefs that are prevalent in people’s social worlds. These socially, culturally, and historically constituted ideas and beliefs, or cultural models, get inscribed in institutions and practices (e.g., language, law, organizational policies), and daily experiences (e.g., reading the newspaper, watching television, taking a test) such that they organize and coordinate individual understandings and psychological processes (e.g., categorization, attitudes, anxiety, motivation) and behavior. (p. 82)
Over time our hegemonic stories and narratives about race change, connected to the changing social and economic organization of race relations. Just when the blatantly discriminatory policies and practices of Jim Crow racism were finally crumbling under attack, the early foundations of a “new racism” were taking form (Irons, 2010). This new racism is much less overt, its predominant operating narrative characterized as an ideology of color-blind racism that avoids the use of blatantly racist terminology (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Irons, 2010; Plaut, 2010).
A color-blind perspective assumes that discrimination is a thing of the past and denies the reality of race and racial inequality today. This approach argues that we should treat people as simply human beings, rather than as racialized beings (Plaut, 2010).
According to Bonilla-Silva (2010), color-blind ideology consists of four key frames that organize our understandings of racial inequality:
1. Abstract liberalism: relies upon the language of political liberalism, referring to abstract concepts of equal opportunity, rationality, free choice, individualism, etc. (i.e., discrimination is no longer a problem, and any individual who works hard can succeed).
2. Naturalization: reframes ongoing inequality as the result of natural processes, rather than social relations (i.e., segregation today is the result of the natural inclination of people to live near others of the same race).
3. Cultural racism: reframes ongoing inequality as the result of inherent cultural differences between racialized groups.
4. Minimization of racism: assumes that we now have a fairly level playing field, everyone has equal opportunities to succeed, and racism is no longer a real problem.
Color-blind racism assumes racial discrimination has ended, people are being treated in a color-blind fashion, and any differences we see in the success of racial groups is therefore due to inherent differences in the groups themselves. Color-blind ideology leads to the conclusion that we’ve done all we can. For many whites, the election of Barack Obama as president has been evoked to confirm their assumptions of a color-blind nation (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Cunnigen and Bruce, 2010). While many people naively embrace this view as nonracist, it reinforces and reproduces contemporary systemic racial inequality by denying its reality.
These scripts are so ubiquitous that they are drawn upon to explain other forms of inequality as well. Color-blind racism needs to be examined from an intersectional perspective, making visible the ways it is connected and mutually constitutive of other ideologies of privilege. In the remainder of this chapter, I will examine discourses of oppression and privilege that rationalize male and Christian privilege, and argue that we must examine how these ideologies mirror color-blind racism and reinforce one another. Postfeminism has emerged to justify and rationalize gender inequality, just as Christonormativity works to naturalize and protect Christian privilege. As Plaut argues, these cultural ideologies work together; therefore, each one must be dismantled to advance the cause of social justice.
From New Racism to Postfeminism
Intersectional analyses of both the civil rights and women’s movements of the 1960s have revealed how their failures to address the concerns, needs, and demands of women of color limited their success. Exclusion of women from leadership in the civil rights movement, and the women’s movement’s failure to fully engage issues of race and sexuality (both the first and second waves), led to divisions in both movements.
There are also striking similarities among the predominant narratives of backlash to both of these movements, yet efforts to respond and attack these narratives still proceed from separate silos, with little collaboration. I argue that the same four frames of color-blindness identified by Bonilla-Silva operate to defend and normalize gender inequality (Ferber, 2007). It is common today for journalists and conservative commentators to argue that we have moved beyond the need for feminism, and have entered a postfeminist phase. Like the civil rights movement, the women’s movement did much to advance formal, legal equality for women. Nevertheless, gender inequality remains widespread, and feminist scholars have observed the rise of a new discourse around gender, remarkably similar to new racism’s color-blind framework.
The ideology of postfeminism assumes that the law and society are now “gender-blind” in their treatment of men and women, reflecting the use of a “minimization of racism/discrimination” frame. Mainstream media promote the assumption that the women’s movement has accomplished its goals and barriers facing women have been removed. According to the advocates of postfeminism, men and women now have equal opportunities: women now have the right to vote, legal protection from discrimination, and the same legal rights as men (Douglas, 2010; McRobbie, 2004).
Some commentators argue that the push for equality has gone too far, saying that men are now victims of feminist frenzy. Just as the advocates of color-blind racism believe that racial inequality is a thing of the past and that further attempts to remedy inequality lead to “reverse discrimination” against whites, we see similar arguments about gender. This rearticulation of the minimization of discrimination frame leads to reifying the values of abstract liberalism, where feminism is attacked for violating the values of individualism and equal opportunity. After all, if everyone is already equal, then interventions aimed at women violate the principle of equal opportunity and hurt men. Faludi (1991) examines the “steady stream of indictments” of feminism that began in the 1980s in the mainstream media. Problems women face are often framed as the result of feminism, and women’s push for equality, rather than the product of inequality itself. In this way, feminism is discredited and claims of ongoing inequality dismissed. McRobbie (2004) writes that postfeminist culture is undermining the gains of the women’s movement and feminism, arguing that “equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasize that it is no longer needed” (p. 255).
Consistent with the abstract liberalism frame, women’s status today is depicted as a product of their own individual choices. According to the logic of the postfeminist story line, women legally have the same opportunities and rights as men; therefore, if women are more likely to be found in low-paying, part-time jobs, it must be because of their own choosing, since “women are now free to choose for themselves” (McRobbie, 2004, p. 259). Job segregation and the persistent wage gap are often dismissed with the “prevailing ideological constructions of women as carers,” which are also used to explain why women are more likely to be found in the home, responsible for child care, elder care, and housework. Further, as an extension of women’s caregiving “natures,” they are assumed to be more likely than men to choose careers in nursing, teaching, day care, or social work, knowing that these jobs pay significantly less compared to male careers requiring similar skills and education levels (Glenn, 2010). Here we have moved into the frames of naturalization and cultural racism/sexism. Both natural, biological differences between men and women, as well as gender-based cultural differences, are invoked to rationalize gender inequality (Cole, Avery, Dodson, and Goodman, 2012). In Forced to Care, Glenn (2010) examines the ways this gender ideology of caring, in conjunction with ideologies of race, relegate women of color to the lowest-paying, least valued caregiving jobs, such as working in nursing homes. She strikingly reveals the coercion at the heart of this enterprise, examining the state’s role in enforcing women’s obligation to provide “care,” including the training of Native American women in boarding schools and the formal “Americanization” programs for immigrant women. A tremendous amount of effort and force has been extended to make women acquiesce with the ideology of women as natural caregivers.
Yet postfeminism makes this history and enforcement invisible; “there is little trace . . . of the enduring inequities which still mark out the relations between men and women” (McRobbie, 2004, p. 260). Any inequality between men and women, therefore, is seen as a result of men’s and women’s different natures, and the choices men and women make. Both color-blind racism and postfeminism ignore the vast body of literature that examines the ways the social institutions of education, work, health care, criminal justice, and the family shape and constrain all of our choices and opportunities (Crittenden, 2001; Faludi, 1991; Feagin, 2001; Glenn, 2010; Lewis, 2003; Van Ausdale and Feagin, 2001).
Given the ideological similarities of color-blind racism and postfeminism, we need to examine both discourses within a broader framework of political backlash against the social movements of the 1960s and ’70s. According to Coppock, Haydon, and Richter (1995), “The proclamation of ‘post-feminism’ has occurred at precisely the same moment as acclaimed feminist studies demonstrate that not only have women’s real advancements been limited, but also that there has been a backlash against feminism of international significance” (p. 3). The concept of postfeminism itself is part of this backlash, an “attempt to retract the handful of small and hard-won victories that the feminist movement did manage to win for women” (Faludi, 1991, p. 12).
Similarly, Bonilla-Silva (2003) argues that color-blind racism “has become a formidable political tool for the maintenance of the racial order [serving] as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system [of racial oppression] in the post–Civil Rights era” (p. 3). Both postfeminism and color-blind racism are part of an ideology of “oppression-blindness” that operates to defend the culture of privilege against perceived attacks (Ferber, 2003, 2007; Ferber and Samuels, 2010; Pratto and Stewart, 2012).
This discourse results in blaming the victim for his or her own oppression. William Ryan first described the contours of blaming the victim in 1971. Ryan emphasizes that blaming the victim is essentially a defense of privilege: “those who buy this solution with a sigh of relief are inevitably blinding themselves to the basic causes of the problems being addressed. They are, most crucially, rejecting the possibility of blaming, not the victims, but themselves” (p. 583). In this way, blaming the victim allows privilege to remain intact and unexamined, not simply rationalizing, but reproducing, privilege.
Christonormativity
I now turn to a third category, Christian privilege. Christonormativity refers to the normalization and privileging of Christianity as the dominant religious and spiritual culture in the United States (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2009). Todd (2010) argues that Christianity “not only dominates other religious and atheistic traditions in this country, but is implicated in virtually every other category of oppression: racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism . . . every one of these categories has been undergirded by Christian theological justifications” (p. 142). Indeed, Christianity played a central role historically in constructing racial categories, and continues to affect decisions over who counts as “white.” Tehranian’s (2009) work on Middle-Eastern Americans demonstrates that when the majority of Arab immigrants to the United States were Christian, they were more likely to be defined legally as white, yet as the percentage of Arab immigrants who are Muslim has grown, that is changing. “As it has grown less Christian, the Middle Eastern population in the United States is thought of as less assimilable and, consequently, less white” (p. 70).
A few years back, I published a blog examining the pervasive atmosphere of Christian privilege I was observing (Ferber, 2009). In the blog, I argue that Christonormativity is a system of privilege that marginalizes and excludes those who are not Christian, especially during the winter holiday season. In the blog, I described a typical December day:
I woke up and turned on my favorite morning show. I learned new recipes for the favorite holiday drink—egg nog; tips on how to decorate for the holidays on a budget by trimming the mantel and staircase with wreaths, green swags, and small lights; followed by the best toys to buy for kids this holiday season. I then read my local newspaper, which featured a big story about how the Colorado governor’s mansion has been decorated for the holidays, accompanied by a large photo of the Christmas tree. . . . I entered my office building, where a large Christmas tree sat in the lobby. Due to concerns raised a few years back about the heavy focus on Christmas, the tree has now been renamed “The Giving Tree.” It is decorated by ornaments made by children at the campus day care center, with requests for donations as a part of our annual Holiday Service Project. I wonder how Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian students feel each time they enter the building.
On my way home, I stop off on a few errands. In the grocery store, I am greeted by another large Christmas tree. As I wander the aisles I hum along to “Jingle Bells,” “All I Want for Christmas,” “Blue Christmas,” “Feliz Navidad,” and “Here Comes Santa Claus.” . . . So you see, while it may not seem like a big deal that someone wishes me a “Merry Christmas,” and I genuinely appreciate the good will and cheer being offered, for non-Christians like myself, this time of year can be anything but merry (24% of the U.S. population of about 304 million do not define themselves as Christian). . . . Not only is it all-pervasive, all day long, when I do the math, I discover that it adds up to about ten years of my life that I live in this exclusionary Christian culture. (If I live to be eighty, one and a half months per year of that time adds up to ten years over a lifetime!). . . . The question is not how do we stop the celebrations, but instead, how do we create a more inclusive culture, a climate where everybody feels included? (full text of blog can be found at www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-ferber/please-dont-wish-me-a-mer_b_389824.html)
My arguments here are threefold. First, I introduce the concept of Christonormativity, documenting the manner in which Christian culture has become the normative, dominant culture in the United States at this time of year. Like other forms of privilege, it is often invisible and unexamined. Second, I highlight the way attempts to make Christian privilege visible are rearticulated as an attack on Christianity. This is another example of blaming the victim. Finally, I ask that we think about what it means to be inclusive.
Defending Christian Privilege
I received a flood of negative responses to this blog. The blog appeared on the Huffington Post, a news/blog site generally characterized as liberal. I have a regular blog there, and in previous blogs I have received a maximum of twenty-one comments, while this post received seventy-nine comments. I often focus on issues of race and gender. I wrote an entry titled “I Am Racist” and have often written about white privilege, yet received very few negative responses. I was therefore shocked by the number of negative responses to this post. Of the seventy-nine, forty were explicitly negative or sarcastic and contained elements of an oppression-blind ideology. The remaining responses consisted of short replies to other posts, were neutral, or were positive. In examining the responses, there is a clear pattern that can be discerned. Like the discourses of color-blind racism and postfeminism, these oppression-blind ideologies minimize Christian privilege and reframe the issue in the abstract liberal terms of free choice and individualism.
One of the most common themes I found was the minimization of discrimination and the concomitant attempt to preserve the culture of privilege:
• “The only thing Christian about Christmas is the name ‘Christ’mas . . . about 95% of all Christmas traditions are non-Christian . . . growing up I never really noticed the Christ in Christmas. . . . To me it’s like Thanksgiving.”
• “Christ was born in September, the holiday that you are so offended by is a secular holiday, there are no real Christian holidays. . . . The American Christmas is a family celebration of giving and love . . . everyone can join in, it’s really not Christian in any real sense.”
• “May I suggest you go to ‘Blintzes and Bling’ and get a Star of David necklace the size of a hub cap so that I know you are Jewish. Then I promise to wish you a Happy Hanukkah. . . . People of all faiths are dying across the globe for their religious beliefs. December is a month of hope and light and joy for most faiths—and also for those of no particular faith—who can enjoy the secular spirit of giving and cheer.”
These quotes and many others argue that there is no evidence of privilege or exclusion. Christmas is reframed in universal terms, depicted as good fun that everyone can be a part of. These responses also provide evidence of the naturalization of Christianity. Christian values are naturalized as simply human values inherent in all people. As one respondent put it, “These are universal beliefs, that for this time of year, just happen to be wrapped in green and red bows.”
Not only do the respondents minimize and trivialize Christian discrimination and privilege, they draw upon the abstract liberalism frame by emphasizing the abstract principles of individualism, rationality, and free choice:
• “What an awful whiner. . . . The vast majority of this country is Christian, and even many secular people celebrate Christmas; is it any wonder that the average person is assumed to celebrate it? Anybody who is ‘offended’ or ‘uncomfortable’ really needs to find something new to complain about.”
• “You have two choices. You can either be terribly offended and act pissy when someone smiles and wishes you a Merry Christmas or you can embrace the friendly, positive sentiment as it was intended and smile back. How you react says much about who you are.”
• “We can choose to continue to live in a world where we seek out an offense where none is intended and continue down this dangerous path of perpetuating the ‘us vs. them’ mentality that serves to divide us more than we are already. Or we can decide to be participants in a world where we look beyond our differences.”
• “As an atheist, I am constantly bombarded with God from the government, from friends and strangers alike. However, I am not offended by anyone wishing me Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa etc. . . . I would be in a constant state of irritation if I let these things bother me.”
• “I am not a Christian. I could choose to feel excluded and marginalized because a lot of people are celebrating a holiday important to their religion, or I can choose my own interpretation of a winter holiday with rituals and traditions that I select and enjoy the lights and colors and giving and general goodwill. It’s of no relevance to me what the holiday means to anyone else, and mine is of no matter to them. If I choose to forgo Christmas completely (and I’ve done that in previous years), I certainly don’t resent others continuing to celebrate nor do I take offense that they assume that I share in their celebration.”
These arguments are the very same arguments used to justify color-blind racism and postfeminism. They erase from view Christian privilege, reinscribing Christianity as normative. They blame the victim for choosing to focus on differences. Like advocates of affirmative action or those “frenzied feminists,” anyone who argues that race, gender, and religious differences still matter in shaping people’s daily lives is attacked. The reality of institutional inequality is ignored, and the issue is reduced to simply one of individual choice.
Our failure to examine the interconnections among these three narratives carries consequences and undermines our efforts to advance social justice. When we only interrogate this cultural story line of privilege and oppression in terms of its implications for racial inequality, we leave the broader story line in place. While the goals of most research on white privilege are to contribute to antiracist activism, approaches that focus only on race have limited potential. For example, the belief that legal obstacles to equality have been removed and everyone has equal opportunities to succeed is used to justify not only race, but gender and religious inequality, which is rearticulated as the product of the poor choices of individuals, rather than a systemic issue. When we hear the very same arguments offered to explain each of these systems of inequality, it gives them more legitimacy. The more familiar the arguments, the more they feel intuitively right to people. The frames are more likely to resonate and to feel like “common sense.” Wherever we are situated, we will have greater potential for success if we attack the entire ideology of oppression-blindness and victim blaming in all of its forms, rather than only one of its manifestations.
Focusing on only one social classification, such as race, is like trying to pull one strand out of a tapestry. Even if we are successful, the tapestry itself remains intact, and thus that strand can always be picked up and woven back in; perhaps in new ways, so that the overall pattern and design shift over time. Nevertheless, the ever-present tapestry remains in place and ready to reincorporate new threads.
It is the entire tapestry we must unravel. We need to analyze all of our “-isms” as strands in a broader, comprehensive ideological tapestry explaining away inequality and trying to naturalize and justify oppression and privilege.
references
African American Policy Forum. 2009. A primer on intersectionality. http://aapf.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/aapf_intersectionality_primer.pdf.
Blumenfeld, W. 2006. “Christian Privilege and the Promotion of ‘Secular’ and not-so ‘Secular’ Mainline Christianity in Public Schooling and in the Larger Society.” Equity and Excellence in Education 39: 195–210. doi: 10:1080/10665680600788024
Blumenfeld, W. J., and K. Jaekel. “Exploring Levels of Christian Privilege Awareness Among Preservice Teachers.” Journal of Social Issues 68: 128–144.
Blumenfeld, W. J., K. Y. Joshi, and E. E. Fairchild. 2009. Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States. Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense Publishers.
Bonilla-Silva, E. 2010. Racism Without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
———. 2003. “‘New Racism,’ Color-blind Racism, and the Future of Whiteness in America.” In A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva, eds., White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race. New York: Routledge.
Brown, C., and T. Augusta-Scott. 2007. Narrative Therapy: Making Meaning, Making Lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Case, K. 2012. “Discovering the Privilege of Whiteness: White Women’s Reflections on Antiracist Identity and Ally Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 1: 78–96.
Cole, E. R., L. R. Avery, C. Dodson, and K. D. Goodman. 2012. “Against Nature: How Arguments About the Naturalness of Marriage Privilege Heterosexuality.” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 1: 42–62.
Collins, P. H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
———. 2004. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York: Routledge.
Coppock, V., D. Haydon, and I. Richter, 1995. The Illusions of “Post-feminism.” London: Taylor and Francis.
Coston, B. M., and M. S. Kimmel, 2012. “Seeing Privilege Where It Isn’t: Marginalized Masculinities and the Intersectionality of Privilege.” Journal of Social Issues 68: 97–111.
Crittenden, A. 2001. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt.
Cunnigen, D., and M. Bruce. 2010. Race in the Age of Obama. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Doane, A. W. 2003. “Rethinking Whiteness Studies.” In A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva, eds., White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.
Doane, A. W., and E. Bonilla-Silva, eds. 2003. White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race. New York: Routledge.
Douglas, S. 2010. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message That Feminism’s Work Is Done. New York: Times Books.
Fairchild, E. E. 2009. “‘I Believe’ in Education.” In W. J. Blumenfeld, K. Y. Joshi, and E. E. Fairchild, eds., Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States (pp. 151–157). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense Publishers.
Faludi, S. 1991. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Doubleday.
Feagin, J. R. 2001. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge.
Ferber, A. L. 1998. White Man Falling: Race, Gender, and White Supremacy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
———. 2003. “Defending the Culture of Privilege.” In M. S. Kimmel and A. L. Ferber, eds., Privilege: A Reader (pp. 319–329). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
———. 2007. “Whiteness Studies and the Erasure of Gender.” Sociology Compass 1: 265–282, doi 10.1111/j.1751–9020.2007.00014.x
———. 2009. “Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas.” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-ferber/please-dont-wish-me-a-mer_b_389824.html.
Ferber, A. L., C. Jimenez, A. H. O’Reilly, and D. Samuels, eds. 2008. The Matrix Reader: Examining the Dynamics of Privilege and Oppression. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ferber, A. L., and D. Samuels. 2010. “Oppression Without Bigots.” Factsheet. Network News. Sociologists for Women in Society, Winter.
Glenn, E. N. 2010. Forced to Care: Coercion and Caregiving in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hardiman, R., and B. Jackson. 1997. “Conceptual Foundations for Social Justice Courses.” In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, and P. Griffin, eds., Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice Courses (pp. 16–29). New York: Routledge.
Hartigan, J. Jr. 2010. Race in the 21st Century: Ethnographic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press.
Irons, J. 2010. “Reconstituting Whiteness: The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission.” Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kendall, F. E. 2006. Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race. New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S., and A. L. Ferber, eds. 2009. Privilege: A Reader, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. 2009. “Selling a New and Improved Jesus: Christotainment and the Power of Political Fundamentalism.” In S. Steinberg and J. L. Kincheloe, eds., Christotainment: Selling Jesus Through Popular Culture (pp. 1–22). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lewis, A. 2003. Race in the Schoolyard: Negotiating the Color Line in Classrooms and Communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McRobbie, A. 2004. “Post-feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies 4: 255–264. doi 10.1080/1468077042000309937
Nelson, J. 2009. “Christian Teachers and Christian Privilege.” In W. J. Blumenfeld, K. Y. Joshi, and E. E. Fairchild, eds., Investigating Christian Privilege and Religious Oppression in the United States (pp. 135–149). Rotterdam, Denmark: Sense Publishers.
Pincus, F. L. 2003. Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Plaut, V. C. 2010. “Diversity Science: Why and How Difference Makes a Difference.” Psychological Inquiry 21: 77–99. doi: 10.1080/10478401003676501
Pratto, F., and A. L. Stewart. 2012. “Group Dominance and the Half-blindness of Privilege.” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 1: 28–45.
Ryan, W. 1971. Blaming the Victim. New York: Pantheon Books.
Steinberg, S. 1995. Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought and Policy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Steinberg, S. R., and J. L. Kincheloe. 2009. Christotainment: Selling Jesus Through Popular Culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Stewart, T. L., I. M. Latu, and H. T. Denney. 2012. “White Privilege Awareness and Efficacy to Reduce Racial Inequality Improve White Americans’ Attitudes Toward African Americans.” Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 1: 11–27.
Sutton, B. 2010. Bodies in Crisis: Culture, Violence, and Women’s Resistance in Neoliberal Argentina. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tehranian, J. 2009. Whitewashed: America’s Invisible Middle Eastern Minority. New York: New York University Press.
Todd, J. 2010. “Confessions of a Christian Supremacist.” Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping 16: 140–146.
Van Ausdale, D., and J. R. Feagin. 2001. The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
a This chapter is a slightly revised version of the article that appeared as “The Culture of Privilege: Color-blindness, Post-feminism, and Christonormativity,” by Abby L. Ferber. Article first published online: 19 MAR 2012. Journal of Social Issues 68, no. 1, March 2012, pp. 63–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540–4560.2011.01736.x. © 2012 by The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley and Sons.