A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate consultant Robin DiAngeloâs White Fragility (Amazonâs #1 seller!) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests.
Itâs been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today cheered, âAmerican readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary escapism.â When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon gushed, âI know⌠everyone wants to talk to you right now!â White Fragility has been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isnât a straightforward book about examining oneâs own prejudices. Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?
DiAngelo isnât the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.
If your category is âwhite,â bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (âAnti-blackness is foundational to our very identities⌠Whiteness has always been predicated on blacknessâ), which naturally means âa positive white identity is an impossible goal.â
DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except âstrive to be less white.â To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngeloâs lecturing â what she describes as âleaving the stress-inducing situationâ â is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This academic equivalent of the âordeal by waterâ (if you float, youâre a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.
DiAngeloâs writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwellâs Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like âAMAZING!â and âSAD!â that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.
Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a world where only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. âTo be less white is to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort of white people,â or âRuth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness, describes whiteness as multidimensionalâŚâ
DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly. âWhen there is disequilibrium in the habitus â when social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they challenge our capital â we use strategies to regain our balance,â she says (âPeople taken out of their comfort zones find ways to deal,â according to Google Translate). Ideas that go through the English-DiAngelo translator usually end up significantly altered, as in this key part of the book when she addresses Dr. Martin Luther Kingâs âI have a dream,â speech:
One line of Kingâs speech in particularâthat one day he might be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skinâwas seized upon by the white public because the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that we donât see race, and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy for racism, with white people insisting that they didnât see race or, if they did, that it had no meaning to them.
That this speech was held up as the framework for American race relations for more than half a century precisely because people of all races understood King to be referring to a difficult and beautiful long-term goal worth pursuing is discounted, of course. White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. This is an important passage because rejection of Kingâs âdreamâ of racial harmony â not even as a description of the obviously flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future â has become a central tenet of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream press outlets are rushing to embrace.
Read the whole thing.