White Fragility Chapter 5

Chapter 5 today of White Fragility.

Previous Posts
Introduction
Chapter 1: Challenges of Talking Race
Chapter 2: Definitions--Racism and White Supremacy
Chapter 3: Racism after the Civil Rights Movement
Chapter 4: How Does Race Shape the Lives of White People?

Chapter 5: The Good/Bad Binary
1. I was not offended by this chapter, and I don't think it's appropriate that so many apparently have been. I would almost suggest that those who get offended are proving her point.

Her basic point is that "to suggest that I am racist is to deliver a deep moral blow--a kind of character assassination" (72). For this reason, it "makes it nearly impossible to talk to white people about racism." This rings true to my personal experience. I do not want anyone to find a trace of any racism in me. It has been deeply demoralizing to me when I have seen evidence of racism in myself. I get it. This rings true to my experience.

She tells a story about a training she once did with people like me, people who are eager to see the advancement of equity on issues of race. A woman in the group tells a story. When she tells the words of an African-American in the story, she changes her accent to something that clearly means to depict a black person talking and does so in a way that is unflattering. Imitation of accent often reveals racial socialization, especially when someone is trying to be funny.

DiAngelo then has to decide. Does she point it out? Does she let it slide? Obviously she has to point it out. That's why she's there. She points it out. The person becomes very defensive, ends up leaving the seminar.

I didn't pick up a tone here. I get it. All I pick up in this chapter is sincerity. That doesn't mean she's right on everything. To me it does mean the reaction to her isn't fair.

2. She believes that we find ourselves in this situation because we see racism as an either/or. Either you're 100% racist or you're 0%. To be racist is for you to be evil. And we want to be good. She calls this a "good/bad binary."

She has been strongly criticized for implying that all white people are racist. By the way, she hasn't exactly said that yet (the closest was on p.13). But she is not saying all white people are evil. It is ironic how so many of the responses to this book I've seen (most by people who haven't read the book) play right into her conclusions. The reaction to Ed Stetzer's tweet, the comments I've read all over Facebook are perfect demonstrations of what she is calling white fragility. They're making her point.

And you've seen my bingo card. I had someone contact me telling me that they got a bingo yesterday. People don't like their subconscious to be seen by others before they see it themselves. It makes us feel like we are stupid, that we are not in control of ourselves, that we don't know as much as we like to think we know. I don't like it myself at all. It makes me feel vulnerable for other people to know me better than myself.

So her point is not that white people are evil, which is the way people are taking the book. In fact, that is exactly the opposite of the point of this chapter. Her goal is to create an environment where there isn't a good/bad dichotomy on race. Her tactic is to say that, if all white people have elements of a racial socialization inside, then we can begin to identify it and begin to progress. Otherwise it will just stay buried and continue to cause problems for relationships and society.

Perhaps it will help if we start off with a milder claim. A whole lot of us who are white have traces of America's racist past and racial socialization with us in the present, even in those of us who are committed to equity. It is likely that we are not entirely aware of all those traces. If we are truly committed to justice and equity, we will seek to bring those traces to the light, even though it may be painful and embarrassing at times.

3. She gives her own bingo card in the second part of the chapter. These are defensive comments meant to acquit us of any guilt in relation to race. She puts these sorts of responses into two categories--responses that affirm color-blindness and responses that value diversity. An example of the first might be something like, "Focusing on race is what divides us" or "I don't care if you are pink, purple, or polka dotted." An example of the second might be "I was in the military" or "I have people of color in my family."

The key, she says, is to ask what these comments are doing. She would say that they aim to exempt a person from any responsibility or participation in the problem (78). Now here is where some would say she puts all white people in a double bind. If you say nothing, you're accepting your inner racist. If you push-back, you're just demonstrating your inner racist. It's almost set up to where her basic framework is non-falsifiable.

It reminds me a little about debates over whether Christians can keep from sinning. DiAngelo in effect is saying that we sin every day in word, thought, and deed. She would say we may as well admit it or we'll start denying the sins we have. But she does see a spectrum of sinning. Some sins are worse than others.

4. She ends the chapter by going into more detail with some of what she considers statements of denial.

a. "I was taught to treat everyone the same.
She says it is impossible not to judge. I do think she slides from "judge" in the sense of "make judgments" and "judge" in the sense of "skew judgment in a racist way." There is a difference between "no one is objective" and "no one is objective in a racist direction." Nevertheless, she rightly asks us to ask ourselves whether there could be ways in which we unintentionally do not treat everyone the same. She is probably right that sometimes even those of us who are committed to equity let inequity slip through.

b. "I marched in the sixties."
I keep thinking of that Stuart Smalley SNL sketch where Stuart tells Michael Jordan, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt." In the sketch, Jordan was telling Smalley that he doesn't get nervous before a basketball game.

However, I agree with her that a person who was committed to civil rights can still be racist in a more subtle way. For example, a protester could have thought of him or herself as a savior coming to the rescue of inferior people. She also is defining racism as something deeper than intolerance of other races.

c. "I was the minority at my school, so I was the one who experienced racism."
Here she returns to the distinction she made in chapter 2. An individual white person can experience prejudice and discrimination from a person of color, but she or he will not experience a society that is biased against them.

d. "My parents were not racist, and they taught me not to be racist."
My comments on possible equivocation in her definitions in "a" apply here. But her claim is that "your parents could not have taught you not to be a racist, and your parents could not have been free of racism themselves" (83). I'm not saying she's wrong. I will continue to ponder.

e. "Children today are so much more open."
She cites a study by Monteiro, de França, and Rodrigues that argues that this is not the case.

f. "Race has nothing to do with it, but..."
Sometimes people will make this disclaimer before going to say something about a person of color. She is arguing that this disclaimer often shows that a person subconsciously knows that what they are about to say is racist. Of course it is possible that this is not always the case.

g. "Focusing on race is what divides us."
I would echo her statement that, "The idea that talking about racism is itself racist has always struck me as odd" (86). It strikes me as odd too. I had someone email me this week saying that to have a discussion with only African-Americans in the conversation was racist segregation. This makes no sense to me because the power dynamic is not "Stay out because we are superior." It is rather, "It is useful for us to have a safe space where those in the discussion have a common experience to process."

Houghton has a meeting space especially set apart for people of color. It's not that whites aren't welcome. I've gone to events in the space. Whites are welcome to come and hang out in the space. But, in a sense, Houghton's whole campus in general is a safe space for whites. The center provides a space where, every once and a while, students of color can talk about their experiences in a broader environment that is not always as hospitable as we whites would like to think it is.

This is something DiAngelo's definition of racism understands. There is a power dynamic to American culture that is decidedly tipped toward whites. If my boss says something, it's completely different than if a student says the same thing to me. So segregation of whites with power in the 1950s is completely different than a minority black affinity group discussing their campus experiences together or having a group Zoom session.