White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo

People are talking about Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility quite a lot. The book was best seller and it is being mentioned all over social media. First published in 2018 the main point of this work is to critique white Americans’ reaction to conversations about race and racism. I found that the ideas presented in this book to be emblematic of critical race theory with a few twists added. I recently posted commentary on Jodi Picoult’s Small Great Things here. Where that book was an exposition of critical race theory in the form of fiction, this work presents the theory in a more traditional, philosophical way. DiAngelo is a diversity teacher and holds a PHD in Multicultural Education. She is a self - proclaimed expert on “whiteness studies.” I disagreed with most of the author’s arguments and also found that many of her contentions to be  made in bad faith. 

DiAngelo believes that American society is based upon and is infused with racism and white supremacy. Furthermore, most interactions between white people and People of Color are based upon power. All whites hold what is commonly called “white privilege”.  Furthermore, all white people are, at least unconsciously, racist and white supremacists because of socialization. She labels this system “whiteness”.

According to DiAngelo, when white people disagree with these arguments, their objections and disagreement are based upon this ingrained racism and the refusal to confront it.  The author labels these objections to her perceived reality as white fragility.

I think that the first thing that one must talk about in relation to this book is a concept called a Kafka trap. The term Kafka trap is a reference Franz Kafka’s novel The Trial in which there is a protagonist whose protestations of innocence in the face of false accusations are taken as proof of his guilt. As has been pointed out by others, the entire premise of white fragility is a Kafka trap. This book is filled with supposed examples of white fragility that are in fact Kafka traps. DiAngelo, as she accounts what she does in her in real life diversity trainings, and in her writings, actually calls people racist. When people object, she labels the objections white fragility. Thus, disagreeing with the author's arguments are proof of the author's arguments. Kafka traps are false and illogical arguments that involve circular reasoning. They are usually accompanied, as they are here,  by ad hominem attacks on people who object to accusations and personal attacks.  Thus, I think that a major basis of this book is based on an invalid concept. 

There is something very serious that this author and other advocates of a set of theories that many are calling postmodernism are doing . Dozens of times in this book DiAngelo makes all - encompassing statements about white people and black people. Just one example, 

white people raised in Western society are conditioned into a white supremacist worldview because it is the bedrock of our society and its institutions .

DiAngelo even contends that there are no exceptions to many of her generalizations. Civil society has struggled long and hard to reach a state where generalizations based on race, ethnicity and religion  are unacceptable in the public discourse.  In reputable articles, opinion pieces, general discourse in both the mainstream media and elsewhere, this kind of generalization has been absolutely unacceptable.  Now, both DiAngelo and other people who fall under the umbrella of postmodernist thinkers are routinely doing this. There are so many problems with this. If it is logical and ethical to generalize about race and ethnicity then it would stand to reason that it is acceptable to generalize negatively about blacks or Asians or Latinos or Jews or any religion or ethnic group. This is in fact what white supremacists do. I must also mention that this kind of generalization has also been creeping into mainstream right wing discourse as of late. Donald Trump has made all sorts of awful statements. In my opinion, the clearest example occurred when he said that Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not fairly judge his case because Curiel is a Mexican American. I bring up Trump's statements to highlight how this vital norm is being eroded from several directions.

I understand that in private life some people generalize about these things all the time. Hopefully that tendency is also on the wane. However, the benefits gained by eliminating this kind if stuff from public conversations is of great value. 

The author justifies all this as follows, 

As a sociologist, I am quite comfortable generalizing; social life is patterned and predictable in measurable ways. But I understand that my generalizations may cause some defensiveness for the white people about whom I am generalizing, given how cherished the ideology of individualism is in our culture.

DiAngelo’s excuse that she is a sociologist and that there are patterns to social life falls flat and is trite. These generalizations are unethical, whether the person making them is a sociologist or a President or member of any other profession. In technical terms the author is engaging in race essentialism, that is, assigning immutable psychological characteristics to people based upon race. Doing so risks tearing down a vital norm that decent and ethical people have fought for. 

As the above quotation also indicates, DiAngelo is critical of what she calls individualism and argues that one’s racial identity trumps any supposed distinctiveness. She argues that socialization, at least in the developed world, is so strong, that it overwhelms any individual stances on these issues. Once again, this flies in the face of the reality of human nature. Throughout history and across every society that has ever existed, individuals have asserted themselves on every issue imaginable and bucked their societies.  Of course, culture matters, but individualism always comes into play. 

At multiple points of the book. The author cites examples of white people contending that they are not racist and attempts to refute their arguments. The problem here is that this is framed with situations where the author has actually labeled people as racist. The author attacks individuals and their arguments because they cannot prove that they are not racist. However, it is impossible to refute such an all-encompassing negative such as an accusation of racism.  It is akin to demanding that someone prove that they never stole anything in their life. It cannot be done. 

Another pillar of reason that DiAngelo goes after is the ability of anyone to be really objective and unbiased. Once again, she argues that socialization on the issue of race makes this impossible. This is a common postmodernist argument, that only certain people, depending upon their race and ethnicity are capable of knowing the truth,

She writes.

I came to see that the way that we [white people] are taught to define racism makes it virtually imposable for a white person to understand it

Bias is always something to look out for. However, to say that the truth is impossible to understand based upon one’s race, is counter to the basic rules of reason. Logic, reason and the ability to move beyond bias is possible. In fact, the ability to move beyond bias is the basis of  science, law and  every  bit of social progress that the world has seen going back centuries. 

Critical race theorists often argue that one cannot be racist towards white people. The reason that is given for this contention is that there is a sociological definition of racism that is not the common definition. The sociological, critical race theory based definition of racism states that racism always involves power and oppression. Furthermore, these theories postulate, white people always have power so one cannot be racist toward whites. Many postmodernists that I have encountered contend that theirs is the only definition. Furthermore, I have interacted  with  several people who argued that not accepting this modified definition of racism is in itself racism.  Surprisingly, DiAngelo is somewhat moderate on this issue and at least recognizes that both definitions might apply depending on one’s perspective. 

In regards to the issue of privilege, DiAngelo goes beyond the typical popular usage of the word  and actually argues that privilege as something that white people actively promote,

Viewing privilege as something that white people are just handed obscures the systematic dimensions of racism that must be actively and passively, consciously and unconsciously, maintained.

I have written before how I do not agree with the way that the modern left often uses the word privilege. I tend to object to the concept of privilege and almost all the ways that it is being used as late. My objections are numerous and somewhat complex and would take an entirely seperate post to explain. Perhaps I will delve into this at another time. 

A concept that flies in the face of both decency and reason been pushed by postmodernist thinkers as of late is the concept of “white women’s’ tears.“ There is an entire chapter of this book dedicated to it. The idea here is that when white women cry, it commonly  promotes racism. The argument is that there has been a terrible history in America of black men being falsely accused of rape and subsequently murdered, often by lynch mobs. Furthermore, the author contends that white women use tears to deflect from situations when they have been justifiably accused of racism. DiAngelo goes further and contends that even when white women express genuine sadness and cry when they are made aware of racism and violence, that it distracts from the actual oppression that black people face. The author writes, 

White women’s tears in cross - racial interactions are problematic for several reasons connected to how they impact others . For example , there is a long historical backdrop of black men being tortured and murdered because of a white woman’s distress , and we white women bring these histories with us . Our tears trigger the terrorism of this history , particularly for African Americans .

And later, 

For people of color , our tears demonstrate our racial insulation and privilege .

Even later, the author is actually critical of black men who attempt to comfort white women who happen to cry,

Yet coming to the rescue of a white woman also drives a wedge between men and women of color .

There was a time in American history where black men were lynched on a regular basis based upon false accusations of sexual assault. This was monstrous. However, tying this to white women crying even when it is in sympathetic response to racism is ludicrous and threatens to make a mockery of the real crimes and real racism.  The contention that when black men show kindness to white women it drives a wedge between black women and black men is illogical and smacks of a terrible and racial  division between human beings. These arguments show a lack of humanity in DiAngelo and others who perpetuate these concepts. I have seen Twitter mobs taunt several women who they targeted with this white women’s tears nonsense. 

DiAngelo also makes other contentions that are based upon critical race theory that I disagree with. She argues for what is referred to as blank slatism, that discrimination is a zero - sum game that involves white people giving up privileges. I wrote about my objections to these arguments in my post on Small Great Things as well as when I wrote about postmodernism and race here.

I believe that the concepts that DiAngelo is pushing have done harm. The obsession with white men has led some on the far left to side against third world human rights supporters because the oppression that they fight is not propagated by white men. There has been a rash of false accusations and mobbing on both college campuses and elsewhere against people falsely accused of racism. My post on Russel Blackford's The Tyranny of Opinion covered several of these mobbing episodes. That post is here.

I have been very negative  about this book. I have always been open to ideas that I disagree with, even when those ideas were off the wall and radical. However, like many other postmodernists, DiAngelo takes her arguments in directions that are extremely dubious. Her generalizations about both white and black people are ethically questionable. Her use and application of term “white women’s tears" is particularly odious and demeaning to both white and black people.  As noted above the work is also filled with Kafka traps, ad hominem attacks and other bad faith tactics. I have previously written about books by Andrea Dworkin, Chandra Mohanty, Ania Loomba and others that presented ideas that I disagreed strongly. However, none of those writers generalized about entire groups or presented such bad faith arguments. The ideas in this book are also not off the wall or obscure. As mentioned above, this book is a best seller and these ideas are very popular in many areas of academia and social media and are being incorporated in various diversity and bias trainings.

Racism and bias are no joke. These are gravely serious issues. Likewise, subtle racism and bias is a subject worth talking about. This book and other postmodernist expressions threaten to diminish the seriousness of these issues and are harmful in other ways. This sort  of approach runs counter to multiple values that have driven positive change.   No human rights campaign in history has ever been based upon this kind of obsession with so called privileged groups or generalizing and stereotyping to the degree that is done here. Nor  were they based upon rhetorical and logical tricks. Instead, successful human rights campaigns have focused upon universal principles  such as logic, empathy,  equality, freedom and tolerance. 

I strongly disagree with  the ideas in this book as well as  in the methods that they are argued. However, there are reasons to read it. Critical race theory has become popular in some important quarters as of late. At least in the short term, this work has become very influential and very popular. Whether one agrees, disagrees or has mixed feelings about with the ideas in this book, I think that it important to understand them.

Some Books on Racism

I will be  posting about pair of books that center upon racism in America. Because the books involve hot button social issues, and the stories behind me reading seem noteworthy, I wanted to put up an introductory post so as not to distract from commentary on the actual books. 

For the last couple of months, I had been planning on reading Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The reason that I chose to read this book is that the work has influenced many people that I encounter on social media as well as articles, blogs and other commentary that I read. I will add that I usually find myself in disagreement with these folks. Obviously, this book gets to the heart of various contentious issues. It is at the center of the so - called culture war. From what I understood about this book, it strongly espoused what myself and others have been calling postmodernism or some variation on the term.  This particular set of principles, though not really new, seems to be gaining in popularity as of late. This is beside the fact that its principles are in direct conflict with a host of other belief systems. 

Though it did not really start out as such, what I am calling postmodernism, at least in terms of current social debates, involve classifying every single individual into one of two categories. Those categories are “privileged” or “marginalized”. According to what is coming from this belief system, almost everything in the world is based on power relationships with the privileged holding all of the power. When a group is considered privileged the basic rules of avoiding stereotypes, hearing diverging viewpoints, freedom of speech are turned off for them. "Whiteness studies” is now something that some academics are studying. "Whiteness" is viewed as a societal ill. I believe that whiteness studies is covered in DiAngelo’s book. Many postmodernists will argue that privileged people should not even have an opinion about issues that affect the marginalized. Therefore, certain groups should not even comment upon oppression, even in the developing world.  Furthermore, privileged people should not create art that depicts marginalized people. For instance, several writers have recently come under heavy criticism for depicting so called marginalized people in their books. The initial group that was most known for its privilege was white men. However, one can now find opinion pieces in major publicans arguing that white women, Jews, gay white men, light skinned African Americans, non – Transgender gay people, among other groups, are privileged. Many, but not all, postmodernists have also called for censorship of ideas and speakers.  Postmodernism also calls into questions the basic principles of science and reason itself. In all fairness I did not know for certain which, if any, of these arguments that D’Angelo supports. This is one reason why I decided to read her book. 

I have read arguments that the current crop of postmodernists have completely misinterpreted and distorted the belief system. I will be eventually reading Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida who helped to found postmodernism at which time I will have more to say about this. Either way, I think that I have described what is coming from the postmodernists at this time. Of course, it is difficult to talk about this without generalizing.   There are many people who agree with certain postmodernist principles without being dedicated postmodernists. A good example is the very popular term “white privilege”. Lots of people use and accept it while rejecting many other tenets of postmodernism. Also, it is important to remember that not everyone who does hold many postmodernist beliefs holds all of them. For instance, I think that many people who adhere to many of these views are against the censorship part. I have also only provided the barest hodgepodge summery above. It is based on what is coming out of late. This belief system also seems to be changing relatively quickly.

In general terms I identify with what I call the humanistic left. I am a liberal in the traditional American sense of the term. I also agree with the tenants of liberalism in the broad and more general sense of the term. Many of my beliefs are in direct  conflict with postmodernism. I believe that both racism and sexism are problems that need to be fought. In fact, combatting these ills is a great and noble endeavor.   However, classifying everyone as "privileged" or "oppressed" is simplistic and often distorts truth. I also believe in freedom of speech, the scientific method, the importance of not stereotyping individuals, that violence and oppression are harmful no matter who perpetuates them, etc. It is vital that we treat individuals equally. The  last trends in postmodernism are in conflict with these values.  “Humanistic left” may sound a bit fancy, but I have found that most people including classical liberals, moderate conservatives, moderate religious folks, people who do not like labels, etc. share similar values.

I will refrain from posting more detailed arguments in this post. I recently posted about several books whose subject involved postcolonialism. At least in part, postcolonialism is a postmodernist belief system (the conglomeration of postmodernist ideologies, such as postcolonialism, intersectionalism, queer theory, critical race studies, etc. is sometimes referred to as "Critical Theory" or “Theory”.)  I expressed my views in those posts. I also posted commentary on Russell Blackford’s The Tyranny of Opinion here. That book delved into some of the excesses of the postmodernist movement in some detail.  I will of course share more opinions when I read DiAngelo’s book and another book that I will mention below. 

On a very related topic, the other book that I will posting about, before DiAngelo’s work, is Small Great Things by Jodi Picoult. I had a disagreement with Jodi Picoult on Twitter over her use of the term “white privilege”. As I hinted above I do not agree the premise of the term or the ways that it is commonly used. She responded to a Tweet that I sent disagreeing with her. We had a Twitter conversation about the issue. I found her to be very polite and she attempted to make her points using reason. While we still did not agree on the use of the term, I found that we agreed on a lot of related topics and I found her to be very moderate. She suggested that I read her Small Great Things to better understand her views.  Thus, I decided to give it a go. 

I try to read everything with an open mind, however,  I went into the reading expecting to mostly disagree with DiAngelo’s book. I expected to find it very interesting. I think that it is important to read things that we disagree with. Though Jodi Picoult’s book is a novel, I suspected that it contained lots of underlying ideas concerning race and similar topics.  From what I had heard, and based on my impression of Jodi Piccoult herself, I expected that I would mostly agree with the direction that she has taken in this book, but I would find that I disagreed with some of her ideas. 

More to come on both of these books and on these issues. 

My Blog editing and posting is a little behind. I wrote the above before I started reading these books but have since delved into both works. Except for spelling and grammar corrections and changes from future tense to past tense I have not changed anything above since I started reading.