Critical Reflection into Action: Facilitating Conditions of Antiracist Action among White Youth in the Netherlands

Racism is one of the most pressing problems many societies are facing, with detrimental effects on the physical, mental, and social health of those affected by it (Brondolo et al., 2012; Trent et al., 2019). Racism is often defined as a system in which beliefs, practices and policies based on race advantage groups that historically have had more power (i.e., White people in the context of the Europe) (Haeny et al., 2021). Biologically, racial groups do not exist, rather, they are socially constructed groups (Smedley & Smedley, 2005). These groups are not only constructed based on race as referring to physical characteristics, but also on cultural characteristics that have been racialized, as for example is the case for Muslims (Garner & Selod, 2015). As such, racism in Europe is not only based on beliefs of racial superiority, but also on beliefs of cultural superiority (Bratt, 2022), and the discourse in Europe speaks of racism on grounds of racial or ethnic origin (European Commission, 2020). Although race and ethnicity can be defined separately, with race stressing shared physical characteristics and ethnicity stressing shared ancestry, traditions, and cultural traits, they are often conceptualized as overlapping and used interchangeably (Bhopal, 2004). This is particularly true in the Western and Northern European context, where there generally is a “silence about race” (Jugert et al., 2022). As such, the present study applies a broad definition of racism, based not only on racial groups but also on ethnic and racialized groups, and uses ethnicity-race throughout.

In light of racism’s detrimental effects, the field of child development research has increasingly paid attention to effective approaches to reducing ethnic-racial prejudice among youth (Aboud et al., 2012; Beelmann & Heinemann, 2014). This work provides valuable insights into approaches to ensure that children are “not racist”. Racism, however, is not just an interpersonal phenomenon but also manifests at structural and institutional levels. In order to counter racism, therefore, “not being racist” is not sufficient, but antiracism is needed (Roberts & Rizzo, 2021). Antiracism involves awareness and understanding of racism at different levels and an active approach towards challenging it (Cooper et al., 2022).

Challenging racism can be studied through the lens of critical consciousness. Critical consciousness was first described by Paolo Freire, and historically represents marginalized people’s awareness of social inequality (reflection), perceived ability and responsibility to create change (motivation), and behavioral action taken to make this change (Watts et al., 2011). Critical motivation is often also referred to as political efficacy and conceptually aligns with sociopolitical control (Diemer et al., 2022). Although critical consciousness is grounded in work with adults, adolescence is a particularly relevant period for its development due to improved social cognitive skills (Brizio et al., 2015) that can be relevant to identifying injustice, and identity-formation processes which can involve commitment to an ideological stance (Marcia, 1980). Particularly in late adolescence, youth face developmental challenges of finding personal meaning and purpose in life, which can be accompanied by increased social awareness and activism (Barrett, 1996; Zarrett & Eccles, 2006). Critical consciousness is also considered a developmental asset for marginalized youth (Diemer et al., 2016), as it can have positive effects on their wellbeing (Maker Castro et al., 2022). Longitudinal research among adolescents shows that their critical consciousness is indeed still in development during this life phase (Pinedo et al., 2024; Wray-Lake et al., 2023).

Whereas research on adolescents’ critical consciousness has increased over the past few years, few studies have focused on White adolescents (Heberle et al., 2020). Although critical consciousness was originally conceptualized in the content of marginalized people, combating structural inequalities requires that all adolescents are able to reflect on, feel motivated to change, and act against these inequalities. True solidarity from privileged group members is therefore necessary (Freire, 2000). White adolescents are part of a social group that benefits from ethnic-racial inequalities in many societies, but can use their privileged positions and power in antiracist acts (Reason et al., 2005). White youth’s critical consciousness development is furthermore contextualized in a system of whiteness, which presents obstacles to this development that are unique to this group (Wray-Lake et al., 2023). To support White youth to use their potential, research on their development of critical consciousness is highly needed (Diemer et al., 2016; Rapa & Geldhof, 2020). Additionally, research among youth has mostly focused on their awareness of social inequality (i.e., critical reflection), yet centering the action component of critical consciousness is crucial to understand the potential of young people to bring about change in society (Diemer et al., 2021).

Critical reflection and action are theorized to develop reciprocally (Diemer et al., 2021; Watts et al., 2011). Some empirical work among marginalized youth indeed points towards positive associations between the two dimensions, so that youth who perceive more societal inequalities are engaged in more critical (Diemer & Rapa, 2016; Hope et al., 2020) and sociopolitical action (Banales et al., 2020). Similarly, youth themselves describe how their engagement in action depends on their knowledge on the issue at hand (Tyler et al., 2020). Theoretical models of White youth’s antiracism development likewise describe how an understanding of structural racism is essential (Hazelbaker et al., 2022; Woolverton & Marks, 2022). However, not all youth who are aware of societal inequality also behaviorally act to foster change: critical reflection and critical action are not always correlated (Heberle et al., 2020). Similarly, whereas some longitudinal studies support the idea that critical reflection precedes critical actions (Plummer et al., 2022), others do not find longitudinal associations between the dimensions of critical consciousness (Pinedo et al., 2024). This potential disconnect between reflection and action is also present in two out of five dispositions recognized in White American’s response to racism, which are marked by some form of cognitive awareness of racism accompanied by behavioral apathy (i.e., the rational and liberal disposition) (D’Andrea & Daniels, 1999). In two other dispositions, in contrast, cognitive awareness and understanding of racism do go together with engagement in behaviors aimed to foster change (D’Andrea & Daniels, 1999). The mismatch between reflection and act can be related to the principle-implementation gap (Dixon et al., 2017). The principle-implementation gap is referred to as an apparent paradox, describing how people who accept a certain principle (e.g., that equality is ideal) do not necessarily support, or even reject, interventions or policies aiming to achieve that same principle (e.g., affirmative actions) (Dixon et al., 2017). Research has demonstrated this gap in White Americans’, including youth, dispositions to ethnic-racial diversity and (in)equality (Hikido & Murray, 2016; Taylor & Parcel, 2019). Although critical reflection goes deeper than the mere acceptance of a principle, and critical action entails more than supporting policies, both “gaps” describe how beliefs and behavior do not necessarily align.

Reflection without action resembles so-called “armchair activists” (Diemer et al., 2016; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). This profile of critical consciousness not only is a loss of opportunity for society, as youth are aware of societal inequalities yet do not engage in actions to challenge them, it also links to direct negative outcomes for themselves such as lower life satisfaction and school engagement as compared to uncritical and inactive peers (Schwarzenthal et al., 2023). In particular for youth from more privileged social groups, such as White youth in White dominant societies, being an “armchair activist” furthermore seems to harmfully impact their capability to deal with academic challenges (Schwarzenthal et al., 2023). Especially if adolescents feel the need to act but do not actually do so, this might harm their well-being, as it limits their sense of competence which is essential for healthy psychological growth according to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Understanding the conditions in which the association between critical reflection and critical action among White youth is strengthened is therefore essential both for society and for youth themselves.

One potential facilitator of the association between critical reflection and critical action, is critical motivation (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). In particular, a lack of feelings of agency or perceived ability to create change may cause some youth to “get stuck” in critical reflection, whereas confidence in one’s abilities and feelings of empowerment may cause others to translate this reflection into action. This reasoning resonates with the Theory of Planned Behavior, which posits that one’s beliefs about their ability are an important determinant of behavioral intentions and, in turn, actual behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). Particularly, this theory proposes beliefs about ability to moderate the effect of behavioral intentions on actual behaviors (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2002). Empirical research on these proposed associations between critical consciousness domains is still somewhat limited (especially among White youth) (Heberle et al., 2020). Previous work using cluster analyses, however, did demonstrate that a combination of high critical reflection and critical motivation indeed goes together with more civic engagement (Christens et al., 2018). This is in line with previous qualitative work describing how youth experience beliefs that their actions would be ineffective or not taken seriously as barriers to engaging in critical action (Tyler et al., 2020), but needs further empirical replication. One empirical study testing moderation effects of critical motivation on the association between reflection and action among poor and working class youth of color in the U.S. did not find evidence for this hypothesis (Diemer & Rapa, 2016), but replications in a sample of youth in relatively privileged positions in society are currently lacking.

Additionally, White youth’s development of antiracism is thought to benefit from promotive contexts (Hazelbaker et al., 2022). These seem particularly relevant to overcome obstacles resulting from whiteness, such as limited opportunities to learn about racism in everyday life (Wray-Lake et al., 2023). Although parents are theorized to be important contributors to these contexts (Hazelbaker et al., 2022), empirical research on White parents’ influence on youth’s critical consciousness is very limited (Heberle et al., 2020). A recent exception shows that levels of critical reflection as well as action of White parents and their children are interrelated (Curran et al., 2023). The authors argue that modeling and socializing by White parents has the potential to teach their children ideas and actions that aim to challenge racism (Curran et al., 2023). Another recent exception confirms this idea, by demonstrating that White parents perceive their children to be more critically reflective after engaging in an anti-racist parenting intervention (Heberle et al., 2024). One type of socialization by parents that might be particularly important when it comes to White youth’s antiracism development is ethnic-racial socialization. Ethnic-racial socialization refers to the transmission of information regarding ethnicity and race from parents to their children, and has traditionally been characterized by four themes in work in minoritized families: cultural socialization (messages about one’s own ethnic-racial heritage or traditions), preparation for bias (messages preparing for discrimination), promotion of mistrust (messages warning about other ethnic-racial groups), and egalitarianism (messages emphasizing equality) (D. Hughes et al., 2006). Work on ethnic-racial socialization in White families has also investigated other themes of socialization, such as history of other groups (messages about the ethnic-racial heritage or traditions of others) and discrimination against other groups (Pahlke et al., 2012; Zucker & Patterson, 2018). Additionally, ethnic-racial socialization research in White families distinguishes between color-evasive (avoiding ethnicity- or race-related topics or downplaying the significance of ethnicity and race) versus color-conscious socialization practices (Abaied et al., 2022; Abaied & Perry, 2021).

Research in White families shows that parents often employ color-evasive socialization strategies in their general parenting approach (Vittrup, 2018) and in response to race-related situations (Abaied & Perry, 2021; Zucker & Patterson, 2018). If White parents do engage in color-conscious socialization, this has been hypothesized to contribute to children’s critical reflection (Hazelbaker et al., 2022). At the same time, White youth in “race conscious” contexts, who among other things have more frequent discussions about ethnicity or race with their parents, engage in more critical action than other White youth (Dull et al., 2022). What remains unclear, however, is whether parental ethnic-racial socialization can also strengthen the association between critical reflection and critical action. White people commonly experience anger, sadness, helplessness, guilt, and shame when being confronted with the realities and pervasiveness of racism in society (Spanierman & Heppner, 2004). Experiencing these emotions can be counterproductive, if experienced too strongly or not channeled properly (Spanierman & Cabrera, 2014). Having engaged in (more) frequent discussions about ethnicity and race with their parents might help White youth prepare to deal with potentially experiencing such emotions when engaging in critical reflection. These White youth might feel less overwhelmed or “paralyzed” by such emotions and might be better equipped to turn their knowledge into action. In this line of thought, particularly color-conscious forms of parental ethnic-racial socialization could play an important role.

At the same time, youth search for more autonomy from parents during adolescence, and friends become more important socialization agents (De Goede et al., 2009). Therefore, apart from parents shaping White adolescents’ ethnic-racial contexts, peers also play an important role (Dull et al., 2022). Contact with peers from different ethnic-racial backgrounds, in particular, may serve as a facilitating condition. Research based on intergroup contact theory has overwhelmingly demonstrated that positive intergroup contact, and particularly friendships, reduce group-based prejudice among privileged group members (Davies et al., 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), even if not all optimal conditions (i.e., equal status, common goals, no intergroup competition, authority sanction) are met (Pettigrew et al., 2011). Additionally, having friends from underrepresented ethnic-racial groups is associated with stronger perceived injustice and discrimination among privileged group members (Bobowik et al., 2024; Carter et al., 2019) and as such sparks critical reflection. Intergroup contact can at the same time promote support for social change among privileged group members, as described in the Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model (Hässler et al., 2021). This model, based on intergroup contact theory and collective action research, describes that intergroup contact in general, but particularly frequent contact with intergroup friends, increases support for social change among advantaged groups (Hässler et al., 2021). Empirical work indeed supports this notion among advantaged groups based on migration status (Bobowik et al., 2024), ethnicity and sexual orientation (Hässler et al., 2021), and race (Selvanathan et al., 2018). The Integrated Contact-Collective Action Model also proposes that intergroup contact and privileged group members’ perceptions of the illegitimacy of group differences interact in predicting action, so that effects are strongest for those who both perceive these differences as unjust and engage in more frequent and intimate intergroup contact (Hässler et al., 2021). This raises the expectation that intergroup contact or friendships can impact the association between reflection and action. As experiencing support can help youth act (Diemer & Li, 2011; Tyler et al., 2020), intergroup friendships might provide just that for White youth in the context of antiracism. Intergroup friendships in particular might introduce them to contexts that provide more opportunities for antiracist action, and as such, function as opportunity structure for translating their knowledge into action (Watts & Flanagan, 2007).

The Netherlands provides an interesting context for research on critical consciousness among White youth. The Dutch population is highly diverse in terms of its ethnic-racial background, given that more than a quarter of the population has a migration background (first or second generation) of which two-thirds are from outside of Europe (CBS, 2024b). Turkish, Moroccan, Surinamese, Indonesian, and Caribbean backgrounds are most common (CBS, 2024b). Experiences of racism are common among these people. For example, almost a third of people born in the Netherlands with parents born in Suriname, Morocco, or the Dutch Caribbean reported to have been discriminated against based on their race or skin color in 2023 (CBS, 2024a). In the same year, Geert Wilders’ radical right-wing populist party Party for Freedom, characterized by extreme Islamophobic and anti-immigration sentiments (Vossen, 2011), became the biggest political party during national elections (van Holsteyn & Irwin, 2024). At the same time, following the death of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, the antiracist movement in the Netherlands gained attention in the public debate (Ghorashi, 2020). Additionally, reports increasingly acknowledge institutional racism in the Netherlands, for example at the labor and housing market (Felten et al., 2021), and at the national government (Omlo et al., 2022; Witkamp et al., 2024). Furthermore, the Dutch role in slavery is increasingly acknowledged, with developments in apologies being made by the royal family, local governments, and the national government (Hendriks et al., 2024). These recent developments have caused an increase in attention for racism in the Netherlands. This is huge shift, given that racism in the Netherlands previously has hardly been acknowledged in the public and societal discourse (Ghorashi, 2014; Weiner, 2014). In fact, denial of racism is described as one of the characterizing features of Dutch racism (Essed & Hoving, 2014).

This denial of racism and race-mute characteristic of the Netherlands is also reflected in the racialized terms to refer to different groups of people. For example, “allochtoon” was used until 2016 (De Ree, 2016) which formally referred to people born or with at least one parent born outside of the Netherlands but in practice was used to refer “non-Western” ethnic-racial groups (Essed & Trienekens, 2008). This term was later replaced with “migration background”, which is similarly racialized in the European context (Moffitt & Juang, 2019) and used to avoid naming ethnic-racial groups explicitly (Jugert et al., 2022; Vietze et al., 2023). As such, “migration background” is often used as a racialized comparison to White, non-immigrant Europeans (Moffitt & Juang, 2019). Whereas White traditionally refers to a skin color, it is conflated with European (Ammaturo, 2019; Begum, 2023) and Dutch identities (de Bruijn et al., 2024b; Essed & Trienekens, 2008). Whiteness is furthermore characterized by “White experience”, being part of the privileged or dominant group (Lewis, 2004), and the concept of whiteness has over time excluded non-European White identities (Bonnett, 1998), excluding people with light skin tones who have migration backgrounds from outside of Europe.

Because of the denial of racism that has been common in the Netherlands for long (Essed & Hoving, 2014), most White Dutch youth have for long been exposed to color-evasive social norms in schools (Sijpenhof, 2020), and frequently also at home (de Bruijn et al., 2024a; Mesman et al., 2022). Through the rise in attention for the subject of racism in the public discourse, White Dutch youth are likely to become more informed and knowledgeable about the subject, potentially sparking their critical reflection. Nonetheless, this does not mean that all of them will also become more active in challenging racism. Understanding when White Dutch youth translate critical reflection into antiracist action is key to raising new generations who are not only knowledgeable of societal inequalities, but who also engage in activities to confront them.

Previous research on Dutch youth has looked into their ethnic-racial relations among Dutch youth. Particularly, a considerable amount of work has documented ethnic-racial attitudes and prejudices among ethnic-racial majority (e.g., de Bruijn et al., 2020; Thijs et al., 2023) and minority members (Pektas et al., 2023), as well as their intergroup contact levels and ethnic-racial identities (e.g., Fortuin et al., 2014; Verkuyten, 2001). Work examining their tendencies towards antiracism, however, is currently lacking.