White possessive logic names how whiteness functions through assumptions of ownership and entitlement in settler colonial societies. This extends beyond individual property rights to encompass assumptions that white people legitimately possess lands, resources, knowledge and even authority to define identity categories. The logic operates by naturalising these possessions such that white claims appear self-evident whilst Indigenous counter-claims require extraordinary justification.
The concept emerged primarily through Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s analysis of Australian settler colonialism. Her work demonstrates how this logic structures institutions, knowledge production and everyday practices whilst remaining largely invisible to those it advantages.
Land as possession
White possessive logic manifests most fundamentally in assumptions about land ownership. Settler colonial societies treat Indigenous territories as legitimately possessed by white people through discovery, development or inheritance. The original act of dispossession becomes obscured through legal and cultural mechanisms that naturalise white presence.
Terra nullius exemplifies this operation. The legal fiction that Australia was empty land available for appropriation enabled British colonisation without treaty or purchase. This fiction persisted legally until 1992 despite continuous Indigenous presence and resistance. Its overturn through Mabo did not fundamentally challenge white possession but rather incorporated Indigenous rights within frameworks privileging settler property.
Contemporary practices continue this logic. Mining companies extract resources from Indigenous lands with government approval. Urban development expands into contested territories. Farmers defend their holdings as earned through family labour whilst denying Indigenous connection extending thousands of years. These possessions appear natural rather than
products of violent appropriation.
The logic operates through what can be termed future-oriented possession. White people assume they possess not only present lands but futures on those lands. Development plans, environmental management and resource allocation proceed from assumptions that white people will continue occupying and controlling territories. Indigenous futures become marginalised as requiring accommodation within white possession rather than as having prior claims.
Knowledge as property
White possessive logic extends to knowledge production and ownership. Academic institutions claim authority to research, represent and theorise Indigenous peoples and cultures. This transforms Indigenous knowledge into academic property through appropriation without consent or recognition.
Anthropological practice exemplifies this appropriation. White researchers have positioned themselves as experts on Indigenous cultures. They extract knowledge through fieldwork, analyse it according to Western frameworks and publish findings for academic audiences. Indigenous people become objects of study rather than authorities whose permission is required.
The traditional versus contemporary binary in anthropology serves possessive functions. When researchers define who counts as authentically traditional based on externally imposed criteria, they effectively possess the power to determine legitimate Indigeneity. This serves political purposes by gatekeeping land rights claims that depend on demonstrating traditional connection.
Intellectual property regimes compound these problems. Western legal systems recognise individual ownership of knowledge through patents and copyright. Indigenous knowledge operates through different principles involving collective custodianship and contextual sharing. When Indigenous knowledge gets incorporated into commercial applications, legal frameworks enable its appropriation whilst denying communities control or benefit.
Identity as white possession
Perhaps most insidiously, white possessive logic includes power to define who counts as Indigenous. White people determine authenticity based on appearance, cultural practice, political stance or blood quantum. This denies Indigenous peoples authority over their own identities and communities.
The power operates through mechanisms both crude and subtle. Explicitly, white institutions implement criteria for Indigenous identity through legal definitions, employment categories and service eligibility. These often derive from colonial race science rather than Indigenous understandings of belonging.
More subtly, white possessive logic operates through cultural assumptions about what authentic Indigeneity looks like. Indigenous people face expectations to perform Indigeneity through particular cultural practices, spiritual beliefs or political positions. Those who do not conform face accusations of inauthenticity. White people thereby possess power to validate or invalidate Indigenous identity claims.
The Bell-Huggins debate illustrates these dynamics. When white feminist Diane Bell claimed authority to speak about rape in Indigenous communities, Indigenous women contested her right. White feminists defended Bell partly by distinguishing between traditional Indigenous women who supposedly possessed authentic knowledge and contemporary Indigenous women who supposedly lacked it. This positioned white academics as arbiters of legitimate Indigenous political voice.
Institutional whiteness
White possessive logic structures institutions such that whiteness remains centred whilst appearing neutral. Universities, legal systems, government departments and health services operate according to white cultural norms, values and priorities. These get naturalised as simply how institutions function rather than as specific cultural impositions.
Academic institutions provide clear examples. Universities employ predominantly white staff, teach predominantly white curricula and conduct research serving predominantly white interests. When Indigenous people participate, they do so on terms set by white institutional culture. Their knowledge must conform to Western epistemological standards. Their priorities become framed as special interests rather than legitimate institutional concerns.
Legal systems similarly embody white possessive logic. Property law developed to facilitate dispossession and protect settler holdings. Family law enabled child removal from Indigenous families. Criminal law disproportionately punishes Indigenous people whilst providing inadequate protection against violence they experience. These are not failures of otherwise neutral systems but rather systems functioning according to white possessive principles.
The invisibility of possession
Crucially, white possessive logic operates through invisibility. White people typically do not experience themselves as possessing anything illegitimately. Their claims to land, resources and authority appear as natural entitlements rather than as products of dispossession.
This invisibility protects the logic from challenge. When Indigenous people name white possession, they face accusations of divisiveness or racism. White people position themselves as individuals with legitimate rights rather than as members of groups benefiting from structural advantage. The focus shifts to individual innocence rather than collective complicity.
The invisibility extends to how white people understand their own position. They experience themselves as unmarked humans rather than as specifically white. Their perspectives appear as universal rather than as culturally particular. Their interests seem as neutral rather than as serving group advantage through historical dispossession.
Intersections with gender
White possessive logic operates through gendered dimensions. White women have participated in and benefited from Indigenous dispossession whilst experiencing patriarchal oppression. This creates complex dynamics where white women possess race privilege whilst lacking full gender privilege.
Colonial projects specifically positioned white women as bearers of civilization and respectability. Their presence supposedly justified settler occupation through establishing moral authority over Indigenous peoples. Maternal feminism constructed white women as natural guardians who could civilize Indigenous women and children through removing them from families.
Contemporary white feminism continues these patterns. Claims of universal sisterhood obscure how white women benefit from Indigenous dispossession. When white feminists centre their own priorities, they exercise possessive entitlement to define feminist agendas. Indigenous women’s different priorities become positioned as divisive rather than as legitimate challenges to white possession of feminist discourse.
Challenging possessive logic
Recognising white possessive logic enables challenging its naturalisations. Making visible what appears invisible creates space for contestation. Indigenous sovereignty claims directly confront white possession by asserting continuing Indigenous authority over lands and futures.
However, recognition alone proves insufficient. White possessive logic accommodates critique by incorporating it within existing frameworks. Reconciliation discourse can acknowledge historical wrongs whilst maintaining fundamental structures of white possession. Land rights can recognise Indigenous connection whilst subordinating it to settler property regimes.
Genuine challenges require material transformation beyond rhetorical acknowledgment. Land return transfers possession rather than merely recognising Indigenous connection within white ownership frameworks. Treaty negotiations recognise Indigenous sovereignty rather than incorporating Indigenous rights within settler constitutions. These challenge possessive logic by refusing its fundamental premises.
The difficulty lies in how deeply possessive logic structures settler society. Contemporary white people did not personally steal land but they inherit and perpetuate systems predicated on theft. Their material wellbeing derives from dispossession. Challenging white possessive logic threatens the foundations of their security and identity.
Relation to other concepts
White possessive logic connects to broader analyses of whiteness as structural domination. It specifies how whiteness operates in settler colonial contexts through assumptions of legitimate possession rather than merely through cultural dominance or economic exploitation.
The concept intersects with Indigenous sovereignty by naming what sovereignty assertions confront. If white possessive logic naturalises settler authority, Indigenous sovereignty denaturalises it by asserting continuing Indigenous political authority regardless of occupation.
Understanding white possessive logic proves essential for settler colonial studies. It identifies the logic through which settler societies maintain themselves beyond founding violence. The structure persists through continuing to naturalise white possession across institutional and cultural domains.