Once during a job interview I was asked what I thought about the ethics and politics of white people ‘doing’ Critical Race Theory. At the time, the mainstream media were focusing some very problematic attention on "white studies," and I was working on an anti-racist project about the meanings of whiteness as it informs and is informed by gender, class, sexuality, and culture.1 The interviewer, a white male, was particularly interested in how I, a white feminist, could justify doing critical race theory. Wasn’t I appropriating the work and struggles of men and women of color for my own professional gain? Wasn’t I doing the "same thing" as men who ‘do’ feminist theory, who appropriate the work and struggles of feminists for their own professional gain and at relatively little professional risk?

In his essay, "Male Feminism as Oxymoron," David Kahane describes a scenario with which feminists are all too familiar, namely, the fact that female students and faculty often eagerly welcome men’s interest and personal and professional involvement in feminism. (Kahane [1998], 214) It is certainly true that men who do feminism receive more support and encouragement than women who do feminism. Male philosophers who do feminism are much more likely to be perceived to be "thoughtful, good" men by their colleagues and students; however, female feminist philosophers are often perceived to be too aggressive and unfriendly by their colleagues and students. In addition, female feminist philosophers often have the experience of having their abilities to teach or understand "real" (i.e., canonical) philosophy questioned. (Kahane, 1998, 224)

During my interview I briefly wondered (to myself, of course) if men who do feminist philosophy are ever asked by other men about the ethics and politics of their interests in feminist philosophy during job interviews.2 However, my interviewer was not asking me anything that I had not asked myself countless times. Indeed, I continue to question what it means for me and other white people to work in Critical Race Theory. To the extent that white people are working in Critical Race Theory in a context of white supremacy and patriarchy, it is crucial for us to maintain a critical, self-reflexive relation to our work. White people who do critical race theory ought to always ask themselves, "To what extent does our work contribute to or hinder ‘the empowerment of oppressed people’?" (Alcoff [1995], 251) Minimally, this means that white people working in critical race theory must acknowledge the foundational work on race and racism by men and women of color.

In this essay I am particularly concerned with some of the ethical and political issues for white feminists who work in Critical Race Theory. My thoughts about this issue are motivated by my experiences in situations in which some white feminists have remained silent while men of color and white men talk about race as if it were separate from gender, class, and sexuality. White feminists who choose to critique white men and men of color when they ignore gender, class, and sexuality in their discussions of race are often criticized for changing the subject or accused of being racist. However, when race is separated from gender in philosophical discussions of race, the experiences of women of color and the work of feminists of color that theorizes the interrelatedness of gender, race, class, and sexuality are ignored and erased. As Elizabeth Higginbotham notes, "...in a society where racial demarcation is endemic to their socio-cultural fabric and heritage—to their laws and economy, to their institutionalized structures and discourses, and to their epistemologies and everyday customs—gender identity is inextricably linked to and even determined by racial identity." (Higginbotham [1996], 6) My purpose in this essay is not to single out particular theorists for critique. Instead, I wish to discuss some troubling trends in philosophical discussions of race in order to facilitate further reflection about the ways in which these discussions can be more inclusive and contribute to the elimination of both racism and sexism.

There are reasons to be suspicious of white philosophers (male and female) who are suddenly proclaiming an interest in Critical Race Theory. Often it seems as if some of these white people have developed specializations in critical race theory overnight, as if one could claim competency in this area after reading a couple of recommended books. It is highly doubtful that a philosopher would be taken very seriously as a Plato scholar if she or he claimed to have read only the Republic in translation.

Many feminists of color have written about their desire to know how white scholars have become interested in Critical Race Theory. In a social, political, historical and discursive context in which white supremacy and patriarchy are linked, the voices of white men are considered the most authoritative voices, and philosophical interest in critical race theory certainly seems to have become more prevalent since some white male philosophers have begun to write and speak about race. Sometimes the work of white critical race theorists deconstructs whiteness, and sometimes it analyzes the experiences, ideas, and political struggles of people of color. As Linda Alcoff notes, the problem is not the fact that white men and white women write and speak about people of color. Rather, the problem concerns the way in which white people write and speak about people of color. In other words, white critical race theorists need to consider the effects of their work to ensure that it does not reinforce existing race and gender hierarchies. (Alcoff [1995], 250) One aspect of the power and privilege of white people in white supremacy is the power to name and define the identities and realities of people of color and for their accounts to be perceived as authoritative. As white philosophers who choose to work in Critical Race Theory, we take responsibility for this aspect of white privilege when we speak out against the marginalization and invisibility of men and women of color in the profession of philosophy, in philosophy classrooms, and in philosophical discussions of race and racism.

It is troubling that in the philosophical race to do Critical Race Theory the work of a few, token men of color is the work that seems to receive the most attention when the work of people of color is mentioned at all. I am not suggesting that the work of men of color is not important or useful or that white men should not do critical race theory. Rather, I am concerned about the ways in which this work is given more legitimacy and authority than the work of feminists of color.

If critical race theorists and feminist theorists seek to make possible the empowerment of oppressed people, we have a responsibility to acknowledge and integrate the many insights offered by women of color in Critical Race Feminism, and this means acknowledging the connections between Critical Race Theory and feminist theory. When white feminists remain silent while men of color and white men discuss race in ways that ignore gender and feminist insights, they are complicit in the erasure of women of color.

Many white feminist philosophers have eloquently critiqued male bias in the western philosophical canon and the sexism of some of their white male colleagues. However, many white feminist race traitors3 appear reluctant to challenge men of color when they ignore gender in their analyses of race. For example, in a recent editorial, bell hooks questions the frequent passivity and silence of (often white) progressive people in the face of the sexism of black men. She writes, "Progressive non-black folks, many of them white, often do not challenge black male support of patriarchy even though they would oppose sexism in other groups of men." (hooks [1999], 15) At the same time, white feminists who criticize the sexism of men of color risk perpetuating the racist assumption that men of color are more sexist than white men. As bell hooks writes in an earlier book, "Since many black men believe that [the] feminist movement threatens to erase their voices, to usurp focus on racial oppression, it is in the interest of the feminist movement to examine the negative implications of attempts to censor their work, or to overly condemn a particular group of men." (hooks [1990], 66) Obviously, hooks is not claiming that black men in particular or men of color in general are never sexist or that white feminists should never critique the sexism of men of color. hooks’ point is that white feminists must be cognizant of the potential effects of their critiques of men of color to ensure that those critiques work against rather than reinforce white supremacy, and men of color "must seek to fully explore feminist thinking" to ensure that their discussions of race and racism work against rather than reinforce patriarchy. (hooks [1990], 67) Thus, we white feminists must consider the extent to which our silences are informed by a sense of solidarity with men of color and an informed wariness of being overly critical of men of color in a context of white supremacy. In addition, we white feminists must consider the extent to which our silences are a result of white guilt and the assumption that constructions of race and gender are entirely separate. Maintaining a critical, anti-racist and feminist consciousness of the complexity of one’s location does not mean that white feminists must refrain from challenging men of color who theorize about race while ignoring gender.

The hesitancy of many white feminists to criticize men of color often reflects a conscious desire to resist white privilege and an awareness that one aspect of white privilege is the freedom to choose whether or not one wants to listen to and take seriously the critiques of white supremacy by people of color. Indeed, white ignorance of the experiences and work of people of color is one of the many ways in which white people are able to remain comfortably complicit with white supremacy. In the context of academic philosophy, white privilege has enabled white philosophers (male and female) to "freely disparage, fear, neglect, or be oblivious to anything outside of the dominant cultural forms." (McIntosh [1997], 295) For example, white privilege has enabled many white (mostly male) philosophers to dismiss multicultural and postcolonial work as marginal to the concerns of ‘real’ philosophy. White feminist race traitors are aware of the extent to which both critical race theory and feminist theory are blamed for polluting the discipline of philosophy. Consequently, white feminists often feel solidarity with men of color who are critiquing racism and understand the importance of their work for anti-racist feminist theorizing.

Many feminists of color and white feminists have argued that one way in which white women can be accountable for white privilege is to include critical reflection on the meanings of whiteness and the implications of white privilege to our thinking about race and racism and gender and sexism. According to Linda Alcoff, white people who wish to make useful contributions to critical race scholarship must develop a form of white double consciousness, a consciousness that "requires an everpresent acknowledgment of the historical legacy of white identity constructions in the persistent structures of inequality and exploitation, as well as a newly awakened memory of the many white traitors to white privilege who have struggled to contribute to the building of an inclusive human community." (Alcoff [1998], 25) For us white feminist philosophers, white double consciousness is reflected in our attempts to question the ways in which our location as white women shapes the questions and methods of our feminist theorizing, our struggles to undo "the I while asking ‘what do I want wanting to know you or me?’" (Mihn-Ha [1989], 76) Some white feminists have integrated this self-reflexive relation to whiteness as it shapes and is shaped by gender in their feminist theorizing through the use of autobiography. While the use of autobiography in feminist theorizing does not guarantee the elimination of white privilege, it does provide insight into the ways in which anti-racist white feminists are attempting to resist white supremacy by refusing to perpetuate associations of whiteness with authority, neutrality, and objectivity. And, to the extent that authority, neutrality, and objectivity are attributed to a (white, male) writing subject who is both everywhere and nowhere, the use of autobiography is one of the ways in which some white feminists have, however imperfectly, refused to be white.

White feminist race traitors have attempted to use autobiography to refuse to allow readers or listeners to remain comfortably ignorant about structural inequalities that enable the work of white scholars to be seen as more authoritative. Lisa Heldke understands her attempt to make her whiteness visible as one of the ways in which she can be accountable to people of color. Heldke writes, "Traitorousness requires me to insist on my whiteness—to insist that I and others recognize my whiteness as always relevant, always a factor in the way I conceive the world and others; and to work to detect that factor in the places where it is presently most undetectable to me." (Heldke [1998], 93) We white feminist race traitors have attempted to use autobiography in our theorizing to make visible our struggles "to rearticulate our identities in ways that do not depend on the subordination of people of color." (Bailey [1998], 28) The efforts of some white feminists to theorize whiteness are responses to criticisms of racist exclusions in feminist theorizing by women of color. (Moraga and Anzaldúa [1981])

Anti-racist white feminists have understood the inclusion of critical reflections on whiteness in our analyses of power as an important part of taking responsibility for white privilege and being accountable to women and men of color. While many white feminists have understood the importance of critical race theory for inclusive feminist theorizing, dominant discussions of race in philosophy have often failed to demonstrate an awareness of the importance of feminist insights for inclusive critical race theory. Including gender in philosophical discussions of race is not a matter of an unreasonable expectation that philosophers who discuss race must somehow "do it all" in one paper or book. The point is that discussions of race that are not informed by an awareness of the ways in which race is gendered and gender is raced are incomplete. Any analysis of race that does not address the complex connections between critical race theory and feminism contributes to the invisibility of women of color. I am not saying anything new here. Feminists of color have frequently stressed the need to understand the interrelatedness of race and gender.

For the most part, recent philosophical discussions of race have been dominated by white men and men of color. This does not mean that women of color and white women have remained silent. On the contrary, women of color and white women have made many contributions to this discussion. The problem is that the influential work that women of color, especially feminists of color, have done is often not the work that is referenced and seriously engaged on panels at professional meetings. However, white women and women of color, especially feminists, are often asked to comment on the work of some men of color. What concerns me about this trend is not the fact that the work of men of color receives attention and is seriously engaged at scholarly meetings. In fact this work needs to be heard. What is troubling is the fact that the significant body of work by feminists of color is often ignored, even though this work has provided the ground for current developments in feminist and critical race theories.

In order to effectively theorize race, critical race theorists must theorize gender, and feminist theorists must theorize race in order to effectively theorize gender. When we white feminists fail to challenge the silences about gender in discussions of race between white men and men of color, we fail to be accountable to women of color whose experiences cannot be understood when race and gender are considered separately. For white feminists, being critical of white privilege involves questioning how racism and sexism shape our interactions with both men and women of color. Thus, white feminists do not effectively resist white privilege when they remain silent when men of color and white men separate race and gender in their discussions of race. Also, critical race theorists and feminist philosophers will never achieve an accurate understanding of racism and sexism in the profession of philosophy as long as our discussions of these issues separate the status of women and the status of people of color, because this way of framing the discussion does not address the experiences of women of color in philosophy. In order to effectively resist both white supremacy and patriarchy, both critical race theorists and feminist theorists must consider the extent to which their theories of race and gender enable the empowerment of women of color.

1. See Chris J. Cuomo and Kim Hall, eds. Whiteness: Feminist Philosophical Narratives (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), forthcoming.

2. There are many important and interesting questions about analogies between men doing feminism and white people doing critical race theory. However, in this paper I wish to focus on the racial and gendered dynamics in philosophical discussions of race that separate race and gender.

3. I use the expression ‘race traitor’ to refer to those white people who recognize that white supremacy is maintained and reinforced through everyday actions and decisions which reflect a belief in the existence of race and make race real. White race traitors refuse to be white in the sense that they attempt to expose the lie of race. At the same time, white race traitors take responsibility for the countless ways in which those people who are marked as "white" benefit from white supremacy. In other words, saying that race is not real does not mean that racism does not exist. White feminist race traitors are white feminists who struggle to decenter whiteness in their feminist theorizing and activism and who attempt to take responsibility for the ways in which white privilege informs their feminist theory, activism, and personal relationships.

Moraga, Cherríe and Gloria Anzaldúa, eds. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (New York: Kitchen Table, 1981).