White charity

chapter its concepts and characteristics and explain where I see the merits and the limits of thecurrent Critical Whiteness debate. In chapter II, I extend this approach by depicting Roland Barthes'theory of mythologies. I relate it to the debate and demonstrate how his semiological method can bemade fruitful as an analytical foundation to whiteness. A short excursus about post-colonial globalpolitics and economy forms the transition to the last chapter, in which I am applying the theoreticalresults of the former chapters to my example of the charity ads.Chapter I: Whiteness“...the subject is extremely difficult to talk about becausemany white people don´t feel powerful or as they haveprivileges that others do not. It is sort of asking fish to noticewater or birds to discuss air.” (Frances E. Kendall 2001 15 )definition and characteristics of whitenessTo speak about whiteness, it first needs to be defined. Browsing through the books and articles ofCritical Whiteness Studies, I realised that a whole range of different definitions is used. I understandwhiteness first of all as an analytical category to examine power relationships. It is based on aracialised categorisation of the world whose initiating force it is at the same time (Wollrad 2005:21). It considers itself normative, however disavowing the very fact. Whiteness is guaranteeing asubject status to people it considers white (Wollrad 2005: 52f). It has to be viewed as a flexiblecategory, which was constructed by a political motivation, it has to be reconstructed and can begained, lost or bought. As it is not a natural category, it carries the notion of becoming (dt.geworden) (Wollrad 2005: 37, 60, 80, 127, Arndt 2005b: 343, 351). Whiteness functionsindependently from self perception and beyond the institutional level (Arndt 2005b: 343). Wollrad(2005: 127) understands whiteness as a relational category which has no essence in itself. I agreewith her that it takes shape in contrast to non-whites and has to be seen in relation to otheranalytical categories such as gender, class and sexuality. However, I would argue with Frankenberg(1997: 632, italics in original) that “whiteness does have content inasmuch as it generates norms,ways of understanding history, ways of thinking about self and other, and even ways of thinkingabout the notion of culture itself.” A particular characteristic of whiteness is that it is widely notviewed as a relevant category at all or is simply perceived as a-paradigmatic (Wollrad 2005: 125 etal). The analysis of whiteness has to therefore pay increased attention to the invisible normalitywhich whiteness is creating (Arndt 2005a: 27, Arndt 2005b: 346). The last key characteristic of my15 http://northonline.sccd.ctc.edu/beginnings/Kendall.htm6