Together with the Translation Circle of the Permaculture CoLab, we have translated this text on the topic of white supremacy.

by Tema Okun. dRworks. dRworksBook – Home (dismantlingracism.org)

Original version: Okun – white sup culture.doc (whitesupremacyculture.info)

• I dedicate this article to the late Kenneth Jones, a longtime colleague, mentor, and friend who helped me gain wisdom in many areas and kept me honest in everything else. I love you and miss you more than words can say.
  
• This article on the culture of white supremacy draws on the work of many people, including (but not limited to) Andrea Ayvazian, Bree Carlson, Beverly Daniel Tatum, ME Dueker, Nancy Emond, Kenneth Jones, Jonn Lunsford, Sharon Martinas, Joan Olsson, David Rogers, James Williams, and Sally Yee, as well as on the work of Grassroots Leadership, Equity Institute Inc., the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, the Challenging White Supremacy workshop, the Lillie Allen Institute, the Western States Center, and the contributions of hundreds of participants in the DR (Dismantling Racism) process.
  
  * These sections are based on the work of Daniel Buford, a senior trainer at the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, who has conducted extensive research on the culture of white supremacy.

This is a list of characteristics of white supremacist culture that appear in our organizations. This culture is powerful precisely because it is so pervasive and, at the same time, very difficult to name or identify. The characteristics listed below are harmful because they are used as norms and standards without being explicitly named or proactively chosen by the group. They are harmful because they promote white supremacist thinking. Because we live in a culture of white supremacy, these characteristics manifest in our attitudes and behaviors—among both people of color and white people. Therefore, these attitudes and behaviors can appear in any group or organization, whether it consists of white or predominantly white leaders, or people of color or predominantly people of color.

Perfectionism*

• People rarely express appreciation for the work others are doing; gratitude is generally directed toward those who, in any case, receive most of the credit

• It is more common to point out that the person or the job is unsuitable

• Or it’s even more common to comment on a person’s shortcomings or their work behind their back, without even speaking directly to the person in question

• Mistakes are seen as personal; that is, they discredit the person who makes them rather than being viewed for what they are: mistakes

• Making a mistake is confused with being a mistake; doing something wrong is confused with being wrong

• little time, energy, or money devoted to reflection or to identifying lessons that can improve practice; in other words, little or no learning from mistakes

• a tendency to focus on what is wrong; a limited ability to identify, name, and appreciate what is right

• It is often an internal struggle; in other words, the perfectionist does not appreciate their own good work, but instead tends to point out their mistakes or “failures,” focusing on shortcomings and errors rather than learning from them; the person is plagued by harsh and constant self-criticism

antidotes: Develop a culture of appreciation, in which the organization takes the time to ensure that people’s work and efforts are recognized; develop a learning organization, where everyone is expected to make mistakes and those mistakes provide opportunities to learn; create an environment where people can recognize that mistakes sometimes lead to positive outcomes; separate the person from the mistake; when offering feedback, always discuss what went well before offering criticism; ask people to make specific suggestions on how to do things differently when they offer criticism; realize that being your own harshest critic does not actually improve your work; it often contributes to low group morale and does not help either the individual or the group realize the benefit of learning from mistakes

Sense of Urgency

• a constant sense of urgency that makes it difficult to take the time to promote inclusivity, encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making, think long-term, and consider the consequences

• often results in sacrificing potential alliances for the sake of quick or highly visible results; for example, sacrificing the interests of communities of color in order to secure victories for the white community (viewed as the default or “normal” community)

• exacerbated by funding proposals that promise too much work for very little money and by donors who expect too much for very little

antidotes: realistic work plans; leadership that understands that things take longer than expected; discussing and planning what it means to set inclusion and diversity goals, particularly in terms of time; learning from past experiences regarding how long things take; drafting realistic funding proposals with realistic timelines; being clear on how to make good decisions in a time-sensitive environment; realizing that rushed decisions end up taking more time in the long run because, inevitably, the person who didn’t have the opportunity to express their thoughts or feelings will, at best, resent the decision and, at worst, look for ways to sabotage it because they weren’t heard.

Defensive Attitude

• The organizational structure is in place, and a great deal of energy is spent trying to prevent abuse and protect the existing power structure, rather than bringing out the best in each person or clarifying who holds power and how they are expected to use it

• Because of black-and-white thinking (see below), criticism of those in power is viewed as threatening and inappropriate (or rude)

• People react defensively to new or challenging ideas, which makes it very difficult to bring up such ideas

• The organization spends a lot of energy trying to ensure that people’s feelings aren’t hurt or dealing with people who are on the defensive

• White people spend their energy defending themselves against accusations of racism instead of examining how racism might actually be occurring

• The defensive attitude of those in power creates an oppressive culture

Countermeasures: understand that the structure alone cannot encourage or prevent abuse; understand the link between defensiveness and fear (of losing power, credibility, comfort, or privileges); work on one’s own defensiveness; identify defensiveness as a problem when it is one; give people credit for being able to handle more than is expected; discuss the ways in which defensiveness or resistance to new ideas get in the way of the mission

Prioritizing quantity over quality

• All of the organization’s resources are directed toward achieving measurable goals

• Things that can be measured are valued more highly than those that cannot; for example, the number of people attending a meeting or the circulation of a newsletter; money spent is valued more highly than the quality of relationships, democratic decision-making, and the ability to deal with conflicts constructively

• little or no value placed on the process; if it cannot be measured, it has no value

• discomfort when dealing with emotions and feelings

• failing to understand that when there is a conflict between the content (the meeting agenda) and the process (the need for people to be heard or for their attention to be captured), the process will take precedence (for example, the agenda can be completed, but if no attention is paid to people’s need to be heard, the decisions made at the meeting are undermined and/or ignored)

antidotes: Include process or quality goals in planning; ensure that the organization has a values statement that articulates the ways in which it wants to carry out its work; ensure that this is a living document and that people use it daily in their work; Look for ways to measure process objectives (for example, if there is an inclusion objective, think about ways to measure whether or not that objective has been achieved); learn to recognize those moments when it is necessary to step away from the agenda to address people’s underlying concerns

A Love of the Written Word

• If it’s not mentioned in a press release, it doesn’t exist

• The organization does not take into account or evaluate other ways in which information is shared

• Strong documentation and writing skills are valued more highly, even in organizations where the ability to relate to others is key to the mission

Solutions: Take the time to analyze how people both inside and outside the organization obtain and share information; determine what needs to be recorded and propose alternative ways to document what is happening; work toward recognizing the contributions and skills that each person brings to the organization (for example, the ability to build relationships with people who are important to the organization’s mission); ensure that everything written is clearly understood (avoid academic language, buzzwords, etc.)

Only one way

• the belief that there is a right way to do things and that once people learn the right way, they will have an epiphany and adopt it

• When people don’t adapt or change, it means that something isn’t working for them (the others, those who don’t change), not for us (those who “know” the right path)

• similar to the attitude of missionaries who fail to appreciate the value of other communities’ cultures, seeing value only in their own beliefs about what is good

antidotes: accept that there are many paths that lead to the same goal; once the group has decided which path to take, respect that decision and see what can be learned by taking that path—both at the organizational and personal levels—even, and especially, if it is not the path you would have chosen; Work on developing the ability to recognize when people do things differently and how those different approaches can improve your own; identify a group’s or individual’s tendency to repeatedly harp on the same point, based on the belief that there is only one correct way, and point out that tendency; When working with communities from a culture different from your own or that of your organization, be clear that there is something to learn about how those communities operate; never assume that you or your organization know what is best for the community if you do not have meaningful relationships with that community

Paternalism

• Decision-making is clear to those in power and unclear to those who are not

• Those in power believe they are capable of making decisions that benefit those without power

• Those in power often do not believe it is important or necessary to understand the perspective or experience of the people for whom they make decisions

• Those who lack power understand that they do not have it and understand who does

• Those who lack power do not really know how or by whom decisions are made; yet they are all too familiar with the impact of those decisions on a personal level

Solutions: Ensure that everyone knows and understands who makes which decisions within the organization; ensure that each person’s level of responsibility and authority within the organization is both recognized and understood; involve those affected by decisions in the decision-making process

Dichotomous View

• Things are one way or the other: good or bad, right or wrong, for or against.

• closely linked to perfectionism, as it makes it difficult to learn from mistakes or adapt to conflicts

• It makes no sense for things to encompass both perspectives or include others

• It leads to attempts to oversimplify complex issues—for example, believing that poverty is simply the result of a lack of education

• creates conflict and increases a sense of urgency, since people feel they have to make decisions to do this or that, without the time or incentive to consider alternatives—particularly those that may require more time or resources

• Often used by those with a clear agenda or goal to pressure those who are still considering or weighing their options between “A” and “B,” without recognizing the need for time and creativity to explore other possibilities

Countermeasures: Notice when people use polarized language and push for more than two alternatives; recognize when people are trivializing complex issues, particularly when the stakes are high or an urgent decision needs to be made; slow down and encourage people to conduct a more in-depth analysis; when people are facing an urgent decision, take a break and allow time for creative thinking; avoid making decisions under extreme pressure

Power Grab

• Sharing power is valued little or not at all

• Power is seen as limited, insufficient to be shared

• Those at the top of the hierarchy feel threatened when someone suggests changes to how things should be done within the organization; they perceive suggestions for change as criticism of their leadership

• People in power do not view themselves as power-hungry or feel threatened without good reason

• People in power assume that they have the organization’s best interests at heart and that only those who are misinformed (stupid), emotional, or inexperienced want change.

Solutions: Include shared power in the organization’s mission statement; discuss what constitutes good leadership and ensure that people understand that effective leaders develop the power and skills of others; recognize that change is inevitable and that leadership challenges can be healthy and productive; ensure that the organization remains focused on its mission

Fear of Conflict

• People in power are afraid of open conflict and try to ignore it or avoid it

• When someone raises an issue that causes discomfort, the response is to blame the person for raising the issue rather than examining the actual cause of the problem

• emphasis on being polite

• equating the raising of difficult issues with being rude, impolite, or out of line

Countermeasures: Use role-playing exercises to manage conflicts before they arise; distinguish between being polite and raising difficult issues; do not require those who raise difficult issues to do so in an “acceptable” manner, especially if the way the issues are raised is used as an excuse to avoid addressing them; once a conflict has been resolved, take the opportunity to review it and consider how it could have been handled differently.

Individualism

• limited experience or comfort working as part of a team

• People in the organization believe they are responsible for solving problems on their own

• In cases where accountability is required, it applies from the bottom up, not across the board toward colleagues or those for whom the organization is intended

• desire for recognition and individual credit

• leads to isolation

• Competitiveness is valued over cooperation, and even where cooperation is valued, little time or resources are devoted to developing skills in how to cooperate

• It fosters a lack of accountability, since the organization values those who can take the initiative to get things done without needing supervision or guidance

antidotes: Include teamwork as a key value in the mission statement; ensure that the organization is working toward shared goals and that people understand how working together improves performance; assess people’s ability to work as a team, as well as their ability to perform the work; ensure that credit is given to those who participate and make an effort, not just to people in leadership positions or to the most visible individuals; hold the group accountable rather than individuals; create a culture in which problems are brought to the group’s attention; use staff meetings as a forum for problem-solving, not just for reporting on activities

I’m the only one

• linked to individualism, the belief that for something to be done well, “I” have to do it

• little or no ability to delegate work

Countermeasures: Evaluate people based on their ability to delegate; evaluate people based on their ability to work as part of a team to achieve shared goals

Progress is defined by size and quantity

• It is evident in how we define success (success is always measured by size and quantity)

• Progress is an organization that is either expanding (hiring more staff, taking on more projects) or developing its capacity to serve more people (regardless of the quality of service)

• The costs that may result are not taken into account—not even in a negative sense— for example, greater accountability to funders as the budget grows, which can lead to excluding or neglecting those we serve, since we focus on the number of people served rather than on the quality or the value created by the way we serve them

antidotes: Foster a “Seventh Generation” mindset by asking how the group’s current actions will affect people seven generations from now; ensure that any cost-benefit analysis includes all costs—not just financial ones—such as the moral cost, the cost to credibility, and the cost in terms of resource use; Include the process goals in planning; for example, ensure that the goals address how the work is to be done, not just what is to be done; ask the people with whom and for whom you work to evaluate your own performance

Objectivity*

• the belief that there is such a thing as objectivity or “neutrality”

• the belief that emotions are inherently destructive and irrational and should not play a role in decision-making or in the group process

• to dismiss people who show emotions

• requiring people to think in a linear (logical) way and ignoring or dismissing those who think differently

• impatience with any thought that doesn’t seem “logical”

Antidotes: Realize that everyone has a worldview and that it affects how things are understood; also realize what this means for each person on a personal level; make an effort to accept the discomfort that arises when people express themselves in unfamiliar ways; assume that everyone has a valid point and that the task at hand is to understand what that point is.

Right to Comfort

• the belief that those in power are entitled to emotional and psychological comfort (another area where “logic” is valued over emotion)

• turning those who cause trouble into scapegoats

• equate individual acts of injustice against white people with the systemic racism that people of color face on a daily basis

antidotes: understand that discomfort is the foundation of all growth and learning; accept it as much as possible; explore your own political analysis of racism and oppression to fully understand how personal experience and feelings fit into a broader perspective; don’t take things personally

One of the purposes of listing the characteristics of white supremacist culture is to expose how organizations that unconsciously use these characteristics as norms and standards make it difficult, if not impossible, to make room for other cultural norms and standards. As a result, many of our organizations, which claim to be multicultural, only allow other people and cultures to join if they adapt or conform to the prevailing cultural norms. Being able to identify and articulate the cultural norms and standards you desire is the first step toward fostering a truly multicultural organization.

Selected Bibliography:

Notes from the People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond Workshop, Oakland, CA, spring 1999. Notes from the Challenging White Supremacy Workshop, San Francisco, CA, spring 1999. Beverly Daniel Tatum, *Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? * NY: HarperCollins, 1997. Derrick Jensen, *A Language Older Than Words*. NY: Context Books, 2000. Paul Kivel, *Uprooting Racism*. PA: New Society Publishers, 1996. Anne Wilson Schaef, *Living in Process*. NY: Ballantine, 1998. For the complete bibliography, see the full notebook for dRwork’s “Dismantling Racism” process.

dRworks is a group of trainers, educators, and organizers working to build strong, progressive, and anti-racist organizations and institutions. You can contact dRworks through its website at www.dismantlingracism.org.