Systemic racism and the white racial frame

Before turning to the ‘native speaker’ frame, it is necessary to explore its analog in the social science theory of systemic racism - the “white racial frame”. Systemic racism can be described as “the manifestation of historically developed, societally embedded ways of white Eurocentric

86 thinking, of the organization of social groups according to a racial hierarchy separating whites and people of color, and of an array of racially oppressive institutions devised by whites that targets people of color” (Elias & Feagin, 2016, p. 6). In other words, systemic racism is historically rooted, and resides in societal power relations resulting in discriminatory acts of racism and expressions of racist sentiment such as “police shootings of unarmed black men, women, and children; widespread anti-immigrant discrimination; and major mismanagement of Native American affairs” (Elias & Feagin, 2016, p. 281). Systemic racism is an important theory, because as Feagin (2013) notes, there has been increased emphasis in the United States and other Western nations on these societies as being “post-racial”, due to visible indicators of racial equality such as the election of Barack Obama. However, Elias and Feagin (2016) argue that this does not mean racism has disappeared, and instead believe that social science must acknowledge more covert forms of racism such as those which manifest on the level of societal institutions. As Bonilla-Silva (2003) notes “nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organisations, few in the United States claim to be racist” (p.1), and many people would prefer to do away with the concept of race altogether. However, this has led to a situation of “color-blind racism”, in which there are few avowed racists in society, but in which racism persists through “frames” including “abstract liberalism”, “cultural racism”, and “minimization of racism” (Bonilla-Silva, 2003, p. 47). In support of this, Better (2008) provides evidence of institutional racism at work in areas such as the de facto segregation of schools in the United States, and discourses which explain away disparity between racial groups as due to cultural failings on the part of the group in question. Writers such as Elias and Feagin (2016), Better (2008), and Bonilla-Silva (2003) argue that the persistence of racism in society can be laid at the door of systemic racism. Rather than racism being a social aberration that must be excised from the body of American society, Feagin (2013) argues that it is a foundational concept on which American society is based, and is spread throughout the structures and institutions of this society.

87 While systemic racism is the overarching theory which explains contemporary racial inequality in the US, one concept plays a key role in creating and upholding this racism; the “white racial frame”. The concept of “frame” is one which is used often in the cognitive and social sciences to refer to the idea that individual minds, social histories, and collective memories are implanted with particular ways of viewing and thinking about the world which “helps people make sense of everyday situations” (Feagin, 2013, p. 9). The concept of framing in social science was introduced by Goffman (1974), who refers to frames as “schemata of interpretation” (p.21), and argues that people’s interpretations of the world are filtered through whatever their primary framework is. The white racial frame is “an overarching white worldview that encompasses a broad and persisting set of racial stereotypes, prejudices, ideologies, images, interpretations and narratives, emotions, and reactions to language accents, as well as racialized inclinations to discriminate” (Feagin, 2013, p. 3). In other words, the white racial frame presents a particular white Eurocentric view of the world and involves “the explanation and construction of reality from the perspective of dominant whites…that develops and reinforces ideas, actions, networks, institutions, and social structures according to the views and practical racial-group interests of white people” (Elias & Feagin, 2016, p. 7). The white racial frame is, on this view, a lens through which people view and interpret society, allowing racism to persist through assumptions which seem racially neutral, despite being contingent on this white racial framing. This can be seen in discourses such as the idea of “cultural deficiency”, in which the relative lack of success of particular social or ethnic groups is blamed on the “attitudes and values” of the group in question, “rather than social structure” (Better, 2008, p. 8).

In summary, the white racial frame is a way of seeing and interpreting the world through a white Eurocentric lens, which supports systemic racism by allowing racially loaded assumptions and discourses about society to be seen as commonsensical, thus perpetuating racist systems,

88 institutions, and interpretations.

4.3.  The ‘native speaker’ frame

I believe that systemic racism is very closely analogous with native-speakerism in ELT. Both are systemic and foundational concepts which underlie all aspects of the society they inhabit. As documented in the previous chapter, evidence exists to show that native-speakerism lies at the core of ELT practice, influencing everything from the explicitly discriminatory hiring of teachers, to the assumptions of correct pedagogy as seen to be embodied in the ‘native speaker’ and the institutions of the West. As with so-called “color-blind racism” (Bonilla-Silva, 2003), it has become something of a taboo in recent years to be explicitly native-speakerist in ELT. The campaigning of pressure groups has led to explicit discrimination being de-emphasised, and politically correct phrasing such as “native-like proficiency” replacing more overtly discriminatory terms in job advertisements. In other words, ‘overt native-speakerism’, as defined in section 3.7.1, is very much like explicit racism; increasingly seen as socially unacceptable and consequently becoming less visible. However, this does not mean native-speakerism has disappeared. Rather, I believe native-speakerism functions much like systemic racism, at the level of assumptions and framing which serve to perpetuate native-speakerist ideology without anyone being explicitly native-speakerist in their actions.

This is supported by what I term “the ‘native speaker’ frame”. The ‘native speaker’ frame is intended to be analogous with the white racial frame, and refers to the aspects of the ideology of native-speakerism which can be found embedded in the structures, viewpoints, and assumptions that underlie global English language education. In other words, I wish to argue that the ELT industry operates with a perspective on the world in which Western ‘native’-normativity is assumed, and through which educational beliefs and representations of other cultures and

89 education systems are filtered. The ‘native speaker’ frame can be contrasted with what Mahboob (2010) calls “the NNEST lens”, which is defined as “a lens of multilingualism, multinationalism, and multiculturalism though which NNESTs – as classroom practitioners, researchers, and teacher educators – take diversity as a starting point” (p.1). The ‘native speaker’ frame instead has a monolingual and monocultural approach to language teaching, examples of which may include assumptions that Western approaches to language education are superior to local educational technology or in some other way normative (Holliday, 2005; Widin, 2010), thus implicitly devaluing and denying the contributions and traditions of other cultures and educational systems. Other examples may include the perceived superiority of ‘native speaker’ teachers (D. J. Rivers & Ross, 2013) or the association of “correct” English with Western varieties of the language (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2005b; Loveday, 1996; Matsuda, 2002; Morrow, 2004; Saito, 2012). As with the white racial frame, the ‘native speaker’ frame is based on the perpetuation and acceptance of discourses within ELT which seem to be neutral or commonsensical, but which I will argue are in fact culturally and ideologically loaded, and based on unacknowledged or unrecognized prejudice. I believe the ‘native speaker’ frame is a powerful concept that can be used to understand how the ideology of native-speakerism still exists and operates in ELT despite explicit expressions of overt native-speakerism declining in the face of increased challenges. In other words, the ideology of native-speakerism lies not only in the explicitly discriminatory language or actions of members of the ELT industry, but rather in the acceptance and perpetuation of a Western ‘native speaker’ worldview which assumes the superiority and normativity of Western educational technology and views the rest of the world from a viewpoint of educational and cultural deficiency. Of course, the analogy between systemic racism and native-speakerism is not perfect. Discussions and studies of systemic racism have focused mainly on the United States, while conversely ELT is a global enterprise. However, I believe that they are closely allied enough for the comparison to be

90 a strong and revealing one. Systemic racism is based on a history of colonialism and empire (Elias & Feagin, 2016), and native-speakerism can also be traced back to colonial roots (Pennycook, 1998) and the workings of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992). Systemic racism is, on this historical basis, built into the structures and institutions of society, and so is native-speakerism built into the structures and institutions of ELT (Holliday, 2005). While systemic racism and native-speakerism are contextually, geographically, and historically distinct from one another, their similar (and to some extent shared) historical roots and modes of operation make the analogy from one to the other very appropriate. Indeed, I believe an argument could be made that native-speakerism is simply the expression of systemic racism in one very narrow professional field. See Figure 2 for a direct comparison between the concepts informing both systemic racism and native-speakerism.

Concepts in systemic racism theory Concepts in native-speakerism theory

Explicit racism – outward expressions of racial prejudice or contempt

Overt native-speakerism – outward expressions of prejudice or discrimination against ‘non-native speakers’

Systemic racism – historically rooted racist thought and attitudes that lie at the heart of social structures and institutions

Native-speakerism – historically rooted attitudes that lie at the heart of ELT theory and practice

The white racial frame – a way of seeing and interpreting the world through a white

Eurocentric lens

The ‘native speaker’ frame – a way of seeing and interpreting the world through a Western ‘native speaker’ lens.

91 In this thesis I intend to show how native-speakerist framing in ELT continues to operate, even in a program which was free from overt or explicit native-speakerism. It will be necessary, before doing this, to examine some of the key professional discourses which help to support the ‘native speaker’ frame in ELT.