The interdisciplinary perspective

Critical Race theorists are skeptical about a-historicism and ungrounded research

into race and racism, and utilize interdisciplinary approaches to situate race and

racism in contextual and contemporary settings (Matsuda et al., 1993; Solorzano,

1997; Solorzano ＆ Yosso, 2001). An interdisciplinary perspective is considered

Interdisciplinary research has been used to highlight five societal aspects where

inequities manifest along racialized lines: curriculum, instruction, assessment,

funding, and desegregation.

In terms of the curriculum, Critical Race Theory has addressed not only

sustained misinterpretation, erasure, and stereotyping, but also the lack of inclusivity

and accessibility of curricular content. Regarding instruction, Critical Race Theory

encourages teachers to make racism salient to their pedagogic approaches so that

students are able to identify and fight against racial hegemony and oppression.

Teachers are exhorted to take on assessment standards that subordinate people of

color (e.g., standardized assessment tests), and school funding disparities that

perpetuate inequitable access (Charles, 2008). Concerning the last issue, CRT

researchers argue that desegregation measures have failed to redress social inequality;

instead, they have redounded to the benefit of Whites (Bell, 1980).

Summary. Since schools are societal sites where the effects of social

differentiation are visible, a considerable number of studies grounded in Critical

Race Theory focus on conditions of inequity in educational settings (e.g., Henze,

2005). Critical Race educators combat entrenched inequality in schools by

questioning the power and authority of dominant groups (Henze, 2005), and by

engaging students in critical theorizing about the higher purposes of accountability

protocols, such as mass standardized testing (Harris ＆ Herrington, 2006).

Critical Race Theory is highly relevant to my research in helping me to

language teachers in English-speaking higher education institutions. The pervasive

existence of racism, together with its intersection with sexism and classism,

contributes to creating stereotypes about ideal English teachers in academia.

Conversely, as a non-white, non-native-speaking immigrant woman, with unfamiliar

and therefore questionable credentials, I am “at the bottom of the academic ranks” (Braine, 1999b, p. 17). Ng (1994) discusses how racism and sexism disempower

non-native speaking women teachers. Students not only discriminate against racial

minorities and women, but also challenge the knowledge and qualifications of

minority teachers who have been imbued with power. She advocates an

“anti-sexist/racist approach” which treats racism and sexism as “systemic” and “inter-personal (rather than individual)” and urges educators to fight these pernicious influences collectively (p.44).

Schecter and Cummins (2003) argue that minority cultures are an asset to the

whole society, given the diverse linguistic and cultural resources they harness. While

ESL students are believed to be valuable for their contributions to creating

multicultural and multilingual societies in a global era, why are the benefits of NNS

teachers downgraded or ignored? Referring to the interest convergence principle, it is

not difficult to find that Whites are interested in protecting and securing their power

and status. For this reason, teachers of color are underrepresented among faculty at

American higher educational institutions (Laden ＆ Hagedorn, 2000) and are

racially discriminated against (Turner ＆ Myers, 1999). If a NNS teacher is

constant scrutiny, or “White gaze,” of his/her students and White colleagues (Ibrahim,

2009, p.189). Given this situation, it is not surprising that faculty of color report low

job satisfaction (Laden ＆ Hagedorn, 2000).

Intersection of Two Theoretical Frameworks

Critical Race Theory and Bourdieu’s concepts intersect at four junctions. First, the two frameworks examine the root of inequality in different dimensions

and from varying perspectives. Both conceptual constructs assert that inequality

originates from hegemony and domination of the privileged class. Since racism

converges with classism (James, 2011; Solorzano ＆ Yosso, 2001), the two

frameworks have discussed that the dominant class monopolize power and authority

and hence perpetuate inequality and injustice. In Critical Race Theory, minorities are

marginalized and excluded based on their color. In Bourdieu’s theory, minority

groups are powerless because of their unequal cultivation, varying educational

experiences, different social and language habitus, and cultural capital caused by

their inferior class. As a result, inequality results in oppression and differential

treatment.

Second, both conceptual frameworks concern capital, especially cultural capital.

Critical Race Theory deals with the visual dimensions of capital. “Raced bodies” (Mohanram, 1999, p. 4) are deemed not to have any (cultural) capital in the White

elite space. Also in Critical Race Theory, Whiteness is generated by power which

produces “institutionalized privilege,” and as a category, is imbued with social, political, and economic capital (Dei, 2000, p.29). Charles (2008) indicates that the

conjunction of race and property manifested via the concept of Whiteness as property

demonstrates that privileged communities possess wealth and better access to

resources which implies that Whites own more economic, social, and cultural

capitals. For Bourdieu, capital is in the hands of the ruling class, displaying class

hierarchies and sustaining inequality (Dimitriadis ＆ Kamberelis, 2006). Bourdieu

and Passeron (1977) tend to attribute minority students’poorer academic

performances to the lack of those capitals.

However, Yosso (2005) argues that although such cultural knowledge and

training are important to students, they are not indispensable to transmit any capital

at schools. She shows the inextricable link between Bourdieu’s theory and Critical

Race Theory by pointing out that Critical Race Theory has switched the emphasis

from the dominant class to the marginalized groups and that CRT “expands” Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital. Yosso’s finding is in line with Schecter’s (2015) conceptualization of the relation between language, culture, and identity.

Schecter proposes that minority cultures with community cultural resources,

multilingualism and multiculturalism should be viewed as a societal asset in light of

the social capital they bring. Despite different forms and angles of the two

frameworks, cultural capital and race interrelate, interact, and interplay with each

other (Herrnstein ＆ Murray, 1994).

Thirdly, both frameworks stress power, legitimacy, and social stratification. In

terms of legitimacy, in the framework of Critical Race Theory, Whiteness as property

In reality, their agenda is to completely exclude minorities (Harris, 1993). Whiteness

as property is achieved via objectifying subjugated people. In Critical Race Theory, a

series of appealing notions: e.g., color-blindness, race neutrality, objectivity

(Roithmary, 1999), meritocracy, equity (Solorzano, 1997; Solorzano ＆ Yosso,

2001), multiculturalism (James, 2011, 2012a) are highlighted to bring into focus how

racial subordination and marginalization are experienced. Additionally, the concept

of Interest Convergence indicates how interests converge in ways that minorities

people’s interests will not conflict with those of Whites and will not threaten their power and privilege (Bell, 1980). In Bourdieu’s theory, all actions are

interest-oriented. Nevertheless, the principle of legitimacy misleads people to

recognize the interests of the dominant class as disinterested (Bourdieu, 1977b).

Consequently, in Critical Race Theory, White supremacy creates difference (Dei,

2000) while for Bourdieu, the distribution and manipulation of capital exhibit class

and race distinction (Dimitriadis ＆ Kamberelis, 2006). As well, symbolic power is

utilized to show social differentiation (Swartz, 1997).

Fourthly, these two frameworks deal with identity. Critical Race Theory explores

racial identity, language identity, social identity, and cultural identity. In Bourdieu’s

works, he examines linguistic identity and social identity. A person’s value is not only linked to what s/he says, but their social status (Bourdieu, 1977c). To sum up,

the two frameworks have provided a conceptual construction of power relations and

domination and have revealed that equity, equality, access, and justice are deceptive