Social Justice Usage
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018, p. 131.
The term white tears refers to all the ways, both literally and metaphorically, that white fragility manifests itself through white people’s laments over how hard racism is on us. In my work, I consistently encounter these tears in their various forms, and many writers have already provided excellent critiques. … The following example [omitted] illustrates both the frustration that people of color feel with those tears and white women’s sense of entitlement to freely shed them. … I understand that expressing our heartfelt emotions—especially as they relate to racial injustices—is an important progressive value. To repress our feelings seems counterintuitive to being present, compassionate, and supportive. So why would my colleague of color make such a request? In short, white women’s tears have a powerful impact in this setting, effectively reinscribing rather than ameliorating racism.
New Discourses Commentary
Of the many ways that Social Justice as an applied ideology reveals itself to have profound parallels to domestic-style abuse (including child abuse), the doctrine of “tears” (white women’s tears, white girl tears, white tears, male tears) is probably among the most vivid examples. (Immediately, we hasten to note, this entry in this encyclopedia will be billed as a form of “white tears” so as to discredit any attempt to expose or explain their mindset, power, and tactics – see also, hegemony.) White (women’s/girl) tears are Theorized as a particularly “self-indulgent,” “narcissistic,” and “pernicious” manifestation of white fragility, via which white people have emotional responses that prevent them from engaging with the realities of whiteness and their role and complicity in racism (see also, racial stress, white comfort, white complicity; and white equilibrium).
Consistent with the view of the Theory of Social Justice, white (women’s) tears are considered a political act. This places them within the realms of the “politics” of systemic power as described by Theory (that is, identity politics, for the most part – see also, intersectionality, Marxian, Neo-Marxist, New Left, postmodern, and Foucauldian). In this mindset, everything is socially constructed and only relevant to the degree that it is politically meaningful for or against systemic power. As Robin DiAngelo tells us in White Fragility,
Many of us see emotions as naturally occurring. But emotions are political in two key ways. First, our emotions are shaped by our biases and beliefs, our cultural frameworks. … In this way, emotions are not natural; they are the result of the frameworks we are using to make sense of social relations. And of course, social relations are political. Our emotions are also political because they are often externalized; our emotions drive behaviors that impact other people. (White Fragility, p. 132)
Moreover, unlike “male tears” (which are Theorized similarly in feminism and gender studies) or “white tears” more generally, white women’s (or girl) tears are considered even more insidious. This is because it is recognized that they will summon more attention, help, and “recentering” of the white women’s (emotional) needs than any other type, from men (even men of color) specifically because of, as DiAngelo has it, “their conditioning under sexism and patriarchy,” ostensibly to care about and want to protect women. This means that, even if they don’t mean to, women who shed white girl tears are committing a racist act by being too delicate to confront their own complicity in racism and thus putting themselves at the center of concern and interest (see also, racial stamina).
One may note that one of the reasons that white women’s tears are considered so offensive is that “our emotions are shaped by our biases and beliefs, our cultural frameworks.” This comment is very indicative of the mindset behind Social Justice Theory, which is ultimately critical in orientation (see also, critical theory and critical race theory). The worldview of Social Justice is that racism (and other systemic bigotries) is “ordinary and permanent, not aberrational,” that it is participated in by all people, especially white people, as a result of their socialization and positionality, and that it is usually hidden from view for a variety of reasons, both conscious and unconscious, thus in need of unmasking. In this sense, white women’s tears are Theorized to be revelatory of white privilege, white fragility, inability to handle racial stress thus white innocence and white ignorance, and a variety of other concepts that are more conspiratorial and insidious (e.g., white solidarity, the racial contract, white supremacy, and anti-blackness).
It is difficult to see this concept, both in Theory and in application, as anything short of identity-based sadism, justified by the critical mindset and Theoretical developments of activists and, especially, activist scholars (who call themselves educators – see also, critical pedagogy). It is often deployed pre-emptively (as in the example below) as a means of excluding white people, especially women, from discussions about race and then to subsequently blame them for upholding racism.
Related Terms
Anti-blackness; Antiracism; Center; Critical; Critical pedagogy; Critical race Theory; Critical theory; Feminism; Foucauldian; Gender studies; Good white; Hegemony; Identity; Ideology; Implicit bias; Intersectionality; Male tears; Marxian; Mask; Neo-Marxist; New Left; Patriarchy; Position; Postmodern; Privilege; Racial contract; Racial stamina; Racial stress; Racism (systemic); Sexism (systemic); Social construction; Social Justice; Socialization; Systemic power; Theory; White; White comfort; White complicity; White ignorance; White innocence; White equilibrium; White fragility; White solidarity; White supremacy; Whiteness
Additional Examples
Source: Source: DiAngelo, Robin J. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018, pp. 131–134.
Chapter Title: “White Women’s Tears,” in White Fragility, by Robin DiAngelo
The term white tears refers to all the ways, both literally and metaphorically, that white fragility manifests itself through white people’s laments over how hard racism is on us. In my work, I consistently encounter these tears in their various forms, and many writers have already provided excellent critiques. Here, I want to address one manifestation of white tears: those shed by white women in cross-racial settings. The following example illustrates both the frustration that people of color feel with those tears and white women’s sense of entitlement to freely shed them.
When another police shooting of an unarmed black man occurred, my workplace called for an informal lunch gathering of people who wanted to connect and find support. Just before the gathering, a woman of color pulled me aside and told me that she wanted to attend but she was “in no mood for white women’s tears today.” I assured her that I would handle it. As the meeting started, I told my fellow white participants that if they felt moved to tears, they should please leave the room. I would go with them for support, but I asked that they not cry in the mixed group. After the discussion, I spent the next hour explaining to a very outraged white woman why she was asked not to cry in the presence of the people of color. I understand that expressing our heartfelt emotions—especially as they relate to racial injustices—is an important progressive value. To repress our feelings seems counterintuitive to being present, compassionate, and supportive. So why would my colleague of color make such a request? In short, white women’s tears have a powerful impact in this setting, effectively reinscribing rather than ameliorating racism.
Many of us see emotions as naturally occurring. But emotions are political in two key ways. First, our emotions are shaped by our biases and beliefs, our cultural frameworks. For example, if I believe—consciously or unconsciously—that it is normal and appropriate for men to express anger but not women, I will have very different emotional responses to men’s and women’s expressions of anger. I might see a man who expresses anger as competent and in charge and may feel respect for him, while I see a woman who expresses anger as childish and out of control and may feel contempt for her. If I believe that only bad people are racist, I will feel hurt, offended, and shamed when an unaware racist assumption of mine is pointed out. If I instead believe that having racist assumptions is inevitable (but possible to change), I will feel gratitude when an unaware racist assumption is pointed out; now I am aware of and can change that assumption. In this way, emotions are not natural; they are the result of the frameworks we are using to make sense of social relations. And of course, social relations are political. Our emotions are also political because they are often externalized; our emotions drive behaviors that impact other people.
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. A cogent and devastating example is Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old boy who reportedly flirted with a white woman—Carolyn Bryant—in a grocery store in Mississippi in 1955. She reported this alleged flirtation to her husband, Roy Bryant, and a few days later, Roy and his half-brother, J. W. Milam, lynched Till, abducting him from his great-uncle’s home. They beat him to death, mutilated his body, and sank him in the Tallahatchie River. An all-white jury acquitted the men, who later admitted to the murder. On her deathbed, in 2017, Carolyn Bryant recanted this story and admitted that she had lied. The murder of Emmett Till is just one example of the history that informs an oft-repeated warning from my African American colleagues: “When a white woman cries, a black man gets hurt.” Not knowing or being sensitive to this history is another example of white centrality, individualism, and lack of racial humility.
Because of its seeming innocence, well-meaning white women crying in cross-racial interactions is one of the more pernicious enactments of white fragility. The reasons we cry in these interactions vary. Perhaps we were given feedback on our racism. Not understanding that unaware white racism is inevitable, we hear the feedback as a moral judgment, and our feelings are hurt. A classic example occurred in a workshop I was co-leading. A black man who was struggling to express a point referred to himself as stupid. My co-facilitator, a black woman, gently countered that he was not stupid but that society would have him believe that he was. As she was explaining the power of internalized racism, a white woman interrupted with, “What he was trying to say was . . . ” When my co-facilitator pointed out that the white woman had reinforced the racist idea that she could best speak for a black man, the woman erupted in tears. The training came to a complete halt as most of the room rushed to comfort her and angrily accuse the black facilitator of unfairness. (Even though the participants were there to learn how racism works, how dare the facilitator point out an example of how racism works!) Meanwhile, the black man she had spoken for was left alone to watch her receive comfort.
A colleague of color shared an example in which a white woman—new to a racial justice organization—was offered a full-time position as the supervisor of the women of color who had worked there for years and had trained her. When the promotion was announced, the white woman tearfully requested support from the women of color as she embarked on her new learning curve. The new supervisor probably saw her tears as an expression of humility about the limits of her racial knowledge and expected support to follow. The women of color had to deal with the injustice of the promotion, the invalidation of their abilities, and the lack of racial awareness of the white person now in charge of their livelihoods. While trying to manage their own emotional reactions, they were put on the spot; if they did not make some comforting gesture, they risked being viewed as angry and insensitive.
Whether intended or not, when a white woman cries over some aspect of racism, all the attention immediately goes to her, demanding time, energy, and attention from everyone in the room when they should be focused on ameliorating racism. While she is given attention, the people of color are yet again abandoned and/or blamed. As Stacey Patton, an assistant professor of multimedia journalism at Morgan State University’s School of Global Journalism and Communication, states in her critique of white women’s tears, “then comes the waiting for us to comfort and reassure them that they’re not bad people.” Antiracism strategist and facilitator Reagen Price paraphrases an analogy based on the work of critical race scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw. Price says, “Imagine first responders at the scene of an accident rushing to comfort the person whose car struck a pedestrian, while the pedestrian lies bleeding on the street.” In a common but particularly subversive move, racism becomes about white distress, white suffering, and white victimization. White men, of course, are also racially fragile, but I have not seen their fragility manifest itself in cross-racial discussions as actual crying. Their fragility most commonly shows up as varying forms of dominance and intimidation.
…
Source: DiAngelo, Robin J. White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018, p. 135.
Tears that are driven by white guilt are self-indulgent. When we are mired in guilt, we are narcissistic and ineffective; guilt functions as an excuse for inaction. Further, because we so seldom have authentic and sustained cross-racial relationships, our tears do not feel like solidarity to people of color we have not previously supported. Instead, our tears function as impotent reflexes that don’t lead to constructive action. We need to reflect on when we cry and when we don’t, and why. In other words, what does it take to move us? Since many of us have not learned how racism works and our role in it, our tears may come from shock and distress about what we didn’t know or recognize. For people of color, our tears demonstrate our racial insulation and privilege.
Revision date: 2/7/20
13 comments
Quote – Serious question. How much sympathy should we have for the white women who have indulged these race baiters by joining in ‘anti-racist’ groups where this kind of thing happens? – Unquote.
I’m not sure personally on the following grounds. I have a strong feeling that predicaments like these require extreme care with a kind of pre- analysis to the question one is hoping to approach. This is not the same as simply relating to a situation as something that is steeped in ordinary / familiar /predicable logic because the malicious designers of psychosocial warfare/lawfare/fake social justice / of this kind have used a form of logical encryption. Thus i feel its important to grasp the concept of ‘Post Truth’ – I.E. the way this intersection system of rationale based on double bind psychology works. Its all very well for James Lindsay to repeat / repeat / repeat / repeat / THIS IS MARXISM THIS IS MARXISM THIS IS MARXISM. The problem is he never breaks it down into any compounds that help. ‘Thus’ ??
The easiest way to see what these social engineers are doing with post truth is to look at theories of coercive control in the eyes of the oppressor. The truth is that the control phenomenon works precisely the same, wether perpetrating a petty domestic violence issues. or running an entire human holocaust. ‘A’ plans an algorithm that prevents ‘B’ from being able to ‘Win’ Theres never any democracy / justice / ethics.
So – ‘White Fragility <<< although it very carefully conceals its childish build is just this & so was the third reichs attitude to those in their way regardless they translated it to 'every home & everyone in them' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
1 – Notice right away how white fragility is in fact merely a dilemma in communication
2 – the WWW exists & without that the trickery could not exist
3 – The trickery just mentioned is the cultivation if a fake consensus we cannot avert our eyes from. This consensual fake is far more restricted to a relative few paid activists than the illusions caused by the WWW. I.e we are victims of or ability to communicate = see below ( 4 )
4 – White Fragility has a fake consensus powering it along simple as we can technologically mass communicate.
These things are much more of a technocratic ages problem than the marxist style commentaries allow us to understand. Although Marx is useful for understanding the corrupted version of neo marxism harming society Marx himself was Marx – hes wasn't a neo marxist obviously thats impossible. James Lindsay hates religious people & persons ( like Marx ) who he accuses of esoteric religion. Nothing could be more crude or unintelligent that james lindsay whenever he is doing that. I'm no marxist myself but i know this. MARX was far more a version of LINDSAY = questioning authority & holding them to account. Lindsay fails to understand that whenever someone like Marx becomes influential :
1 – Thier work is appropriated
2 – Its re-interpreted
3 – Its transformed into the opposite the authors intention
4 – There are no such translations of James Lindsay as his work would not bother the neo marxists.
Basically Marx would have treated todays neo marxists as the enemy. The establishment will make sure the blind lead the blind.
Advice – understand these issues from the perspective of their actual components. If you see a social algorithm like White Fragility, and can see that its basis is in closing in the boundary conditions ( walls ) – just so that its impossible for its target / victim to survive .. then you know its designer OPPRESSION. As i remarked white fragility in its entirety is an abuse of the democratic / freewill conditions / peace time conditions by which we are supposed to be entitled. WF teaches black people that whites are slaves who are not to be allowed to defend themselves. Then it lets black people psychologically abuse white people under a corrupted psychosocial protection. At no point is this lawful, its still against the law to abuse people like this. However the matter overcomes that obstacle using a fake CONSENSUS that has an inbuilt propaganda making it SEEM as if black on white psych abuse concerning race is legal
It isn't – but this IS a psychological trick. Mass . propaganda sized, but still a basic confidence trick driven by a willing consensus to offend white people.
It suffices it then that in this kind of psychological warfare, having a grasp of the drivers is CRITICAL. All of the information about white fragility & how its been designed to disturb the peace of white people is available on wikipedia. Let the site navigate you into further concept / listings when viewing :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind << for reminders on what offenders do to disable people's sense of human rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_self-evaluations << to view the resultant erosion of self worth ( IGNORE the way WF is attacking a mass & CSE quotes on individuals )
And given the way the term 'cognitive dissonance' is misunderstood by almost everyone online :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
All delusion needs to delude. I.E negative social engineering does not wrk unless every person that believes it has chosen to. Therefore to be engineered to belief that 'all white people are racists' – persons must be manipulated to FEAR those persons. This 'fear' thus manifests as a belief that X is capable of harming Y. Fear emotions are unconscious and therefore the designer of the race baiting has succeeded when masses of people have becoming irrational hateful.
WHITE FRAGILTY IS IRRATIONAL HATE ON AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE. – RIGHT ? It still penetrated that mass one by one the same as anytime the collective of abusers ( at large ) do it one by one. To understand how people are manipulated to COG DiS ( to hate on the demand of the divide & rule strategists we need to understand natural selection because THEY DO. Our perceptual survival systems that run via peripheral vision also block out excess information about the environment. Social engineers are intent on hacking that cognitive gate when they spread malicious propaganda. They want to bypass the rationale mind, and insert irrational feeling ( on fear based rhetoric as the transport – into the deep mind.
Conclusion :
We cannot get through to these white people who are abusing other white people as they carry a psychological contagion.
Postscript :
Quote : – what a bunch of racist tripe. Seems all that people do is try to find new and unique ways to call white people racist – Unquote
True – though we can see due to an obvious explosion in the logic ( white people hating on themselves ) that the cause isn't specific to RACE.
Its specific to Unconscious FEAR & incidentally the designers give that away because the first thing they claimed was that all white peole are racists because ?
Its Implicit Bias !!
No NO – the malicious social engineering responsible wrks by manipulating ALL PEOPLES INTERNAL FEAR // and survival mechanisms. WF causing toxic neurotransmissions to spike FEAR.
Quote – Serious question. How much sympathy should we have for the white women who have indulged these race baiters by joining in ‘anti-racist’ groups where this kind of thing happens? – Unquote.
The book sneaks in a double bind self harming direction insisting we blame ourselves i.e 'interrogate whiteness' < That is not different to when a violent person insists their victim blame themselves for being beaten up. They don'y KNOW why they are self loathing their whiteness, and don't know either that by doing so they might as well listen to those who tell them to play with the traffic.
Makes of all these remarks as you will. White Fragility is nothing more that its a psychological disease that was made in a lab
White people who allow themselves to be persuaded to self interrogate are in effect requesting they be sectioned under postmodernist mental health laws.
” Has anyone ever worked harder or earned more,by the projection of their own racism onto an entire race than DiAngelo. ”
I tend to believe that a social engineering lab actually wrote this book not her – she is just a sneaky front person. Nobody can appear from nowhere & publish a book like that during a normal era of society quite by surprise without anyone in powers knowledge. We already know society isn’t normal anymore & that its full of stunts like this one.
I’d hope not since back to normal would be good. Other than this presumably others have the same fate in store for them soon enough. Isn’t it sickening how many are out of their tiny minds with HATE & love nothing more than being openly anti white racists.
Omg all of you people that are bad to all women who have had hardships not just black or Asian or Islam or Muslim. You better be happy you live in the USA and can be free to do your dumb religion that just makes girls dumb y’all look stupid. You know this is wrong for women. You still do it! Why? Stop this bullshit! Oil will not soon be the root of all evil. Take your capters over.
Serious question. How much sympathy should we have for the white women who have indulged these race baiters by joining in ‘anti-racist’ groups where this kind of thing happens?
Emotions are so much more complicated than just a result of a social framework. They’re so deep in fact, that science still does not understand what they are. But one thing is clear – they absolutely ARE a natural part of a healthy Human life.
I’ve just now became interested in this topic of “White Woman’s Tears” as presented by DiAngilo. I have read White Fragility and it was…shocking to say the least. I felt like there were some good points here and there however, I couldn’t help but to notice the intense white guilt that I sensed coming from Robin. Im bi -racial, caucasian/ Latina, and it seems like people like us are mostly left out of the conversation. I really would appricate any feedback on this. I don;t understand how white people are expected to speak up when it comes to race issues yet get continuously shut down when they do because they are not of – insert race- here, especially when it comes to black discourse. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it always seems like just having a difference in opinion is considered racist. Good discourse requires both sides to speak.
Has anyone ever worked harder or earned more,by the projection of their own racism onto an entire race than DiAngelo.
I’ve just encountered a situation where I know if I object it will be considered a white woman’s tear by woke white women. One of whom has written a book that is best described as a reason to see a therapist not publish a book.
I’ve decided to point out that I won’t attend a church that tells me to sit down and be quiet or anything else where my gender would be used to tell me to sit down and be quiet. Women have fought to hard to be on equal footing. My intention is not to have them tell me I need to only say what they approve I say or sit down in the corner because of my gender and my race. I thought it was an achievement to be where I am. There are others who will tell me privately that they agree and then stay silent. I’ve fought the fight about as long as I can. Now I’m at the point where they can “go woke and go broke” and hope they learn a lesson.
This is about the most racist pile of crap I have read in a while. Judging by the words used, is proof the educational system has indoctrinated rather than educate our young. If you replaced white with black, this would be flagged as a hate crime and racist. It is the minds like this that are cause for the divide we now see ourselves in. Coming from a proud black heritage, I am sick and tired of this utter BS that it is. Hateful, divisive and based on critical race theory.
Perhaps rather stringing together this, what at best can be described as verbal diarrhea, from what seems to be from the world of socialistic academia, the writer pulls their head out of the a$$ and quits school, goes far away to an island somewhere, and leaves the rest of us harmonious people alone, or least STFU!
Deangelo is inserting herself where she doesn’t belong. “If you white ladies are going to cry, you must leave the room. And I’ll be there to support you.” The black woman is an adult who can either choose to congregate in a room with people she thinks are likely to upset her, or she can leave and find her own support group or whatever else she thinks will help her. She could have chosen to stay in the mixed group, and if she saw “white tears,” she could tell the crying white woman that she found her tears disingenuous and explain why, and the white woman could absorb it or have a conversation with her. There are many ways that this situation could have played out. But Jennifer got overly involved and acted like she needed to save the woman. I think it’s presumptuous of Jennifer to have acted as if she needed to handle the situation FOR the black woman.
The man who said he felt stupid as he was having a hard time expressing himself with words, and the 2 women started to go back-and-forth about what he actually meant … all they had to do is stop arguing and ask the man what he meant by it. I guess we’ll never know what he actually meant.
So when I lost a loved one and periodically have bursts of tears—usually when I’m alone— it’s a political act? It’s racist? What is this”white privilege” when everyone in the world are allowed to grieve in peace—except white people?
“…..our emotions are shaped by our biases and beliefs, our cultural frameworks. … In this way, emotions are not natural; they are the result of the frameworks we are using to make sense of social relations”
Mmhh.. … I wonder how she explains non-humans having emotions, given that many emotion-capable species (supposedly) do not posess either “beliefs”, “biases” or “cultural frameworks” and never will throughout their entire lives yet still display emotional behaviour? Just ask any pet owner.
To me this indicates that emotions do exist independently of those things, and can indeed be “naturally occuring” in the sense discussed. In non-humans emotions are an advanced stage of Darwinian processes. We are firmly told that dogs do not posess culture, so how does Robin explian why my dog can be enthusiastic at one time and dejected at another (both emotional responses)?
It also highlights a major shortcoming of studying “humanities” which is the mistake of studying humans in simplistic isolation. It’s an excellent way of losing direction (just what we are seeing today) due to having no external references to keep conclusions grounded by understanding human behaviour within a larger, evolutionary context.
Are you deliberately excluding the relevance of non-human influence on objective human studies Robin?
I smell human privilege at work here. Time for a revised (2nd) edition.
what a bunch of racist tripe. Seems all tyhat people do is try to find new and unique ways to call white people racist.