This article was prompted by learning of the phrases “Not
the shark, but the water” and
its
variants “White supremacy is not a shark. It is
the water”, and
“...not as a shark, but as the very water”. This
article will examine the origin of these phrases, their meaning,
their use, and how these phrases reflect a disturbing worldview
becoming embedded in institutions across the United States of America
and spreading out to other countries.
“Not the shark, but the water” is ironically a useful and appropriate metaphor for explaining a deranged and dysfunctional worldview. If Critical Race Theory (CRT), antiracism, intersectionality, and the related postmodernist ideologies remained in those small pockets of academia which debated largely useless ideas, the topic of this article would not be worthy of serious investigation. However, many of us live in societies being reshaped (or transformed) by these theories, ideologies, and worldviews so there is value in examining this derangement and dysfunction in detail.
“White supremacy is not a shark. It is the water” is reported to be a line from the 2014 poem titled “How to Explain White Supremacy to a White Supremacist” by the poem’s author Kyle “Guante” Tran Myhre1 . The poem’s author would later elaborate on the meaning of the phrase as it became widely-used in 2020.
“...as the poem says: racism is bigger than individuals saying the “wrong” words. It’s bigger than interpersonal bigotry or bullying. It’s bigger than microaggressions. It’s about the water: the centuries of systemic, institutionalized disadvantage, discrimination, and violence that Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of color have faced—and continue to face today.”
After mentioning his work to “co-facilitate anti-racism workshops, classes, etc”, the poem’s author Guante goes on to set out an agenda...
“...Again, I don’t think there’s one answer, but whatever answer there is will have something to do with abolition, reparations, and the concrete redistribution of resources. So many corporations, institutions, and big, multi-million dollar nonprofits talk so much about wanting to commit to the work of anti-racism, to have frank and honest conversations, and do better. Fewer, however, seriously consider moves like giving their “diversity committees” real power (or even compensation). Or ensuring full health coverage to workers, since “there are clear, race-based inequalities in health insurance and health outcomes” in the US. Or cutting the pay of their (largely white) upper management in order to increase the pay of their (largely BIPOC) frontline workers. Even on an individual level: how are we regularly, intentionally, meaningfully supporting the organizing efforts, not to mention the material well-being, of Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of color? What organizations are we supporting? What policies are we supporting, through our votes, our presence, our resources? How are we contributing to the movement toward the redistribution of wealth, land, and power?”
Although many will be troubled by the implications of that socialist agenda, Guante at-least mentions some real and significant issues then proposes some fairly specific (and potentially achievable) goals with the stated intention of improving some peoples’ “material well-being” (although this is likely to be at the cost of other peoples’ “material well-being”). Guante appears to be on the more practical and realistic side of the spectrum when he is explaining the meaning of his phrase, possibly more towards the grounded modernist than the inherent impracticality of the postmodernist. Moving away from the authors explanation, this article will focus more on the ideologies which existed before Guante’s 2014 poem and the uses of the shark and water metaphor after 2019. This will take dive much deeper into a sea of impracticalities, pettiness, derangement, and dysfunction.
“Not the shark, but the water” is a phrase which effectively communicates how various ideologies focus on those perceived threats which are amorphous, poorly-defined, considered all-encompassing, often unintentional, mild, and usually difficult to practically address. Followers of the same ideologies will also sometimes promote an approach of ignoring, dismissing, downplaying, tolerating, or encouraging serious violent threats arising from distinct sources with clear malicious intentions.
“The phrase “white supremacy” often brings to mind images of burning crosses and the KKK. This association isn’t necessarily wrong, yet it isn’t fully accurate or entirely helpful. According to Layla Saad, the author of Me and White Supremacy, “white supremacy is the racist ideology that is based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore, white people should be dominant over other races” [1] This ideology is baked into institutional structures, systems and bodies. In white-centered societies, like the United States, white supremacy is as common and permeating as the air we breathe." Amanda Vetsch in Reflections on White Supremacy Culture Characteristics2
“Racism is a systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality. For most whites, however, racism is like murder: the concept exists, but someone has to commit it in order for it to happen. This limited view of such a multilayered syndrome cultivates the sinister nature of racism and, in fact, perpetuates racist phenomena rather than eradicates them.” Assistant professor Omowale Akintunde in White racism, white supremacy, white privilege, & the social construction of race: Moving from modernist to postmodernist multiculturalism.3
Where rational people who value proportionality would focus on actual violence and intentional racism as the important threat (“the shark”), those following these postmodern ideologies will instead disproportionally focus on the common, mild, unintentional, and widespread (“the water”).
Sharks have intention and incentives to attack to obtain food. The shark’s interests and a swimmer’s interests would be in direct and violent conflict during a shark attack. However, a killer shark is a distinct and readily solvable problem. A shark can be avoided, caged, or killed. In contrast, water is omnipresent on Earth. Water is a gas in the air that surrounds us. Water is the liquid covering most of the Earth’s surface. Water is solid as ice and falling snow. People are mostly water by weight and people release water vapour with every breath. Water is critical for the survival of most life on earth. Water can be redirected or contaminated. However, it is difficult to destroy water, especially all the water, and a huge waste of energy and resources to even try. The shark and water metaphor captures the futility, dysfunction, and insanity of the postmodern worldviews that are, by-design, detached from objective reality.
From 2020 to 2023, the shark and water metaphor was used widely across the United States, including a speech by Berklee Executive Director to the Boston Conservatory, the online training courses of the American Association of Child Life Professionals, an article from the Christian Vocational Centre at Augsburg University and academic publications on transforming the professions of social work and librarian work, as well as a corporate “paid program” article published in forbes.com. Far from just a line in a poem, it is a metaphor being openly adopted by a wide range of institutions. It is also a metaphor which can help explain the recent dysfunctions within those institutions.
“A few weeks ago, as I was out for a walk, I saw a sign in a store window that read: White supremacy is not the shark; it is the water. I’ve been thinking about that sign non-stop, and I have come to understand that statement to mean: White supremacy is not one thing, that we can see swimming toward us in the dark, that we can move away from or avoid. It is not contained, or encapsulated, or even always clearly recognizable for what it is, the way we all recognize a shark. Instead, it is amorphous and shape shifting, and like water, it can take on the form of whatever container is holding it. If any one of us saw a shark swimming toward us in the ocean, we would know we were in danger, and we would respond with urgency. But the water—of white supremacy and privilege—can be harder to see, particularly for white people, precisely because we are swimming in it, immersed in it, and it is all around us. In this country, that water is our political system, our educational system, our financial system, our housing system…and for those of us who are white, it is easy to become habituated to it, because it has shaped every aspect of our lives, for all of our lives. And in fact, in many ways, we have benefitted from it. The greater danger, then, is not the shark—it is the water, and as I thought about what I wanted to say today, I think the key question for us is: What is the water that we are swimming in here at Berklee? We can all name many of the sharks, specific and clear examples of inequity or racism that as an institution we must address: racial microaggressions, lack of diversity in our student, faculty, and staff populations, lack of BIPOC leadership across the institution. These are just a few. But what is the water? What is so enveloping that we may not see it, or recognize its impact? “ Berklee Executive Director Cathy Young4
“When we talk about bias in our organizations and institutions, many of us look for sharks. Unconscious bias in our interview process? Shark. Style-based feedback in performance reviews for women but not men? Another shark. Pay inequity? Uneven promotion rates? Usability issues in our products? Shark! Shark! Shark! For all the danger of lurking sharks, though, we’re largely missing the mark. Bias isn’t the shark. Bias is the water. Here’s how to expand your thinking and take the temperature of that water—so you can start to change the whole ecosystem.” Momentive Brand Contributor Antoine Andrew in It’s Not The Shark—It’s The Water: What Companies Misunderstand About DEI Data 5
When, I started researching and writing this article I was expecting to use microaggressions as a clear example of “the water”. Microaggressions, as the quote below describes, are those common, mild, subtle, minor, possibly biased, and often unintentional comments or actions which might cause someones feelings to be hurt. However, as earlier quotes indicate, a microaggression in the post-2020 postmodernist culture is now classified as a “shark”. The metaphor’s “the water” has now shifted to cover that which is more subtle, more common, and more unintentional than even the most petty microaggression.
“Microaggressions are defined as the everyday, subtle, intentional — and oftentimes unintentional — interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups. The difference between microaggressions and overt discrimination or macroaggressions, is that people who commit microaggressions might not even be aware of them… At the end of the day, if somebody says something racist to you, it's racist. And if it hurt your feelings, it hurt your feelings, so it doesn't really matter what we define it as. But it is important to understand that a lot of times people who engage in microaggressions will not believe that what they said was racist or sexist or homophobic. And so calling them racist or sexist or homophobic would make them very defensive and make them unable to even recognize what their impact was. We're all human beings who are prone to mistakes, and we're all human beings who might commit microaggressions. And it's not necessarily that you're a bad person if you commit a microaggression, but rather that you need to be more aware of your biases and impact on people. We all need to commit to working on these things in order to create a more harmonious society. “Kevin Nadal as quoted in an NPR interview 6
I was raised in culture of pluralism and multiculturalism which was striving to not be racist. That culture generally took a “...they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” approach as articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. I cringe when I hear or read terms such as “whiteness”, “white supremacy”, “white culture”, “whites”, “blacks” and “people of colour”, considering them as racist terms likely to be used in racist ways. When I hear or read the rhetoric of Robin DiAngelo7, prominent promoter of Critical Race Theory and expert in “Whiteness Studies”8, I wonder if she is actively recruiting new members for the Ku Klux Klan. Over the last few decades a concerted effort has been made to replace those older ‘can’t we all just get along and treat everyone as equal before the law’ ideals of multiculturalism, universalism, and pluralistic diversity. The replacement ideologies of postmodernist intersectionality and “antiracism” instead promote endless power struggles between different identity groups; conflicts between those deemed to have privilege and those deemed to be under oppression. Approaching the issue from a Christian perspective, Samuel Sey’s review of Robin DiAngelo’s book firmly states the problems with these ideologies. Though many might disagree with the overt theology in his book review, I think the review provides insight into both the dangers and the pseudo-religious aspects of these postmodernist ideologies.
“Robin DiAngelo has managed to accomplish the difficult task of writing a book that is simultaneously anti-white and white supremacist. And yet, it’s the bestselling book on racism today. What does it say about our culture when one of the most racist books I’ve ever read is considered by many to be the best book on racism? We’re apparently so distracted and so deceived by false definitions of racism, we’re seemingly no longer able to discern what real racism looks like. And that’s one of the major problems with White Fragility and anti-racism ideology, it redefines racism and sin to predictably destructive and disastrous conclusions… ...anti-racists like Robin DiAngelo aren’t interested in repentance from sinners, they’re only interested in revolutions against systems. Anti-racists believe racism resides in a white person’s skin colour, not in all our hearts. White Fragility offers sinister rebukes without any sincere offers for repentance. The book doesn’t offer any real hope for both victims and perpetrators of racism. And yet, the book and anti-racist ideology is infiltrating Christian circles. But Christian, don’t burden yourself with what White Fragility and anti-racist ideology demand from you. Instead, rest in what your saviour has done for you. Social justice is an unending burden and pain no one can bear. Jesus’ yoke is easy, and his burden is light. The gospel is enough. Jesus is enough. However, if you embrace White Fragility and anti-racism, you’re in danger of losing your mind and your soul.” Samuel Sey in his book review titled White Fragility Is Pro-Racism,9
Approaching the same issue from an Atheist perspective, James Lindsey and Mike Nayna also argue in their 2018 essay that these “applied postmodernist” ideologies (which they bundle into the label “Social Justice”) are similar to religion and should be treated as such in a society which separates religion and state with secularism.
“I will use Social Justice with capital S and J to refer to two things simultaneously. One, it references a manner of approaching social justice-relevant topics through a rather inflexible moral ideology that is most readily identifiable with identity politics and political correctness (along with the more recent buzzworded concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion). Specifically, this is a social philosophy profoundly concerned with effecting liberation from oppression, with “oppression”defined by what is known as postmodern critical theory (not the Frankfurt School stuff that goes by the same name—the two meanings are explained here). Two, it represents the loose coalitions of people who subscribe to this ostensibly “progressive” view of identity and society. These people have been variously called “regressive leftists,” “identitarians,” and, more pejoratively, “Social Justice Warriors (SJWs)” in common parlance over the last half decade. To get straight to the point, Social Justice exhibits many religion-like qualities, perhaps enough to earn it that designation. I will not make that argument, however. I will instead contend that Social Justice is a similar kind of thing to the thing religions are. The take-home point of this essay, then, is that whether or not Social Justice is a religion, it is certainly religion-like enough to treat in a way that’s similar to how we should treat religions—that is, we should approach them with an attitude generally associated with secularism. Social Justice will not like this because it is likely to enable a necessary corrective to its current bid for institutional and cultural power.” James Lindsey and Mike Nayna in “Postmodern Religion and the Faith of Social Justice” 10
Critical Race Theory becomes part of a broader “intersectionality” framework where individuals are associated with multiple group identities. Each group identity is deemed either to be the oppressed or the privileged oppressor.
Diagram representing the framework of intersectionality according to AWIS
“Multiculturalism, while offering an initial opening to discuss categories of race and ethnicity as early as the 1980s when it first became popularized within social work, fosters a pluralistic diversity approach rather than one firmly rooted in the notion of power (Aldana & Vazquez, 2020; Gollan & O’Leary, 2009; Gorski, 2006). The endurance of this limited framework within the social work field has stifled the explicit naming of white supremacy and the primacy of patriarchy, propertied class domination, heterosexism, cisgender privilege, ableism, and nativism not only as bedrocks of U.S. society but also as dynamics underlying social work as an academic field and as a profession (Abrams & Gibson, 2007; KIM, 2019).”11
As seen in the above quote and diagram, the promoters of postmodernist intersectionality are targeting much more than just “racism” or “whiteness”. Even when they are declaring that they are in a conflict against “whiteness”, they are actually targeting a wide range of cultural traits rather than just some shades of skin colour. The alleged “white supremacy” is ironically acknowledged as being an inclusive and tolerant culture, presumably this is in an assimilationist sense of the word inclusive.
“Culture is powerful precisely because it is so present and at the same time so very difficult to name or identify. The characteristics listed below are damaging because they are used as norms and standards without being proactively named or chosen by the group. They are damaging because they promote white supremacy thinking. Because we all live in a white supremacy culture, these characteristics show up in the attitudes and behaviors of all of us –people of color and white people. Therefore, these attitudes and behaviors can show up in any group or organization, whether it is white-led or predominantly white or people of color-led or predominantly people of color.” Tema Okun in White Supremacy Culture12
“Tema Okun used her experiences from facilitating and participating in antiracism workshops, her learnings from being in community with other leaders and thinkers, and her frustrating experiences at a workshop to write up a list that describes the characteristics of white supremacy culture. The list names some of the norms and expectations for people living in a white supremacy culture. Tema Okun articulates fifteen of these norms and expectations, or characteristics: Perfectionism, Sense of Urgency, Defensiveness, Quantity Over Quality, Worship of the Written Word, Only One Right Way, Paternalism, Either/Or Thinking, Power Hoarding, Fear of Open Conflict, Individualism, I’m the Only One, Progress is Bigger, More, Objectivity, and Right to Comfort.” Amanda Vetsch in Reflections on White Supremacy Culture Characteristics13
Some of the items on Tema Okun’s list of “white supremacy culture”, are concepts that many would consider important for a healthy, rational, tolerant, and functional society such as “objectivity” and “individualism”. “Worship of the Written Word” is a reference to an organisation’s focus on keeping written records, which is arguably a good practice essential for maintaining a functional, literate civilisation. “I’m the Only One” appears to be a reference to people who don’t delegate tasks because they believe that “if something is going to get done right” they need to ‘do it themselves’. This sort of initiative and “rugged individualism” can be necessary in some situations. Most of the other items on the list have some merit as criticisms of common issues found in corporate-style bureaucracies. They refer to what I would consider to be your typical soulless and ruthless corporate culture that is hostile to criticism, lacking transparency, and dedicated producing large quantities of low-quality products (or services) with little regard for long-term consequences. It is not clear why this should all be attributed in a racist manner to pale skin colour, or why anyone reasonable would think that creating racial conflict and division would help people unite to improve an organisation’s culture. Those who have experienced the transformation of their workplaces to accord with postmodern and intersectional ideologies can probably tell you that a range of corporate/bureaucratic dysfunctions (that could easily be described as “Only One Right Way”, “Either/Or Thinking”, “Defensiveness”, ”Power Hoarding”, or “Right to Comfort”) tend to increase as an organisation ‘goes Woke’. In 2020, a Smithsonian Museum attracted criticism for publishing a chart which stated a number of “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States” including14:
The above list is only a selection of what was on that Smithsonian Museum chart, which has now been removed from the official website. I have selected some more universal, often beneficial, and mostly secular traits for the above list. As those traits are being diminished by ideological attack (and/or ‘societal transformation’), serious dysfunctions are developing in society, institutions, and individuals.
The promoters of postmodern ideologies have also identified a large number of concepts, such as legal reasoning, liberalism, egalitarianism, rationalism, universalism, equal opportunity, meritocracy, and neutrality, as potential targets for interventions, destruction, removal, change, and/or transformation. The following quotes are from a book chapter written by librarians who are using Critical Race Theory in their efforts to transform their profession. In keeping with this article, the title of their book chapter was “Not the Shark, but the Water: How Neutrality and Vocational Awe Intertwine to Uphold White Supremacy”. Reading their chapter was also my introduction to the explicit shark and water metaphor and prompted my writing of this article.
“Due to a prevalent idea that “libraries are for all,” there is a misconception that racial inequity does not affect libraries and requires no real intervention in libraries because people from all races, creeds, and walks of life are treated equally in the space. This idea is a central defense of neutrality; proponents of neutrality state that since we serve everyone, we must allow materials, ideas, and values from everyone. It also bolsters vocational awe, in that it forestalls meaningful critique of the field, particularly critique of its racial dynamics. As three People of Color, we have experienced on the micro and macro levels how librarianship weaponizes vocational awe and neutrality to uphold White Supremacy and further marginalizes communities of color. However, our very marginality allows a clearer view of the disconnect between the espoused values of librarianship and the reality of the field. We use this view to examine the current narratives of library work and, in a CRT tradition, to revise the history that has so long comforted the white majority of our profession. ...According to John Gray, a political philosopher who identified common elements of liberal thought, liberalism is seen as the core of modernity; its distinctive features include individualism, universalism, and egalitarianism (Gray 1986). Liberalism sees color blindness, meritocracy, and equal opportunity as part of the dominant moral compass of racial enlightenment. Critical race theory counters this by “question[ing] the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law” (Delgado and Stefancic 2017, 3), where traditional civil rights discourse stresses incremental step-by-step progress.”15
The authors describe “vocational awe” among librarians as:
“Over half of the population in the United States used a public library in the year 2015 to 2016 (Horrigan 2016) and libraries are described by authors, philosophers, and intellectuals with lofty words such as temples, sacred places, and sanctuaries. Similarly, professional library literature extends this belief that the very existence of libraries creates democracy, learning, and civilization, and it conflates librarians’ work with the actual buildings themselves (Latimer 2011; Sweeney 2005). This conflation of profession and place creates a narrative that what librarians do must be “good,” because libraries are “good,” and “sacred places.” This narrative results in vocational awe, a phenomenon traced and defined by Ettarh as “the set of ideas, values, and assumptions librarians have about themselves and the profession that result in notions that libraries as institutions are inherently good, sacred notions, and therefore beyond critique” (2018).”
The idea that libraries are considered good and that library buildings are traditionally afforded a form of secular reverence, does not mean that libraries are widely-considered to be beyond critique as institutions. The above quote is also concerning because it indicates that little will be considered sacred as these postmodernists battle what they perceive to be “white supremacy”, they could be willing to sacrifice (and/or render dysfunctional) “democracy, learning, and civilization” in their efforts to achieve their agendas.
Conclusion: Is there a method to their madness?
We are looking at a war where the metaphorical soldiers are standing waist-deep in the tide, frenetically firing bullets into distant waves and screaming ‘we must fight the water’, while the sharks are biting off their feet.
I question their wisdom in threat prioritisation. I question their abilities at target acquisition. I question their capacity to judge if a proposed response is reasonable, feasible, effective, proportionate, and just.
Looking beyond the inability of the postmodernists to identify significant threats and deal with actual, solvable problems, we need to consider if there are greater plans in progress.
I can summarise four main consequences of the application of the “Not the shark, but the water” aspect of postmodernist ideologies:
It would not surprise me if many of the ideological soldiers fighting for postmodernist ideologies, believe they are fighting for ‘the greater good’ and to right some historical injustices. Others are likely virtue-signalling in a effort to maintain social status and obtain career advancement. Do the generals above the soldiers have different intentions and more sophisticated plans?
This article was mainly focused on racism, perceived racism, and the closely associated postmodernist ideologies. However, I think the “Not the shark, but the water” metaphor reflects a widespread issue with how our societies are being trained to perceive and respond to a range of threats (both real and imaged). Across a wide range of contemporary issues (including pollution, money-laundering, sexual violence, economic inequality, sectarian crimes, encouragement of genocide, pandemic responses, child abuse, and gun control) we see a repeated pattern where the worst wrongdoers often face minimal accountability while measures akin to collective punishment (often using false accusations and/or assumed guilt) are imposed broadly across the general population.
The policy interventions seem to keep missing those large and dangerous sharks. Were they deliberately aiming at the water the entire time?
1 https://guante.info/2020/11/22/nottheshark/
https://www.augsburg.edu/ccv/2021/05/20/reflections-on-white-supremacy-culture-characteristics/
2 Amanda Vetsch, Reflections on White Supremacy Culture Characteristics, 2021, Bernhard Christensen Center for Vocation https://www.augsburg.edu/ccv/2021/05/20/reflections-on-white-supremacy-culture-characteristics/
3 Omowale Akintunde, White racism, white supremacy, white privilege, & the social construction of race: Moving from modernist to postmodernist multiculturalism. 1999, Multicultural Education 7, https://www.proquest.com/openview/913118f571ed20bdb5c7794982120f25/
4 The Shark and the Water: Plenary Remarks by Cathy Young, 2020, Boston Conservatory at Berklee, https://web.archive.org/web/20220705185010/https://bostonconservatory.berklee.edu/about/shark-and-water-plenary-remarks-cathy-young
5 Antoine Andrew, It’s Not The Shark—It’s The Water: What Companies Misunderstand About DEI Data, 2021, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/surveymonkey/2021/04/15/its-not-the-shark-its-the-water-what-companies-misunderstand-about-dei-data/?sh=45c174c14e8c
6 Andrew Limbong, Microaggressions are a big deal: How to talk them out and when to walk away, 2020,NPR, https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872371063/microaggressions-are-a-big-deal-how-to-talk-them-out-and-when-to-walk-away
7 Adrienne Van Der Valk and Anya Malley, What’s My Complicity? Talking White Fragility With Robin DiAngelo, 2019, Teaching Tolerance, https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/summer-2019/whats-my-complicity-talking-white-fragility-with-robin-diangelo
8 https://www.robindiangelo.com/about-me/
9 Samuel
Sey, White Fragility Is Pro-Racism, 2020,
https://slowtowrite.com/white-fragility-is-pro-racism/
10 James
Lindsey and Mike Nayna, “Postmodern Religion and the Faith
of Social Justice”, 2018, Aero,
https://areomagazine.com/2018/12/18/postmodern-religion-and-the-faith-of-social-justice/
11 Polk et al. Moving From Multiculturalism to Critical Race Theory Within a School of Social Work: Dismantling White Supremacy as an Organizing Strategy, https://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/advancesinsocialwork/article/view/24472
12 https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun_-_white_sup_culture_2020.pdf
13 Amanda Vetsch, Reflections on White Supremacy Culture Characteristics, 2021, Bernhard Christensen Center for Vocation https://www.augsburg.edu/ccv/2021/05/20/reflections-on-white-supremacy-culture-characteristics/
14 https://web.archive.org/web/20200630001526/https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness
15 Anastasia Chiu, Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti, Not the Shark, but the Water: How Neutrality and Vocational Awe Intertwine to Uphold White Supremacy, in Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory, 2021, MIT Press, https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5114/chapter/3075315/Not-the-Shark-but-the-Water-How-Neutrality-and
Already a premium member? Log in here
Skip the Trial - Join Us Now
.svg){kind=logo}
By Dismantling Dystopia