White Fragility

Av de seks bøkene jeg har lest om rasisme i høst, er dette den mest uinteressante selv om den ser ut til å være den mest uttalte og den store bestselgeren. Det er ikke det at jeg ikke kjøper premissene, jeg innser at selv om jeg egentlig vil nekte for det, så er jeg som del av et rasistisk system medskyldig, så betyr det ikke at jeg liker innpakningen kritikken får. Torkjell Brekke beskylte i Morgenbladet sammenligner CRT-bevegelsen med religiøse bevegelser, noe jeg har vanskelig for å forstå, men når jeg leser DiAngelo får jeg samme følelsen som når jeg leser Ole Hallesbys "Fra Bønnens verden". Sistnevnte bok tar fra meg all lyst til å be, på grunn av sin stereotypifisering i et unødvendig tungt språk der jeg tvinges inni båser jeg ikke kjenner meg hjemme.
Og da kan man jo si at nettopp dette bekrefter DiAngelos påstand, hvite er for sårbare til å innse at vi er rasister. Men dette premisset kjøper jeg ikke. Kanskje, og sikkert ganske sannsynlig i USA, men ikke for min egen del - og da handler boken likevel ikke om meg, og det skulle jeg ønske at den gjorde i langt større grad.
Det er pussig, av de seks bøkene jeg har lest, er det de personlige historiene som får meg til å åpne øynene, det er Coates, Sibeko, Shanmugaratnam og Joof som får meg til å akseptere min fram til nå snevre måte å se tingene på, ikke pekefingermoralismen hos DiAngelo og Eddo-Lodge som først og fremst snakker til sin egen menighet i forsøket på å overbevise alle andre som virkelig trenger å bli overbevist. Og slik tror jeg som regel det er: Det er de personlige historiene som forandrer lytterne og leserne.
Hva jeg egentlig prøver å si: Rasisme er et alt for alvorlig problem til at man forenkler mennesker og virkeligheter på den måten DiAngel gjør. Jeg tror det virker mot sin hensikt.

In [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636], [a:Robin DiAngelo|5283261|Robin DiAngelo|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1537729933p2/5283261.jpg] asks white people to reconsider what racism is, and how we help to perpetuate it in spite of our good intentions.

Racism, as DiAngelo uses the word, does not mean the explicit pro­fes­sion that there are es­sen­tial­ly dif­fer­ent human races and that some are better than others. That, she says, is an un­so­phis­ti­ca­ted folk de­fi­ni­tion of racism (I’ll call that “racism[F]”).

The de­fi­ni­tion she prefers (what I’ll call “racism[S]”) is that racism[S] is a sys­tem­ic, usual­ly (now­a­days) non-ex­pli­cit or eu­phem­is­tic, often sub­con­scious, in­ter­lock­ing and per­va­sive set of social, cultural, and political devices that reinforce white supremacy. Racism[S] is impossible to avoid. It’s everywhere, and is drilled into everyone in a multitude of ways, day in and day out.

“White fragility” is one of these devices. White fragility is a sort of defensiveness that takes the form of a variety of strategies that white people use when we are confronted with our participation in and perpetuation of racism[S]. Whites use these strategies in order to deflect or avoid such a confrontation and to defend a comfortable, privileged vantage point from which race is “not an issue” (to we who benefit from it).

The folk definition, racism[F], is in fact one of the pillars of white fragility. Because, according to this definition, racism[F] is the conscious, explicit endorsement of an unconscionable belief system — all white people have to do to stop participating in racism[F] is to disavow racial bigotry and then congratulate ourselves for our good sense. But this leaves racism[S] fully intact.

If you tell a white person like me that he is participating in and perpetuating racism[S], he’ll typically respond by denying he has anything to do with racism[F]: e.g. “I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” White people interpret criticism about our participation in patterns of behavior that perpetuate racism[S] as though we had been accused of adhering to racism[F] — of being crude bigots — and we respond defensively to this insult against our characters. This functions as an effective way to give ourselves a pass on having to think about our inevitable participation in racism[S], and so helps to cement racism[S], and our own privileged position in it, which is… mighty convenient.

White progressives in particular, because disavowing racism[F] is such a core part of their identity, are wedded to this gambit. So much so that, according to DiAngelo, it is “white progressives [who] cause the most daily damage to people of color.”

So DiAngelo wants to take an axe to white fragility as a prerequisite for getting white people to stop propping up racism[S]. She’s devoted her career to this: she works as an “racial equity consultant” — someone who gets called in to companies and other institutions with racial insensitivity issues to try to help them fix themselves. In the course of this, she’s seen all manner of examples of white people not getting with the program, and has collected a catalog of ways that white fragility manifests itself — denial, withdrawal, deflection, conspicuous wokeness, emotional outbursts, and so forth — always in ways that function to avoid confronting and dismantling white supremacy.

Much of her book (a little too much, I’d estimate) is devoted to describing these methods. In the remainder she gives her program for defusing white fragility so that white people can confront and diminish racism[S]. The first step is for whites to become more aware of their whiteness — to acknowledge that they see the world through white eyes, and that their experience is a white experience, that they are not racially neutral or non-racial. We must abandon our pretensions to “individualism” and “objectivity” (two other ostensible pillars of whiteness) and acknowledge instead that we are who we are because we are white, and that what we take to be objective knowledge is actually a peculiarly white perspective.

Since, as DiAngelo explains soon after, race is not a biological fact, but a myth that was invented by white people to help them to justify their exploitation of other people — and since historically those whites who have been most explicitly invested in their whiteness have been so in the avowed cause of white supremacy — it may seem strange that DiAngelo suggests that white people become more race conscious, more invested in the reality of racial differences, and so forth. It seemed so to me. When DiAngelo wrote

Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race.

I was reminded of things I’d seen in the seedier corners of the internet from “race realists” and other such proponents of racism[F]. Take this, for example, from American Renaissance, an explicitly racist[F] group:

Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society — language, religion, class, ideology — it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of some of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century.

The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological. This approach is known as race realism.

Until the very last sentence, that excerpt would not have seemed at all out-of-place if I had run across it in [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636]. And that gives me pause. If white racial salience was invented to serve racism[S], and has long been (and continues to be) a pillar of racism[F], can it really be the key to getting us out of this mess?

DiAngelo believes that my concern — which she paraphrases as “focusing on race is what divides us” — is just one more device white people like me use to avoid confronting racism[S]. While race was invented, not discovered, and does not have the basis in real biological facts its inventors liked to think it does, once it was invented and deployed it became real through the real-world effects it has and the system of white supremacy it undergirds. To deny the reality of race may on some level be progressive and admirable, but the way that denial functions in the real world is to dismiss racism[S] as obsolete or irrelevant, and thereby to ensure that it continues unchallenged. White people who say they’re beyond race, don’t think of themselves in racial terms, are “color blind”, and so forth, are, by doing so, exercising white privilege, because those ostensibly race-neutral vantages are off-limits to non-white people.

If a white person should not pretend to be racially blank, and yet “white identity is inherently racist,” what to do? DiAngelo’s way to thread the needle is this: “I strive to be ‘less white.’”

To do this, acknowledge first that you are white, and that your whiteness is part of a package that includes the privileges enforced by racism[S]. Note that you have been socialized to participate in and reinforce racism[S], and that because this system benefits you, at least superficially, you probably haven’t been all that motivated to examine this very closely. Your default behavior, and that which will be reinforced by your white peers and by the racist[S] system, is behavior that will strengthen and perpetuate racism[S]. If you want to swim against that tide, you have to leave your comfort zone and put in some extra work. You should not feel guilty for having been socialized into racism[S]. That’s just the way it is for all of us. Leave the sackcloth and ashes aside. When you find out you’ve been doing something that perpetuates racism[S], the best response is to say “of course I was; I’m glad I finally found out about it so I can change.” By adopting that attitude, you will be less defensive, and more open to learning and improvement.

It felt useful to me to try on DiAngelo’s perspective about race and to interpret my outlook, experience, and actions through its framework. But there was a lot I didn’t care for about the book. DiAngelo would probably interpret that as my defensiveness; maybe she’s right.

For one thing, I was put off by the tone of woke intellectual arrogance and rhetorical aggression throughout: I must either accept her assertions or I demonstrate, by not accepting them, that I am an unrepentant collaborator. She does not pause to engage with alternative theories and frameworks, but simply pushes hers as though it were an unquestionable fact and the only alternative to racism[S]. For example, she does not really acknowledge that her racism[S] and the vulgate’s racism[F] are two valid and useful concepts in their own contexts, one being the academic/professional use of the term and the other being the common/folk use of the term. To her, there is the correct use of the term (hers) and the ignorant/complicit use of the term (most people’s).

For another, when she tried to support her theories by reference to real-world examples, I sometimes found her to be unreliable when I looked for independent evidence of those examples. To prop up her arguments, she sometimes resorts to deceptive oversimplification and caricature. At other times, her theories become so absorptive that they can explain any fact at all. For example, if whites leave a neighborhood and blacks move in, that’s “white flight;” if the reverse happens, it’s “gentrification;” either one is evidence of “disdain of whites for African Americans.” But if all possible evidence is evidence for your theory, your theory has ascended to some realm beyond evidence, and I’m not inclined to follow you there.

I also noticed an assumption that People of Color are preternaturally clear-sighted and of one mind on racial issues, so that a white person can just listen to one carefully and without defensiveness to obtain all the relevant information about a potentially racist scenario they are involved in. Are there People of Color who are ill-informed or unwise? might they disagree with each other? might they have a complex variety of motives for what they say and do? You wouldn’t know it from how they are typically portrayed in [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636].

DiAngelo is also weirdly oblivious about the actual power dynamics in many of the scenarios in which she describes encountering white fragility: the corporate training seminars she helps to put on. If Human Resources sends out a memo telling all employees to come to a racial bias seminar led by outside equity consultants, of course that’s going to put white employees on edge. They know who the bad guy is going to be in this movie, they’ve heard what happens to white people who screw up and say the wrong words to the wrong people at the wrong time, and they’re not entirely confident they know which words are the wrong ones this week. It shouldn’t be surprising that the smart ones adopt the strategy of keeping their heads down and their mouths shut. But when DiAngelo sees white people at such meetings clamming up, talking in meandering ways, with “long pauses” and “self-corrections”, she just chalks this up as white people deploying their favorite strategies for perpetuating white privilege. In one example, she describes a white woman who became so upset at feeling falsely accused of racism[?] at one of these “workplace anti-racism training” seminars that her co-workers became concerned for her health; to DiAngelo this was obviously just self-serving histrionics and her co-workers were just enabling it from similar motives. She can’t imagine that such a person’s fears for her job or her reputation can have any validity.

But all this criticism adds up to me wishing it were a better book. It was worth reading and wrestling with. I think there is a lot of validity to its key points, and I wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading it. If white people are to finally overcome racism[S] and stand on our own two feet, it will require that we talk more frankly about race and be willing to make uncomfortable, difficult changes. This book might be a good place to start for a lot of us.

In [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636], [a:Robin DiAngelo|5283261|Robin DiAngelo|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1537729933p2/5283261.jpg] asks white people to reconsider what racism is, and how we help to perpetuate it in spite of our good intentions.

Racism, as DiAngelo uses the word, does not mean the explicit pro­fes­sion that there are es­sen­tial­ly dif­fer­ent human races and that some are better than others. That, she says, is an un­so­phis­ti­ca­ted folk de­fi­ni­tion of racism (I’ll call that “racism[F]”).

The de­fi­ni­tion she prefers (what I’ll call “racism[S]”) is that racism[S] is a sys­tem­ic, usual­ly (now­a­days) non-ex­pli­cit or eu­phem­is­tic, often sub­con­scious, in­ter­lock­ing and per­va­sive set of social, cultural, and political devices that reinforce white supremacy. Racism[S] is impossible to avoid. It’s everywhere, and is drilled into everyone in a multitude of ways, day in and day out.

“White fragility” is one of these devices. White fragility is a sort of defensiveness that takes the form of a variety of strategies that white people use when we are confronted with our participation in and perpetuation of racism[S]. Whites use these strategies in order to deflect or avoid such a confrontation and to defend a comfortable, privileged vantage point from which race is “not an issue” (to we who benefit from it).

The folk definition, racism[F], is in fact one of the pillars of white fragility. Because, according to this definition, racism[F] is the conscious, explicit endorsement of an unconscionable belief system — all white people have to do to stop participating in racism[F] is to disavow racial bigotry and then congratulate ourselves for our good sense. But this leaves racism[S] fully intact.

If you tell a white person like me that he is participating in and perpetuating racism[S], he’ll typically respond by denying he has anything to do with racism[F]: e.g. “I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” White people interpret criticism about our participation in patterns of behavior that perpetuate racism[S] as though we had been accused of adhering to racism[F] — of being crude bigots — and we respond defensively to this insult against our characters. This functions as an effective way to give ourselves a pass on having to think about our inevitable participation in racism[S], and so helps to cement racism[S], and our own privileged position in it, which is… mighty convenient.

White progressives in particular, because disavowing racism[F] is such a core part of their identity, are wedded to this gambit. So much so that, according to DiAngelo, it is “white progressives [who] cause the most daily damage to people of color.”

So DiAngelo wants to take an axe to white fragility as a prerequisite for getting white people to stop propping up racism[S]. She’s devoted her career to this: she works as an “racial equity consultant” — someone who gets called in to companies and other institutions with racial insensitivity issues to try to help them fix themselves. In the course of this, she’s seen all manner of examples of white people not getting with the program, and has collected a catalog of ways that white fragility manifests itself — denial, withdrawal, deflection, conspicuous wokeness, emotional outbursts, and so forth — always in ways that function to avoid confronting and dismantling white supremacy.

Much of her book (a little too much, I’d estimate) is devoted to describing these methods. In the remainder she gives her program for defusing white fragility so that white people can confront and diminish racism[S]. The first step is for whites to become more aware of their whiteness — to acknowledge that they see the world through white eyes, and that their experience is a white experience, that they are not racially neutral or non-racial. We must abandon our pretensions to “individualism” and “objectivity” (two other ostensible pillars of whiteness) and acknowledge instead that we are who we are because we are white, and that what we take to be objective knowledge is actually a peculiarly white perspective.

Since, as DiAngelo explains soon after, race is not a biological fact, but a myth that was invented by white people to help them to justify their exploitation of other people — and since historically those whites who have been most explicitly invested in their whiteness have been so in the avowed cause of white supremacy — it may seem strange that DiAngelo suggests that white people become more race conscious, more invested in the reality of racial differences, and so forth. It seemed so to me. When DiAngelo wrote

Being seen racially is a common trigger of white fragility, and thus, to build our stamina, white people must face the first challenge: naming our race.

I was reminded of things I’d seen in the seedier corners of the internet from “race realists” and other such proponents of racism[F]. Take this, for example, from American Renaissance, an explicitly racist[F] group:

Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society — language, religion, class, ideology — it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of some of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century.

The problems of race cannot be solved without adequate understanding. Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. Progress requires the study of all aspects of race, whether historical, cultural, or biological. This approach is known as race realism.

Until the very last sentence, that excerpt would not have seemed at all out-of-place if I had run across it in [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636]. And that gives me pause. If white racial salience was invented to serve racism[S], and has long been (and continues to be) a pillar of racism[F], can it really be the key to getting us out of this mess?

DiAngelo believes that my concern — which she paraphrases as “focusing on race is what divides us” — is just one more device white people like me use to avoid confronting racism[S]. While race was invented, not discovered, and does not have the basis in real biological facts its inventors liked to think it does, once it was invented and deployed it became real through the real-world effects it has and the system of white supremacy it undergirds. To deny the reality of race may on some level be progressive and admirable, but the way that denial functions in the real world is to dismiss racism[S] as obsolete or irrelevant, and thereby to ensure that it continues unchallenged. White people who say they’re beyond race, don’t think of themselves in racial terms, are “color blind”, and so forth, are, by doing so, exercising white privilege, because those ostensibly race-neutral vantages are off-limits to non-white people.

If a white person should not pretend to be racially blank, and yet “white identity is inherently racist,” what to do? DiAngelo’s way to thread the needle is this: “I strive to be ‘less white.’”

To do this, acknowledge first that you are white, and that your whiteness is part of a package that includes the privileges enforced by racism[S]. Note that you have been socialized to participate in and reinforce racism[S], and that because this system benefits you, at least superficially, you probably haven’t been all that motivated to examine this very closely. Your default behavior, and that which will be reinforced by your white peers and by the racist[S] system, is behavior that will strengthen and perpetuate racism[S]. If you want to swim against that tide, you have to leave your comfort zone and put in some extra work. You should not feel guilty for having been socialized into racism[S]. That’s just the way it is for all of us. Leave the sackcloth and ashes aside. When you find out you’ve been doing something that perpetuates racism[S], the best response is to say “of course I was; I’m glad I finally found out about it so I can change.” By adopting that attitude, you will be less defensive, and more open to learning and improvement.

It felt useful to me to try on DiAngelo’s perspective about race and to interpret my outlook, experience, and actions through its framework. But there was a lot I didn’t care for about the book. DiAngelo would probably interpret that as my defensiveness; maybe she’s right.

For one thing, I was put off by the tone of woke intellectual arrogance and rhetorical aggression throughout: I must either accept her assertions or I demonstrate, by not accepting them, that I am an unrepentant collaborator. She does not pause to engage with alternative theories and frameworks, but simply pushes hers as though it were an unquestionable fact and the only alternative to racism[S]. For example, she does not really acknowledge that her racism[S] and the vulgate’s racism[F] are two valid and useful concepts in their own contexts, one being the academic/professional use of the term and the other being the common/folk use of the term. To her, there is the correct use of the term (hers) and the ignorant/complicit use of the term (most people’s).

For another, when she tried to support her theories by reference to real-world examples, I sometimes found her to be unreliable when I looked for independent evidence of those examples. To prop up her arguments, she sometimes resorts to deceptive oversimplification and caricature. At other times, her theories become so absorptive that they can explain any fact at all. For example, if whites leave a neighborhood and blacks move in, that’s “white flight;” if the reverse happens, it’s “gentrification;” either one is evidence of “disdain of whites for African Americans.” But if all possible evidence is evidence for your theory, your theory has ascended to some realm beyond evidence, and I’m not inclined to follow you there.

I also noticed an assumption that People of Color are preternaturally clear-sighted and of one mind on racial issues, so that a white person can just listen to one carefully and without defensiveness to obtain all the relevant information about a potentially racist scenario they are involved in. Are there People of Color who are ill-informed or unwise? might they disagree with each other? might they have a complex variety of motives for what they say and do? You wouldn’t know it from how they are typically portrayed in [b:White Fragility|43708708|White Fragility Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism|Robin DiAngelo|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1548478235l/43708708.SY75.jpg|58159636].

DiAngelo is also weirdly oblivious about the actual power dynamics in many of the scenarios in which she describes encountering white fragility: the corporate training seminars she helps to put on. If Human Resources sends out a memo telling all employees to come to a racial bias seminar led by outside equity consultants, of course that’s going to put white employees on edge. They know who the bad guy is going to be in this movie, they’ve heard what happens to white people who screw up and say the wrong words to the wrong people at the wrong time, and they’re not entirely confident they know which words are the wrong ones this week. It shouldn’t be surprising that the smart ones adopt the strategy of keeping their heads down and their mouths shut. But when DiAngelo sees white people at such meetings clamming up, talking in meandering ways, with “long pauses” and “self-corrections”, she just chalks this up as white people deploying their favorite strategies for perpetuating white privilege. In one example, she describes a white woman who became so upset at feeling falsely accused of racism[?] at one of these “workplace anti-racism training” seminars that her co-workers became concerned for her health; to DiAngelo this was obviously just self-serving histrionics and her co-workers were just enabling it from similar motives. She can’t imagine that such a person’s fears for her job or her reputation can have any validity.

But all this criticism adds up to me wishing it were a better book. It was worth reading and wrestling with. I think there is a lot of validity to its key points, and I wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading it. If white people are to finally overcome racism[S] and stand on our own two feet, it will require that we talk more frankly about race and be willing to make uncomfortable, difficult changes. This book might be a good place to start for a lot of us.