What do you think?
Rate this book
Colormute: Race Talk Dilemmas in an American School
This book considers in unprecedented detail one of the most confounding questions in American racial when to speak about people in racial terms. Viewing "race talk" through the lens of a California high school and district, Colormute draws on three years of ethnographic research on everyday race labeling in education. Based on the author's experiences as a teacher as well as an anthropologist, it discusses the role race plays in everyday and policy talk about such familiar topics as discipline, achievement, curriculum reform, and educational inequality.
Pollock illustrates the wide variations in the way speakers use race labels. Sometimes people use them without thinking twice; at other moments they avoid them at all costs or use them only in the description of particular situations. While a major concern of everyday race talk in schools is that racial descriptions will be inaccurate or inappropriate, Pollock demonstrates that anxiously suppressing race words (being what she terms "colormute") can also cause educators to reproduce the very racial inequities they abhor.
The book assists readers in cultivating a greater understanding of the pitfalls and possibilities of everyday race talk and clarifies previously murky discussions of "colorblindness." By bridging the gap between theory and practice, Colormute will be enormously helpful in fostering ongoing conversations about dismantling racial inequality in America.
Pollock illustrates the wide variations in the way speakers use race labels. Sometimes people use them without thinking twice; at other moments they avoid them at all costs or use them only in the description of particular situations. While a major concern of everyday race talk in schools is that racial descriptions will be inaccurate or inappropriate, Pollock demonstrates that anxiously suppressing race words (being what she terms "colormute") can also cause educators to reproduce the very racial inequities they abhor.
The book assists readers in cultivating a greater understanding of the pitfalls and possibilities of everyday race talk and clarifies previously murky discussions of "colorblindness." By bridging the gap between theory and practice, Colormute will be enormously helpful in fostering ongoing conversations about dismantling racial inequality in America.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
5 people are currently reading
143 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 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 24, 2008
Unfortunately my only compulsion in the process of reading this book was to move away from it towards objects, texts, experiences, and people I learn from and am challenged by. My critique of this text runs deep (apparent epistemological flaws) and shallow (bad writing). Most immediately I can identify my problems with this text in the initial pages where Pollock describes her methods. At the top of page 12, Pollock describes her note taking as thus:
I did not need to recapture language at the level of grammatical detail required by most linguists, as I was interested primarily in the words and phrases that surrounded race labels in talk, the moments when race labels appeared and disappeared, and the apparent ease or anxiety with which people used them.
While I understand her motivation to steer away from using a tape recorder I am deeply troubled by her assumption of an objective stance precisely because of this decision (as I read it, and as she presents no reason for me not to: people are uncomfortable with a tape recorder. If I get rid of it I will get honest responses, problem solved). I feel safe in saying she assumed an “objective” stance because she fails to suggest that her ability to hear these things itself is shaped by a certain understanding of race (I am cognizant that any approach is fallible, and that one needs to be chosen. I am however suspect because she never points this out. Instead she remains “mute” on the subject, either assuming we know this or revealing her own ignorance). She places herself in the text, but never critically engages with herself in that text. Instead, while everyone else acts, she becomes an omniscient narrator and puppet master, a presence only in as much as she makes people speak and as a result understands their language with no problem. She is speaking from a position of power then, and without any tool of any sort (i.e. a tape recorder) that might allow her that privilege. Instead we need to take her word for it. She doesn’t seem troubled by her reliance on her own memory or (in)ability to hear and understand language in different contexts from different actors. Does she not come from society? Is her critical faculty so good that she does not slip in her use or understanding of race? (I’m led to believe by certain statements, which I cannot at present find, that she recognizes “whiteness” in a relational stance, where she is as others are not. This also worries me, but also could account for some of this). Because of the premise of her book and how she approaches it, I am thrust into an impossible decision of either having to reject her premise in order to be able to listen to her, or reject the author in order to accept the premise.
With this in mind it makes sense that her text is extremely confused, and not because race is confusing (which it is). Rather I am asked as a reader to assume that the person writing this text has no racial understanding beyond the history she presents, the language of other people (in how she remembers it), and perhaps the questions she is moved to ask as a teacher. As such, I cannot grasp where the language she is using comes from. Her analysis lacks a starting point because she has never positioned herself in the writing except in a way that is superficial (I am the writer, I was there). She presents us with this powerful idea of the unspoken and then fails to speak for herself. For me to read words that come from nowhere makes me extremely uncomfortable and so I have trouble reading more than two pages at a time. Reading this becomes a very intensive labor and I am not looking forward to having to finish it. The concept of the book is fantastic, but it lacks any significant exposure or recognition past the title or hints in the introduction.
In the first pages she says:
Race language is indeed itself a powerfully simple force: we become race-group members, or we must negotiate and resist so becoming, every time we are referred to in racial terms; and talking racially does prompt listeners to see the world anew in racialized ways. This is no new claim: scholars have long viewed words as consequential actions that create the world rather than simply describe it. (p.5)
I am not going to disagree with this (in fact I was excited to read it, as I see it emerging as an important stance in my project). However, I feel it is grossly negligent of her to use the word “scholars” in a way that implies all scholarship agrees on this point. I say this because it is CENTRAL to her thesis. While her notes run us through a quick assortment of different fields of exploration where this line of reasoning emerges, she fails to introduce any debate or authentic nuances. As such, she has no position at stake in this discourse, besides presenting an across the board agreement with a group of people who are approaching this idea in many different and likely opposing directions. Either she should present this as separate from any academic context, as a statement of her own belief apart from any academic history, or she needs to reveal it as a point of heated debate or a multi-modal discourse in which she is positioned. Ironically, in an attempt to reduce and simplify the language around what she labels as “Dilemmas Piled upon Paradoxes” (p.13) she muddies her point. She herself has become “colormute” by refusing to recognize her position in a racialized context (no self reflexivity despite self reference), except as an observer (a position she fails to trouble in relation to the book).
In short, Pollock fails to confront and actively avoids confusion when it is most central to her thesis (her objectivity and discourses of language and representation). I am not looking forward to reading any more of this book. It has been and continues to be a very stressful experience, and not in a good, “troubling”, critical pedagogy kind of way. Rather, reading Colormute is akin to listening to Sarah Palin, or any politician for that matter.
I did not need to recapture language at the level of grammatical detail required by most linguists, as I was interested primarily in the words and phrases that surrounded race labels in talk, the moments when race labels appeared and disappeared, and the apparent ease or anxiety with which people used them.
While I understand her motivation to steer away from using a tape recorder I am deeply troubled by her assumption of an objective stance precisely because of this decision (as I read it, and as she presents no reason for me not to: people are uncomfortable with a tape recorder. If I get rid of it I will get honest responses, problem solved). I feel safe in saying she assumed an “objective” stance because she fails to suggest that her ability to hear these things itself is shaped by a certain understanding of race (I am cognizant that any approach is fallible, and that one needs to be chosen. I am however suspect because she never points this out. Instead she remains “mute” on the subject, either assuming we know this or revealing her own ignorance). She places herself in the text, but never critically engages with herself in that text. Instead, while everyone else acts, she becomes an omniscient narrator and puppet master, a presence only in as much as she makes people speak and as a result understands their language with no problem. She is speaking from a position of power then, and without any tool of any sort (i.e. a tape recorder) that might allow her that privilege. Instead we need to take her word for it. She doesn’t seem troubled by her reliance on her own memory or (in)ability to hear and understand language in different contexts from different actors. Does she not come from society? Is her critical faculty so good that she does not slip in her use or understanding of race? (I’m led to believe by certain statements, which I cannot at present find, that she recognizes “whiteness” in a relational stance, where she is as others are not. This also worries me, but also could account for some of this). Because of the premise of her book and how she approaches it, I am thrust into an impossible decision of either having to reject her premise in order to be able to listen to her, or reject the author in order to accept the premise.
With this in mind it makes sense that her text is extremely confused, and not because race is confusing (which it is). Rather I am asked as a reader to assume that the person writing this text has no racial understanding beyond the history she presents, the language of other people (in how she remembers it), and perhaps the questions she is moved to ask as a teacher. As such, I cannot grasp where the language she is using comes from. Her analysis lacks a starting point because she has never positioned herself in the writing except in a way that is superficial (I am the writer, I was there). She presents us with this powerful idea of the unspoken and then fails to speak for herself. For me to read words that come from nowhere makes me extremely uncomfortable and so I have trouble reading more than two pages at a time. Reading this becomes a very intensive labor and I am not looking forward to having to finish it. The concept of the book is fantastic, but it lacks any significant exposure or recognition past the title or hints in the introduction.
In the first pages she says:
Race language is indeed itself a powerfully simple force: we become race-group members, or we must negotiate and resist so becoming, every time we are referred to in racial terms; and talking racially does prompt listeners to see the world anew in racialized ways. This is no new claim: scholars have long viewed words as consequential actions that create the world rather than simply describe it. (p.5)
I am not going to disagree with this (in fact I was excited to read it, as I see it emerging as an important stance in my project). However, I feel it is grossly negligent of her to use the word “scholars” in a way that implies all scholarship agrees on this point. I say this because it is CENTRAL to her thesis. While her notes run us through a quick assortment of different fields of exploration where this line of reasoning emerges, she fails to introduce any debate or authentic nuances. As such, she has no position at stake in this discourse, besides presenting an across the board agreement with a group of people who are approaching this idea in many different and likely opposing directions. Either she should present this as separate from any academic context, as a statement of her own belief apart from any academic history, or she needs to reveal it as a point of heated debate or a multi-modal discourse in which she is positioned. Ironically, in an attempt to reduce and simplify the language around what she labels as “Dilemmas Piled upon Paradoxes” (p.13) she muddies her point. She herself has become “colormute” by refusing to recognize her position in a racialized context (no self reflexivity despite self reference), except as an observer (a position she fails to trouble in relation to the book).
In short, Pollock fails to confront and actively avoids confusion when it is most central to her thesis (her objectivity and discourses of language and representation). I am not looking forward to reading any more of this book. It has been and continues to be a very stressful experience, and not in a good, “troubling”, critical pedagogy kind of way. Rather, reading Colormute is akin to listening to Sarah Palin, or any politician for that matter.
October 8, 2017
This was an interesting ethnographic study, conducted by a teacher in a struggling inner-city high school. The discussion reveals how individuals do and more often don't discuss race issues in a school context, and how potentially harmful this can be.
I read this book for a class on Qualitative Research. I wish the font was larger because it was physically difficult to read.
The topic, itself, was one with which I am very familiar as an educator and a mother.
I read this book for a class on Qualitative Research. I wish the font was larger because it was physically difficult to read.
The topic, itself, was one with which I am very familiar as an educator and a mother.
October 20, 2018
An important book for any educator to read, or really anyone who wants to learn how to talk about race in a so-called "post-racist" society.
Don't stop reading after the last chapter, the recommendations are all at the end!
Don't stop reading after the last chapter, the recommendations are all at the end!
February 19, 2015
It took me forever to read this, partly because it is a very academic read and partly because anthropology was never my field. Like other reviewers on Goodreads, I struggled to accept Mica Pollock's methodology, because of her own involvement in the community which she purports to analyze. That said, I recognize her argument that, as social actors of any kind, we are automatically part of the racial equation. Her choice to speak at board meetings, however, still seems questionable, at best. As an educator, I also bristled at her status as 'researcher' during her last two years at 'Columbus', a status which she occasionally uses as a way to cozy up to students by assuring them that she "[doesn't] enforce anymore". Oh, and if I never again see another page full of "groups" dutifully labeled with "quotation marks", that will still be too soon.
Now that I got all that off my chest... The takeaway was worth it, if a little tenuous. I recently made a move from a school that was diverse by design and very conscious of race issues to an area where race groups are in much more sparing contact. As such, I was really interested in her reading of the city in CA and the school district's stormy relationship to its various schools. I think Philadelphia has its own version of 'Whitman', the desirable inner-city school that drains high-achieving minorities from other public schools in the district. Having just moved from independent to public education also gave me an appreciation for the complexities she navigated in connecting with administrators, fellow teachers, and students. Part of me wishes that her book did indeed end up being the first-year teacher's memoir for which she first started taking her notes.
In short, I don't recommend this book, unless you are trying to get a graduate degree in education policy or you are just THAT passionate about race issues in public schools ten years ago.
Now that I got all that off my chest... The takeaway was worth it, if a little tenuous. I recently made a move from a school that was diverse by design and very conscious of race issues to an area where race groups are in much more sparing contact. As such, I was really interested in her reading of the city in CA and the school district's stormy relationship to its various schools. I think Philadelphia has its own version of 'Whitman', the desirable inner-city school that drains high-achieving minorities from other public schools in the district. Having just moved from independent to public education also gave me an appreciation for the complexities she navigated in connecting with administrators, fellow teachers, and students. Part of me wishes that her book did indeed end up being the first-year teacher's memoir for which she first started taking her notes.
In short, I don't recommend this book, unless you are trying to get a graduate degree in education policy or you are just THAT passionate about race issues in public schools ten years ago.
October 25, 2008
While not exactly true, it almost is: I teach at the school highlighted in this book. The similarities are undeniable. And scary as s***......While I agree with much of the criticism that surrounds this book (particularly concerns about Pollock's slippery "methodology"), I still do not believe the worthwhile messages must be lost because of them.
April 24, 2016
Good for sparking conversation, but it was extremely repetitive and Pollock has clear biases since she taught at the school she is studying. Ulterior motives came though when talking about the reconstitution of the staff. By the end I was ready for it to be over, but could see using a chapter or excerpt to spark class discussion on the topic of racism.
November 1, 2016
I read 5 chapters. An interesting look at how race was often ignored/muted are talked about in very simplified ways at a California high school in the 90's. It was deeply to the detriment of the students there. And likely characterize how we (white people/"polite people") talk and avoid talking about race all at the same time.
May 15, 2007
This is a great book that is entirely about race relations in a very diverse school. It is a true completely objective account of race talks in the educational system, and a specific account of one particular school.
May 17, 2008
Fascinating...but a few, serious methodological flaws.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews