This is a good discussion to have. “White logic” and “white methods” are still very much prevalent in practice today and no matter how “color blind” we would like to be, these ideals are still heavily engrained in how we operate. Bonilla-Silve and Zuberi bring up an important point that addressing these topics help show researchers just how much this can limit the way people think about race. I really liked Bonilla-Silva and Zuberi’s thoughtful approach to the subject and their use of vignettes show just how personal these issues run. I did a little research on them and for these two men to dedicate their life’s work to race shows just how important the topic really is.
I think it is completely impossible to have a conversation about decolonization without acknowledging race or the social constructs of it. I think even the “least racist”, “most color blind” people are still subject to “white logic” and “white methods” because logic and methods are a predominantly white construct.
I am really interested to hear their opinions on the social constructs of race. I always thought race was biological while culture was the social construct. They argue that if race were rigid and unchangeable, it would put a restriction on our capability to understand it. I am not sure yet that the notion of race has changed over time and therefore, we need to change as well. Last year, a woman named Rachel Dolezal made the news as a racially Caucasian woman trying to “pass” as black. She had the social construct argument and in her soul, she felt black. However, when a black school wouldn’t accept her, she sued them for discriminating against her for being white. I do not know where I stand with this fluidity. On one side, I would never want to be against race as a social construct if it were to oppress anyone but this example makes be stop and think.
This social construct argument may be one of the reasons people have a hard time wrapping their heads about the white logic/methods. The fact that race can be self-imposed is, in my head, a fairly new notion. In their work, Bonilla-Silva and Zuberi also pointed out that they are two men of color discussing whiteness. This is a very delicate subject to approach… but what if there were two white men discussing blackness? People would be outraged. I understand the argument that it is almost impossible to compare the two as white people have not suffered anywhere near the extent as anyone of colored has (in life, therefore extending to effects of colonization) but I would be remiss to not bring it up.
In their writing, I think Denzin and Lincoln, tread a little more lightly. A type of reverse racism comes to mind when I read their article. They may see themselves already at a disadvantage of being able to discuss methodologies as non-native researchers aware of the colonizing effects. I do think both sides have a “political and moral” argument and everyone should have a place at the dinner table. I don’t think one way or another should have any more “weight” but fair does not always mean equal and in think case, maybe more consideration should be taken into indigenous research than Western research.