Matthew W. Hughey, White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race.

Abstract

Matthew W. Hughey, White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012, 286 pp., $24.95 paper (9780804776950) Whiteness studies have emphasized the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity of racial categories. this is certainly an important lesson, it is at the same time crucial to remember that (p. 13) are linked by transposable social norms that to some extent cut across heterogeneous differences. This is central to the argument of White Bound: Nationalists, Antiracists, and the Shared Meanings of Race by Matthew W. Hughey, a book which compares two seemingly conflicting all-white activist groups in the United States and finds surprising similarities in the thinking of their members. More specifically, Hughey's book is a comparison between the Whites for Racial Justice (WRJ), an organization built to challenge racial inequality and white privilege, and National Equality for All (NEA), a white nationalist association which challenges society's disregard for rights and argues in favour of racial segregation. This comparison is based on ethnographic research conducted over a year in which Hughey spent at least one day a week with members of both organizations. his analysis does highlight the diversity of opinions held by members of the WRJ and NEA, especially concerning issues like racial segregation, the majority of the book's nine chapters are spent investigating the strong resemblance in the racial thinking of members of both organizations. Hughey argues that these resemblances demonstrate the centrality of hegemonic for the thinking and behaviour of white Americans, even those on seemingly opposite ends of a political spectrum. As Hughey puts it, While there is no question about the political differences and individual heterogeneity of white actors in an array of settings, it is important to recognize that certain forms of whiteness can become dominant and pursued as the ideal (p. 13). Hughey supports his argument by unpacking several similarities underlying the claims of members of both the WRJ and NEA including the propensity to claim victimhood (chapter 5), to take a paternalistic attitude towards racial minorities (chapter 6), to cite a desire to appropriate nonwhiteness (chapter 7) and, finally, to trivialize know ledge that is coded as and deemed confusing or inaccessible to whites (chapter 8). The book makes several contributions to the study of racialization and whiteness, two of which will be outlined in this review. First, the book offers readers a way of conceptualizing the binding nature of whiteness while simultaneously paying respect to the heterogeneity of political opinions held by white actors. The book finds that white actors do indeed hold a diversity of political opinions, but at the same times notes that whiteness governs how they, irrespective of differences in opinion, perceive identity and a number of political issues. it would be problematic to claim that American is a homogeneous identity category, it is sensible to claim that white Americans likely share a number of ideological positions, especially concerning racial privilege and inequality. Hughey points to a variety of examples of these shared ideological positions including the belief that racial minorities do not face significant disadvantages because of systemic discrimination. Of particular interest is the tendency among white Americans to dismiss nonwhite disadvantage by claiming victimhood via or demotion discourses (Chapter 5). In Hughey's research, sympathy narratives were most commonly used by members of the NEA; they argued that affirmative action policies had granted people of colour unfair socioeconomic advantages. …