White Members Conversation

By Jane Ariel

The white members conversation that took place at this year's pre-conference reflected continued interest in exploring the ways in which we as whites inevitably act out the racist scripts that we have grown up with in the United States. Participants included both people who had attended meetings in previous years and new participants. This year, we suggested expanding our discussion of racism to how it has affected reactions to and experiences of 9/11 as well as resulting governmental policies. The guidelines which structured the conversation urged respectful communication, compassion—particularly concerning situations where any person was in the journey towards awareness—and confidentiality about the details of particular communications.

The discussion began by questioning whether we wanted to talk about ethnicity as well as race since, particularly after 9/11, people of various ethnicities had become targets of racial profiling and policy. A determining factor in this was to pay attention to which voices were being silenced and which ones were carrying the dominant discourse. Since one of the outcomes of white privilege can be to become blind to other realities, we felt that both domestic and foreign policy in the United States after 9/11 was based on the potentially racist idea of creating an "other" who could be considered the dangerous "enemy" who was less moral or ethical than we are. The "other" in this case had darker skin and looked like an Arab. Such rationalization supported our war in Afghanistan as an attempt to capture as yet unseen terrorists, as well as restrictive and undemocratic domestic policies toward Arabs. When objections to these policies arise, attempts to silence them argue that such objection is unpatriotic. The intersection of sexism with racism inherent in some of these actions was brought up by a member who suggested reading the book "Stupid White Men." We talked also about the emotional challenge of maintaining empathy with people who construct you as Other, and who are committed to doing you harm. To attempt to remain connected with such people can be very stressful and provocative.

People spoke about the necessity of tolerating ambiguity, instead of creating either/or scenarios, educating towards a critical consciousness and fostering the development of authentic relationships across difference as ways of combating the arrogance of unexamined white supremacy.

Several questions and suggestions then followed. One concerned the name of the group. Some expressed their feeling that the present name keeps members of AFTA away, since its purpose isn't clear. Several alternatives were put forth and they will be discussed by e-mail during the year. Another suggestion involved a proposal for general training for AFTA members concerning racism, utilizing an institute which is well known for its ability to powerfully affect people in helping them to find their consciousness and voice in the struggle against white supremacy. Since this particular training also requires the involvement of people of color, it was thought that, while the white people's group would take the initiative, it would be important to speak with the people of color group to find out what they would think about such a training. It was also decided to look at other training possibilities to make sure the one most relevant to AFTA's needs would be chosen. This also will be considered by e-mail in the near future.

One of the results of this conversation was the sense that the people participating in the White Members conversation had begun to act more like a group, with a possible purpose and agenda. Up until this year, any agenda seemed to revolve around the question of why we were meeting and who might come, rather than a being focused on a centered sense of purpose. We all continue to hope that the conscious and unconscious effect of racist practices upon our organization and the consulting we do will remain a primary concern of AFTA. The deepening of our conversation at these meetings is one of the ways we are personally committed to this effort.

Jane Ariel, Ph.D. is a psychotherapist in private practice in Oakland, CA, where she sees individuals, couples and families. She is particularly interested in alternative families and the effect of social conditioning on individual lives. She teaches family therapy and works with issues of diversity at the Wright Institute in Berkeley, California and is a consultant with Visions, a national organization dedicated to providing training for multiculturalism in numerous settings.