What do you think?
Rate this book
Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology
White Identity Politics
Amidst discontent over America's growing diversity, many white Americans now view the political world through the lens of a racial identity. Whiteness was once thought to be invisible because of whites' dominant position and ability to claim the mainstream, but today a large portion of whites actively identify with their racial group and support policies and candidates that they view as protecting whites' power and status. In White Identity Politics, Ashley Jardina offers a landmark analysis of emerging patterns of white identity and collective political behavior, drawing on sweeping data. Where past research on whites' racial attitudes emphasized out-group hostility, Jardina brings into focus the significance of in-group identity and favoritism. White Identity Politics shows that disaffected whites are not just found among the working class; they make up a broad proportion of the American public - with profound implications for political behavior and the future of racial conflict in America.
Kindle Edition
First published February 28, 2019
74 people are currently reading
1124 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
March 24, 2019
This quote from its last chapter, perfectly encapsulates the book: "the politics of white identity is marked by an insidious illusion, one in which whites claim their group experiences discrimination in an effort to reinforce and maintain a system of racial inequality where whites are the dominant group with the lion’s share of power and privileges."
Thorough research, illuminating and timely. The chapter on immigration was extremely well written and I will likely assign it in my immigration policy class.
Thorough research, illuminating and timely. The chapter on immigration was extremely well written and I will likely assign it in my immigration policy class.
October 18, 2020
This was a good book full of good research, but it was really academic. Also, she insists that white identity politics is not measuring racism at all and that they are distinct phenomena, but I am not sure why that insistence is necessary as racism is really hard to measure and if it walks like a duck....
December 23, 2020
This well-written and soundly documented book, while not a mirror image of Ms. Wilkerson’s “Caste,” is almost a “twin” of sorts.
As I’ve indicated in my review of “Caste,” Ms. Wilkerson frames the Black-white divide — indeed, the growing divisions between so many Americans — as the consequence of our maintaining, however unconsciously, the centuries-old American “caste system” based upon the skin color differentiation between white people and all others, especially Blacks.
Interestingly, although Ms. Jardina in her book explicitly dives into the complexities and nuances of “white identity,” she also helps underline that it is a great mistake to identify those millions of whites who are pushing back against immigration, the reality of rising numbers of non-whites, and the cultural differences between urban and rural America as being also inextricably “racist.”
It is far more complicated than that. Ms. Wilkerson shows how the unconscious, but deeply absorbed, “norms” of caste influences who people “see” people who appear to them to be “different” in some way. Resentment, fear, and unease about the future CAN be shared by those who are racist, but are not markers of racism. They, instead, demonstrate an awareness of loss of status, the slipping of their place in the social order, and a deep pessimism about what this holds for their children’s future.
Ms. Jardina essentially concurs, and in a work far more scholarly — in a statistics and data driven manner — than Ms. Wilkerson’s more easily readable tale that relies upon abundant personal testimony, shows how while some whites who voted for Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade, and “white values” were racist, a great many of them are not.
She traces the rise of what we now see as white identity — even white nationalism on the extreme right — as a reaction that surged into the open after the election of the first Black man to hold the presidency, but the roots of which lay far deeper in the economic and social changes that have battered the middle class in recent decades.
In a book that may have developed out of a doctoral thesis, Ms. Jardina — an assistant professor of political science at Duke University — takes pains to show the many gradations that exist within the larger universe of white identity: the level, for instance, that people identify with others as “white people,” or the degree by which such people are drawn to positions of solidarity with “all whites,” and the extent to which they are expressing more resentment at the loss — or perceived loss — of their economic status as oppose to specifically blaming others, especially people of color, for that loss.
This book is well worth reading attentively!
Here are the matters that I take as most important from my own reading:
First, not all whites involved in resistance to current trends or who supported Trump and his policies are ignorant, uneducated, or racist!
Second, their grievances are based on real — or perceived — “losses” that they or white people in general share as fundamental offenses, threats, or insults. (The importance here is that what people “feel,” whether fact-based or not, still must be addressed if their grievances and passions are to be assuaged.)
Third, and in a point that echoes Wilkerson, whatever the significance or magnitude of benefits they had previously enjoyed in life BECAUSE they were white, these had come to be seen as “normal” and, when things occur that seem to threaten these things — traditional, conservative Christianity, for example — than it is experienced as a loss.
The very fact that more non-white persons are seen everywhere these days, including, importantly, in positions of prominence and power, can “feel” to them as if “they” have lost something of what used to seem “normal America.”
Fourth, and to my way of thinking, absolutely critical to any hope the rest of us might have of bringing our divisions closer together, unless their legitimate economic grievances are successfully addressed matters will only get worse.
Unaddressed, nationalist populists like Trump — and others who yearn to follow or replace him in the future — will use their slipping middle class status, the steady loss of good jobs, the dying out of rural communities, and the not very well suppressed disdain of some of the cultural and political elites to keep them angry, resentful, and enraged.
What this country desperately needs is a democratic populism that is inclusive and substantial, one that challenges and overcomes the strangle-hold the extremely wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations have over the rest of us.
What we must also do is AVOID those kind of targeted programs — say, just for students of higher education, or for just Blacks, or for just “worthy” immigrants — that only further stir up resentment among whites, and many other groups as well and, instead, build upon, strengthen, and expand those programs and policies which benefit the widest possible number of Americans and which, not so incidentally, are also good news to people of color and the poorest among us, programs such as Social Security, Medicare, affordable health care for all, revitalizing rural communities and expanding resource-protecting farming, etc.
These will likely be celebrated by the vast majority of Americans as truly speaking to THEIR needs and, thus, work to diminish the we-they divide that would-be demagogues and authoritarians count on to keep people divided, angry, and unable to work together.
Such programs will, however, definitely cost money, and those who serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful — those, that is, who are currently benefiting from the way things currently are! — will loudly wail that “we cannot afford them.” A sound never raised when taxes are cut for the rich or tax breaks offered to fossil fuel producers.
This good battle is worth fighting; but it will require intelligence, organization, and persistence.
As I’ve indicated in my review of “Caste,” Ms. Wilkerson frames the Black-white divide — indeed, the growing divisions between so many Americans — as the consequence of our maintaining, however unconsciously, the centuries-old American “caste system” based upon the skin color differentiation between white people and all others, especially Blacks.
Interestingly, although Ms. Jardina in her book explicitly dives into the complexities and nuances of “white identity,” she also helps underline that it is a great mistake to identify those millions of whites who are pushing back against immigration, the reality of rising numbers of non-whites, and the cultural differences between urban and rural America as being also inextricably “racist.”
It is far more complicated than that. Ms. Wilkerson shows how the unconscious, but deeply absorbed, “norms” of caste influences who people “see” people who appear to them to be “different” in some way. Resentment, fear, and unease about the future CAN be shared by those who are racist, but are not markers of racism. They, instead, demonstrate an awareness of loss of status, the slipping of their place in the social order, and a deep pessimism about what this holds for their children’s future.
Ms. Jardina essentially concurs, and in a work far more scholarly — in a statistics and data driven manner — than Ms. Wilkerson’s more easily readable tale that relies upon abundant personal testimony, shows how while some whites who voted for Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade, and “white values” were racist, a great many of them are not.
She traces the rise of what we now see as white identity — even white nationalism on the extreme right — as a reaction that surged into the open after the election of the first Black man to hold the presidency, but the roots of which lay far deeper in the economic and social changes that have battered the middle class in recent decades.
In a book that may have developed out of a doctoral thesis, Ms. Jardina — an assistant professor of political science at Duke University — takes pains to show the many gradations that exist within the larger universe of white identity: the level, for instance, that people identify with others as “white people,” or the degree by which such people are drawn to positions of solidarity with “all whites,” and the extent to which they are expressing more resentment at the loss — or perceived loss — of their economic status as oppose to specifically blaming others, especially people of color, for that loss.
This book is well worth reading attentively!
Here are the matters that I take as most important from my own reading:
First, not all whites involved in resistance to current trends or who supported Trump and his policies are ignorant, uneducated, or racist!
Second, their grievances are based on real — or perceived — “losses” that they or white people in general share as fundamental offenses, threats, or insults. (The importance here is that what people “feel,” whether fact-based or not, still must be addressed if their grievances and passions are to be assuaged.)
Third, and in a point that echoes Wilkerson, whatever the significance or magnitude of benefits they had previously enjoyed in life BECAUSE they were white, these had come to be seen as “normal” and, when things occur that seem to threaten these things — traditional, conservative Christianity, for example — than it is experienced as a loss.
The very fact that more non-white persons are seen everywhere these days, including, importantly, in positions of prominence and power, can “feel” to them as if “they” have lost something of what used to seem “normal America.”
Fourth, and to my way of thinking, absolutely critical to any hope the rest of us might have of bringing our divisions closer together, unless their legitimate economic grievances are successfully addressed matters will only get worse.
Unaddressed, nationalist populists like Trump — and others who yearn to follow or replace him in the future — will use their slipping middle class status, the steady loss of good jobs, the dying out of rural communities, and the not very well suppressed disdain of some of the cultural and political elites to keep them angry, resentful, and enraged.
What this country desperately needs is a democratic populism that is inclusive and substantial, one that challenges and overcomes the strangle-hold the extremely wealthy and powerful individuals and corporations have over the rest of us.
What we must also do is AVOID those kind of targeted programs — say, just for students of higher education, or for just Blacks, or for just “worthy” immigrants — that only further stir up resentment among whites, and many other groups as well and, instead, build upon, strengthen, and expand those programs and policies which benefit the widest possible number of Americans and which, not so incidentally, are also good news to people of color and the poorest among us, programs such as Social Security, Medicare, affordable health care for all, revitalizing rural communities and expanding resource-protecting farming, etc.
These will likely be celebrated by the vast majority of Americans as truly speaking to THEIR needs and, thus, work to diminish the we-they divide that would-be demagogues and authoritarians count on to keep people divided, angry, and unable to work together.
Such programs will, however, definitely cost money, and those who serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful — those, that is, who are currently benefiting from the way things currently are! — will loudly wail that “we cannot afford them.” A sound never raised when taxes are cut for the rich or tax breaks offered to fossil fuel producers.
This good battle is worth fighting; but it will require intelligence, organization, and persistence.
August 16, 2020
If you're going to read Hillbilly Elegy, read this instead.
May 5, 2020
First of all, the casual reader should be warned that this book is written in a very academic style.
Ashley Jardina finds a key gap in previous scholarship, that of addressing the identity possessed by the dominant racial group in the United States, whites, and exploits it brilliantly. Numerous studies launched in this book shine light on how whites are not only organizing around prejudice towards racial out-groups, but also around bias toward their racial in-group. As Jardina notes, in response to growing demographic changes and increasing public salience centered on racial issues, many whites possess a strong sense of racial identity, and this identity informs them to view their group favorably and desire policies/candidates that protect their group. This book is an important contribution to understanding what motivates public support for restrictionist immigration policies, candidates like Donald Trump, and much more.
I do have one relatively small concern. Jardina spends a significant amount of time differentiating between in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice, and rightfully so as these are indeed two separate constructs. However, even as she notes, these two often work in tandem. And indeed, Jardina finds high correlations between her constructs of white identity and animus towards racial minorities, including blacks and latinos, as well as, in one study, an alarmingly high correlation with KKK favorability. I am slightly disappointed in the lack of discussion on how her white identity could work in tandem with out-group animus to create especially potent political opinions and, ultimately, actions.
In short: yes, it is clear that many whites do indeed center themselves around protecting their group and its interests, but who they want to protect it from still matters. It's not other whites they feel as though they need to protect themselves from.
Ashley Jardina finds a key gap in previous scholarship, that of addressing the identity possessed by the dominant racial group in the United States, whites, and exploits it brilliantly. Numerous studies launched in this book shine light on how whites are not only organizing around prejudice towards racial out-groups, but also around bias toward their racial in-group. As Jardina notes, in response to growing demographic changes and increasing public salience centered on racial issues, many whites possess a strong sense of racial identity, and this identity informs them to view their group favorably and desire policies/candidates that protect their group. This book is an important contribution to understanding what motivates public support for restrictionist immigration policies, candidates like Donald Trump, and much more.
I do have one relatively small concern. Jardina spends a significant amount of time differentiating between in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice, and rightfully so as these are indeed two separate constructs. However, even as she notes, these two often work in tandem. And indeed, Jardina finds high correlations between her constructs of white identity and animus towards racial minorities, including blacks and latinos, as well as, in one study, an alarmingly high correlation with KKK favorability. I am slightly disappointed in the lack of discussion on how her white identity could work in tandem with out-group animus to create especially potent political opinions and, ultimately, actions.
In short: yes, it is clear that many whites do indeed center themselves around protecting their group and its interests, but who they want to protect it from still matters. It's not other whites they feel as though they need to protect themselves from.
April 19, 2019
This book is so powerful, so well written, and most importantly, so helpful for understanding why Trump won (and why he might win again) and how that is related to the anxiety that White people are feeling about the changing demographics of the US and how that endangers their privilege. It’s not that they’re racists with racial resentment, but that they’re seeking positive identities and self esteem, as all people do. Read. This. Book.
January 3, 2021
This will definitely be a touchstone book for the study of race and politics in 21st CEntury US. This is a highly data-driven book that doesn't make for super smooth reading, unless you love the ins and outs of statistics (there were appendices, but more of the text should have been offloaded into them. Many readers will be put off by some of the detail). The argument is very interesting: right wing politics in the US today is defined more by white identity/consciousness than racial resentment. Here's the difference: white ID doesn't necessarily involve or emphasize prejudice or hatred toward racial outgroups, while racial resentment does. White ID is more the sense that as the country becomes more diverse, as culture changes, and certain segments of white society (the white Working Class) decline, white people identify more with whiteness/other white people as a discrete political group with specific interests. It doesn't necessarily mean they hate or discriminate against individual minorities or even minorities as a whole, just that they perceive their understanding of America as a predominantly white Christian country to be in jeopardy and that they are rallying to the Tea Party, Trump, and similar entities to resist that change.
Jardina tests this proposition through several massive data sets, where she finds significant correlations between white ID and these positions: pro Trump, pro Tea Party, pro social security/Medicare (seen as deserved entitlements largely for older whites), anti-immigration, anti-Obama, and pro the belief that white Christians ave become an oppressed group. She shows that this is separate from racial resentment, which correlates with antipathy for minorities strongly but less strongly with these other beliefs.
Jardina's argument is an important updating of the study of race and politics to 21st century America, the realities of white Christian decline, and the fact that the "color line" isn't just white/black anymore. Given that outright shows of racism remain mostly taboo, her argument helps us understand the puzzle of how racial prejudice has declined since mid-20th century while race remains highly salient in our politics. From a historical perspective, we have entered a new era of race and politics, which makes Trump significantly different from previous race-mongers like George Wallace (Buchanan would be the more appropriate predecessor, although I do see him as a racist like Trump). The data is incredibly rich, and her bibliography is a must-visit for scholars of similar topics. I wouldn't make this the go-to book for the general reader, however. This is definitely a scholarly work with limited accessibility.
Ok, now for 2 criticisms. First, the distinction btw racial resentment and white ID politics may be a distinction that only a social scientist could love. White ID politics implies in-group solidarity and empathy and that growing minority populations and cultural changes are a threat to a way of life, a moral code, and a set of interests. This is at least racism-adjacent, and people in this category delude themselves into seeing themselves as oppressed on the basis of race/religion rather than just losing relative status and some privileges. It definitely makes them receptive to racist appeals, which they justify as "telling it like it is" or not being PC. While I buy the general point that white ID politics is more about identifying with the in-group than hating the out-group, this A. has pretty much always been a thing in US history and B. may be two sides of the same coin.
Second, Jardina seems surprised and a bit miffed that white ID folks think that they can form political groupings based on white identity/commonalities/interests because of minority ID politics. This may be a little bit ridiculous, as African-Americans and other groups formed identitarian groups to assert historically denigrated culture/identity/etc. However, as much of the Left has embraced and justified identity politics and in turn denigrated and problematized whiteness and white people to death (think 1619 project or Robin DiAngelo, or the idea that racism is inextricably part of American identity/life and that our proclaimed values are cover for racial oppression and class interests), it seems inevitable that some white people would do this. Why? Because at a very basic level people do not like to feel bad about themselves. They do not like being told they are racist, that they benefit from and are complicit in racial oppression, than their ancestors were racist, and that their country is a project of oppression. The more the Left lays this on thickly and indiscriminately, the more it will only fuel the white ID reaction. This means we need responsible, measured, and accurate assessments and reckonings with racism, which I believe is crucial to our history but not THE primary foundation.
Jardina tests this proposition through several massive data sets, where she finds significant correlations between white ID and these positions: pro Trump, pro Tea Party, pro social security/Medicare (seen as deserved entitlements largely for older whites), anti-immigration, anti-Obama, and pro the belief that white Christians ave become an oppressed group. She shows that this is separate from racial resentment, which correlates with antipathy for minorities strongly but less strongly with these other beliefs.
Jardina's argument is an important updating of the study of race and politics to 21st century America, the realities of white Christian decline, and the fact that the "color line" isn't just white/black anymore. Given that outright shows of racism remain mostly taboo, her argument helps us understand the puzzle of how racial prejudice has declined since mid-20th century while race remains highly salient in our politics. From a historical perspective, we have entered a new era of race and politics, which makes Trump significantly different from previous race-mongers like George Wallace (Buchanan would be the more appropriate predecessor, although I do see him as a racist like Trump). The data is incredibly rich, and her bibliography is a must-visit for scholars of similar topics. I wouldn't make this the go-to book for the general reader, however. This is definitely a scholarly work with limited accessibility.
Ok, now for 2 criticisms. First, the distinction btw racial resentment and white ID politics may be a distinction that only a social scientist could love. White ID politics implies in-group solidarity and empathy and that growing minority populations and cultural changes are a threat to a way of life, a moral code, and a set of interests. This is at least racism-adjacent, and people in this category delude themselves into seeing themselves as oppressed on the basis of race/religion rather than just losing relative status and some privileges. It definitely makes them receptive to racist appeals, which they justify as "telling it like it is" or not being PC. While I buy the general point that white ID politics is more about identifying with the in-group than hating the out-group, this A. has pretty much always been a thing in US history and B. may be two sides of the same coin.
Second, Jardina seems surprised and a bit miffed that white ID folks think that they can form political groupings based on white identity/commonalities/interests because of minority ID politics. This may be a little bit ridiculous, as African-Americans and other groups formed identitarian groups to assert historically denigrated culture/identity/etc. However, as much of the Left has embraced and justified identity politics and in turn denigrated and problematized whiteness and white people to death (think 1619 project or Robin DiAngelo, or the idea that racism is inextricably part of American identity/life and that our proclaimed values are cover for racial oppression and class interests), it seems inevitable that some white people would do this. Why? Because at a very basic level people do not like to feel bad about themselves. They do not like being told they are racist, that they benefit from and are complicit in racial oppression, than their ancestors were racist, and that their country is a project of oppression. The more the Left lays this on thickly and indiscriminately, the more it will only fuel the white ID reaction. This means we need responsible, measured, and accurate assessments and reckonings with racism, which I believe is crucial to our history but not THE primary foundation.
July 3, 2019
I only read selected chapters of this meticulously researched and masterfully written book. It's a great book with a long view of politics, and it goes to a highly granular level to define various political groups in the U.S.
My only problem is that the political landscape is changing so dramatically and on a weekly basis that this book best serves academics and scholars. There is no easy explanation for why white voters have varying degrees of pride or identity in their whiteness. There are a thousand highly explored reasons why white voters vote the way they do, but I think the volatility of the current political situation in the country makes the predictive force of this book questionable. But it's an excellent look into how the country got into this situation and a full exploration of the subject. The psychology is very subtle and clearly brought out here.
My only problem is that the political landscape is changing so dramatically and on a weekly basis that this book best serves academics and scholars. There is no easy explanation for why white voters have varying degrees of pride or identity in their whiteness. There are a thousand highly explored reasons why white voters vote the way they do, but I think the volatility of the current political situation in the country makes the predictive force of this book questionable. But it's an excellent look into how the country got into this situation and a full exploration of the subject. The psychology is very subtle and clearly brought out here.
February 10, 2022
if it wasn't for my class there's no fucking way i would've made it pass the first 3 pages. mind numbingly boring & everything important could've been said in about 5 pages. this book solidifies the fact that i do not give a flying fuck about american politics, or politics in general, and never will. champagne socialism is where it's at <3
September 18, 2023
something to be said for the precise and dedicated research in this but as a book this is kind of lackluster.. by the end this just feels like reading a lab report. the scope ends up heavily narrowed to focus on primarily on electoral politics which there is only so much to say about atp
August 22, 2022
Good, but very academic writing.
November 3, 2022
A rigorous academic work with important insights which will have a great deal of relevance in the coming decades. If you're not used to academic writing or reading scientific papers, you may find this book a bit of a slog, but it's well worth the effort.
March 30, 2021
The framing around white identity politics of this book is really helpful and adds a lot to the discussion of racism. As many have commented doing the same research after the advent of the BLM bringing racial justice issues to the national conversation would be helpful and interesting.
However, listening to the book, it is very academic and full of statistics that do not help what the author is saying to someone who is more interested in the overarching themes and less of ALL of the details.
However, listening to the book, it is very academic and full of statistics that do not help what the author is saying to someone who is more interested in the overarching themes and less of ALL of the details.
June 22, 2019
I'm giving this book 5 stars primarily because I think the topic is very timely and could help a lot of people understand the current state of the US. Jardina analyses the current state of white identity. She argues that some whites are not behaving in a traditional racist sense. Instead of lashing out against other races, they are fighting to maintain racial superiority. It's a form of in-group protection instead of out-group aggression. This drives anti-immigration, anti-globalism, and anti-diversity sentiments. The book also talks about how specific events historically can lead to increases in this sentiment as the majority group in charge feels like their superior position is being challenged. Specifically, as the country's demographics change and Obama is elected president, the in-group feels challenged. This helped lead to the current backlash represented in the election or Trump and the rise of alt-right organizations.
This book is a heavy read. It is written like a dissertation with lots of evidence and citations. It's still worth reading. You can get the point by reading the introduction and conclusion to each chapter along with the whole final chapter.
This book is a heavy read. It is written like a dissertation with lots of evidence and citations. It's still worth reading. You can get the point by reading the introduction and conclusion to each chapter along with the whole final chapter.
September 27, 2020
Strong academic book looking at characteristics of white identity and policies they support (including social security for all, legacy admissions in university, and isolationism internationally). Data that white identity groups oppose outsourcing and free trade is particularly interesting as it helps explain why the GOP has turned against free trade policies in recent years. Can be clunky to read at times because it’s methodologically thorough but strong work. Would be very interesting to revisit data post-BLM and recent events as much data is drawn from 2012-14. Hope she writes a sequel when data is available.
May 30, 2021
Focusing on white identity is a super useful shift that adds to our understanding on the function of race when paired with racial resentment.
Also! My thesis advisor wrote this! And my thesis is mostly based off of it, lol. Read it!
Also! My thesis advisor wrote this! And my thesis is mostly based off of it, lol. Read it!
February 27, 2021
Very interesting topic, but it read like a paper, even for a non-fiction book.
March 1, 2019
White Identity Politics by Ashley Jardina is an important look at how race plays a role in social and political decisions, namely how whites perceive their own race and their relationship with that category.
The early part of the book might make some readers quit because it reads considerably drier than the rest. Please keep reading, it will be well worth it. The early part is establishing the context for Jardina's findings and as such is essential to understanding how and why her results are important. Citing all of the previous scholarship certainly slows down the reading but if you're not reading it for research purposes, or if it is your first time through, ignore the parenthetical citations and just get the main points. Once you have finished the book you can go back if you so choose and read the other works and either agree or disagree. Whether you like or dislike what she finds and argues you must first read the book and understand her argument. If you don't then your argument is not about her's but rather just about your own discomfort with what you're understanding her to say.
Having said that, there is a lot to think about and digest, especially for someone not well versed in this area of study. Rather than try to simply outline the entire book I'd rather give an idea of at least one important point I took from the work.
In today's political climate it is real easy to default to a position that roughly equates voting for a candidate who advocates for policies that are ultimately racist to being a racist. Part of that thinking, even within academia and policy making bodies, is because most previous research and studies have focused on white identity from a position of out group animosity. What Jardina has found, and what helps me try to better understand how so many can vote for such hateful policymakers, is that many whites are not voting from a position of out group resentment but from a position of white consciousness (of which, if I understand correctly, white identity is but a part). These people vote because they believe the person and/or policy will benefit them and their group. This is different from voting because a policy will hurt or limit another group. So anything maintaining the status quo without being blatantly against other groups will get the support of these people. This explains the importance of racist policy being couched in terminology that makes it sound like it is just maintaining status quo or even making things better in areas that whites will perceive as benefiting their group.
While this helps me to understand things with a bit more nuance I still have a hard time respecting people who are okay with politicians (or faux politicians who used to be reality stars) that harm other people. There is a difference between being against racism and being actively antiracism, and far too many hide behind claims of not being racist so they can support people and policies that are, at their heart, racist. But there is a distinction. Maybe next time through this book I can gain a better understanding of what to do to try to get people to realize that when everyone has a better life it is beneficial for everyone.
I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to better understand the toxic environment we currently have in the USA and, perhaps, find ways to get those not racist to quit aiding those who are.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
The early part of the book might make some readers quit because it reads considerably drier than the rest. Please keep reading, it will be well worth it. The early part is establishing the context for Jardina's findings and as such is essential to understanding how and why her results are important. Citing all of the previous scholarship certainly slows down the reading but if you're not reading it for research purposes, or if it is your first time through, ignore the parenthetical citations and just get the main points. Once you have finished the book you can go back if you so choose and read the other works and either agree or disagree. Whether you like or dislike what she finds and argues you must first read the book and understand her argument. If you don't then your argument is not about her's but rather just about your own discomfort with what you're understanding her to say.
Having said that, there is a lot to think about and digest, especially for someone not well versed in this area of study. Rather than try to simply outline the entire book I'd rather give an idea of at least one important point I took from the work.
In today's political climate it is real easy to default to a position that roughly equates voting for a candidate who advocates for policies that are ultimately racist to being a racist. Part of that thinking, even within academia and policy making bodies, is because most previous research and studies have focused on white identity from a position of out group animosity. What Jardina has found, and what helps me try to better understand how so many can vote for such hateful policymakers, is that many whites are not voting from a position of out group resentment but from a position of white consciousness (of which, if I understand correctly, white identity is but a part). These people vote because they believe the person and/or policy will benefit them and their group. This is different from voting because a policy will hurt or limit another group. So anything maintaining the status quo without being blatantly against other groups will get the support of these people. This explains the importance of racist policy being couched in terminology that makes it sound like it is just maintaining status quo or even making things better in areas that whites will perceive as benefiting their group.
While this helps me to understand things with a bit more nuance I still have a hard time respecting people who are okay with politicians (or faux politicians who used to be reality stars) that harm other people. There is a difference between being against racism and being actively antiracism, and far too many hide behind claims of not being racist so they can support people and policies that are, at their heart, racist. But there is a distinction. Maybe next time through this book I can gain a better understanding of what to do to try to get people to realize that when everyone has a better life it is beneficial for everyone.
I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to better understand the toxic environment we currently have in the USA and, perhaps, find ways to get those not racist to quit aiding those who are.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
February 14, 2024
While this wasn’t my first time reading Jardina’s piece, I experienced a much more nuanced and appreciative read this time around. Jardina advances a compelling argument on the need to avoid treating whites’ in-group identity and out-group animosity as equivalent. Jardina’s work is especially important in a scholarly context that neglects the significance of whiteness to white individuals’ identities, especially the tangible political consequences these identifications pose. Perhaps these more covert and less innocuous in-group orientations exert a more potent bearing on the lived realities of American citizens than explicit racial animus, influencing a range of political preferences and policies. Critically probing into the complexities of racial attitudes and racial conflict, Jardina evidences, enables us to gauge whites’ political attitudes and behavior. Her framework shows that white identities are coming to the fore in our increasingly diverse country, warranting further study in an era of monumental political, social, and economic change.
Given Jardina’s findings in White Identity Politics, it is imperative that we address the interplay between heightened white identity and consciousness and the politics of grievance, compelling even those with low racial animus to support overtly racist politicians and policies. The alarmingly hostile political climate of Trump’s presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic is not a mere outlier; rather, such incendiary rhetoric and behavior is reflective of broader societal discontent. Jardina stresses that fulfilling genuine racial equality requires attending to whites’ racial biases and mollifying perceived status threats. Such equality rests on rethinking our country’s racial hierarchy, fostering a more equitable distribution of power and resources.
Given Jardina’s findings in White Identity Politics, it is imperative that we address the interplay between heightened white identity and consciousness and the politics of grievance, compelling even those with low racial animus to support overtly racist politicians and policies. The alarmingly hostile political climate of Trump’s presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic is not a mere outlier; rather, such incendiary rhetoric and behavior is reflective of broader societal discontent. Jardina stresses that fulfilling genuine racial equality requires attending to whites’ racial biases and mollifying perceived status threats. Such equality rests on rethinking our country’s racial hierarchy, fostering a more equitable distribution of power and resources.
April 27, 2021
Ashley Jardina is a brilliant young scholar who has teased out the underlying tendencies, emotions, and desires of white Americans. She has done an extensive survey and demographic research and suggests that the influx of immigrants since 2000 and the election of Barack Obama have whites' sense of racial identity and consciousness. What drives many whites and what led to Donald Trump's 2016 election was a combination of white in-group solidarity and out-group feeling of threat.
Her research shows that white America is aware of losing its privilege and power in the American racial hierarchy and loathe to let it go. She does not see that happening without great struggle and increased tension.
She concludes with this sobering assessment: “The task, perhaps, is far more daunting. It suggests that whites must equitably share control and resources, which many will certainly be wont to do. In the past, when faced with this challenge, white Americans have responded not by leveling the field; instead, they have expanded the scope of who is considered white, allowing the racial hierarchy to remain more firmly in place, organized such that whites are at the top, blacks are at the bottom, with other non-white groups falling roughly somewhere in between. But a truly egalitarian approach would not expand the scope of power at the margins while leaving some groups at the bottom. Instead, it would eradicate the racial stratification.” (p. 280).
Her research shows that white America is aware of losing its privilege and power in the American racial hierarchy and loathe to let it go. She does not see that happening without great struggle and increased tension.
She concludes with this sobering assessment: “The task, perhaps, is far more daunting. It suggests that whites must equitably share control and resources, which many will certainly be wont to do. In the past, when faced with this challenge, white Americans have responded not by leveling the field; instead, they have expanded the scope of who is considered white, allowing the racial hierarchy to remain more firmly in place, organized such that whites are at the top, blacks are at the bottom, with other non-white groups falling roughly somewhere in between. But a truly egalitarian approach would not expand the scope of power at the margins while leaving some groups at the bottom. Instead, it would eradicate the racial stratification.” (p. 280).
January 2, 2021
Meticulously researched, rationally argued, and soberingly insightful. Jardina lays out in clear terms what she has put together from a host of studies ranging from all over the 20th and 21st centuries.
One of the central theories in this book is that many whites identify with their racial group, and that white identity and consciousness can lead to political activity and salience. Jardina makes the argument that white identity often appears as a reaction to threats to the status of whites as a majority group. She also argues that, often times, those who identify as explicitly white often try to protect their in-group status, something that other researchers before have not been able to demonstrate about white identity. This means that white identity is not simply an expression of racism toward other groups, although it can easily be accompanied by such racist ideologies, but rather that white identity is largely linked to preservation of the racial hierarchy that keeps those considered white at the top.
It’s dense, but it’s fantastic and worth the read.
One of the central theories in this book is that many whites identify with their racial group, and that white identity and consciousness can lead to political activity and salience. Jardina makes the argument that white identity often appears as a reaction to threats to the status of whites as a majority group. She also argues that, often times, those who identify as explicitly white often try to protect their in-group status, something that other researchers before have not been able to demonstrate about white identity. This means that white identity is not simply an expression of racism toward other groups, although it can easily be accompanied by such racist ideologies, but rather that white identity is largely linked to preservation of the racial hierarchy that keeps those considered white at the top.
It’s dense, but it’s fantastic and worth the read.
April 8, 2021
3 stars not because the information in this book isn't valuable but because 75% of the book reads like a (law review) article. I need to stop reading these books that are clearly intended for other academics to read. It does not work as an audiobook. That all being said, the last quarter of the book was more enjoyable. I thought Jardina swiftly and successfully rebutted the previous research show that there was no such thing as a white identity. She explained the myriad of factors that lead a white person to identify more (or less) with his or her race. The connections to politics, namely the 2016 election and Trump's adaptation of the Pat Buchanon campaign in the 80s, appealed to me as well.
December 23, 2024
Solid academic book backed by a ton of research into the topic. Definitely not a bedside reading due to the immense quantity of data in the book. Though the book does back its conclusions with studies and data, it would be enhanced by diving more in-depth into the geographic, religious, and ethnic diversity of the American white population and the voting trends seen within these sub-groups to gain a more accurate picture of this demographic. Similar to how Hispanic, Asian, indigenous, and black voters are not a monolith, so isn't the white population and a more dissective analysis of voting trends within sub-groups would paint a more clear picture on this subject.
April 5, 2021
I don't understand the point of this book . . . the author never mentions white supremacy and barely uses the words racist/racism. Yes, some white people strongly identify with whiteness and may or may not have racial animus, but if the results are the same (white people maintaining power, status and privileges) you still get white supremacy. I dunno. That's what we need to dismantle.
August 1, 2019
Would have formatted this much differently if I were her book editor. As-is, it is nearly unreadable. She is arguing some transgressive points and doesn't want bricks hurled through her window, so maybe she was intentionally fuzzing up the message.
January 1, 2021
Makes an important contribution to the study of white identity and prejudice: White identity enhancement and maintenance as a motivator for intergroup relations (argued to have increased recently) as opposed to outgroup derogation.
November 18, 2021
I had to read this for a college course and found it very boring - lots of social science statistics charts and accompanying explanatory text (so for an exhausted college student like me that reads: "skim over"). I get her argument, but it sure seemed like a lot of filler.
September 4, 2025
I would be interested in an updated version with the same questions fielded through the same methodology today. My one "complaint" is that this was published in 2019 and does not account for societal, shall we say, upheaval post-COVID.
December 6, 2019
This is data dense, but it pays off in the end. Really insightful.
August 18, 2020
An eye-opening and important read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews