You can call me “White assumed”

Now, it’s probably never a great moment to talk about race on the internet, and even less when you look like me, but there’s something we’ve got to address — the language we use for folks who have White-passing privilege. Recently, I’ve been having a number of conversations about the persistence of colorism and people who “pass” in a racial sense. From empathetic conversations to critical perspectives, we’ve been analyzing the language we use for folks who have White-passing privilege, and I wanted to share some of that analysis here.

Let’s start with a definition. What is “passing”? It’s the ability or experience of looking (or being able to be perceived as) White while not actually being White.

Why “White passing” is useful

Before we talk about why I think it’s time to retire the phrase “White passing”, I think it’s important to highlight the conceptual and analytical value of the term. We know that language, especially naming, has incredible power. More nuanced language to describe our emotional states means we can feel more deeply (just ask Brené Brown), and finding language for specific experiences allows us to more deeply understand those experiences and situate them within our social and political contexts. I’d argue—especially in a highly racialized social order—that looking White while not actually being White is a specific and unique enough experience that describing it in language is a worthwhile endeavor.

Why is it worthwhile? First, because we’re seeing massive demographic shifts across the U.S. population, which means a lot more people who have this experience over time. The future is going to look racially a lot less binary. And speaking from experience, this identity comes with a very specific set of privileges and disadvantages. The privileges should be fairly obvious: passing allows you to benefit (at least while others remain ignorant) from White supremacy in the way that other fair-skinned people do. It makes directly experiencing some types of racism, like being stereotyped by police, in many cases a choice. Now, it also tends to expose you to different types of racism, like being assumed to be a “safe person” to say racist things in front of. Being able to name this experience matters.

While it’s clear that people who pass have perspectives that are useful—especially for understanding the process rather than the phenotype of race—they are not universal or often the most useful examples of being a member of a racialized community. We know that despite this fact, voice and perspectives from these people are often given more weight and credibility from a Western point of view (again, because of that whole “White supremacist society” thing). Having language to describe this experience—and to differentiate it from the experiences of darker-skinned members of the same identity groups can help ensure that we properly situate and use the insight this experience reveals.

So if the language of “White passing” is useful, why wouldn’t we use it?

Why “White passing” doesn’t work

A few weeks ago, Vivianne Castillo DM’d me on Twitter and shared an idea:

“I am not "white passing" or "white presenting". I am sometimes "white assumed," with all that comes with that assumption. As a #MeToo survivor, silencing, invalidation, and erasure is triggering. Folks have unknown unknowns".”

She asked, “Do you say ‘White passing?’ or ‘White assumed’?”, and it really made me think. “White assumed” immediately felt much closer to right. In the weeks since, I’ve asked a similar question of just about everyone in my circle who might identify in one of those ways, and the response has been strikingly consistent.

Every single person has said that they prefer “White assumed” to “White passing”.

Now, you might be asking “What’s the difference?” Passing, at least for the folks I’ve connected with, has been a source of alienation and frustration in addition to its obvious privileges. Passing has, for many, been the primary way that their identity has been invalidated (”You don’t look __________”), and also the way that our belonging in community has been challenged (”You’re not really ___________”). Speaking from personal experience, and the experiences of those who have chosen to share with me, these dynamics lead to a profound feeling of not belonging anywhere, and certainly of not being “enough”, in many cases, to claim an identity that’s foundational to our self. Being White appearing is a form of erasure, and the social dynamics around it deepen that.

But “passing” also connotes an agency. The act of passing is an active one: it is something that one does, not something that one is or has. The fact is, while all of us perform our racial identities to some degree, we do not perform the color of our faces. And the action emphasis of “White passing” comes with it an undertone of a desire for assimilation. Multiple people I’ve talked to feel that there’s also an undertone of sneaking or lying associated with the language of “passing”. Fundamentally, it’s not a valid assumption or statement that everyone who looks White desires to be perceived as White, or is intentionally acting so as to be perceived that way.

Many folks would trade identity legitimation and secure community belonging for their pale face.

On “White assumed”

Fundamentally, the language of “White assumed” works better. First, it better describes what is done to folks who appear White. We are perceived in a certain way, and the language doesn’t make assumptions about our intent, desire, or agency. It also retains the analytical value of “White passing”. It works because it acknowledges the power within this specific White-supremacy-enabled privilege while better describing the phenomenon.

Some folks I’ve talked to have suggested that we should use both terms to describe people, based on whether the are choosing to exist in a more assimilationist way, or whether they exist in a way that’s more specifically aligned to the racialized communities they belong to. I definitely understand that argument, but think that it has a few tangles. Specifically:

• What specific beliefs or behaviors are “assimilationist enough” to lead us to call someone “White passing” vs. “White assumed”?

• Who decides, ultimately?

The first question, I think, is the easiest to answer. In reality, only an individual can decide how they identify (with the obvious and required note that you can’t simply choose to identify with a group without cultural and/or ancestral connections to that identity). And if we agree that one’s identity isn’t based on looks or racial performance, it provides an answer to the first question: it doesn’t matter what beliefs and behaviors someone exhibits, at least in terms of their right or ability to claim a particular identity. So we need to defer to what people prefer to be called, regardless of how we feel about it.

For me and lots of folks like me, that would be “White assumed”. I know that in many ways, I’m splitting hairs here. If someone wants to identify as “White passing”, it’s certainly not the hill that I’m going to die on and it’s certainly their right. But for folks who don’t share this identity, I’m suggesting that they collectively evolve their language so that it’s both more inclusive and more accurate.

Let’s keep talking

Language, and how we use it to describe our experiences, is personal, social, cultural, and political. So often, language isn’t up to the task of holding the nuance we’re trying to convey. Based on the response I’ve gotten from folks in my circle, I think this is an idea that’s worthy of serious consideration and conversation.

In this essay, I’m attempting to offer an idea for how language can be adapted to help us better understand a racialized experience. I’m not prepared to suggest that being mispercieved and/or racially erased is a form of harm, or suggesting that others should be taking action other than language evolution as a part of this. Please don’t weaponize these ideas, but please do give me your thoughts on them.