The white power bloc develops a bag of tricks to mask its social location, making use of disguises, euphemisms, silences, and avoidances" (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 2009, p. 16).In my graduate course, "Critical Analysis of Multicultural Art Education," I assign the 2009 book chapter, "Smoke and Mirrors: More Than One Way to Be Diverse and Multicultural," by Shirley R. Steinberg and Joe L. Kincheloe. To frame the chapter, the authors critique the way liberal educators and scholars have historically failed to account for the power dynamics within institutions, especially schools, thus maintaining systems of domination and subordination. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2009) then build on John Fiske's concept of "power blocs," which "describe the social formations around which power politics operated in Western societies in the late twentieth century" (p. 8), to make suggestions for how critical multiculturalists can elevate their understanding of educational equity. In the chapter, three power blocs, "the white supremacist power bloc," "the patriarchy power bloc," and "the class elitist power bloc," are conceptualized as as an ever-shifting set of social alliances, and as being representative of the way power flows in varying directions. Steinberg and Kincheloe (2009) explain, Along lines of race, class, and gender, individuals can simultaneously fall within the boundaries of one power bloc and outside another. While no essential explanation can account for the way an individual will relate to power blocs vis-a-vis their race, class, or gender, such dimensions do affect people's relationship to power-related social formations. In most cases individuals are fragmented in relation to power. (p. 9)