by Anne Bailey
Among the books making the rounds on recent “must-read” book lists is White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo. In her book, DiAngelo aims to teach white people how to identify their own racism, and about the variety of ways they resist acknowledging their racism. Essentially, her premise is that white people are unable to accept being accused of racism, and this “fragility” leads them to emotional denials of being called racists. In order to tear down systemic white supremacy, all white people must acknowledge their own inherent racism.
Rather than have an honest conversation about racism, DiAngelo has invented a new framework for what defines racism and white supremacy. This framework is not only illogical; it’s toxic, shallow, and destructive. Here are 5 reasons the book White Fragility should not be taken seriously.
1. It defies the principle of falsifiability
The principle of falsifiability instructs that for anything to be considered scientific, it must be able to be proven false. For example: We know the statement “all snakes are poisonous” is false because we can observe that some snakes are not poisonous. DiAngelo’s premise insists that when a person denies they are racist, this denial is actually proof of both racism and white fragility. This breaks the principle of falsifiability. It’s pseudo-science, and has no place in any serious and genuine conversation about race.
2. It fails to address individuals
DiAngelo asserts that “whiteness” isn’t just a skin color. It’s an entire system of oppression, and all white people are complicit in perpetuating this system. She also claims that non-white people can uphold white supremacy by participating in white culture or even “acting” white. Her sweeping definitions accuse nearly everyone of racism and white supremacy. This is by design. Her framework leaves no need for individual scrutiny. Addressing people as individuals would leave room for dissent, and dissent would destroy her argument. The more people who are condemned, the more disciples DiAngelo collects. Unless DiAngelo is omniscient, which is highly doubtful, her collective condemnation is flat out false. You simply cannot charge millions of individuals with racism using only their denial of guilt as proof of their guilt.
3. It’s emotionally manipulative
Most people shudder at the mere thought of being accused of racism. It’s an ugly accusation, and most logical people would be (understandably) defensive. Sinister accusations without any concrete evidence are…wrong. But, as we’ve discussed, DiAngelo insists that defensiveness is proof of both fragility and racism. DiAngelo’s pseudo-scientific premise locks well-meaning people into an impossible conundrum. If you refuse to admit you’re racist, that means you are both mentally and emotionally fragile, as well as racist. If you admit you’re racist, at least you aren’t fragile. Admission of racism is clearly the better of the two options, and in the pursuit of righteousness (and to avoid being labeled fragile), that’s what most readers will settle on. Once DiAngelo has successfully manipulated your emotions and forced you to admit you’re a racist (with no evidence), she’s now got you desperately searching for a solution…a way out of your racism.
4. It’s a money-making scheme
White Fragility forces its readers into a corner, convincing them that their racism runs so deep that even the tears of white women are an oppressive political act (this is an entire chapter in the book). Naturally, readers will want a solution to this unpleasant predicament. Where can atonement be found? You guessed it: Your atonement comes from the brain of Robin DiAngelo and the dollars you invest in her wisdom. DiAngelo teaches that you must work toward being antiracist. For a small fee of $10,000, Robin DiAngelo can help you atone for your evils at one of her seminars. These seminars will consist of more accusations of racism and how you are upholding the system of “whiteness” that infects every nook and cranny of society. You can never be fully free of racism, but you can dedicate your life to paying Robin DiAngelo more money to tell you that you’re racist, which somehow helps fight white supremacy.
5. It undermines healthy relationships
By accusing all white people of racism and upholding white supremacy, DiAngelo undermines healthy interracial relationships, and places them under unnecessary stress. Where there was once a normal relationship dynamic, there is now a dynamic of perceived oppression and deep-seated racism. It can also put strain on relationships between friends and family of the same race. When a husband or wife takes DiAngelo’s book as gospel, they will feel justified in accusing their spouse of being racist. When the accused spouse denies it, the other spouse — equipped with DiAngelo’s precepts — will claim they are perpetuating white supremacy and exhibiting white fragility. It is truly despicable to take thriving friendships and even marriages, and wreak havoc by introducing a deceitful moneymaking scheme under the guise of weeding out racism.
DiAngelo’s emotionally and financially manipulative manuscript for “racism education” should be soundly condemned by anyone who truly seeks to end racism and enjoy a unified and peaceable future.
This article was used with permission from Anne Bailey.
18 comments
Excellent, well-thought out. Thank you for publishing this piece.
Racism, like theft, murder and rape, are not things that can ever be ended, but only minimized.
*Disclaimer: I did not read the book.
All your points seem valid and make sense, except for the first one.
DiAngelo claims that all white people are racist. This claim can be falsified.
When she states that a person’s self-reporting of himself as being “not a racist” is proof of his racism, what she is saying is that a person’s self-report is not grounds of falsification. This doesn’t leave out all the others ways in which we can prove someone is not a racist (behavioral, implicit, longitudinal).
Nevertheless, I do agree with you that if you throw a person’s self-report out the window, we have very little left in being able to have sober conversations and trust each other.
You say that, “When she states that a person’s self-reporting of himself as being “not a racist” is proof of his racism, what she is saying is that a person’s self-report is not grounds of falsification.”
Ummmm…the fact that a self-report isn’t ground for falsification does not mean that the accusation is therefore automatically true, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. I’ve seen this frankly destructive ploy before. I’ve seen it in the Drug & Alcohol Treatment community, and it’s rampant in Alcoholics Anonymous. If I say I’m an alcoholic, that proves I’m an alcoholic. If I say I’m *not* an alcoholic, that means I’m “In Denial”, and being “In Denial” proves I’m really an alcoholic. Damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.
It’s a nasty control tactic to keep people conforming to an ideology.
Being a Racist or an Alcoholic is a choice….
Being white, red or black as far as I know is not a choice….
Self reporting is saying : I am white so I am a racist. I have no freedom of will or choice… What kind of idiot in the free world would give up that to appease another whose skin color has already destroyed their on freedom of choice???
A fanatic is a person or group of people that are connsumed with an idea that completely blinds them to Reality!!! Hint to my own self, I must be true, no to no other….
Except that we can test for alcoholism by observing someone’s reaction to consuming alcohol and through MRI scans of alcoholics. There are no reliable tests for DiAngelo’s definition of racism.
The author has an explanation for that, too! Even if you have never been unkind or hurtful to a black person your being white brings with it all the systemic and structural racism from throughout history. You cannot not be racist if you’re white.
Yeah, that’s why I think Robin diAngelo is full of ş…! She mixes up biology with cultural anthropology.
Robin, please pay attention!
Skin colour – biology class.
Racism – anthropology.
And please rewrite that draft…book, whatever you call it!
An important point missing from this “critique” is the admission that racism is a societal structure. Societal structures are embedded in and propagated by each individual that makes up the society. Just because an individual white person – or black person, or brown person – is not actively, aggressively racist does not mean that they are not products of a racist society and therefore hold those preconceptions within themselves.
I think when the word “racism” appears it is easy to jump to its most dramatic and violent expressions, but a discussion of racism grounded in a more tangible reality will instead focus on nearly-invisible biases and assumptions that people are often not aware that they have. Although discussions about race are uncomfortable, I don’t see them as destructive, manipulative, or greedy (as this article suggests).
I also don’t see DiAngelo’s points as direct attacks on specific white people or even as an attack on white people as a group. Rather, I see her points as outlining the structures of racist ideology and how – because whiteness is on the *inside* of the barriers that racism constructs – they are difficult for white people to see, much less to swallow. I understand that the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” argument is near impossible to challenge and therefore frustrating, but I also don’t think that the reality of systemic racism is something that can, intelligently, be refuted or proven as false.
Your assertion that “racism is a societal structure” requires proof because the popular concept of racism is “prejudice or discrimination based on race” (the simplest definition I could find that seems to fit the bill). That is, this customary definition applies to individuals, not society as a whole. If you can’t demonstrate how it necessarily extends to a whole society, and in what sense it extends, then you need a new word, not “racism”, and you need to define it clearly and demonstrate that it actually exists, i.e., that your new concept is actually propagated to each individual as ordinary racism (not by definition, because that would be entail a vacuous assertion, but by studies from the social sciences).
Good luck in this task. Because modern societies are extremely complex, so it is highly unlikely that you will succeed. “institutional racism” is a far easier task because you can actually study particular institutions and show their policies and practices disproportionately affect certain disadvantaged groups. But you seem to be claiming that all institutions and societal structures are racist. Here the black church would be one of many counterexamples.
“but I also don’t think that the reality of systemic racism is something that can, intelligently, be refuted or proven as false.”
Which is the whole point of article, yes? If it isn’t refutable then it probably has no content and is based on circular reasoning.
“products of a racist society”
Societies are immensely complex organisms made up of many individuals, who are also immensely complex organisms.
Therefore, to sum up a society with a single word (racist) which, in this context, has been completely redefined, is an absurd oversimplification that generalizes not only the society as a whole, but the people within it as well.
What is also absurd is the notion that even if people work to become aware of their unconscious biases and resolve them (or explain that their behavior isn’t rooted in racism) they are still irredeemably racist because “society is racist”. And, of course, the very attempt of making an argument that you’re not racist is just proof that you are!
All of this nonsense is why we decided a long time ago that individuals ought to be judged by their own merit/actions, and not lumped into categories so that they can be conveniently labeled with toxic generalizations. Ironically, this is the same enlightenment principle that led to the realization that things like slavery and Jim Crow are immoral.
Why are alleged “allies” of PoC trying to bring back such racial generalizations? Are these generalizations suddenly moral as long as they’re levied at “white people”? Is the goal here actually an attempt at justice? Or racial vengeance?
You say: “but I also don’t think that the reality of systemic racism is something that can, intelligently, be refuted or proven as false.”
This short and beautiful article just did it!
But you know what? The burden of proof is on the one who claims this stupidity. So far, Robin haven’t done a good job!
It’s also antisemitic, which, ironically, is a form of racism. See below analysis.
https://cycleback.wordpress.com/2020/03/01/are-a-far-lefts-anti-racism-theory-and-definition-of-racism-antisemetic/
So now it has all the appearance that the so-called “chance encounter” between American Airlines CEO Doug Parker and a black flight attendant on Southwest was just a well-planned PR setup to flack DiAngelo’s extortion scheme. This whole hustle is just as evil as selling indulgences was, or EST, or Scientology, or any one of thousands of money-raking schemes over the centuries. Can’t people see when they are being manipulated and abused by fraudsters for no better reason than to extort money in the most unethical ways.
Where is Kafka when you need him? This “white fragility” nonsense ,in which you are proven guilty by your defense of yourself,is the essence of tyranny.
Anne,
Thank you for the article. I found it to be straightforward and easy to digest.
I always like to know who the sources I am reading are and I could not find your bio in the contributors section.
Can you please provide a brief professional bio for me?
Thank you.
Next time actually read the book you are reviewing.