Situating Oneself in a Racialized World: Understanding Student Reactions to Crash through Standpoint
Theory and Context-Positionality Frames
By: Etsuko Kinefuchi & Mark P. Orbe
Kinefuchi, E. & Orbe, M. P. (2008). Situating oneself in racialized world: Understanding student reactions to
Crash through standpoint theory and context-positionality frame. Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 70-90. DOI: 10.1080/17513050701742909
Made available courtesy of Taylor & Francis: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rjii/
***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from
Taylor & Francis. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may
be missing from this format of the document.***
Abstract:
Through a thematic analysis of 136 student reactions to the movie Crash, this study examines how individuals
situate themselves in terms of race, racism, and race relations in the film and how their racial locations inform
this situatedness. We utilize principles of standpoint theories as the theoretical framework for the analysis. We
first describe this situatedness in terms of six emergent genres of responses that varied across positionality and
contextual focus. Then, we discuss how the patterns of responses may be explained through standpoint theories
and conversely how the emergent organizing framework may complement standpoint theories.
Keywords: Race; Racism; Standpoint Theory; Racial Standpoint; Crash
Article:
In the United States, race serves as one of the most powerful lenses through which we experience the world.
While little biological difference exists across groups that we commonly understand as distinct races (Graves,
2004), race has considerable material and social implications and consequences in our everyday lives.
Advancing a constructionist race theory, Omi and Winant (1994) argued that race is a matter of social structure
and human signification sociohistorically formed through multiple racial projects—interpretations,
representations, or explanations of racial dynamics. At a macrosocietal level, racial projects function to shape
policies and societal meanings, and at a microsocial level, they are adopted as ―common sense*a way of
comprehending, explaining, and acting in the world‖ (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 60). Thus, discursively created
racial categories and racial meanings (Hall, 1992) permeate our lives at both structural and personal levels. It
significantly mobilizes our perceptions of, and interactions with, others (Orbe & Harris, 2008).
While we all participate in, and are subjected to, racial projects, the racial locations that we occupy necessarily
affect our ontological and epistemological orientations in the world. Research on race and communication
demonstrates the contrasting ways in which race is understood and experienced by whites and people of color.
People of color see their experiences being racialized and thus are different from those of European Americans
(Miller & Harris, 2005). European Americans tend to emphasize the universality of human experience (Jackson,
Shin, & Hilson, 2000; Nakayama & Krizek, 1995) and believe that racism is largely a historical issue (Simpson,
Causey, & Williams, 2007; Warren, 2003; Yep, 2007). This gap makes race dialogue across racial lines
difficult; people of color often find that their experiences are discredited by European Americans and are afraid
that the subject of race creates animosity among others (Simpson et al., 2007). European Americans fear that
they may offend people of color and that they may be considered racist (Simpson et al., 2007); the resulting
response is often silence (Miller & Harris, 2005).
Those studies clearly indicate the importance of paying attention to racial locations as a step toward improving
race relations (Cooks, 2003; Orbe & Harris, 2008). One framework that champions identity location as the
pivotal site for understanding social relations is standpoint theories. Communication scholars (e.g., Allen, 1998;
Bell et al., 2000; Harris & Donmoyer, 2000; Orbe & Warren, 2000; Wood, 2005) have shown strong support for
the epistemological importance of standpoint theories. Yet, the theories have not been widely used as a
framework for studying race relations. In this paper, we employ standpoint theories as a theoretical lens for
inquiring ways in which people understand and interpret race and race relations.
We chose to examine how individuals situate themselves with regard to race and race relations by analyzing
short essays that college students wrote in response to the movie Crash (Haggis, 2005). We began this project
with a premise that audience reactions to films tell much about their subjective, everyday sense-making. In our
media saturated culture, we learn how to think about the world through cinematic gaze (Cooper, 2002; Denzin,
1995), thus blurring the boundary between cinematic experience and ―real‘‘ experience. By organizing and
bringing meanings to our lives, films become what Kenneth Burke called ―equipment for living.‘‘ In this regard,
films can influence viewers emotionally and behaviorally and sometimes facilitate their renegotiation of identity
(Brummett, 1985; Young, 2000). Particularly for socially charged issues such as race, sex or gender, and class,
films provide common sites for diverse audiences to reflect and engage in class discussions (hooks, 1996). As
such, student reactions to Crash were not simply movie reviews; by telling their gut reactions and personal
experiences in response to the film, students situated themselves in discussions about race, racism, and race
relations.
Synopsis of Crash
Few movies in recent years engaged race as candidly and unequivocally as Crash did. It presented race relations
as a complex issue involving the visible and invisible, and conscious and subconscious. It gazed race from
many social and cultural locations and how they affect perceptions, interpretations, and actions. Writer and
director Paul Haggis wrote the script based on his 28 years of experience in Los Angeles (Ursic, 2005). Haggis
commented that the film, though set in Los Angeles, is ―about the world around us right now. It‘s the fact that
we‘re moving further and further from each other and we don‘t feel safe‖ (Ursic, 2005, paragraph 13). While
the film is fiction, many actors in the film told Haggis how realistic the plots are; they have experienced
unsettling episodes and emotions very similar to the ones in the film (Murray, 2006). Without wide
advertisements and with limited showings at theatres, this low-budget independent film nonetheless received a
number of awards including the Oscar for best motion picture of the year in 2006.
Crash begins with a car accident in which a police detective was involved on his way to investigate a murder
case. In the background is the voice of the detective, muttering ―In L.A.... We crash into each other so we can
feel something.‖ This utterance sets the tone for the rest of the film. Crash follows a series of collisions—racial,
cultural, class, and personal—that occur in Los Angeles over the course of two days prior to the accident. The
collisions involve an ensemble of individuals whose lives become intertwined: two young black men who make
a living as car thieves; a district attorney who needs to win over minority support and his unhappy wife; a racist
white cop who cares for a sick father; a younger white cop who displays every nonracist behavior until the end;
a black police detective who has a mother addicted to drugs and a delinquent brother (one of the car thieves); a
black television director who made many compromises to succeed in the white dominated Hollywood and his
wife who gets molested by the racist cop; a Latino locksmith who changes locks at the district attorney‘s house
and a Persian‘s store; the Persian storeowner who blames the locksmith when his store was vandalized. Crash
shows collisions of those characters and the stories that lead up to the collisions.
By refusing to fall prey to binarism (e.g., villain –hero, conscious–subconscious, dominant–oppressed) and by
creating multilayered interconnectedness among the characters, Crash offers a rich site for reflecting on racial
dynamics. In this study, we examine how students read the film and how the reading reveals their sense-making
about race and race relations. A myriad of meanings may be conveyed by a single film and even a single scene
(Brooker, 2001; Young, 2000) depending on the viewer‘s background. While all of us are implicated in racial
projects, and by extension, racialization, our experience with and perception of the world vary depending on the
place of our respective racial groups in the hierarchy of social structure. This is perhaps best explained through
standpoint theory.
Standpoint Theory
Standpoint theories grew out of one simple idea; the world looks different depending on your social standing
(Allen, 1998). Individuals have similar and different vantage points from which they see the world, and the
vantage points are the result of a person‘s field of experience as defined by social group membership (Collins,
1990). Historically, standpoint theories have been used by scholars to understand how women and men come to
see the world differently (Harding, 1986, 1991; Smith, 1987; Wood, 1992). However, given the assumption that
societal groups with varying access to institutional power bases have different standpoints, standpoint theories
appear to offer a productive framework to link existing interracial communication theory and research to
everyday life applications (Orbe & Harris, 2008). As such, the following summary of the theory focused on the
social location primarily defined through racial and ethnic group membership.
Standpoint theories are based on several premises. First, social locations— including those based on gender,
race, class, and so forth—shape people‘s lives (Wood, 2005). This idea is grounded in the analysis of the
master-slave relationship that realized that each occupied a distinct perspective in terms of their lives (Harding,
1991). All persons, one way or another, are placed into racial or ethnic groups based on the dominant
classification systems, which in turn influences how they perceive and come to understand the world around
them. The largest difference in such experiences, it is reasoned, is between those racial and ethnic groups that
have the most and least societal power (Collins, 1990). In the United States, this means people of color from
different racial and ethnic backgrounds have more similar racial locations. European Americans, in comparison,
have had greater access to societal power, which has resulted in dominant group status. Based on the arguments
of standpoint theorists (Swigonski, 1994), European Americans and U.S. Americans of color have different—
even possibly oppositional—understandings of the world.
Second, there is an important distinction between occupying a racial ―location‖ and having a racial
―standpoint‖ (Hallstein, 2000). Everyone has a racial location or a racialized perspective, defined primarily in
terms of the racial and ethnic groups to which they belong (or are placed into). However, a racial standpoint is
achieved ―earned through critical reflections on power relations‖ (Wood, 2005, p. 61) and through the creation
of a political stance that exists in opposition to dominant cultural systems (Collins, 1997). In the U.S. society,
the dominant worldview based on European American experience may be a location from which to see the
world, but it cannot be a racial standpoint. This distinction between location and standpoint also means that
being a person of color does not necessarily guarantee the development of a racial standpoint.
Third, a person can develop multiple standpoints shaped by membership in traditionally marginalized groups
(Wood, 2005). Thus, it is possible, for example, that a European American may not have developed a racial
standpoint but may have cultivated other standpoints based on his or her membership to groups defined by sex
or gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Finally, racial standpoints are not achieved
individually; they can only be accomplished through working with other people of color (Hallstein, 2000). In
this regard, racial standpoints are fundamentally collective and dialogic constructions.
Racial standpoint, in short, refers to more than social location, experience, or perspective; it encompasses a
critical, oppositional understanding of how one‘s life is shaped by larger social and political forces. Such
understanding is only achieved dialogically. To the extent that a person occupies multiple social locations and is
placed variously in shifting power relations (Collins, 1997), racial standpoints are also fluid and multiple (Bell
et al., 2000). Thus, significant diversity can exist within any particular group (Bell et al., 2000; Collins, 1997).
With this understanding of standpoint theories in mind, this study examines how students situate themselves in
relation to the film, Crash, and how their racial locations inform this situatedness.
Methodological Framework
Participants. Over the course of 18 months (June 2005~October 2006), 136 students provided written
descriptions of their perceptions of, and reactions to, Crash.1 These students were enrolled in undergraduate
communication classes at three different universities; two in the upper Midwest (one large state university and
one mid-sized community college) and one in the Southeast (a mid-sized regional university). Fifty- four
participants were from the southeastern campus, 51 from the midwestern university, and 31 from the
midwestern community college. The majority of student participants were enrolled in classes focusing on
interracial and intercultural communication, and a smaller percentage were in introductory courses on
interpersonal communication. Many students identified their racial backgrounds using identifiers as ―African
American,‖ ―European Americans,‖ ―black,‖ ―Caucasian,‖ ―white,‖ and ―Latino/a.‖2 Those identifiers, in
conjunction with the comments themselves, were used to understand their racial locations.
Collecting student reactions. Over the course of 18 months, student reactions were collected in nine different
communication classes: three intercultural communication classes, three interracial communication classes, and
three interpersonal communication classes. In all of the intercultural and interpersonal classes, students were
given the opportunity to complete an extra credit assignment, and, in the interracial communication classes, the
student reactions were incorporated into the course assignments as the first of three required papers.3 Though
the assignments were slightly different, both types of assignments asked students to apply course materials but
also provide their own free, ―gut‖ reactions to the movie, including their personal experiences, insights, and
reflections.4 Our analysis focuses on these free, gut reactions, for such reactions are likely to bare a person‘s
ideas without the constraint of course concepts. All papers were type-written and double-spaced. In total, the
136 participants generated 395 pages of text.
Process of analysis. Following the collection of student reactions, the two authors conducted a preliminary
qualitative analysis. Owen‘s (1984) thematic analysis method is helpful in identifying prominent meanings in
texts, thus was adopted for analyzing the reaction papers (see, e.g., Apker, Propp, & Ford, 2005; Wright &
Orbe, 2003). We utilized his three criteria to assist in the emergence of themes. First, we looked for frequent
appearances of particular words and phrases (repetition). Second, we recorded how common meanings were
communicated via various articulations (recurrence). Third, and finally, we also took note of how certain
excerpts were emphasized through different codes (e.g., ALL CAPS), punctuation (!!!! or ???), or format (bold
or italics). Following a review of the preliminary themes generated from the initial analyses, a re-examination
of the text was performed and ultimately produced several key organizing principles for understanding diverse
student reactions to the film.
Key Organizing Principles for Themes: Positionality and Contextual Focus
The initial review of the text revealed a multitude of potential themes through which we could organize—and
gain insight into—the student reactions to Crash. For instance, many students described a plethora of emotions
in response to the film, including feeling shock, empowered, disturbed, touched, moved, uplifted, disgust,
confused, sadness, pride, and anger. Students also implicitly or explicitly commented on the optimism and/or
pessimism of the movie, especially in terms of its focus on racial and ethnic prejudices, stereotyping, and/or
discrimination. As microlevel points of analysis, all of these descriptions provided keen insight into the
emotional and cognitive impact that Crash evoked among the students; however, further examination of the text
prompted an organizing framework for understanding the multidimensional ways in which participants
responded to the film. While we note a variety of responses, there were no noticeable differences across the
regions and the universities. We suspect that this may be because students came from similar racial
demographic environments (e.g., white majority neighborhood and white majority schools). As the following
analysis shows, significant differences are best explained through a recognition of racial locations or
standpoints.
In the emergent framework, student reactions to Crash varied along two dimensions: positionality and
contextual focus. Positionality, in this regard, refers to proximity—attached or detached—with which students
viewed, interacted with, and ultimately processed the film. For a group of students, the film reflected a reality
that they ―could not imagine‖ or something that was ―completely foreign‖ to them. These student reactions were
largely articulated as though they were a detached observer. In contrast, other students positioned themselves as
actively involved within the reality that was reflected in the movie. As such, they watched and were engaged by
the film ―as a participant instead of an observer.‘‘ Contextual focus refers to the scope of social interaction in
which their comments were directed. Student responses roughly clustered around three levels of scope; some
student reactions were articulated with a focus on the personal issues, some concentrated around racial issues,
and yet others addressed societal issues. Along the two dimensions, therefore, six primarily groupings of
responses emerged (see Table A1 in Appendix). These six groups of responses are not meant to be rigid; within
the essays, the authors sometimes used a personal voice and other times adopted a generic voice. Similarly,
attachment and detachment sometimes coexisted within an essay. Nevertheless, most essays clearly had a
dominant tone along the two dimensions. In the next section, using the six frames, we discuss how students
situated themselves in response to the race relations and racism portrayed in the film. Then, we provide our
assessment of how standpoint theories provide insights into understanding the situated responses.
Personal/Detached Reactions: Unnamed Privileged Sense of “Them”
We use ―Unnamed Privileged Sense of ‗Them‖‘ to describe student reactions that were situated within a
personal/detached frame. Notably, this group of reactions was all authored by European American students. The
reactions were first marked by detachment from the ways in which racial relations were depicted in the film.
For some, this was based on the fact that they reportedly had no to little exposure to racial conflicts: ―The first
time I saw it, I remember feeling sad and disgusted at the end, but still sort of detached. I didn‘t grow up in an
area where racist hatred was apparent, nor do I live in one now.‖ Accordingly, when witnessing blatant acts of
racial discrimination, they struggled to believe ―that those sorts of things actually happened.‖ One European
American student from the Midwest wrote:
For me, personally, a lot of things in this movie were unfamiliar to me. I grew up in a fairly small neighborhood, which was not very
culturally diverse, to say the least ... It was sort of hard to believe that things like the events in the movie actually happens.
In fact, several students described being ―amazed,‖ ―shocked,‖ and ―naive‖ in regard to the realities of racism.
―I can not believe how mean the human race is to one another,‖ wrote one student. Such a perspective involved
a personalization of the movie, but it was done so through a distant -―I can only imagine‖- positionality. The
result was a more ―passive‖ reaction to the movie.
Other students were not able to identify with the film because it was perceived as ―over the top‖ in terms of
exaggerating the realities of racism. A European American male from the South was absent on the day the film
was scheduled and wrote in his reaction paper that he started watching the film at home before but could not
finish it because it was ―too harsh.‖ Similarly, another student from the same school, a European American
female, wrote:
Personally, I didn‘t like the movie Crash. I went to the movies to see it when it came out, and it is the only movie that I have ever
walked out of ... I hated Crash.... It was just too depressing for me. It was also so extreme. I know that racism definitely exists, but I‘m
not convinced that it is as extreme as Crash tried to make it out to be.
Along with these two students, a significant number of students believed that the film ―took things to the
extreme in order to dramatize‖ contemporary life. What was noticeable about this group of comments is that the
authors provided strong personal opinions objecting the extent to which the film portrayed racism without
offering specific counter-testimonies; the arguments remained abstract.
In addition to these comments, yet another group of students argued that the racism portrayed in the film was
the result of personal choices, and not of systemic discrimination. For example, a European American male
from the South commented on how the two young African American males in the movie were to blame for the
ways that others stereotyped them:
Looks are important; it is kind of a first line of defense, if you wish to be treated like a common citizen then dress like a common
citizen. If you constantly walk around bitching about how you are discriminated against then that is what you will notice. Anytime you
are chosen second in your mind it will be because of your race. If everything you do is to be different and stand out from the rest of
common society then that is what everyone else notices. If you look like a criminal then you will be assumed a criminal, until you
show otherwise. It is not about race. In reality, you look like by dress and actions a criminal, but you chose your clothes and your
actions. Deal with it, but don‘t whine about it especially when someone called your ―game.‘‘ ... Sandra had all rights to make her
request in her fragile state. It is not just about race. If a white man had done the job and had the same distinguishing features then she
would have been just as skeptical.
Crash featured not only these young African American males who made their living as car thieves but also an
affluent African American couple, who dressed elegantly and drove an expensive car, being subjected to racist
encounters. The student who wrote the above reaction, however, chose to ignore this part of the film. In sum,
the student reactions in this personal/detached frame included both naive, passive reactions as well as active
denials of racism. The reactions were personal in that the students responded to the film as a person and/or saw
racial discrimination as an individual issue. The reactions were detached because they were unable to see the
film as a realistic representation of race relations and racial dynamics.
Personal/Attached Reactions: Colorblind Individualized “I”
Although both are situated within a personal contextual focus, student reactions reflecting a ―Colorblind
Individualized ‗I‘‖frame are distinguished from those reflective of a ―Unnamed Privileged Sense of ‗Them‖‘
based on their attached positionality. The students writing from this perspective identified with various
characters in the film in meaningful ways—regardless of race, gender, class or other aspects of identity. In
particular, the reactions centered around personal characteristics that were viewed as transcending any cultural
differences. As such, reactions were reflective of the idea that ―there‘s a character for everyone in Crash‖*all
people ―are able to relate to it.‖ This ability to relate to the humanity of all characters was a frequent source of
comments, including those from one midwestern European American woman:
The characters were so versatile because no matter what background the character was from you could see
yourself in their shoes. Even if the character was a black male, I as a white female had been in their shoes at
least once in my life. This provides us with a powerful thought that we are all similar.
Concentrating on similarities among humankind allowed many students to personally identify with characters
who experienced various life issues. Another European American woman from a southeastern state wrote about
how the film continued to impact her beyond the classroom viewing and discussion. She shared:
I was going down XXXX Road and came upon [an] intersection [where] there was an exact replica of the wreck that had take place in
the movie. This put it into perspective for me that it could happen anywhere and anytime. I was shocked and immediately began to
replay the images of that movie in my head. By the time I got to my apartment, after being rerouted by traffic, I was in tears! I had no
idea that this movie would so profoundly affect me in so many different ways. I don‘t know how to feel about it at this point and am
certainly trying to continue to make sense of it. I do know, however, that I have tried to be more conscientious of how I speak to and
treat other people. I am sure that as a human being, I too have personal biases and even though I am aware of some, others may be
more well hidden. This movie has made me examine all of those things on a more personal level.
Note that within this excerpt, the student approaches the issue ―as a human being‖ concerned with ―personal
biases.‖ This was characteristic of the reactions written from a personal/attached perspective; student reactions
centered on personal, common issues and personal reflections despite that the film explicitly addressed issues
related to race and racism. Such was the case with another female student whose comments revolved around
respect:
The movie is so powerful it makes me look at how I react in situations now. It makes me ask myself if I am one of the characters I
have seen in the movie. The answer is yes. I do believe that I do become uncomfortable around people, of not just a different race, but
any difference they have from me. Since seeing the movie many times, I now look at myself more; I try to make sure that I am not
doing hurtful things to anybody ... I want to be treated fairly, and I want to treat others fairly too. I think that every person should be
treated with respect. They should be looked at as an individual and not as a group. If every person is seen as a group then that is how
stereotypes are born.
Like the Unnamed Privileged Sense of ―Them,‖ the reactions situated within this frame were authored by
European American students except for a couple of African American students who emphasized the importance
of judging people individually. Overall, the student reactions that were both personal and attached personalized
the experiences of the characters and provided self-examinations. However, they failed to racialize the
characters‘ experiences and were unable to address issues of race despite the obvious racial conflicts and racism
in the film.
Racial/Detached Reactions: Innocent “I”/Responsible “Them”
My parents are completely against racism, although they never made a point to talk about it, for the same
reasons I have never made a point to talk about it, for the same reasons I had never thought about it.... I grew up
privileged, in a place that didn‘t have any racism really.... [Referring to all of the hate and distrust in the movie]
This really struck me, because it just made me realize how stupid and utterly idiotic racism truly is.
While many student writings reflected various levels of personal reactions to the film, others were situated
within one‘s racial identity. The quote above, authored by a European American man from the Midwest,
captures the essence of the Innocent ―I‖/ Responsible ―Them‖ positionality. Reactions characterized as such
reflect comments that are situated as both racial and detached. Many of the comments from this perspective
were from students who explicitly self-identified as ―white middle class.‖ In contrast to the reactions that
processed Crash in personal terms, this group of responses focused on the conflicts and discrimination at a
racial level. Moreover, unlike Unnamed Privileged Sense of ―Them,‖ these reactions acknowledged how their
racial location—in all cases, European American - ―sheltered‖ them from noticing racism. For instance, a
European American man in the Midwest commented that ―I, a product of middle class white suburbia, could not
believe such racism existed.‖ Another European American man in the South wrote that ―I was naive that this
kind of discrimination still went on. It‘s obvious to me now that minorities living in our society, continue to
deal with discrimination even today.‖ Thus, now that the film and subsequent class discussions brought it to
their attention, they ―felt for‖ nonwhites.
Despite the acceptance of racism as a problem and the influence of their ―white middle class‖ on the way they
view the world, the reflections written from the Innocent ―I‖/Responsible ―Them‖ perspective remained
detached. The reaction by a European American woman living in the South illustrates this detachment:
In watching the film I myself had to stare at my own racial baggage in the face. I grew up in XXX.... We don‘t have too much black
and white baggage. However, there is a huge tension between whites and Hispanics. Most of the people that you encounter in XXX
are like Ryan Phillipe‘s character, they are racists but not on the surface. There is distrust of the ―Mexicans‖ and a certain distain for
them about taking away jobs and things like that. It is difficult for me to go back home now and hear my family talking about
Mexicans, there is so much that they don‘t know.
In this quote, the student began her reaction by saying that she has ―racial baggage.‖ However, she did not
pursue this reflection and instead quickly pointed out covert racism that exists among whites in her home state.
The student in the above quote, along with many others in the racial/detached frame, admitted that their racial
location is privileged, yet, instead of seeing themselves as implicated in the system of racial inequalities, they
situated themselves outside racism. Shome (2000) argued that a variety of individualized rhetoric white persons
use to deny white privilege ―deflect‖ attention from racism. Such deflection is also possible when individuals
acknowledge their group-based privileges but position themselves as different or better (e.g., enlightened) than
the rest of the group.
Racial/Attached: Racialized “I”/“Us”
We utilize ―Racialized ‗I‘/‗Us‖‘ to characterize student reactions that reflected an attached/racial positionality.
The vast majority of students who wrote from this perspective were students of color. The students articulated
their identification with different scenes within the film, specifically those in which characters were the targets
of racial prejudice or discrimination. One Latina woman living in the Midwest, for example, wrote that
―Although I would like to think that most people don‘t look at you and automatically see the color of your skin,
more and more, I feel that they do.‘‘ Such a conclusion grounded in lived experience often leads individuals to
be conscious about how they interact with others. An Asian American student from the South commented that
―Since I am someone that belongs to a culture that is different from that of the dominant white culture, I have
always learned that I should not stereotype and discriminate against other people that are outside of my culture.‖
Several African American students focused on ―how real the scenarios were,‖ ―how [they] could totally relate to
it,‖ and how they weren‘t ―surprised at what was in it.‖ For these students, many of the scenes that were
shocking to others reminded them of real-life scenarios that they had experienced first-hand. This point is
effectively captured by the words of one African American man from a southeastern state who began his essay
by simply writing: ―I felt like I was in the movie.‖ This strong, often times intense, identification with several
characters was illustrated through a vast array of essays. More often than not, students reflected specifically on
the opening scene, as exemplified by these two excerpts:
The scene when Luda and Lorenz were leaving the restaurant and Luda makes a remark about being the only blacks in a sea of whites
and how they should feel unsafe. I can totally relate to that comment. There has been numerous times when I have been the only black
person among many white people. Needless to say, I felt uncomfortable. [African American woman, midwestern state]
When Ludacris was walking outside and the white woman clutched her husband as they passed is something that I go through all the
time when it‘s dark at night. I guess that white women feel scared when the see a black man walking their way late at night. [African
American man, southeastern state]
These two individuals, along with many African American student authors, referred to this scene to articulate
the parallel between the film and their ―reality.‖ Their racial locations allowed them to identify intensely with
the character, while such identification is difficult for European American persons.5
While many students of color wrote about being the targets of racism, a few African American students also
commented on how they themselves are also perpetuators of racism. For example, a student brought up the
scene where a young African American car thief mistakenly carjacks an African American television director,
not realizing that the driver was also an African American. The director confronts the thief by saying: ―You
embarrass me. You embarrass yourself.‖ In response to this scene, the student pointed out complicity within the
African American community and importance of moving away from it:
I know many people who dumb themselves down because they think that excelling in school of speaking correctly is a white thing,
and that is a disgrace. We as black people should be ashamed of ourselves when we equate success to acting white. We need to lift our
fellow black people up and be proud of our educated brothers and sisters.
A few European American student reactions were also situated in a racial/attached positionality. The students
reflected on their privileged racial location and noted that the privilege served as a blinder. A female student
from the South commented, for example: ―I was raised to believe that all people are equal.... I am starting to
realize that my naivete was not just me loving everyone. I was able to ignore racial problems that exist
everywhere.‘‘ A few European American students also acknowledged how they saw themselves within several
of the characters. For example, a female student in the Midwest expressed that she identified with the district
attorney‘s wife who, in one scene, displayed a blatant prejudice against a Latino locksmith who changed her
house lock:
I suppose the movie is so shocking because its something we experience everyday but don‘t see the consequences so drastically
displayed in a two hour time span ... I am ashamed to admit that like Sandra Bullock, I too sometimes judge minorities without even
blinking an eye.
Similarly, the following European American student from the South expressed strong identification with a white
character in the film:
Personally, I associated most with the character that had the farthest fall from grace, the police officer played by Ryan Phillipe. I am
somewhat of an idealist but I recognize that I do have some preconceived notions about the cultures of others. In the film Ryan
Phillipe‘s character tries throughout the movie to do things to convince himself that he doesn‘t hold any prejudices. He picked up a
black man when no one else would, and he keeps that director from getting in trouble.... The one person who the viewers are led to
believe may be free from prejudice ends up doing the worst thing in killing someone.... To me this tells the viewers that we have to
address our stereotypes before we allow them to go too far. If we leave them unchecked then we‘ll never resolve our issues.
For these European American students, the movie forced them to confront their own racial biases that they did
not think they had. This was unsettling for some as reflected in the following comment by a female student from
the South:
I was challenged and uncomfortable and I hated that I recognized many aspects of myself in several different characters.... I could see
through the characters, the private racist thoughts that I would never admit to thinking, but of course I do. I could see how those
thoughts affected actions later on in the storyline and how dangerous it is.
In contrast to the reactions in the Innocent ―I‖/Responsible ―Them,‖ the students here did not see racism as
attitudes held by other whites; they saw themselves as the owners of such attitudes.
Yet, a couple of other European American students also pointed out the importance of fighting racism because
their friends, who are persons of color, have been the victims of racism. These comments reflected the authors‘
understanding of their privileges as well as their role in the oppressive power relations. After describing his
racial and gender privileges, one student shared:
I remember driving to work with my friend XXX who is black and being pulled over by a cop. The cop
immediately made us get out of the car and put our hands on the hood while they searched us. Then the cop
asked me to search my car. I had been pulled over eight to ten times before this incident but was never even
asked to get out of the car. The more I relate these subplots from the movie to my life, the more I see racism in
our society today.... You cannot simply watch this movie. You feel for the characters and begin to feel your own
implication in the racist society that the movie portrays.
Overall, in the racial/attached frame, students related closely to the film and saw themselves as racialized
subjects as active participants in racism. Not only did the students acknowledge their roles in the system but, as
shown in the quotes above, they also consistently pointed out often unseen *but real—implications of their
behaviors in the interconnected world.
Societal/Detached: Social “They”
Thus far we have described how student reactions reflected personal and racial perspectives—both detached and
attached—of the film, Crash. In these final two sections, we describe how responses also were steeped in
societal perspectives. Comments grounded within the ―Social ‗They‖‘ described racism and related issues as
those relevant to ―others‖ generally, or ―some people‖ and ―people‖ more specifically. In some cases within this
framing, student reactions simply provided general commentary:
Overall this movie was a powerful statement about racism in one city, in one state, in one nation, of a much bigger world. It shed light
on an ongoing problem that needs a solution. It suggests that one needs to learn the importance of others for themselves and until they
do they will continue to be racist.
I thought the movie did an excellent job portraying the me-versus-the-world mentality many individuals have in today‘s society.
Other examples of Social ―They‖ made the case that racism was ―pervasive‖ throughout society, but not an
issue for them specifically. For instance, one student wrote:
Skin color has always been irrelevant to me, and cultural differences have never meant more than something new and interesting to
learn about someone. I have never been able to comprehend why people treat each other the way they do when it is all so unnecessary.
Racism, in turn, was described as an issue for those who were ―ignorant‖ to others:
The racial stereotypes that have been adapted by society are ignorant and continue to further fuel racial tension. Crash shows how
blinding prejudice can be; often the characters are not purposely trying to be racist, they are simply ignorant to the facts.
For many of the students whose reactions were primarily situated within this positional frame, racism was
regarded as a larger-than-life issue. For instance, students described racism as ―sunk deeply into society‖ and
something that ―will always plague society.‖ Another student wrote that: ―Racism is everywhere and I have
always felt that there is nothing that can be done to really change people‘s minds.‖
In sum, in all of these descriptions from the Social ―They‖ positionality, the student authors recognized racism
as a societal issue with which people should be concerned. However, they did not see the issue as relevant to
themselves and did not reflect how they were implicated in racial projects.
Societal/Attached: Social “We”
In contrast to the ―Social ‗They‖‘ that described racism as something that others need to work on, the
perspective that we characterize as ―Social ‗We‖‘ included comments from students who described the world as
―our society.‖ This frame thus utilized language owning racism and related issues as part of their world; this
was true for both European Americans and people of color. Upon reflecting on all of the different scenes within
the film, many students appeared to take several things to heart. This included, as one student described,
―looking at this movie and taking a deeper lesson away from it.‖ While a racialized positionality would have
named racism specifically, those characterized as Social ―We,‖ oftentimes did not explicitly name it as such.
Instead, references were typically made to societal challenges that ―we all‖ need to face and work on. This is
illustrated in the following comment by a biracial woman:
I think we have so much work ahead of us it is overwhelming, but if we don‘t try to help, then we have no right to complain. I think
Crash just really showed people that we have a lot of work ahead of us. Because the movie was so diverse hopefully a diverse crowd
watched it and it made a difference in a lot of lives.
When racism was explicitly named, the Social ―We‖ perspective did not address it as a personal or racial issue.
Instead, racism was described as a societal problem— something ―we have to work on.‘‘ A European American
man wrote:
Like many people who haven‘t seen this movie, I believed before I watched it that I was for the most part not racist. However, just like
many others I found myself laughing at the racially charged jokes in the film. This did open my eyes, no matter how much I think that
I am past race, there are still shades of it almost engrained in all of us. This is a issue larger than just me.
Recognizing one‘s role in tackling the societal problems, several students in this group also described what they
are planning to do or what they began to do. For example, one European American woman in the South wrote
that she immediately bought the movie after it was shown in class and had her parents watch it with her so they
could talk about the issues presented in the film.
In short, the students in this group included reflexive analysis of their own behaviors and attitudes but
connected them to the larger society. In this regard, reactions grounded in a societal/attached perspective see
the problems highlighted in the film—racial stereotypes, discrimination, racism, and cultural misunderstanding
—as social problems that they need to actively work on.
Complementing Standpoint Theories with the Context-Positionality Framework
As demonstrated throughout this essay, a thematic analysis of the student essays allowed us to understand
diverse student responses to Crash. As anticipated, the vast majority of students, regardless of the region, race,
gender, and other backgrounds, described the powerful ways in which Crash impacted upon them and
articulated how the film prompted them to reflect on race relations in the U.S. What we did not expect were the
ways in which the reactions were situated along two dimensions: positionality and contextual focus. Along
these lines, we came to understand student reactions as personal/detached (Unnamed Privileged Sense of
―Them‖), personal/ attached (Color-Blind Individualized ―I‖), racial/detached (Innocent ―I‖/Responsible
―Them‖), racial/attached (Racialized ―I‖/―Us‖), societal/detached (Social ―They‖), and societal/attached (Social
―We‖).
Throughout our organizing of student reactions along the six frames, we began to see several patterns of
situatedness, which we believe are best understood through standpoint theory. First, without an exception, the
―detached‖ perspectives, regardless of the contextual focus, were authored by European American students. In
the personal/detached frame, the students not only universalized their viewpoints (Jackson et al., 2000;
Nakayama & Krizek, 1995) but remained detached from the film, being unable to (or unwilling to) imagine that
people of color may indeed experience systemic racism as depicted in the film. As some students did, they
could literally walk away from it. In the racial/detached frame, the authors expressed their concerns about
racism and recognized that they have ―white middle class‖ privileges. The privileged location, however, was not
examined, and they located themselves outside racism and racial relations, leaving the issue of race as the
problems of other European Americans who, unlike themselves, are racially prejudiced. Similarly, the essays
written from the societal/detached perspective construed racism as a societal problem that someone else needs
to tackle. This pattern of detachment necessarily reflects their dominant racial location in the U.S. society; it
failed to address their role in the problem. The European American students in the study may come from
diverse backgrounds based on class, gender, and other cultural and social locations. Nevertheless, as standpoint
theories posit, European Americans share race-based group experience (Collins, 1997; Hallstein, 2000); they
shared similar interpretations of and reactions to the film, reflecting their racial location.
In addition to the detached perspectives, the personal/attached positionality was predominantly inhabited by
European American students. The students passionately explained the impact the film had on them. Their essays
were plenteous with reflections as individuals as well as what needs to be done on personal levels. Their
privileged racial locations facilitated a focus on commonalties and identification as ―human beings.‖ On the
other hand, the racial/attached positionality was mostly expressed by people of color that included African
Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, and biracial/multiracial U.S. Americans. All but a few
students of color strongly related to the film, describing their racial and racist experiences similar to the scenes
shown in the film. These seemingly oppositional responses based on dominant/non-dominant group lines
(Swigonski, 1994) provide a strong support for standpoint theories. Seeing through this theoretical lens, it is no
surprise that students of color related to the film in racial terms. Likewise, it is difficult for European American
students to see that claims such as treating each other as ―human beings‖ and ―persons‖ reflect their privileged
racial locations (Nakayama & Krizek, 1995; Tierney & Jackson, 2002; Warren, 2003) void of avowal as a
racialized subject.
Standpoint theorists caution us, however, that social/cultural locations and standpoints are not the same thing
(Hallstein, 2000; Wood, 2005). Almost all students of color saw themselves as racialized subjects, particularly
in terms of being subjected to racial discrimination and stereotypes. However, only a few of them included
language indicating their political consciousness (Collins, 1997). One of these few students was an African
American male mentioned in the analysis of ―Racialized ‗I‘/‗Us‖‘; he resisted the dominant view—which was
internalized by many African Americans—that getting education and using the correct grammar is a ―white
thing‖ and called for the need to be proud of those practices as belonging to African Americans. Addressing
such internalization and complicity and struggling for oppositional views are important for the development of a
standpoint. Most students of color had important experiences to share, but few indicated that they have
developed a racial standpoint. That is, political consciousness necessary for challenging inequal power relations
has not been cultivated.
As standpoint theories postulate, persons belonging to dominant groups may not develop racial standpoints but
can cultivate informed racial locations if, and when, they can critically reflect on and resist the dominant
worldview and work to create an oppositional stance (Wood, 2005). While most European American students
dissociated themselves from the film altogether or situated themselves outside racism, a few students showed
hints of self-reflexive critique - an important step toward resisting the dominant perspective. As one student
noted, they seem to realize their ―own implication in the racist society that the movie portrays.‖
As described above, standpoint theories serve as a productive lens for under- standing ways in which students of
various racial groups positioned themselves in relation to social and racial issues. It also provides motivational
contexts for the racially diverse inclinations and aversions. Such understanding is imperative for improving
interracial relations. Research on interracial communication points out the difficulties of engaging in race talk
between European Americans and people of color due to the gaps of knowledge and experience (Warren, 2003;
Yep, 2007) and accompanying emotional strains such as fear, defensiveness, and weariness (Miller & Harris,
2005; Simpson et al., 2007). Research also emphasizes the importance of developing awareness of our own
racial location (Allen, 1998; Cooks, 2003; Orbe & Harris, 2008; Yep, 2007). Standpoint theories encourage us
to recognize the racial location each of us occupies in the hierarchically racialized society and to examine why
the gaps exist. Potentially then, the theories help us to approach race relations without being hindered by toxic
individuation of racial antagonism (i.e., racism is no more than the acts of racist individuals), while at the same
time urging us to own the racial location into which we are interpellated. The subject of race is then engaged not
either as a societal or an individual matter but as existing in the structural-personal dialectics (Halualani,
Fassett, Morrison, & Dodge, 2006).
What is critically important toward this dialectical framework is understanding where we might be in our
consciousness of, and approach to, race and race relations. While standpoint theories stress that there is
considerable diversity within a racial group due to the fluidity and multiplicity of racial standpoints (Bell et al.,
2000; Collins, 1997), the theories remain abstract as to what diversity may exist. This vagueness may have
limited the applicability of the theories. We believe that the organizing framework that emerged from this study
complements standpoint theories by providing a tool for assessing ―where we are‖ in our situatedness with
regard to race. While the six genres captured the essence of the student reactions to the film, on a larger scale,
we suspect that they also reflect some of the primary ways that people across the United States understand
racism and race relations. For example, the predominant tendency to view racism as an obsolete ideology
(Giroux, 2003) or racial groups as simply cultural groups with essential—as opposed to constructed*differences
(Kim, 2004) parallel the student reactions in this study.
Our organizing framework is by no means the only mapping tool, nor is it a fully developed one. However, it
provides a template or a starting point for assessing our situatedness. Used together with standpoint theories, the
framework helps to show diverse ways in which we situate ourselves with regard to race and race relations.
Two individuals from the same racial group may acknowledge their racial location, but they may be different in
their positionality and contextual focus. For example, as our analysis showed, two European American persons
may agree that they have white privileges, but one may see racial inequalities as his or her problem while the
other sees them as the society‘s, not theirs. Similarly, as we discussed, most people of color see themselves as
racialized subjects, but they may not see their racial standpoints/ locations from a societal frame. These
differences in positionality and contextual focus engage us very differently with race relations.
The framework also allows us to visualize how our positionality and contextual frame may shift depending on
given issues. For example, we may hold an attached, racialized perspective on a certain issue involving race
relations, but we may see another issue from a detached, personalized perspective. Such visualizations help us
to see not simply the complexity of race but also the points of divergence and convergence with others.
Ultimately, we believe that race and racial relations must be seen from attached positionalities and with
personal, racial, and societal foci. When we operate from a detached perspective, we are not likely to develop a
racial standpoint. Similarly, if we only see problems arising from unequal power relations as personal matters, a
racial standpoint is not likely to be cultivated. While most of the student reactions in our study were framed
primarily within one perspective, a select few, like the following student, did reflect the type of multifocal
perspective that we advocate here:
Each time I have finished watching the film Crash it makes me look at myself and the way that I interact with others. It allows me to
see how my ―racial baggage‖ affects my interactions with others in my life. The fact is we all have to share the same ―homes‖ with
one another. We all as a community, and as a country, need to focus on how to understand one another in great detail and how to
communicate with one another more effectively.
As this student aptly points out, we need to engage racial others and critically reflect on our values, ideologies,
assumptions and recognize their limitations. In doing so, we must be conscious of not only our racialized
locations but also how we and others are simultaneously situated within personal, racial, and societal contexts.
Notes
[1] In seven of the classes, the film was shown in two consecutive classes. In the two remaining
classes, the film was not shown in class, but students were required to view it on their own time outside of
class.
[2] Most students provided such self-identifiers in their reaction papers. Others who did not
provide any racial or ethnic labels in their papers shared such information in other written assignments or class
discussions during the semester. This approach was modeled after similar work by Harris and Miller (2004).
[3] In all cases, the assignments aimed to enhance the students‘ pedagogical goal for the
courses. That is, we did not give the assignments simply to collect the student responses to the film; the
assignments were an integral part of the student learning of the course material in that they provided a method
for students to reflect outside of the limitations of class time. To receive the credits, the students identified their
names in the papers. Methodologically, this lack of anonymity may be seen as posing a threat to the authenticity
of student responses. While we recognize the possibility of credibility threat of this nature, we believe that the
students provided candid responses to the film. Upon giving the assignments, we stressed that we were
interested in their honest reactions and that they were not graded for their evaluation of the film. Moreover, the
responses were indeed diverse; if the students felt that they were pressured to answer in certain ways, we would
have seen more uniformity.
[4] We could have asked the students to analyze the film critically in response to a set of
questions about race and race relations. However, we chose to ask students to give us their unimpeded reactions
because we believe that such reactions will tell us more about how the students situate themselves in their world
than a uniform analysis paper can. In the interracial communication classes, students were introduced to
standpoint theory, but standpoint theories do not assume that individuals understand the theories. That is,
regardless of whether we know the theory or not, we will read our social world (in this case, the film) from our
racial locations. If the knowledge of the theory affected the students‘ reading of the film, we would have seen
such differences reflected in their responses.
[5]
Few European Americans commented on the opening scene. When they did, their reading of the scene
was different. For example, the difference was seen in the contrasting way the European American male student
mentioned earlier responded to the same scene. They both raised the issue of fear, but the African American
writers felt that it was the African Americans who should fear because they were the minorities while the
European American student felt that the European American characters were entitled to fear the African
American characters because they look like criminals.
References
Allen, B. J. (1998). Black womanhood and feminist standpoints. Management Communication Quarterly, 11,
575-586.
Apker, J., Propp, K. M., & Ford, W. S. Z. (2005). Negotiating status and identity tensions in healthcare team
interactions: An exploration of nurse role dialectics. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 93-115.
Bell, K. E., Orbe, M., Drummond, D. K., & Camara, S. K. (2000). Accepting the challenge of centralizing
without essentializing: Black feminist thought and African American women‘s communicative experiences.
Women‘s Studies in Communication, 23(1), 4162.
Brooker, W. (2001). Readings of racism: Interpretation, stereotyping and The phantom menace. Continuum:
Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 15, 15-32.
Brummett, B. (1985). Electric literature as equipment for living: Haunted house films. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 2, 247261.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment.
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Collins, P. H. (1997). Comment on Hekman‘s ―Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited‖:
Where‘s the power? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 375381.
Cooks, L. (2003). Pedagogy, performance, and positionality: Teaching about whiteness in interracial
communication. Communication Education, 52(1), 245-257,
Cooper, B. (2002). Boys don‘t cry and female masculinity: Reclaiming a life and dismantling the politics of
normative heterosexuality. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 19, 4463. Denzin, N. K. (1995). The
cinematic society: The voyeur‘s gaze. London: Sage.
Giroux, H. A. (2003). Spectacles of race and pedagogies of denial: Anti-black racist pedagogy under the reign
of neoliberalism. Communication Education, 52, 191-211.
Graves, J. L. (2004). The race myth: Why we pretend race exists in America. New York: Dutton. Haggis, P.
(Producer, Director, Writer). (2005). Crash [Motion picture]. United States: Lion Gates. Hall, S. (1992). New
ethnicities. In J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds.), ―Race,‖ culture and difference (pp. 252-259). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hallstein, D. L. O. (2000). Where standpoint stands now: An introduction and commentary. Women‘s Studies
in Communication, 23, 1-15.
Halualani, R. T., Fassett, D. L., Morrison, J. T. A., & Dodge, P. S.-W. (2006). Between the structural and the
personal: Situated sense-making of ―race‘‘. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 3, 70-93.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Harding, S. (1991).
Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women‘s lives. New York: Cornell University Press.
Harris, T. M., & Donmoyer, D. (2000). Is art imitating life?: Communicating gender and racial identity in
Imitation of life. Women‘s Studies in Communication, 23, 91-110.
Harris, T. M., & Miller, A. N. (2004). A co-cultural examination of community building in the interracial
communication classroom. Journal of Intergroup Relations, 31, 39-63.
hooks, b. (1996). Reel to real: Race, sex, and class at the movies. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, R. L., Shin, C. I., & Hilson, K. B. (2000). The meaning of whiteness: Critical implications of
communicating and negotiating race. World Communication, 29, 6986.
Kim, C. J. (2004). Imagining race and nation in multiculturalist America. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
27,987-1005.
Miller, A. N., & Harris, T. M. (2005). Communicating to develop white racial identity in an interracial
communication class. Communication Education, 54, 223242.
Murray, R. (2006). Paul Haggis interview. About.com. Retrieved September 25, 2006, from http://
movies.about.com/library/weekly/blhaggis010906.htm
Nakayama, T. K., & Krizek, R. L. (1995). Whiteness: A strategic rhetoric. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81,
291309.
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Orbe, M. P., & Harris, T. M. (2008). Interracial communication: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Orbe, M. P., & Warren, K. T. (2000). Different standpoints, different realities: Race, gender, and perceptions of
intercultural conflict. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 1(3), 51-57,
Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274287,
Shome, R. (2000). Outing whiteness. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17, 366-371. Simpson, J. S.,
Causey, A., & Williams, L. (2007). ―I would want you to understand it‖: Students‘
perspectives on addressing race in classroom. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research, 36, 33-50.
Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Swigonski, M. E. (1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39,
387-393.
Tierney, S., & Jackson, R. L. (2002). Deconstructing whiteness ideology as a set of rhetorical fantasy themes:
Implications for interracial alliance building in the United States. In M. J. Collier
(Ed.), Building intercultural alliances (pp. 81-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ursic, G. (2005). Crashing with Paul Haggis: An interview with Hollywood‘s new go-to drama guy.
Hollywood Bitchslap. Retrieved on September 25, 2006, from http://www.hollywoodbitch
slap.com/feature.php?feature=1470
Warren, J. T. (2003). Performing purity: Whiteness, pedagogy, and the reconstitution of power. New York:
Peter Lang.
Wood, J. T. (1992). Gender and moral voice: Moving from woman‘s nature to standpoint epistemology.
Women‘s Studies in Communication, 15, 1-24.
Wood, J. T. (2005). Feminist standpoint theory and muted group theory: Commonalities and divergences.
Women and Language, 28(2), 6164.
Wright, T. M., & Orbe, M. (2003). Turning the tables of analysis in intercultural communication research:
Studying the facework strategies used by ―anonymous‖ European American reviewers. Howard Journal of
Communications, 14, 115.
Yep, G. (2007). Pedagogy of the opaque: The subject of whiteness in communication and diversity courses. In
L. Cooks & J. S. Simpson (Eds.), Whiteness, pedagogy, performance: Dis/placing race (pp. 87-110). Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Young, S. D. (2000). Movies as equipment for living: A developmental analysis of the importance of film in
everyday life. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 17, 447-458.
Appendix