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.

Small Great Things by Jodi Picoult

This post contains some spoilers.

Small Great Things by Jodi Picoult is an exploration of race, bias and power in America. In this work the author attempts to paint a picture of a world based upon critical race theory in a way that is not just unconvincing but that in my opinion damages the entire book.  The strong part of this novel is its characters which are often portrayed in a powerful and complex ways. The book also has an interesting plot that is at times very affecting. This novel was first published in 2016. I recounted the story of why I choose to read it here.  

Ruth Jefferson is at the center of the story. She is an African - American maternity nurse who works in a Connecticut hospital.  Brittany and Turk Bauer are parents of a newborn, Davis Bauer, who is in Ruth’s care. The Baurs are hardcore, violent, white supremists. They bully the hospital into removing Ruth from the case because of her race. When the baby stops breathing, Ruth attempts to save him despite her orders. Unfortunately, the child dies and Ruth is unfairly charged with murder. Kennedy McQuarrie is her public defender attorney. The story is told in first person from three alternating points of view between Ruth, Kennedy and Turk.

Eventually Ruth goes in trial. Much of the narrative involves a learning curve for the characters. During the trial Ruth and Kennedy start off believing that most white people are not racist and that racism is a problem with a limited number of individuals. In the end, they both come to the realization that, at least in the world of this book, that racism is pervasive in society. Turk, who is shown to be a brutal thug throughout most of the book, eventually finds redemption. 

It is important to understand some of the tenets of critical race theory in order to comprehend much of what is underlying this novel. As of late I have been reading about this and related  ideologies and engaging in some discussions with strong adherents to the theory.  I cannot help to recognize how these beliefs are infused into this story 

The themes are fairly obvious, of course the white supremacy is terrible and it is a violent and hateful ideology. However, more importantly, though they do not initially believe it, Ruth and Kennedy both come to the conclusion that most whites are subtly racist. This soft racism is present everywhere and represents power.  Eventually Kennedy admits that most white people benefit from racism and that most whites are in some way racist. A key theme is that while most white people are not hardcore white supremists, their soft racism hold up white supremacy. As I understand it, these are key tenets of critical race theory. 

  

I am fine with books that advocate for particular ideologies, even if I disagree with those ideologies. What is a serious flaw in this book is that the author fashions a world in order to fit the theory. Most of the poor and lower middle-class whites are white supremists. Most of the upper and middle - class whites, including the sympathetic ones, are racially insensitive beyond all sense of credibility. The white people in this book cannot get through a single conversation with a person of color without making a racially charged comment. The author is attempting to illustrate subtle racism and soft bigotry.  The problem is that there is nothing subtle about the clueless white people in this book.  Obviously, there are racially insensitive folks out there.  However, every single white person in this book acts like they have no idea how to talk to fellow human beings who happen to be people of color. At one point, Kennedy is trying to reassure Ruth,

“I know. Listen, I’m going to do my best. I have a lot of experience in cases with people like you.” [Ruth] That mask freezes her features again. “People like me?”

  

Later a hospital administrator describes Ruth as “uppity”

For those not familiar with the American culture, these are obvious, racially insensitive gaffes that few people would use in conversation. The word “uppity” was a way to disparage African Americans who stood up for their rights that went out of style in the 1970s. I emphasize, there are undoubtedly white people who speak like this, but almost every single interaction between a white person and an African American in this book includes such dialogue. 

There are other unrealistic elements that are used to build the world within this book.  Just to name a few: the hospital risk management attorney is so incompetent that she actually advises Turk to sue Ruth, who is a hospital employee for his son’s death; The police conduct an investigation into the death of the infant without even trying to question Ruth.  Ruth’s medical license is arbitrarily revoked without a hearing. Turk is able to easily manipulate the police and the press and no one besides Ruth really questions his background or motives. 

This book is based upon a real - life incident. In reality, the African – American nurse was taken off of a case of caring for an infant because the white supremacist parents’ insistence. The baby did not have medical complications, did not die, and there were no charges filed against the nurse.  The nurse sued the hospital for discrimination and won her suit. I think that it is significant that the plot of this book took an actual incident, that did indeed involve racism, and changed it to fit with the framework of a particular belief system based upon implausible events.

Outrageous and bizarre things do happen in real life.  However, this string of implausible events mars the entire book. Realism is important in a novel like this. All these unlikely events help to build a world where everything conspires to oppress black people. The author is trying to show how racism and bias operate. Unfortunately, this cartoon - like world created here is no template for reality. This lack of plausibility destroys the novel’s themes, took out any suspense in the plot and hurt the characters. Once again, this version of the world is consistent with critical race theory which postulates that all structures in society are set up to oppress people of color.

Critical race theorists also argue that many, or all, social interactions promote oppression of the marginalized by the privileged. We see this in almost every interaction between a white person and a black person in this book. The theory labels these interactions “microaggressions”. Furthermore, according to theory, language is a major source of oppression, with the privileged unable to see or understand the oppression of the marginalized.  Thus, the importance to these conversations as part of the narrative. Another aspect of the theory is that many marginalized people are unable to see their oppression because they have been socialized to accept such. Hence, Ruth’s “awakening” and realization that prejudice has been around her all along as well as the nature of white people. The belief system postulates that almost everything that happens in society is a means to perpetuate oppression. Thus, the construction of the implausible reality in this book. Another aspect of various postmodern belief - systems such as critical race theory is that oppression, racism and bias is a zero - sum game. Thus, the privileged will need to give things up and lose some sort of benefit in order for real equality to happen. At one - point Ruth is talking to Kennedy and says,

white people would have to buy into being equal. Who’d choose to dismantle the system that makes them special?

Kennedy reacts,

” Heat floods my neck. Is she talking about me? Is she suggesting that the reason I won’t buck the system is because I, personally, have something to lose?

In the later part of the story the concept of white people needing to give up benefits for equality to be realized is mentioned several times. 

Finally, critical race theory leans heavily on what is being popularly called blank slatism. That is the idea that humans are entirely the product of culture and that there is no such thing as human nature. 

At one point Ruth is observing newborn babies and muses,

Babies are such blank slates. They don’t come into this world with the assumptions their parents have made, or the promises their church will give, or the ability to sort people into groups they like and don’t like….I wonder how long it takes before the polish given by nature gets worn off by nurture.

I strongly believe that racism and bias aimed at people of color is real. Racism is outrageous and unfair, deserves condemnation and drives justifiable anger. Furthermore, I believe that racism is one of the root causes of multiple social problems that disproportionally affect people of color. This is a terrible ill that society needs to combat.  It sometimes involves subtlety and complexity.  It is valid and important to examine it in fiction. This book does not do that, instead it creates a world to fit theory. I fear that folks who are skeptical about racism will read this book and become more skeptical. There are indeed many instances in this work of realistic racism and rings true. However, this realism is overwhelmed by the all the rest.

I am not unaware of potential arguments against my point about the reality described in this book.  I talked and read opinion pieces number of adherents of critical race theory and related  postmodernist ideas. A pure postmodernist argument would be that I am a white person and that I should have nothing to say about racism. This argument does not even bring up the issue of bias. Things like bias are beside the point, only members of certain races, genders and sexual preferences are capable of knowing the truth and are capable of discussing certain subjects. I have talked to read fair number of people who argue as such. 

A more coherent argument might say that as white man I am biased and cannot evaluate these issues fairly.  My response to this is that my arguments are based on reason. One must apply a little common sense as well as logic to this. If white people talked and acted the way they do in this book on a nearly universal scale one would have to be near delusional not to see it. In my workplace if anyone spoke like white people do in this book they would be told that they must stop.  If they continued they would be fired. The book implies that both white people and people of color who have not yet become “woke “and are blind to what is going on. This is an ad hominem argument that basically says if one does not agree with critical race theory, even if one is a Person of Color, that one is deluded. I could make such an argument to support almost any worldview no matter how preposterous. 

I am also a diversity facilitator. Diversity programs have gotten a bad name in some quarters, perhaps because some of them now seem to be pushing some controversial ideologies.  I must note that the program that I am involved in is about celebrating diversity and not stereotyping people. It is also about letting everyone, with all types of opinions, express their views on these issues such as racism, sexism, bias, discrimination, etc. Our program is based upon rationality and ethics. As a facilitator I listen to the views of scores of People of Color every year. I have certainly taken these views into consideration when formulating my own opinions. I find that I my views are in line with the majority of people, of all backgrounds, that I have listened to. 

                                                       

As for critical race theory itself. I have major disagreements with it. There is no rational basis to contend that all white people are racist or that society is a network of oppression. This contention is partially based upon implicit bias studies, which have been more or less refuted in the past few years. 

I especially disagree with the belief that white people will be giving something up in order to alleviate racism. That is not how the world works. A society with less bigotry and bias benefits everyone. I also think that blank slatism is a denial of obvious aspects of human nature.  So much of what we do, good and bad, comes from our genes. I will have more to say about all this when I post about Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. 

Despite my objections I want to note some very positive things about this book. Ruth, Kennedy, (despite her tendency to say idiotic things when talking to People of Color) and Turk are very complex.  The portrayal of Turk is near brilliant. His views and actions are shown to be monstrous. At the same time he is humanized as he is shown to love his family, is shown to be intelligent and shown to have had a bad childhood. I believe that his transformation is based upon interviews with real ex – white supremacists that Jodi Picoult engaged in. It is a believable change.

Jodi Picoult also inserts complexity into a lot of aspects of the story. Sometimes very biased characters often show surprising insight and humanity. Similarly, the African American prosecutor who leads the case against Ruth is shown to be bigoted towards African Americans who have light skin. The book is filled with such interesting nuance. I also found that Jodo Picoult’s portrayal of trauma and pain to be very effective and moving. There are several passages about parents who lose newborns that are heartbreaking.

I wrote in my introductory post that I expected to agree with this book’s main propositions more then I ended up doing.  I thought that the ideas here would be a little closer to traditional liberal and anti – racist ideas and less towards critical race theory. I generally will not dislike a book whose ideas that I disagree with. However, the distorted view of reality presented here a fatal flaw. It gets in the way of so much. With that, anyone who wishes to understand how postmodernism and critical race theory can be applied to viewing the world would be interested in this book. I think that it is a good way to understand these belief systems without actually reading theory. I found just reading about a world where all these ideas were bouncing around to be interesting. Whether one loves these ideas or hates them they seem to be gaining in popularity. It is not a bad idea to be familiar with them either way. 

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. 

Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon

As I have written previously, I have decided to read a few books on the subject of colonialism. To start, I have decided to read a few books that are considered important to the belief systems known as Postcolonial theory.  Written in 1952, Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon is one such book. This was originally written in French. I read the Charles Lam Markmann translation. 

Fanon was a native of Martinique, which was a French Colony. During World War II, he joined the Free French forces and fought in combat against Axis forces in both Africa and Europe. Fanon was wounded, and he was decorated by the postwar French government for his service. Later, he became both a psychiatrist and a philosopher. His background had a great effect upon his ideas. 

This work is a philosophical condemnation of racism and colonialism.  It is also Fanon’s analysis of the psychology and sociology behind racism and colonialism. He examines both the perpetrators and the targets of racism here. 

This work is written in an unusual way. At times, the prose reads like a conventional essay. At other times it lapses into a stream of consciousness and seems almost poetic. This was a translated work so it is difficult for me to tell for sure, but Fanon’s prose seems powerful as well as sincere. The author includes a fair amount of literary analysis, and the text is heavy with quotes from novels, philosophical works and poetry. Fanon quotes thinkers and authors as diverse as postcolonial theorist and poet Aimé Césaire to Sigmund Freud to Georg Hegel.

Fanon first describes the terrible and ubiquitous racism that he and other black people have experienced throughout the world. He next tries to formulate a psychological and cultural theory that explains both those who hold racist views as well as those who are targeted by them. He believes that the concept of “black” had become ingrained in the psyches of all people of all races.  This image was synonymous with all the racist stereotypes attributed to black people. He writes a lot about how culture has placed the concept of “blackness” and black people as “the other.” Thus, “black” had come to mean uncivilized, stupid, violent, lazy etc. Black people themselves had internalized these views. 

Fanon writes,

White civilization and European culture have forced an existential deviation on the Negro. I shall demonstrate elsewhere that what is often called the black soul is a white man’s artifact.

Furthermore, the concept of whiteness had come to mean civilization, intelligence, nobility in the psyches of most people of all races. 

As a result, most black people throughout the world had developed an inferiority complex. In addition, most black people identified more with the image of “whiteness” than of “blackness.”

Fanon goes on to say,

There is no help for it: I am a white man. For unconsciously I distrust what is black in me, that is, the whole of my being.

Ultimately Fanon calls for the world to move past racism and the concepts of “whiteness” and “blackness,”

He writes,

To us, the man who adores the Negro is as “sick” as the man who abominates him. Conversely, the black man who wants to turn his race white is as miserable as he who preaches hatred for the whites. In the absolute, the black is no more to be loved than the Czech, and truly what is to be done is to set man free.

Fanon was a psychologist. He used the theories behind psychoanalysis to further formulate his own theory. He develops something of a psychological profile for black men, black women, white men and white women.  He draws heavily on such theorists as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Thus, the author finds that racism and its effects are akin to psychological illnesses. In the end, Fanon admits that he does not have all the answers but advocates for a world where the concept of whiteness and blackness are eliminated. Along the way, Fanon suggests that something similar, but not identical, goes on with all oppressed and colonialized peoples. He draws both parallels and contrasts between racism aimed at black people and antisemitism.  He also mentions that he believes Marxism is one way to bring about what I would call a colorblind world. 

I think that Fanon’s description of racism throughout the world is hard hitting and sometimes infuriating.  Of course, the world has changed since this book was written. That is important. It is also significant, as racism and oppression are still with us. His call for the world to move beyond racism is, of course, spot on. 

As for Fanon’s psychological theories, I think that this is a bit of a mixed bag. His description of racism and how its targets are made to seem like “the other” seems to be a true reflection of reality. I think that this process can be applied to any group that is the target of bigotry and oppression anywhere in the world. Without a doubt, some oppressed people develop an inferiority complex. Yet, I am not sure that this inferiority complex was as universal as Fanon portrayed it to be, even in in 1952. 

Fanon does a lot of generalizing about black people and white people as well as about men and women. Perhaps this is par for the course for the time this is written. However, in my opinion, such generalizations are not a way to get to the truth. I also find many of the psychanalyst-related theories, especially those that relate to Freud, unscientific and unsubstantiated. Once again, such theories were all the rage when this was written.  Nevertheless, I found this part of Fanon’s reasoning lacking. Finally, I disagree with Fanon’s advocacy of Marxism. 

Based upon what I have read online, this book is highly esteemed in many circles.  It had, and still has, a great influence upon post-colonialist thinking. For this reason alone, it is important. Fanon’s writing is also unique and distinctive. It is also an eloquent and powerful indictment of racism, stereotyping and “othering” as well as being a powerful call for equality. I found the psychological theories, which are the basis of the book, to be questionable however. With that, I recommend this for those interested in these subjects. 

My commentary of Colonialism/Postcolonialism by Ania Loomba is here.