Exposing and dismantling White culture in public administration

Administrative Theory & Praxis ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/madt20 Exposing and dismantling White culture in public administration Jeannine M. Love & Margaret Stout To cite this article: Jeannine M. Love & Margaret Stout (2024) Exposing and dismantling White culture in public administration, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 46:2, 144-170, DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2023.2234245 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2023.2234245 Published online: 24 Aug 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 332 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=madt20 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 2024, VOL. 46, NO. 2, 144–170 https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2023.2234245 Exposing and dismantling White culture in public administration Jeannine M. Lovea and Margaret Stoutb a Political Science & Public Administration, Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois, USA; bDepartment of Public Administration, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper examines the ways dominant White culture shapes the foundational assumptions within U.S. public administration, and how these embed oppressive power dynamics within the field are impeding effectively addressing racial inequities. Toward that end, we offer a primer on White culture as a specific form of dominance culture with unique assumptions, values, power dynamics, institutional structures, and procedures. We argue that this hegemonic culture has shaped public administration’s primary schools of thought. Examination of these schools demonstrates that efforts to reform public administration will continue to fail in producing socially just outcomes if the underlying White culture is not dismantled. To achieve social justice, we must transform underlying assumptions through pluricultural integration (as opposed to multicultural pluralism), generating a culture that fosters equitable and inclusive power dynamics that empower all social identities through the development of power-within (self-efficacy), power-with (solidarity), and power-to (agency). Dominance; integration; power dynamics; public administration; White culture Introduction Recently, a group of leading scholars called for greater attention to “social justice in public administration theory and research” (Stivers et al., 2023, p. 229). They argue that while social equity has been present in the field’s discourse since the late 1960s, deeper issues of social justice have often been deemed inappropriate for a profession that values bureaucratic neutrality. Nonetheless, explorations of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice abound in theoretical analysis and empirical studies of social equity in practice. Furthermore, they argue the tide is changing with increasing attention to “underlying worldviews and default assumptions” (Stivers et al., 2023, p. 231) that inform how these forms of justice are defined, studied, and realized (or not). Among related questions, this special issue seeks to examine these default assumptions—specifically, what do “whiteness-centered models reveal about the assumptions of public administration as a field?” (Heckler & Nishi, 2022). As scholars who have deeply examined ontological, epistemological, psychosocial, and belief system assumptions embedded in governance practice (Stout & Love, 2016, 2019), we offer an answer to CONTACT Jeannine M. Love University, Chicago, IL, USA jmlove@roosevelt.edu ß 2023 Public Administration Theory Network Political Science & Public Administration, Roosevelt ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 145 that question. We aim to expand the scope of critical White/Whiteness studies in its articulation and application to U.S. public administration and its and Anglo-European origins.1 Because the dominant culture in the U.S. maintains historically racialized inequities (Omi & Winant, 2015), we refer to it herein as White culture.2 In particular, we argue that White3 culture exists as a specific form of “dominance culture” (Tchida and Stout, 2023b)) that has intricately shaped U.S. public administration. For example, the combination of individualist assumptions, instrumental rationality, empirical quantification, ranked binary categorizations, and hierarchical power dynamics leads to oppressive organizing structures (Stout & Love, 2016). Further, these administrative characteristics normalize racialized differences and disparities (powell, 2012, p. 4). To achieve social justice, White culture must be exposed and dismantled. This endeavor requires building a robust theoretical framework through which to examine public administration theory and conduct empirical research on the effects of White culture in various domains of practice. We turn to liberation theory, critical race theory, critical White/Whiteness studies, inclusive feminisms, queer theory, intersectionality theory, settler colonialist theory, and others that center counter-hegemonic narratives. These theoretical lenses offer key insights for studying any governance practice by illuminating the distribution of power, identifying ways to disrupt and challenge existing power inequities, and designing strategies that co-create shared power (Blessett et al., 2016; Starke et al., 2018) to work toward meaningful transformational efforts (King & Zanetti, 2005). To defend our argument, we first accept and summarize a growing foundation of research and empirical evidence that: (1) links public policy and law to institutional, structural, and systemic racism; (2) demonstrates the racialized disparities in outcomes of most public policy in the U.S., and; (3) offers policy reform strategies as a solution, including more radical approaches like reparations and reforming the criminal justice system. Yet, because such policies never seem to reach beyond proposals and symbolic gestures (Bearfield et al., 2023), we must better understand why this is the case. Therefore, we further accept and summarize critical theory arguments that systemic racism is generated, imposed, and maintained by “White supremacy and White normativity” (Bearfield et al., 2023, p. 77), which are deeply embedded in social, political, and economic systems. Colorblind neutrality is simply a ruse to obscure the effectiveness of these cultural assumptions and refuse the notion that White identity exists. We therefore draw definitions of White, Whiteness, and White supremacy from critical White/Whiteness studies and its explication of the ways racialized assumptions insinuate themselves into the dominant culture as a hegemonic force that shapes cultural power dynamics. Finally, racial justice advocates provide detailed descriptions of the characteristics of White culture as they manifest in varied contexts at individual, institutional, and systemic levels of analysis. Indeed, they answer a question posed in the Call: “How does whiteness influence psychological, rhetorical, and organizational processes?” (Heckler & Nishi, 2022). Following Willner (2019) and Gaventa (2006), we expose how these characteristics reveal themselves in underlying assumptions, values, power dynamics, institutional structures, and procedures, and then analyze these traits in U.S. public administration theory and practice. 146 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT We end with recommendations for transformational change rather than reform, which requires alterations not only to individual and institutional policy and practice, but to the underlying culture that shapes racialized assumptions and action. In short, White culture, a specific form of dominance culture, must be dismantled and replaced, and the field of public administration has a role to play in this transformation. Evidence of disparities based on Whiteness Thanks to the growing cadre of public administration scholars whose work focuses on social equity, racialized policy disparities are increasingly well-documented in the literature—as is the complicity of administrators and their agencies. For example, studies of urban planning demonstrate public administration’s role in creating housing segregation (Alkadry & Blessett, 2010) and continued displacement of poor communities of color to benefit White economic and political interests (Alkadry et al., 2017; Blessett, 2020a, 2020b). The segregated and often bifurcated communities that remain further face the repercussions of ongoing administrative decisions that simultaneously under-resource and over-burden their inhabitants. Predominantly Black communities are less likely to have access to high quality fresh foods, regardless of income (Bower et al., 2014), and are more likely to bear the burdens of environmental pollution (Taylor, 2014). Not surprisingly, we see these effects reflected in disparities in access to health care and health outcomes (Blessett & Littleton, 2017), made all the more apparent in the wake of COVID-19 (Gaynor & Wilson, 2020; Wright & Merritt, 2020). Children in predominantly Black school districts face inequities in funding and outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2007), and Black students are pushed into the school-toprison pipeline at significantly higher rates than their White peers (Crenshaw et al., 2015). Black youth and adults disproportionately face punitive discipline within policing and criminal justice. Their communities are over-policed, individuals are racially profiled (Headley, 2020), and encounters with police are more likely to be fatal (Edwards et al., 2019; Menifield et al., 2019). Once in the criminal justice system, Black individuals are likely to face harsher charges and longer sentences (Kovera, 2019). Coupled with the disenfranchisement of those with felony convictions, the criminalization of Black individuals in the U.S. (Gaynor, 2018) has resulted in one in sixteen African Americans of voting age being disenfranchized (Uggen et al., 2020). Scholars are also examining the ways White culture exists as the “dominant culture” inside public organizations (Equity in the Center, 2019, p. 10) and the nonprofit sector (Gladden and Levine Daniel, 2022). Appeals to colorblindness consistently funnel organizational power and resources to White individuals (Heckler, 2017, 2019), while “raceneutral” approaches serve to obscure the racialized realities of organizations (Ray, 2019). Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives perpetuate the demand for assimilation to White culture; efforts are deemed successful when an organization advances more BIPOC candidates into management (Kalev et al., 2006) but tend not to address organizational culture and power dynamics (Equity in the Center, 2019; Starke et al., 2018; Willner, 2019). Based on these empirical findings, we agree that the field of public administration has been and continues to be complicit in perpetuating a “saturation of racial ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 147 inequities” (Gooden, 2014, p. 21). This research demonstrates that everyday decisions of public administrators can either perpetuate existing systems of oppression or disrupt status quo inequities (Alkadry et al., 2017). However, this approach emphasizes examining institutional racism that sustains White privilege and White supremacy (see for example, Delgado & Stefancic, 1997). While these issues are essential for examining racial justice, they keep our attention on downstream outcomes and midstream institutions without looking upstream to identify the “default cultural assumptions” that drive the policies that generate these outcomes. To be counterhegemonic, liberatory, abolitionist, and transformative, we assert that turning our focus to racism’s cultural roots is necessary. Our aim, therefore, is to address the systemic root causes of racialized inequities and consider ways to dismantle these causes in order to transform public policy and administration. Defining White culture By definition, a society’s culture includes the generally held beliefs, social forms, and material traits shared by people in a particular place or time. Herein, we follow St. Onge’s (2013) distinction between common ideas of everyday culture (e.g., music, dress, religion, visual art, food, celebratory traditions, language, race, ethnicity) and “deep culture.” The latter is comprised of the shared values, myths, beliefs, and worldview of a people that inform all other ideas and behaviors. Deep culture is embedded within cultural systems that promote a particular set of values and norms that guide institutional and individual choices and actions (Parsons & Shils, 2017). These expectations are integrated into internally consistent patterns of knowledge and behavior that are learned and transmitted to succeeding generations, and ultimately shape individual action as well as social, political, and economic institutions, and fields of practice. Thus, despite being abstract, the interrelated values, beliefs, and symbols of a cultural system have concrete impacts on social structures and individual lived experience. The claim that White culture exists—and that it can and should be described in specific terms—is widely held by social theorists (see for example, Delgado & Stefancic, 1997; Du Bois, 1920; Dyer, 1997; hooks, 1990; McIntosh, 1988; Yosso, 2005). To be clear, we are not making essentialist claims about phenotypically White individuals, but Whiteness as a socially-constructed and politically-empowered identity. Identity has multiple levels—personal, social, and cultural (Tatum, 2000). While our ultimate aim of analysis is cultural, it is necessary to address how the concept of race emerged and is used as a social construct at the other levels first. We begin by examining the construction of White, Whiteness, and White supremacy. At the individual level, White as a racial category is traditionally associated with people of Anglo-European origins; however, this categorization emerged distinct from specific and diverse ethnicities and cultures (Dyer, 1997). The definition of “race” was first included in a European dictionary in 1606, establishing the possibility of ranked racial categorization to justify colonization, enslavement, and forced acculturation and assimilation (Kendi, 2016). The concept was used primarily to “animalize African people” as justification for colonization, genocide, and enslavement (Kendi, 2016, p. 36). White colonizers claimed “to bring ‘a higher and a better civilization’ to ‘our less fortunate 148 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT brothers’ (Goodnow, 1906a, p. 136)” (as quoted by Roberts, 2020, p. 187). In other words racial classification “does not exist as a credible biological property” but rather as a malleable cultural category that “has become a powerful organizing principle around the world” (Rasmussen et al., 2001, p. 8)—socially, politically, and economically. Whiteness refers to the characteristics of dominant colonizers against a backdrop of progress and profit through the extraction of land, labor, and knowledge from all those who were deemed non-White (Du Bois, 1920). Whiteness in this context is a social identity that carries privileged status within the legal system and administrative state (Yancey, 2003). It is enacted as a form of property right, imbued with the claims to state protection, exclusive access, and entitlement to profit extracted (Harris, 1993; Lipsitz, 2018). Those who were colonized and identified as inferior races easily recognized the characteristics of Whiteness as different from their own identities (Amoah, 2012; Brigg, 2007; Smith, 2012; Stewart-Harawira, 2005; Waters, 2004). Whiteness has been entrenched through continued imperialism—and the violence it engenders—that enforces geopolitical systems of oppression and privilege, with those classified as White placed at the top (Kendi, 2016). The result is a corresponding hierarchical ordering of White over non-White cultures, yielding a set of geopolitical forces referred to as Western hegemony or Eurocentrism that imbue Anglo-European cultures with racialized authority and privilege (Pease, 2010). White supremacy carries this process of ranked racial classification to its logical conclusion: systemic assumptions that White skin is best and/or social expressions of Whiteness should be adopted by all (Fanon, 2007). White supremacy is therefore a foundational assumption in colonialism, Western hegemony (Pease, 2010; Smith, 2012), and notions of White saviorism (Cole, 2016). These assumptions were enacted in the U.S. as a settler colonial administrative state. A recent analysis of racism in public administration (Roberts, 2020) clearly demonstrates that widely acknowledged founders of the field—Goodnow, Willoughby, Mosher, and Cleveland—firmly held White supremacist views. Historical evidence reveals they believed “that humanity was divided by color and degree of civilization” wherein “the white race had reached the highest stage of civilization, mainly through its mastery of science and technology” (p. 187). White supremacy was used to justify and perpetuate colonization, imperialism, and slavery thereby institutionalizing racism and privilege throughout the U.S. administrative state. More specifically, White supremacy is imposed and perpetuated through “a rearguard campaign in the fields of culture, values, technology, etc.” (Fanon, 2007, p. 9). Therefore, we must examine key elements to understand White culture. Early on in Whiteness studies, Frankenburg (1993, 2001) noted that Whiteness is not specifically racial, but rather a range of normative, often unmarked and unnamed cultural practices. Since then, many racial equity scholars, activists, and consultants have identified the characteristics of White culture to better define Whiteness (see for example, Jones & Okun, 2001; Katz, 1990; Kaufman, 2001; Okun, n.d.; Potapchuk, 2012). For our application to public administration, these characteristics can be categorized as underlying cultural assumptions and values that prefigure dominating power dynamics. These foundational characteristics are then embedded in practice through institutional structures, and procedures of public administration. ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 149 Underlying assumptions The foundational assumptions of White culture are rooted in the geopolitics of Enlightenment thinking in Northern Europe, modernity, and Western culture (Collins, 1993; Pease, 2010; Smith, 2012). This worldview emphasizes progress through “smooth, homogeneous linear time … with origins and end points” (Edkins, 2003, p. 229). Atomistic individualism, instrumental rationality, self-interest, capitalism, and quantitative economic growth (Okun, n.d.; Potapchuk, 2012) are depicted as unquestionable advancements of civilization (Roberts, 2020). These Enlightenment principles were employed within European colonization (Wemyss, 2016), and the social, political, and economic success of the colonized depended upon acculturation to these ideals. Applied across the physical and social sciences, this worldview takes phenomena that can be understood in terms of complex, relational systems and breaks them down into supposedly independent parts (Stout & Love, 2016). While these components may work together—the parts of a machine, the individuals in a polity—each has an inherent, discrete identity, role, and value without consideration of mutual effects (Bird-David, 1999). Such analysis relies on clear means of categorization, using empirical observation to classify entities and their inherent traits. These systems of classification reflect binary thinking—an individual or entity either is or is not a specific thing, either does or does not have a particular characteristic (Okun, n.d.). There is no room for complexity, no possibility for both/and. These binaries lead to a focus on quantifiable standards, rather than qualitative values (Katz, 1990), privileging the individual human being as the unit of analysis without consideration of the social context or relationships (Follett, 1918). In the sociopolitical realm, individualism translates into liberal ideals: social contract theory; negative and positive liberty; and equality of treatment (Potter, 1976). Within the capitalist economic system, individualism emphasizes self-interest, autonomy and self-sufficiency, along with individual responsibility and accountability (Davis, 2004). Taken together, these underlying assumptions erode the ability to collaborate in groups of any kind. Values The underlying assumptions of any culture define what is deemed normal and provides standards for assessment (Johnson, 2017). In White culture, binaries are ranked in hierarchical categories of value (Collins, 1993; Potapchuk, 2012). This establishes unquestionable judgments about the relative worth of people, things, and ideas (e.g., White/non-White, male/female, straight/queer, intellect/emotion, mind/body, fact/value). These value judgments are determined by those who hold power, shaping whose identities and actions are to be privileged and whose are to be subordinated (Tatum, 2000). Because binary classifications determine worth, individuals’ social identities impact access to wealth, power, and social influence (Johnson, 2017). Social myths such as meritocracy and rugged individualism depict differences in outcomes as evidence of inherent value that becomes self-justifying (Love, 2008). Those who express Whiteness internalize messages of self-worth, while those who do not suffer a loss of self-efficacy, sense of deservedness, and feeling of belonging. The emphasis on quantification defines 150 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT social equality in terms of treatment, and equity as distributive justice that must be calculated by the privileged (Young, 1990). Based on these notions of relative merit, progress is determined through empirical measurements that are used to quantify value at any level of analysis. As a result, that which can be easily quantified is more highly valued (Okun, n.d.), and efficiency, economy, and effectiveness are more highly prized than equity. Narratives of material progress emphasize that bigger is better (e.g., economic growth), and social progress is determined by the eradication of things that deviate from desired norms, demanding cultural assimilation (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014). Power dynamics Cultures oriented toward social dominance create and reinforce hierarchical social rankings in which select groups are favored and targeted groups are subordinated (Collins, 1993), thus creating oppressive power dynamics. These social positions are legitimized through cultural ideology (Pratto et al., 2000) and enforced through policies and procedures that “reinforce[e] and reproduce[e] disparity” (Blessett, 2018, p. 1). Such “dominance cultures” (Tchida & Stout, 2023b) exist in myriad formations globally that are neither essentially nor historically a product of Whiteness, but rather intersect in White culture as a “white supremacist, colonial, capitalist, ableist, cis-heteropatriarchy” (The River and Fire Collective et al., 2021, p. 94). Advancing equitable outcomes within any dominance culture requires careful interrogation into power dynamics (Cunliffe & Jun, 2005; Guy & McCandless, 2012; McCandless & Guy, 2020). Power is often defined as a singular, abstract, value-neutral concept. However, power is not value-neutral; how it is obtained and how it is wielded alters its effects. Power in White culture is often obtained through competition and violence and wielded in hierarchical, exploitative, and harmful ways which have created and perpetuated social, political, and economic inequities. For example, Weber (1968) defines power as the ability of a person or group to achieve their desires, particularly in the face of resistance from others. Dahl (1998) similarly defines power as the ability to get somebody else to do something that they otherwise would not. This kind of power to manifest desires at the expense of others is what Follett (1924) calls power-over, because it is activated to oppress, control, or otherwise dominate others. An alternative, power-for, is evident when those with hierarchical power choose to exercise it beneficently on behalf of others (Purdy, 2012). In contrast, generative forms of power are described as power-within, power-with, and power-to (Follett, 2003; Gaventa, 2006; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Ledwith, 2011; Love and Stout, 2022; Purdy, 2012). Tchida and Stout (2023b) argue that powerwithin, power-with and power-to function as building blocks for one another. Power-within is a sense of self-efficacy, which includes one’s authentic identity and capacity, as well as a sense of safety and belonging (Bandura, 1994). In turn, selfefficacy fosters the courage to stand in solidarity with one another (power-with), even across difference and when specific purposes or issues are not shared (Bhattacharyya, 1995). Solidarity supports the exercise of agency (power-to), which in turn further builds self-confidence (power-within) (Bhattacharyya, 1995). ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 151 However, power-over and power-for serve to undermine power-within, power-with, and power-to, thereby contributing to injustice and inequity. Power-within operates at a nearly invisible cultural level through symbolic meanings (Gaventa, 1982). White culture enacts cultural imperialism, a form of oppression (Young, 1990) in which only certain identities and lifestyles are deemed worthy (Katz, 1990); those who express Whiteness are privileged with an inherent sense of self-efficacy, while the self-efficacy of those who do not is eroded. Those granted power-within based on privileged characteristics may also access power-with, wherein collective action is undertaken by the privileged group. Power-with operates at a latent but observable institutional level that is constrained by the rules of engagement and procedures (Gaventa, 1982). The institutions of White culture only accept those who express Whiteness, which excludes marginalized individuals and social groups from political and economic spaces and decision making (Young, 1990). Those who gain access to power-with are afforded agency, or power-to; the ability to act as one chooses without undue constraints from others. Power-to is exercised at the most obvious level of actual decisions and actions, wherever culturally legitimated authority is exercised (Gaventa, 1982). In White culture, power-to is typically wielded in a way to maintain influence or control or to prevent certain social identities from pursuing well-being as they understand it for themselves (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Lipsitz, 2018). Only particular ways of exercising agency are deemed acceptable (Potapchuk, 2012). In White culture, liberal assumptions recognize those who operate according to the rules of pluralism and majoritarianism. Individualism motivates selfinterested competition for resources, prestige, and power (Davis, 2004). This zero-sum approach reflects power-over—control over places, resources, and people (Lasswell, 1950), including exploitation and violence (Young, 1990). When power-to is wielded as power-over, the entire system of dominance is maintained. Those who do not hold power-within, power-with, or power-to experience a sense of powerlessness—another form of oppression (Young, 1990). Finally, in White culture, power-for (Huxham & Vangen, 2005), or beneficent paternalism, is exercised by the privileged on behalf of the less fortunate to ameliorate the worst outcomes of domination, but without ever addressing the root causes (Racial Equity Institute, 2021). Power-for hinders the development of power-within, powerwith, and power-to among oppressed social identities, maintaining the status quo of marginalization; powerholders diminish self-efficacy and agency through messages of incapacity or neediness (Gaventa, 1993; Riger, 1993; Toomey, 2011). In sum, White culture generates pathological power dynamics that enable the exercise of power-within, power-with, and power-to among those who demonstrate Whiteness, while actively diminishing them in all others through power-over and power-for. Institutional structures The combination of individualist assumptions, instrumental rationality, empirical quantification, and ranked binary categorizations, and oppressive power dynamics leads to hierarchical organizing structures (Stout & Love, 2016). There is a desire to create an ordered understanding of the world based on allegedly objective classifications of 152 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT individual merit or worth (Smith, 2012). Myriad dichotomies are rank ordered (Collins, 1993) and norms for these classifications are reinforced by both formal and informal rules (Smith, 2012). Power and authority are allocated to these classifications, affording each level power-over those that fall below in the institutional hierarchy (Potapchuk, 2012). Once power is allocated in this manner, individuals are encouraged to compete for power, hoarding and protecting the authority they obtain by rising through the ranks (Okun, n.d.). Taken to the logical extreme, this creates an outsized sense of personal responsibility and reward, expectations of expertise and perfectionism, and a need to maintain control to achieve desired goals. These assumptions create a lack of trust in the abilities of others and stymies delegation and responsibility sharing (Okun, n.d.). Those achieving the highest ranks are given the right to make decisions on behalf of others. Even when organizations hold up values like diversity and inclusion, the actual aim is to include diverse “others” in activities designed by and for White culture; at best there are paternalistic efforts to help those “others” assimilate into or at least learn to navigate and succeed within that culture, thereby obtaining “equitable” outcomes. When Whiteness is linked to hierarchical power and authority in any of these societal domains, attempts to change the underlying culture causes those who have internalized White culture or identify as White to become fearful and defensive, resisting or oppressing those who affirm different cultural traits. As Roberts (2020) notes, paternalistic and even despotic methods become accepted in the name of civilization, or at least as efforts in professionalization (Willner, 2019). What is misunderstood by powerholders is that these counter-hegemonic moves are not made against a given individual, but rather against the oppressive institutions of White culture. Procedures Institutions steeped in hierarchical structure and power-over authority design strict procedures to uphold norms and rules of order (Stout & Love, 2016). Hierarchical norms value certain ways of knowing and thinking (Potapchuk, 2012). The positivist scientific method assumes that one can be objective or “neutral” in the observation of facts. This approach emphasizes linear, logical, instrumentally rational thinking and shuts down intuitive or non-linear reasoning and consideration of values (Maier et al., 2016). The reliance on this form of rationality leads to the belief that there is only one best way (Okun, n.d.), and this logically correct approach is considered both right and good. Such processes simplify complex situations into binaries that amplify conflict, leading to unsatisfactory compromise and tradeoffs. Hierarchical norms also assign a higher value to certain ways of behaving over others (Potapchuk, 2012). In all procedures, White culture is imbued with a sense of urgency (Okun, n.d.). There is fierce resistance to time-consuming processes like relationshipbuilding, dialogue, deliberation, and cocreating consensus. Rigid timelines and deadlines with short time horizons truncate who is involved in decision making and privileges experts and those with formal authority. To ensure that this way of formulating ideas and plans is followed, White culture worships the written word (Okun, n.d.), along with “proper” speech and vernacular; for words to have influence, they must be in the ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 153 language of the expert, using specific jargon and argumentative structure (Katz, 1990). This demand excludes those who are not versed in these styles of communication, or who might rather participate through other modes of interaction (Smith, 2012). Because those in power believe they have earned the right to their own comfort (Okun, n.d.), there is an emphasis on civility and politeness in all interactions to ensure that no one disturbs the status quo. There is a palpable fear of open conflicts and displays of emotion. Those who criticize or raise challenging issues are deemed problematic and therefore marginalized. This characteristic of White fragility makes it necessary to create “safe” rather than “brave” spaces to address difficult issues (Arao & Clemens, 2013). White culture as a hegemonic force Given that the dominant culture in the U.S. is derived from colonizing Anglo-European cultures, it is a culture of Whiteness and one that remains predominantly linked to the phenotypical White “race” through stereotypical assumptions (Rodriguez, 1998). Whiteness shapes dominant cultural norms, institutions, and the socialization of all individuals within society (Dyer, 1997). In other words, one does not need to be phenotypically White or embrace all facets of Whiteness to enact and reinforce this culture (Bell, 2018); conversely, people of all races and ethnicities can also engage in resistance, refusal, and transformation of White culture (Dixon, 2014; HoSang, 2021). However, those who are fully acculturated are often unable to recognize it as a culture at all (Dyer, 1997; Resaldo, 1993), "both because of its cultural prevalence and because of its cultural dominance” (Mahoney, 1997, p. 331). Its assumptions are blindly accepted as true, right, good, natural, and normal—particularly when one benefits, or is privileged, by those assumptions (Blume, 2023). In fact, it is difficult to distinguish White culture from U.S. culture in general (Gulati-Partee & Potapchuk, 2014). It is merely seen as common sense, while alternatives are considered deficient or deviant (Gaynor, 2018; Schneider & Ingram, 1993). This refusal to acknowledge Whiteness and the corresponding privileges it imbues is often justified by appeals to colorblindness (Heckler, 2017) thereby perpetuating racial inequality (Brown et al., 2023). The fact that White culture is dominant or privileged and that its existence is often invisible to those whom it privileges (McIntosh, 1988), is related to the phenomenon of cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1971; Wemyss, 2016). The dominant culture is hegemonic when it is internalized, enacted, and reproduced simply by following the status quo or participating in dominant institutions (Blume, 2023). Hegemonic domination is maintained through active oppression of particular groups (Freire, 2011), ontological colonization (Stewart-Harawira, 2005), epistemicide (Pease, 2010), and the rewriting of settler colonial history as a form of inevitable progress (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014). A key element of this historical revisionism has been the depiction of everyday cultural norms such as family structures, esthetics, religion, and holidays as narrowly defined to fit middle- and upper-class Eurocentric Protestant expectations (Katz, 1990). These foundational assumptions are taken as natural, self-evident truths; this ubiquitous and multiplex character is what is meant by systemic oppression and racism. Maintaining this narrative means that counter-hegemonic cultures (or countercultures) are targeted as revolutionary, dangerous, or even terrorist (Khan-Cullors & Bandele, 2017; Ture & Hamilton, 1992). 154 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT When one particular culture is dominant it is able to oppress or even eradicate other cultures (Young, 1990) and thus retain its cultural sources of power (Fanon, 2007; Kendall, 2013). These efforts actively harm oppressed social identities, while bestowing unearned advantages to privileged identities (Kaufman, 2001; McIntosh, 1988). Empirical evidence (examined in the introduction) demonstrates that the worst effects of White culture’s domination are experienced by those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC). Intersectionality demonstrates that these identities intertwine in unique combinations that further exacerbate the experience of domination based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, ability status, age, etc. (Collins, 1993; Tatum, 2000). However, who is deemed “White” or “White-adjacent” (Roediger, 2008) has shifted over time, expanding to strategically include formerly excluded groups (Ignatiev, 2008; Johnson, 2017). These malleable racial determinations enable cultural hegemony to endure (Bell,2018), oppressing social identities that do not fit the ideal of Whiteness both historically and today (Young, 1990). Because White culture is hegemonic, it is often adopted even by BIPOC individuals, either as a form of self-preservation or as internalized oppression (Collins, 2003; Okun, n.d.). Because cultural systems reflect and enact expectations about ways of thinking and acting within a society (Yep, 1998), to succeed in a culture different from one’s own, one must adopt or avow those behaviors through acculturation and assimilation (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). The more successful one is in assimilation, the more likely they are to be accepted and succeed within the dominant culture (Collier, 1996). Assimilation occurs at two levels; social and cultural (O’Flannery, 1961). Social assimilation requires individuals to participate in the civic, political, and economic spheres within the parameters of the dominant culture’s expectations. Everyday traits from non-dominant cultures are tolerated if they do not challenge or create tensions that stress the dominant cultural system. At this level, cultural assimilation does not require homogeneity in social identity. But variations in deep culture are aggressively dissuaded or eradicated. Maintaining one’s own deep culture without fully avowing the dominant culture was described by DuBois (2007) as double-consciousness, wherein forced expression of Whiteness—and delegitimization of other cultures—generates trauma (Stevenson, 2022). Hegemonic White culture demands deep assimilation, a “process whereby individuals or groups of differing ethnic heritage are absorbed into the dominant culture of a society” (Pauls, 2019). This is the most extreme form of acculturation because individuals take on the traits of the dominant culture to such an extent that they transform their own cultural beliefs. White culture in schools of public administration: A brief sketch and critique Public administration has been described as “a racialized practice—an evolving system of institutions and practices that perpetuate exclusion, marginalization, and ineffectiveness through public service” (Dantzler & Yang-Clayton, 2023, p. 22). From its inception, public administration has been grounded in an ideology that reflects the experiences and assumptions of White culture (Blessett, 2018) and White supremacy (Roberts, 2020). This deep history of administrative racial terrorism against communities of color ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 155 (Alexander & Stivers, 2010) continues today, to varying degrees, in all areas of public service (Berry-James et al., 2021; Gooden, 2014). Over time, schools of thought in public administration have made incremental changes to values, institutional structures, and procedures but have not substantively altered them; they propose reform, not transformation (Stout & Love, 2016, 2019). Based on the hegemonic forces at play, to extricate itself from White culture the field of public administration would need to expose, dismantle, and transform its underlying assumptions, values, power dynamics, institutional structures, and procedures. To emphasize, attempts to achieve racial justice purely through policy and organizational change alone will not succeed. The underlying assumptions, values, and power dynamics must be transformed or replaced (Love & Stout, 2022; Stout & Love, 2019). But to do so, we must first make visible how these aspects of White culture are embedded in theory and practice (Wildman & Davis, 2005); this is the only way we can “dismantle the hegemony in which the discipline is grounded” (Blessett, 2018, p. 3). We must examine how White culture functions as a hegemonic force in which schools of public administration thought remain firmly entrenched. Orthodox public administration Orthodox Public Administration (OPA), emerging as the field diverged from political science, sought clear differentiations between political and administrative roles and established accountability through a bureaucratic hierarchical chain of command to the separated powers of government, and through it, to the People as voters (see for example, Finer, 1935, 1941; Gaus et al., 1936; Goodnow, 2003; Gulick & Urwick, 1937; Waldo, 1984; L. D. White, 1926; Willoughby, 1927; Wilson, 1887). Strict rules and instrumentally rational procedures were established and followed to minimize discretion and ensure accountability when direct oversight is not possible (power-over). Furthermore, professionalism and politically neutral expertise were ensured through merit-based civil service and administrative law procedures. Efficient, economical, and effective results were expected, as determined by elected representatives (power-to). White culture’s binaries of power-over control and constrained power-to reveal themselves in the politics/administration dichotomy, as well as the bureaucratic hierarchy and its focus on value neutral professionalism in policy implementation. Procedures and communications are designed to keep emotion and conflict out of the administrative sphere and to minimize “unacceptable” voices in the policy making process. From the perspective of the governed, public administrators wield the sovereign power of the state as gatekeepers to the policy and rulemaking process and as petty tyrants who demand adherence to rigid and complex bureaucratic procedures that are "marginalizing and oppressive" (Gaynor and Carrizales, 2018, p. 69). These power-over dynamics generally cause shame, diminishing the self-efficacy and agency of community members in public encounters (Stout & Love, 2017). New public administration In the 1960s, New Public Administration (NPA) called for greater advocacy on behalf of underrepresented and underserved groups, particularly in response to 156 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT concerns about economic and racial inequities. Because elected representatives were more responsive to monied special interests, public administrators were thought to have an ethical imperative to ensure a more beneficent pursuit of equity (power-for) (Frederickson, 1971; Frederickson & Hart, 2001; Marini, 1971). Similar ideas were advocated in Refounding Public Administration (Wamsley et al., 1990), which offered up constitutional rationales for administrative discretion. Greater authority was delegated to administrators in shaping desirable public policy outcomes and implementation—ideas that were promoted by some from the start of the field (Appleby, 1952; Dimock, 1937; Friedrich, 1940; Gulick, 1933; Mosher, 1968; Redford, 1969, 1956). Hierarchical structure and ultimate political authority remained intact, but administrators were released from expectations of value neutrality. While public participation (power-to) was encouraged, engagement in instrumentally rational, civil discourse was expected (power-over). Social service benefits carried similar expectations; recipients must play by the rules to obtain benefits and those who don’t were marked as deviant and undeserving (Schneider & Ingram, 1997). White culture reveals itself here in the role of the public administrator as heroic savior (power-for), bringing expertise and ethics to governmental action and engaging in issues of relevance to the oppressed, without changing underlying assumptions and power dynamics. Diversity policies like representative bureaucracy, maximum feasible participation," and affirmative action have an unwritten and unstated aim of assimilation to achieve equity in both process and outcomes. New public management New Public Management (NPM) was both a theoretical movement of the late 1980s and 1990s and a corresponding Reinventing Government movement in practice (see for example, Hood, 1991; Lynn, 1996; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). However, core ideas about scientific rigor and expert managerialism had long been promoted (Simon, 1946, 1947, 1976; Taylor, 1911). NPM called for more business-like operations to achieve greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as judged by expert standards. NPA’s emphasis on social issues and non-economic values were thought to waste public resources. Hierarchies needed to be flattened, government functions were to be contracted out or shed altogether, and civilians were viewed as consumers. Expert administrators were given great discretion in determining both desirable outcomes and how to please their customers (power-to). Rules and procedures were treated as flexible guidelines to enable decision-making that is more responsive to specific contexts and cases but without changing systemic patterns. These reforms empowered members of the public as end-users, but again, did not invite them into decision-making and deemphasized concerns about equity. White culture reveals itself here in individualism, competition, expert power, and capitalist values and market mechanisms. While hierarchy is less evident, it remains in place, particularly between government’s representatives (whether public or private) and those they serve (power-over). Consumer power does not equate to political sovereignty (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, 2007). ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 157 New public service In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the New Public Service (NPS) emerged as a reaction to NPM (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2003, 2007), extending original NPA principles with certain elements of postmodern, pragmatist, and critical theory (see for example, Box, 1998; Denhardt & Grubbs, 1999; Fox & Miller, 1995; McSwite, 1997, 2002). These scholars carried forward a discretionary, expert role for administrators in pursuit of the public good (power-for), but they augmented this expertise with more meaningful public participation (power-with). Again, the notion of direct responsiveness to the public as the ultimate sovereign had long been noted as an administrative expectation (Appleby, 1945; Follett, 1918). However, involvement according to NPS, while more deliberative than formal public hearings, tended toward education, consultation, and review of predetermined policy proposals, or planning led by experts. As in NPA, community members were expected to be civil as they engaged in processes facilitated by administrators. White culture reveals itself here in the demand for polite argumentation when invited to government’s table (power-over). Inclusion of diverse voices and perspectives is constrained by these cultural expectations and the hierarchical authority government facilitators hold (power-for). New public governance Most recently, New Public Governance (NPG) seeks to take advantage of governance networks that include resources from other sectors, sometimes along with engagement of affected publics. Therefore, several terms are used in reference to this newest school of thought—new governance, network governance, collaborative governance, and collaborative public management (see for example, Agranoff, 2003; Bingham et al., 2005; Bingham & O’Leary, 2008; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016; Provan & Kenis, 2007). As a whole, these perspectives maintain centrality for government agencies as “meta-governors” (power-over) to ensure private actors and their values do not dominate the network (Sørensen & Torfing, 2009). The main objectives are to achieve greater economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in addressing complex challenges through shared resources and efforts—the purported “collaborative advantage” (Huxham & Vangen, 2005). Public engagement is used for instrumental benefits, as opposed to a social justice aim. However, because the public is generally represented by cooperating agencies that are themselves hierarchical and which either have governing authority or competitive power, governance networks consistently fail to achieve the democratic benefits of collaboration (power-with) (Stout & Love, 2019). White culture reveals itself here in the continued empowerment of hierarchical organizations, even within supposedly egalitarian networks. Power-over competition is still at play and power-with remains limited to actors who engage according to the assumptions and rules of White culture. Summary analysis of Whiteness in PA Although public administration began from a place of dominating power-over (Orthodox Administration), it later expanded to include paternalistic power-for (New 158 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Public Administration and New Public Service) in an effort to achieve more equitable processes and outcomes. However, when public administrators enact beneficent saviorism—even to ameliorate the worst outcomes of domination—the privileged act on behalf of the marginalized and fail to address the source causes of oppression (Freire, 2005; Racial Equity Institute, 2021). Social justice cannot be achieved by doing for others; such attempts maintain a foothold in power-over (Tchida & Stout, 2023b). Instead, social justice must be achieved through policies and practices that build self-efficacy, solidarity, and agency. These outcomes coincide with power-within, power-with, and power-to among the oppressed. This analysis of historical schools of thought demonstrates that each attempt to reform public administration has made improvements in certain areas of concern— most notably institutional structures and procedures. Nonetheless, all have perpetuated various aspects of White culture, particularly its underlying assumptions and values, and both power-over and power-for dynamics in relation to those served. The field maintains White culture’s overarching approach to managerialism that “may inadvertently preserve a socially stratified society that reinforces the economic, political, and social interests of those who hold power” (Willner, 2019, p. 233). Taken as a whole, public administration is, at core, an expert-driven, instrumentally rational enterprise. Public participation requires assimilation to the administrative culture, which arguably reflects all the characteristics of Whiteness. Furthermore, because White culture continues to manifest itself in the schools of public administration theory, the results can be seen in practices that lead to the outcomes outlined in the section on Evidence of Disparities Based on Whiteness. Some tendencies are noticeable in these reform efforts. A few underlying assumptions carry through without change: individualism, instrumental rationality, capitalism, binary categorization, efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. Others are retained but change in emphasis: expertise and meritocracy, zero-sum material progress, hierarchy, objective and neutral expertise, instrumentally rational and linear thinking, compromise and tradeoffs, and sense of urgency and rigid timelines. Still others reflect the push and pull of reform efforts in response to one another’s perceived deficiencies: quantity over quality, negative liberty, positive liberty, individual responsibility, paternalism, and equity. Overall, there are clear efforts to reduce or eliminate judgments pertaining to certain identities (power-within), but assimilation to administrative culture persists (conditional power-with), thereby making attempts to meaningfully accommodate diversity (power-to) relatively moot. Equitable expression of power-to continues to be constrained by administrative exercise of power-over and power-for. White culture’s fundamental assumptions and values corrupt power-to in ways that produce inequity, including an over-emphasis of material progress and efficiency, individualist and zero-sum competition, hierarchical categorizations, demand for assimilation, and privileging of specific types of knowledge (e.g., objectivity, instrumental rationality, professional language and argumentation). Recommendations for transformational change Although it is not the only dominance culture globally or even within the U.S., White culture is privileged in our society, and it is dominating and oppressive in nature. The ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 159 characteristics of White culture are woven into the fabric of public administration theory and practice, both of which are designed to maintain power-over for those in privileged positions and, at best, power-for those served. Because of its lingering foundations in imperialism and racial stereotyping, racial inequities proliferate. White culture’s assumptions embed racialized hierarchical power dynamics within public values, institutional structures, and procedures. Those working within these systems end up reinforcing dominance culture, regardless of their own individual identity, values, or views on racial diversity, equity, and inclusion (Tatum, 2000). This “racialized administrative power” not only perpetuates disparities but normalizes them (Blume, 2023) through a “set of practices, cultural norms, and institutional arrangements that both reflect and help to create and maintain race-based outcomes in society” (powell, 2012, p. 4). Public administrators therefore impose White culture on the communities served and unwittingly undermine self-efficacy, solidarity, and agency among those who don’t fit the ideals of Whiteness—even while espousing objectivity and neutrality (Blume, 2023; Starke et al., 2018). Many scholars seek to address structures, procedures, and values by meaningfully engaging publics of concern as experts on tap rather than on top: a power-for strategy (Box, 2005; King, 2011; King et al., 1998; King & Zanetti, 2005; Stivers, 1994; O. F. White, 1990). However, unless public administrators take explicit action to transform these systems grounded in power-over dynamics into new structures that promote power-with, they merely reproduce existing inequities (Love & Stout, 2022; Stout et al., 2018; Stout and Love, 2017; Tchida & Stout, 2023b). In other words, changing the inequitable outcomes of White culture requires more than simply creating a new school of public administration. Yet the field has been slow to call for the systemic transformation needed to address these root causes. As Lorde (2018) taught us, the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. To actually transform public institutions, their underlying assumptions, values, and power dynamics must be reimagined and put into practice within wholly reconceptualized institutional structures and procedures. This is why counter-hegemonic social movements aim at dismantling “the system” through revolutionary transformation rather than reform (Dixon, 2014). Public administration must learn from these prefigurative efforts to create an equitable world grounded in nonhierarchical, collaborative forms of power-with that foster solidarity while honoring difference (Love & Stout , 2019, 2022). The administrative state needs an overhaul from the ground up and particular forms of oppression must be named and dismantled. Thus far, this is a shortcoming in the public administration literature, even in emerging governance theories that aim to foster deeply inclusive power-with. For instance, while Integrative Governance (Stout & Love, 2016, 2019) seeks transformation of dominance culture, it doesn’t directly address the racialized assumptions embedded in White culture. Conversely, even if a new school of “Anti-Racist Public Administration” were created, it would not necessarily ensure the same protections for marginalized social identities beyond racial categories. Any emerging schools of thought must directly seek to transform all oppressive power dynamics, including naming and directly resisting White culture. Toward this end, we agree that we need more evidence that “public administration and policy that is driven by racial equity yields better policies and programs on the whole” (Dantzler & Yang-Clayton, 160 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT 2023, p. 34). This claim follows arguments that dominance culture harms everyone, including the most privileged (Heckler & Starke, 2020). We argue that without a liberatory cultural transformation, public administration will continue to confront a “legitimacy paradox” (Maier et al., 2016, p. 78). Those who are marginalized or oppressed and refuse to assimilate will continue to challenge social, political, and economic systems of power. Acceptable cultural characteristics (conditional power-within), how decision-making is designed and who is included (power-with), and who is granted legitimate authority to exercise agency (power-to) cannot be constrained by the elitism inherent to power-over control and power-for paternalism—determinations that are often racialized. We suggest the transformative solution lies in cultural integration, not assimilation. The systemic demand to assimilate to White culture holds no intent to integrate bidirectionally. As explained by Follett (1918), integration or synthesis requires all contributing parts to change as a new inclusive whole is developed. Genuine integration or inclusion of diverse cultures would result in substantive changes to White culture and its detachment from racialized categories. Indeed, the process of integration begins with disintegration, the breaking down of various perspectives into their component parts. Engaging in this process will reveal that Whiteness is a chimera that puts forward the tenets of modernity and fabricates a culture from them (Echeverr
ıa, 2019), all the while obscuring a vast diversity of Northern European traditions and cultures. Similarly, the social construction of racialized categories obscures the multiethnic nature of the many peoples who make up these social groupings (Nash, 1997). We can anticipate that in the reintegration across differences, White culture as we know it—as a racialized dominance-culture—will cease to exist. The first question to consider is, how might we achieve cultural integration that is not a “melting pot” that absorbs and diminishes minority cultures? Lee (2018) provides a useful reflection from practice, arguing for creating a society where no culture is dominant but instead has a “collective openness to new ideas and perspectives, curiosity about differences, and skillful negotiation or problem solving” (para. 4). This is similar to the concept of pluricultural coexistence in which cultures retain their sense of unique identity while also mutually impacting one another (Nash, 1997), creating a new cultural tapestry. A pluricultural society does not replace a hegemonic culture with competitive cultural pluralism (the “salad bowl” or “mosaic” metaphor), but instead shifts the overarching power structure (the tapestry’s weft) from power-over to power-with, thereby eradicating power-for and redefining the ways that power-within and power-to function for all cultural identities. The second question is, why would historically marginalized and oppressed BIPOC peoples want to integrate with White culture at all? As two White, female, cisgender, straight, abled scholars, we must acknowledge our limitations in perspective and refuse to “speak for” BIPOC groups and individuals. What we can articulate is that transformation envisioned here cannot be achieved by the traditionally superficial forms of liberal integration that do not dismantle power-over and power-for. If those perpetuating White culture do not allow their assumptions, values, and power dynamics to be transformed through relational process, the result will indeed be integration “into a burning house” as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. feared (quoted in HoSang, 2021, p. 9). The necessary ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 161 change cannot be achieved by simply pushing harder on DEI efforts, or simply tagging “justice” or “belonging” onto the end of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” It must instead follow the lead of radical social movements that enact integration based in ancient indigenous practices (Nash, 1997), or that organize through a “queer, Black, feminist lens” to center the perspectives and voices of the most marginalized in order to transform culture and systems (Carruthers, 2019). Policies and practices that build self-efficacy, solidarity, and agency among the oppressed are needed. Often referred to as “empowerment work” (Adams, 2008; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ledwith, 2020; Pigg, 2002), these efforts seek to dismantle systems grounded in dominance culture that constrain expressions of power-within, power-with, and power-to through power-over and power-for. However, this generative cycle must also be disentangled from White culture, White supremacy, and Whiteness. These transformations will require more than a simplistic awakening to social justice issues (Harro, 2018), particularly given the recent cooptation of "wokeness." It will require resocialization of public administrators along with a new approach to socializing those who seek to enter public service (Stout, 2009). As argued by Dantzler and YangClayton (2023), deconstructing the racialized structure of public service must include academic education because “the tools that administrators may need to disrupt institutionalized racist practices and structures go well beyond self-awareness and individuallevel anti-racist actions” (p. 20). We must cocreate systems change through engaged, participatory public action that includes faculty, students, and community members working together in transformational efforts, including racial equity analysis, participatory budgeting, participatory planning, and anti-racist organizing. These engaged approaches enable privileged practitioners to learn from and with marginalized, dominated, and oppressed people in order to integrate characteristics of their cultures into what has been the dominant culture (Love & Stout, 2019). This is a more accurate meaning of diversity and inclusion. With this knowledge, public administrators can turn their gaze away from oppressed communities toward oppressive systems, becoming antagonists of dominance culture, saboteurs of gatekeeping, and abdicators of resources and control in this revolutionary moment (Tchida and Stout, 2023a). It is imperative that public administration scholars and practitioners step up and leverage their position on behalf of various marginalized publics as they request, and to advocate for policies they design. It is time for those with privilege to lay down hubris, fears, and discomfort and put privilege to work responsibly rather than paternalistically—read, listen, be humble, and stand back in solidarity (Kaufman, 2001) or practice accompaniment with mutuality when invited to do so (Lamberty, 2012). In the end, it is all forms of privilege that must be eradicated—especially those which are racialized. While many critique such utopian thinking, serious and thoughtful engagement in cultural, political, and economic transformation is a moral obligation of “utopistics” (Wallerstein, 1998). This transformational project is fraught with pitfalls that we must work to avoid. Rather than demanding assimilation, White scholars and practitioners (like us) cannot disassociate ourselves from Whiteness; we must address it directly and work in solidarity across difference to build systems grounded in more integrative strategies that transform White culture itself. Along the way, we must continuously acknowledge and correct the errors we will surely make. 162 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Notes 1. 2. 3. When we refer to “public administration” within this paper, we are referring specifically to public administration within the United States unless otherwise specified. This shorthand is done for brevity and is not meant to dismiss the myriad approaches to public administration within the global context. The characteristics of White culture are explained in full later in the paper. We have chosen to capitalize the “w” in White throughout to call attention to White as a racialized identity. We agree with race scholar and activist Ewing (2020) who argues that non-capitalization “runs the risk of reinforcing the dangerous myth that White people in America do not have a racial identity.” Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Notes on contributors Jeannine M. Love is a Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Political Science and Social Justice Studies programs at Roosevelt University in Chicago. Her research focuses on integrative processes that foster racial, social, and economic justice through radical democracy— in governance, social movements, organizations, and the classroom. Margaret Stout is a Professor of Public Administration at West Virginia University. Her research explores the role of public and nonprofit practitioners in achieving social, economic, and environmental justice and sustainability. She is best known for exploring philosophical and theoretical underpinnings and the importance of linking democratic theory to practice. ORCID Jeannine M. Love http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8610-3657 Margaret Stout http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7254-4934 References Adams, R. (2008). Empowerment, participation and social work (4th ed.). Palgrave MacMillan. Agranoff, R. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press. Alexander, J., & Stivers, C. (2010). An ethic of race for public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(4), 578–597. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320405 Alkadry, M. G., & Blessett, B. (2010). Aloofness or dirty hands? Administrative culpability in the making of the second ghetto. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(4), 532–556. https://doi.org/ 10.2753/ATP1084-1806320403 Alkadry, M. G., Blessett, B., & Patterson, V. L. (2017). Public administration, diversity, and the ethic of getting things done. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1191–1218. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0095399715581032 Amoah, L. G. A. (2012). Constructing a new public administration in Africa: Reflections on philosophical clarity and the process-orientation turn. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806340304 Appleby, P. H. (1945). Big democracy. Knopf. ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 163 Appleby, P. H. (1952). Morality and administration in democratic government. Louisiana State University Press. Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). Academic Press. Bearfield, D. A., Humphrey, N., Portillo, S., & Riccucci, N. M. (2023). Dismantling institutional and structural racism: Implementation strategies across the United States. Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration, 1(1), 75–92. doi:10.24926/jsepa.v1i1.4837 Bell, L. A. (2018). Theoretical foundations for social justice. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, D. C. J. Catalano, K. S. DeJong, H. W. Hackman, L. E. Hopkins, B. J. Love, M. L. Peters, D. ~iga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 34–41). Routledge. Shlasko, & X. Z
un Berry-James, R. M., Blessett, B., Emas, R., McCandless, S. A., Nickels, A., Norman-Major, K., & Vinzant, P. (2021). Stepping up to the plate: Making social equity a priority in public administration’s troubled times. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15236803.2020.1820289 Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community development. Human Organization, 54(1), 60–69. doi:10.17730/humo.54.1.m459ln688536005w Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x Bingham, L. B., & O’Leary, R. (2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management. M.E. Sharpe. Bird-David, N. (1999). Animism’ revisited: Personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40(S1), S67–S91. doi:10.1086/200061 Blessett, B. (2020a). Rethinking the administrative state through an intersectional framework. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2018.1517526 Blessett, B. (2020b). Urban renewal and “ghetto” development in Baltimore: Two sides of the same coin. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(8), 838–850. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0275074020930358 Blessett, B., Gaynor, T. S., Witt, M., & Alkadry, M. G. (2016). Counternarratives as critical perspectives in public administration curricula. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38(4), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2016.1239397 Blessett, B., & Littleton, V. (2017). Examining the impact of institutionalized racism in Black residentially segregated communities. Ralph Bunche Journal of Public Affairs, 6(1), 1–13. Blume, G. H. (2023). “As expected”: Theoretical implications for racialized administrative power as the status quo. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(1), 30–42. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac013 Bower, K. M., Thorpe, R. J., Jr., Rohde, C., & Gaskin, D. J. (2014). The intersection of neighborhood racial segregation, poverty, urbanicity and its impact on food availability in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 58, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.10.010 Box, R. C. (1998). Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Sage. Box, R. C. (2005). Critical social theory in public administration. M. E. Sharpe. Brigg, M. (2007). Biopolitics meets terrapolitics: Political ontologies and governance in settlercolonial Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 403–417. doi:10.1080/ 10361140701513554 Brown, M. K., Carnoy, M., Currie, E., Duster, T., Oppenheimer, D. B., Shultz, M. M., & Wellman, D. (2023). Whitewashing race: The myth of a color-blind society. University of California Press. Carruthers, C. (2019). Unapologetic: A Black, queer, and feminist mandate for radical movements. Beacon Press. Cole, T. (2016). The White savior industrial complex. In T. Cole (Ed.), Known and strange things: Essays (pp. 340–349). Random House. 164 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships. Communication Monographs, 63(4), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376397 Collins, P. H. (1993). Toward a new vision: Race, class, and gender as categories of analysis and connection. Race, Sex, & Class, 1(1), 25–45. Collins, P. H. (2003). Toward a new vision: Race, class, and gender as categories of analysis and connection. In T. E. Ore (Ed.), The social construction of difference and inequality: Race, class, gender, and sexuality (pp. 591–605). McGraw-Hill. Crenshaw, K. W., Ocen, P., & Nanda, J. (2015). Black girls matter: Pushed out, overpoliced, and underprotected. Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies. http://schottfoundation. org/file/3514/download?token=JLnr5lhV Cunliffe, A. L., & Jun, J. S. (2005). The need for reflexivity in public administration. Administration & Society, 37(2), 225–242. doi:10.1177/0095399704273209 Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press. Dantzler, P., & Yang-Clayton, K. (2023). Deconstructing the racial structure of public service through critical participatory practices. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 29(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2022.2097038 Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research: “The flat Earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308253 Davis, J. B. (2004). The agency-structure model and the embedded individual in heterodox economics. In P. Lewis (Ed.), Transforming economics: Perspectives on the critical realist project (pp. 132–151). Routledge. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182– 185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801 Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Eds.). (1997). Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Temple University Press. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. M. E. Sharp. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering (Expanded ed.). M. E. Sharp. Denhardt, R. B., & Grubbs, J. W. (1999). Public administration: An action orientation (3rd ed.). Harcourt Brace. Dimock, M. E. (1937). Modern politics and administration: A study of the creative state. American Book Company. Dixon, C. (2014). Another politics: Talking across today’s transformative movements. University of California Press. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1920). Darkwater: Voices from within the veil. Harcourt, Brace and Howe. DuBois, W. E. B. (2007). The souls of Black Folk. Oxford University Press. Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014). An indigenous people’s history of the United States. Beacon Press. Dyer, R. (1997). White. Routledge. Echeverr
ıa, B. (2019). Modernity and whiteness. Polity. Edkins, J. (2003). Trauma and the memory of politics. Cambridge University Press. Edwards, F., Lee, H., & Esposito, M. (2019). Risk of being killed by police by use of force in the United States by age, race-ethnicity, and sex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(34), 16793–16798. doi:10.1073/pnas.1821204116 Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press. Equity in the Center. (2019). Awake to woke to work: Building a race equity culture. Ewing, E. L. (2020). I’m a Black scholar who studies race. Here’s why I capitalize “White”. https:// zora.medium.com/im-a-black-scholar-who-studies-race-here-s-why-i-capitalize-white-f94883aa2dd3 Fanon, F. (2007). The wretched of the Earth. Grove Press. Finer, H. (1935). Principles as a guide to management. Public Management, 17, 287–289. ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 165 Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(4), 335–350. doi:10.2307/972907 Follett, M. P. (1918). The new state: Group organization the solution of popular government. Longmans, Green. Follett, M. P. (1924). Creative experience. Longmans, Green. Follett, M. P. (2003). Power. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 95–116). Routledge. Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward discourse. Sage. Frankenburg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. University of Minnesota Press. Frankenburg, R. (2001). The mirage of an unmarked whiteness. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of whiteness (pp. 7296). Duke University Press. Frederickson, H. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. In F. Marini (Ed.), Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 309–331). Chandler. Frederickson, H. G., & Hart, D. K. (2001). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. In W. Bruce (Ed.), Classics of administrative ethics (pp. 358–371). Westview Press. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (D. Macedo, Trans.). Continuum. Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogy of the oppressed (D. Macedo, Trans.). Continuum. Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. In C. J. Friedrich & E. S. Mason (Eds.), Public policy: A yearbook of the graduate school of public administration, Harvard University (pp. 3–24). Harvard University Press. Gaus, J. M., White, L. D., & Dimock, M. E. (Eds.). (1936). The frontiers of public administration. University of Chicago Press. Gaventa, J. (1982). Power and powerlessness: Quiessence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. University of Illinois Press. Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an Information Age. In M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, T. Jackson, & P. Park (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 21–40). Greenwood Publishing Group. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x Gaynor, T. S., & Carrizales, T. J. (2018). Teaching democracy: A review of public administration introductory courses. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(1), 66–79. 10.1080/15236803.2018. 1429822 Gaynor, T. S. (2018). Social construction and the criminalization of identity: State-sanctioned oppression and an unethical administration. Public Integrity, 20(4), 358–369. doi:10.1080/ 10999922.2017.1416881 Gaynor, T. S., & Wilson, M. E. (2020). Social vulnerability and equity: The disproportionate impact of COVID-19. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 832–838. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.13264 Gladden, R. S. N., & Levine Daniel, J. (2022). The plantation’s fall and the nonprofit sector’s rise: Addressing the influence of the antebellum plantation on today’s nonprofit sector. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 44(2), 123–132. 10.1080/10841806.2021.1959167 Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and social equity: A nervous area of government. Routledge. Goodnow, F. J. (2003). Politics and administration: A study in government. Transaction Publishers. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds.). Lawrence & Wishart. Gulati-Partee, G., & Potapchuk, M. (2014). Paying attention to white culture and privilege: A missing link to advancing racial equity. The Foundation Review, 6(1), 25–38. doi:10.9707/19445660.1189 Gulick, L. (1933). Politics, administration, and the new deal. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 169(1), 55–66. doi:10.1177/000271623316900107 166 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration. Guy, M. E., & McCandless, S. A. (2012). Social equity: Its legacy, its promise. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S5–S13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02635.x Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791. https://doi. org/10.2307/1341787 Harro, B (2018). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, D.C.J. Catalano, H.W. ~iga (Eds.), Readings for Hackman, L.E. Hopkins, B.J. Love, M.L. Peters, D. Shlasko, X. Z
un diversity and social justice (pp. 627–634). Routledge. Headley, A. M. (2020). Race, ethnicity, and social equity in policing. In M. E. Guy & S. A. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving social equity: From problems to solutions (pp. 82–97). Melvin & Leigh. Heckler, N. (2017). Publicly desired color-blindness: Whiteness as a realized public value. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(3), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2017.1345510 Heckler, N. (2019). Whiteness and masculinity in nonprofit organizations: Law, money, and institutional race and gender. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 266–285. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10841806.2019.1621659 Heckler, N., & Nishi, N. (2022). Problematizing whiteness in public administration theory. https:// think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/problematizing-whiteness/?utm_source=TFO&utm_ medium=cms&utm_campaign=JPG15743 Heckler, N., & Starke, A. M. (2020). At the intersections of identities. In M. E. Guy & S. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving social equity: From problems to solutions (pp. 53-64). Melvin & Leigh. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration Review, 69(1), 3-19. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. South End Press. HoSang, D. M. (2021). A wider type of freedom: How struggles for racial justice liberate everyone. University of California Press. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. Routledge. Ignatiev, N. (2008). How the Irish became white. Routledge. Johnson, A. G. (2017). Privilege, power, and difference (3rd ed.). McGraw Hill. Jones, K., & Okun, T. (2001, June 2020). Dismantling racism: A workbook for social change groups. DRWorksBook. https://www.dismantlingracism.org/white-supremacy-culture.html Kalev, A., Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589– 617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404 Katz, J. H. (1990). White culture worksheet. Troy, NY: The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group. Kaufman, C. (2001). A user’s guide to white privilege. Radical Philosophy Review, 4(1), 30–38. doi:10.5840/radphilrev200141/218 Kendall, F. E. (2013). Understanding white privilege: Creating pathways to authentic relationships across race (2nd ed.). Routledge. Kendi, I. X. (2016). Stamped from the beginning: The definitive history of racist ideas in America. Bold Type Books. Khan-Cullors, P., & Bandele, A. (2017). When they call you a terrorist: A Black Lives Matter memoir. St. Martin’s Press. King, C. S. (Ed.). (2011). Government is us 2.0. M.E. Sharpe. King, C. S., Stivers, C., & Collaborators. (1998). (Eds.). Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Sage. King, C. S., & Zanetti, L. A. (2005). Transformational public service: Portraits of theory in practice. M. E. Sharpe. Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge. Kovera, M. B. (2019). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: Prevalence, causes, and a search for solutions. Journal of Social Issues, 75(4), 1139–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi. 12355 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 167 Lamberty, K. M. (2012). Toward a spirituality of accompaniment in solidarity partnerships. Missiology: An International Review, 40(2), 181–193. doi:10.1177/009182961204000206 Lasswell, H. D. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. McGraw-Hill. Ledwith, M. (2011). Community development: A critical approach (2nd ed.). Policy Press. Ledwith, M. (2020). Community development: A critical and radical approach (3rd ed.). Policy Press. Lee, J. (2018). The problem with cultural assimilation. https://healthyplacesbydesign.org/the-problem-with-cultural-assimilation/ Lipsitz, G. (2018). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics (20th Anniversary ed.). Temple University Press. Lorde, A. (2018). The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. Penguin Modern Classics. Love, J. M., Stout, M. (2019). Are new social movements prefiguring Integrative Governance?. In M. Stout (Ed.) From austerity to abundance? Creative approaches to coordinating the common good (pp. 7-34). Emerald Publishing. Love, J. M., & Stout, M. (2022). Transforming power dynamics through prefigurative public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 44(3), 179–185. 10.1080/10841806.2022. 2058289 Love, J. M. (2008). The rugged individualist club. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(4), 424– 449. 10.1080/10841806.2008.11029664 Lynn, L. E., Jr. (1996). Public management as art, science, and profession. Chatham House. Mahoney, M. R. (1997). The social construction of whiteness. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical White studies (pp. 330–334). Temple University Press. Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming businesslike: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86. 10.1177/ 0899764014561796 Marini, F. (Ed.) (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspective. Chandler. Martin, J. A., & Nakayama, T. K. (Eds.). (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. McCandless, S. A., & Guy, M. E. (2020). The social equity imperative. In M. E. Guy & S. A. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving social equity: From problems to solutions (pp. 1–11). Melvin & Liegh. McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in Women’s Studies. In M. S. Kimmel & A. L. Ferber (Eds.), Privilege: A reader (pp. 13–27). Westview Press. McSwite, O. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse analysis. Sage. McSwite, O. C. (2002). Invitation to public administration. M. E. Sharpe. Menifield, C. E., Shin, G., & Strother, o (2019). Do white law enforcement officers target minority suspects? Public Administration Review, 79(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12956 Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University Press. Nash, J. (1997). The fiesta of the word: The Zapatista uprising and radical democracy in Mexico. American Anthropologist, 99(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1997.99.2.261 O’Flannery, E. (1961). Social and cultural assimilation. The American Catholic Sociological Review, 22(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/3709117 Okun, T. (n.d). White supremacy culture. DRWorksBook. https://www.dismantlingracism.org/ white-supremacy-culture.html Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2015). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (2017). Toward a general theory of action: Theoretical foundations for the social sciences. Routledge. Pauls, E. P. (2019). Assimilation. https://www.britannica.com/topic/assimilation-society Pease, B. (2010). Undoing privilege: Unearned advantage in a divided world. Zed Books. 168 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Pigg, K. (2002). Three faces of empowerment: Expanding the theory of empowerment in community development. Community Development, 33(1), 107–123. doi:10.1080/15575330209490145 Potapchuk, M. (2012). White culture. Center for Assessment and Policy Development. Potter, D. M. (1976). Freedom and its limitations in American life. Stanford University Press. powell, j.a. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an inclusive society. Indiana University Press. Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005 Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mum015 Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x Racial Equity Institute. (2021). The groundwater approach. https://www.racialequityinstitute.com/ groundwaterapproach Rasmussen, B. B., Klinenberg, E., Nexica, I. J., & Wray, M. (2001). Introduction. In B. B. Rasmussen, E. Klinenberg, I. J. Nexica, & M. Wray (Eds.), The making and unmaking of Whiteness (pp. 1–24). Duke University Press. Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335 Redford, E. S. (Ed.). (1956). Public administration and policy formation. Greenwood Press. Redford, E. S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state. Oxford University Press. Resaldo, R. (1993). Culture & truth: The remaking of social. Beacon Press. Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment? American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(3), 279–292. doi:10.1007/BF00941504 Roberts, A. (2020). Bearing the White man’s burden: American empire and the origin of public administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(3), 185–196. https://doi. org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz018 Rodriguez, N. M. (1998). Emptying the content of whiteness: Toward and understanding of the relation between whiteness and pedagogy. In J. L. Kincheloe, S. R. Steinberg, N. M. Rodriguez, & R. E. Chennault (Eds.), White reign: Deploying whiteness in America (pp. 31–62). St. Martin’s Griffin. Roediger, D. R. (2008). How race survived U.S. history: From settlement and slavery to the eclipse of post-racialism. Verso. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. file://localhost/Users/ jeanninelove/Desktop/PSC%20229/3/3_Schneider,_Ingram.pdf doi:10.2307/2939044 Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas. Simon, H. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67. doi:10.2307/973030 Simon, H. A. (1947). A comment on the ‘science’ of public administration. Public Administration Review, 7(3), 200–203. doi:10.2307/972716 Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (3rd ed.). Macmillan. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x Starke, A. M., Heckler, N., & Mackey, J. (2018). Administrative racism: Public administration education and race. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15236803.2018.1426428 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS 169 Stevenson, S. (2022). Working with the trauma of racism in groups in a time of white supremacy – Erasure, psychic ghettoization or bearing witness. Group Analysis, 55(2), 213– 232. https://doi.org/10.1177/05333164211018638 Stewart-Harawira, M. (2005). The new imperial order: Indigenous responses to globalization. Zed Books. Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364–369. doi:10.2307/977384 Stivers, C., Pandey, S. K., DeHart-Davis, L., Hall, J. L., Newcomer, K., Portillo, S., Sabharwal, M., Strader, E., & Wright, J. (2023). Beyond social equity: Talking social justice in public administration. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13620 Stout, M. (2009). Enhancing Professional Socialization through the Metaphor of Tradition. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 289–316. 10.1080/15236803.2009.12001562 Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2017). Integrative Governance: A method for fruitful encounters. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 130–147. 10.1177/0275074015576953 Stout, Margaret, Bartels, Koen, Love, Jeannine M., From Austerity to Abundance? Creative Approaches to Coordinating the Common Good , Clarifying collaborative dynamics in governance networks, Stout, Margaret, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK, 2018, 91, 115 St. Onge, P. (2013). Cultural competency: Organizations and diverse populations. In. M. Weil, M. S. Reisch, & M. L. Ohmer (Eds.), The handbook of community practice (2nd ed., pp. 425–444). Sage. Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2016). A radically democratic response to global governance: Dystopian utopias. Routledge. Stout, M., & Love, J. M. (2019). Integrative governance: Generating sustainable responses to global crises. Routledge. Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: Who am I? In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. ~iga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social Casta~ neda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, X. Z
un justice (pp. 9–14). New York: Routledge. Taylor, D. E. (2014). Toxic communities: Environmental racism, industrial pollution, and residential mobility. New York University Press. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers. Tchida, C. & Stout, M(2023a). Radical community development: Getting out of the way. Paper presented at the Community Development Society, Portland, OR, 2023 Tchida, C., & Stout, M. (2023b). Disempowerment versus empowerment: Analyzing power dynamics in professional community development. Community Development, online. doi: 10. 1080/15575330.2023.2247470 The River and Fire Collective, Pattathu, A., Barnett-Naghshineh, O., Diallo, O.-K., Miskow Friborg, N., Hammana, Z., Van den Berg, L., Camufingo, A., Klinkert, V. L., Judge, A., Chaudhuri-Brill, S., Fukuzawa, S., Abrahams, N., & Ferrier. (2021). The fires within us and the rivers we form. Teaching Anthropology, 10(4), 92–109. doi:10.22582/ta.v10i4.627 Toomey, A. H. (2011). Empowerment and disempowerment in community development practice: Eight roles practitioners play. Community Development Journal, 46(2), 181–195. doi:10.1093/ cdj/bsp060 Ture, K., & Hamilton, C. V. (1992). Black Power: The politics of liberation. Vintage Books. Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., Pulido-Nava, A. (2020). Locked out 2020: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/ locked-out-2020-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/ Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration (2nd ed.). Holmes & Meier. Wallerstein, I. M. (1998). Utopistics, or historical choices of the twenty-first century. The New Press. Wamsley, G. L., Bacher, R. N., Goodsell, C. T., Kronenberg, P. S., Rohr, J. A., Stivers, C., White, O.F., Wolf, J. F. (Eds.). (1990). Refounding public administration. Sage. Waters, A. (2004). Language matters: Nondiscrete nonbinary dualism. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought (pp. 97–115). Blackwell. 170 J. M. LOVE AND M. STOUT Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Bedminster Press. Wemyss, G. (2016). The invisible empire: White discourse, tolerance and belonging. Routledge. White, L. D. (1926). Introduction to the study of public administration. Prentice Hall. White, O. F. (1990). Reframing the authority/participation debate. In G. L. Wamsley, R. N. Bacher, C. T. Goodsell, P. S. Kronenberg, J. A. Rohr, C. Stivers, O. F. White, & J. F. Wolf (Eds.), Refounding public administration (pp. 182–245). Sage. Wildman, S. M., & Davis, A. D. (2005). Making systems of privilege visible. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism (pp. 95-102). Worth Publishers. Willner, L. (2019). Organizational legitimacy and managerialism within social justice nonprofit organizations: An interest divergence analysis. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2019.1621654 Willoughby, W. F. (1927). The principles of public administration. Johns Hopkins University Press. Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. doi:10. 2307/2139277 Wright, J. E., II, & Merritt, C. C. (2020). Social equity and COVID-19: The case of African Americans. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 820–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/PUAR.13251 Yancey, G. (2003). Who is white? Latinos, Asians, and the new black/nonblack divide. Lynne Reinner Publications. Yep, G. A. (1998). My three cultures: Navigating the multicultural identity landscape. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 79–84). Mayfield. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity & Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1361332052000341006 Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.