Variations Among White First-year College Students’ Ideological Explanations of Privilege

• In Event: 3-213 - White Young Adults’ Ideologies, Attitudes, and Responses to Racism

Integrative Statement

Introduction: Ideology matters for learning. Learning is a social process that occurs within a social context (Vygotsky, 1978). The social context includes exposure to ideologies, what Hall (1996) describes as the socially shared frameworks used by members of social groups to understand their reality. Because ideology actively informs our understanding of reality, scholars within the learning sciences have explored the relationship between students’ ideologies and their learning experiences (Philip, 2011; Philip, Gupta, Elby, and Turpen, 2018). However, ideology’s role in learning merits further research (Philip et al, 2018), especially related to social justice education content.

Method/Results: This qualitative, phenomenological case study explored how White, first-year college students (N = 8; 63% self-identified as female) at Great Lakes College varied in their ideological explanations of privilege. Students were enrolled in a university-led diversity workshop and completed reflection papers and interviews. Data was analyzed using discourse analysis (Gee, 1999, 2011, 2014) that revealed how students’ ideological explanations of privilege varied with respect to their participation in either a Whiteness or Race Critical Discourse. Students’ responses classified as Whiteness Discourse provided evidence of three color-blind ideological frames including abstract liberalism, naturalism, and minimization (Bonilla-Silva, 2014) that operated to nullify the existence of privilege and frame privilege as individualistic. For example, John repeatedly emphasized his belief that he earned what he has in life when explaining privilege, stating that "I like to think that my achievements are my achievements. They aren’t just because of the privilege that comes from being White. And I like to think that other people’s achievements are the same.” Students’ responses classified as Race Critical Discourse adopted explanations of privilege that sought to challenge Whiteness using arguments reminiscent of critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015) in order to frame privilege as socially constructed and institutional. For example, Anna, explained the cause of privilege as “superiority complexes… this belief system based on trivial things that were set up by someone who had all the answers already. Like just this idea of White people being better because they knew X, Y, and Z, but they freaking created X, Y, and Z…” However, students participating in both discourses demonstrated familiarity with ideological explanations central to the opposite discourse.

Discussion: Teaching White college students about privilege requires educators to engage students’ ideological explanations about privilege. This study provides empirical evidence of students’ ideological explanations along with how their explanations work to maintain or challenge a worldview centered around Whiteness. While this study’s methodology prevents generalizability, its findings are useful for educators to consider in their own teaching practice. Exploring the distinctions between students’ ideological explanations reveal students’ beliefs about social power and privilege as either individualistic or structural that are central to anchoring their understanding of privilege. If educators wish to promote learning about privilege, it is essential that educators understand students’ ideological explanations so they can purposefully converge different ideologies to promote learning for social change.

Author

• D. Scott Tharp, DePaul University
  Presenting Author