If someone other than Robin Diangelo wrote a book saying that some people (which tends to be people who usually aren’t the targets of racist practices) experience discomfort, anger, and hostility during anti-bias trainings because of the cognitive dissonance that arises when a manager describes racism as systemic or structural in the U.S., would that argument be nearly as controversial? Why or why not?
It wasn’t obvious to me at the time, but it’s become clear to me that White Fragility was controversial for reasons that had nothing to do with DiAngelo, and these reasons apply to your parenthetical as well. People objected to the concept of systemic/structural racism as an incontrovertible, non-discussable matter of fact. People felt it was a somewhat warped perspective that conflated past with present, and suggested individual culpability on the basis of race without thorough causal explanations. And then a book came out that said “this stuff is so clearly true that anyone who disagrees is really just extra racist” (and let’s count it as a good thing that most Americans still consider being racist to be immoral). DiAngelo’s detached coldness didn’t help but it wasn’t the root cause. People are equally upset with Kendi, who is quite a warm person.
The CRT backlash was indirectly exacerbated by the concepts in White Fragility and HTBAAR. Kendi says “you’re racist or antiracist, there’s no inbetween.” So lots of whites want to be antiracist! DiAngelo describes so many thoughts and actions as “racist,” well-meaning white people who want to fight racism were left with few steps left to take other than reading books and evangelizing to other white people. Bastardized, psuedo-pop-CRT concepts proliferated on social media, giving white anti-racists a crude, unsubtle toolkit with which to bludgeon their friends, family, coworkers, and students. Many (conservative) white people decided we’d all lost our minds and joined a cult. This is what there is a backlash to.
My two cents, anyway :) Based on my personal experiences over the past year and a half!!
First, Cedrick, I just wanted to say that it is great to see you back writing here. I had missed your thought-provoking posts.
As someone who is currently undergoing six months of "white fragility"-inspired DEI training at my workplace, I have a lot of thoughts about Robin DiAngelo and her theories. But I wanted first to make sure I understand your first question. In particular, are you saying that Robin DiAngelo's book identifies descriptions of racism as systemic or structural as the reason that some people react to anti-bias trainings with discomfort, anger, and hostility? And then are you asking if someone else could deliver that same message without engendering the type of pushback that "White Fragility" is getting?
I ask because I see DiAngelo's theory as going far beyond the claim that some people react with discomfort, anger, and hostility to descriptions of racism as systemic or structural. In particular, my understanding of her argument is that all (or perhaps virtually all) "white" people react to almost any discussion of race with discomfort, anger, and hostility. Then she directs "white" people to approach cross-racial encounters in ways that strike me as condescending infantilization of "people of color." It is those latter two points, along with the race essentialism that permeates DiAngelo's writings, that I (and I think many other progressive-leaning people who accept that systemic racism exists and that we have a moral duty to address it) find so off-base, counterproductive, and offensive about "White Fragility" and other books like it.
I'm not sure if I understand the questions? For the first one, are you asking if DiAngelo was a lightening rod who somehow discredited an otherwise non-controversial and useful observation? And on the second, are you pondering whether actual "white fragility" or the book/concept "White Fragility" juiced the CRT backlash?
It wasn’t obvious to me at the time, but it’s become clear to me that White Fragility was controversial for reasons that had nothing to do with DiAngelo, and these reasons apply to your parenthetical as well. People objected to the concept of systemic/structural racism as an incontrovertible, non-discussable matter of fact. People felt it was a somewhat warped perspective that conflated past with present, and suggested individual culpability on the basis of race without thorough causal explanations. And then a book came out that said “this stuff is so clearly true that anyone who disagrees is really just extra racist” (and let’s count it as a good thing that most Americans still consider being racist to be immoral). DiAngelo’s detached coldness didn’t help but it wasn’t the root cause. People are equally upset with Kendi, who is quite a warm person.
The CRT backlash was indirectly exacerbated by the concepts in White Fragility and HTBAAR. Kendi says “you’re racist or antiracist, there’s no inbetween.” So lots of whites want to be antiracist! DiAngelo describes so many thoughts and actions as “racist,” well-meaning white people who want to fight racism were left with few steps left to take other than reading books and evangelizing to other white people. Bastardized, psuedo-pop-CRT concepts proliferated on social media, giving white anti-racists a crude, unsubtle toolkit with which to bludgeon their friends, family, coworkers, and students. Many (conservative) white people decided we’d all lost our minds and joined a cult. This is what there is a backlash to.
My two cents, anyway :) Based on my personal experiences over the past year and a half!!
First, Cedrick, I just wanted to say that it is great to see you back writing here. I had missed your thought-provoking posts.
As someone who is currently undergoing six months of "white fragility"-inspired DEI training at my workplace, I have a lot of thoughts about Robin DiAngelo and her theories. But I wanted first to make sure I understand your first question. In particular, are you saying that Robin DiAngelo's book identifies descriptions of racism as systemic or structural as the reason that some people react to anti-bias trainings with discomfort, anger, and hostility? And then are you asking if someone else could deliver that same message without engendering the type of pushback that "White Fragility" is getting?
I ask because I see DiAngelo's theory as going far beyond the claim that some people react with discomfort, anger, and hostility to descriptions of racism as systemic or structural. In particular, my understanding of her argument is that all (or perhaps virtually all) "white" people react to almost any discussion of race with discomfort, anger, and hostility. Then she directs "white" people to approach cross-racial encounters in ways that strike me as condescending infantilization of "people of color." It is those latter two points, along with the race essentialism that permeates DiAngelo's writings, that I (and I think many other progressive-leaning people who accept that systemic racism exists and that we have a moral duty to address it) find so off-base, counterproductive, and offensive about "White Fragility" and other books like it.
I'm not sure if I understand the questions? For the first one, are you asking if DiAngelo was a lightening rod who somehow discredited an otherwise non-controversial and useful observation? And on the second, are you pondering whether actual "white fragility" or the book/concept "White Fragility" juiced the CRT backlash?