Notes on: DiAngelo, R (2011) White Fragility.
International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
3 (3) : 54-70
Dave Harris
In the USA, the social environment protects white
people from 'race-based stress', and this leads to
white fragility, where 'even a minimum amount of
racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a
range of defensive moves… the outward display of
emotion such as anger, fear, and guilt and
behaviour such as argumentation, silence, and
leaving the stress-inducing situation'. This
reinstates racial equilibrium [okay, but some race
theorists have extended it to mean engaging in any
sort of academic argument against their position]
An example [a story?] ensues of the session
arranged by an employer to have a dialogue about
race which has produced 'tension' and 'hostility'.
She is the presenter, but she is white. A man in
the audience is very angry and says that white
people have been discriminated against as well. No
people of colour are in the workshop. She wonders
why this white man is so angry and why he is
careless about the impact of his anger. All the
other white people are sitting either in 'silent
agreement' or 'tuning out' (55). She claims
[surely disingenuously] that 'we have, after all,
only articulated definition of racism'.
Whiteness accrues privilege and status and gets
surrounded by resources, repels gossip and
voyeurism and demands dignity in an overall
'insulated environment'. This builds expectations
for racial comfort and lowers 'the ability to
tolerate racial stress' so a single 'required
multicultural education course' or 'required
"cultural competency training"' is the only time
white people might get a challenge to their racial
understandings [I think the problem might lie in
the 'required' bit], and even those rarely talked
directly about racism or white privilege. They
often use racially coded language to refer to
urban or disadvantaged people, and often imply
that race and its problems refer to 'them' and not
'us'. White facilitators often lack valid analysis
and personal experience, and there is sometimes
pressure from management to keep the content
comfortable. If a program does directly address
racism and white privilege, common white responses
include 'anger, withdrawal, emotional
incapacitation, guilt, argumentation, and
cognitive dissonance' which further increases the
pressure to avoid direct address. Even progressive
whites may insulate themselves, claiming they
already know this material. [ A note says that
insulation 'is somewhat mediated by social class',
but says the 'largest social environment insulates
and protects whites as a group — 'institutions
cultural representations, media, school textbooks,
movies, advertising, dominant discourses etc']. There
seems to be an ambiguity about this reaction from
white progressives, though, whether it is
resistance to internalised dominance already, or a
lack of racial stamina and thus white fragility.
Mainstream definitions of racism turn on '"race
prejudice" which anyone of any race can have' (56)
but whiteness scholars talk about a particular
system and structure that perpetuate an unequal
distribution between white people and people of
colour. This is not a fluid system in the USA, not
benefiting whites one day and people of colour
another it is always one directional and it is
traditional, normalised and deeply embedded.
Whiteness means the specific dimensions of racism
that preserve white power over people of colour.
Unlike the dominant representation of racism, it
is not isolated in discrete behaviours held by
individuals, nor in specific privileges. It is a
matter of individual and collective consciousness
shaped by racialised. These are 'theory laden
constructs inseparable from systems of injustice'.
Whiteness is a multi dimensional social process,
and also a standpoint from which white people look
at themselves and others and at society. Its
cultural practices are '"usually unmarked and
un-named"' [quoting Frankenberg). It is a
constellation of processes and practices, not
simply signified by skin colour. It is dynamic
relational and operates on different levels. It
includes basic rights and values purported to be
commonly shared by all 'but which are actually
only consistently afforded to white people' it
exists both in traditional and modern forms and
the point is 'rather than work to prove its
existence, work to reveal it', in this case white
fragility.
More examples of interruptions produced by racial
stress follow — a challenge to objectivity by
suggesting a racialised frame of reference; people
of colour talking directly about the racial
perspectives challenging white racial codes;
choosing not to protect the racial feelings of
white people, challenging their comfort; not being
willing to tell stories answer questions about
racial experience; a fellow white not agreeing
with interpretations, challenging white
solidarity; getting feedback that one's behaviour
has racist impact, a challenge to white
liberalism; suggesting that group membership is
significant, challenging individualism;
acknowledging that access is unequal between
racial groups, challenging meritocracy; being
presented with a person of colour in a position of
leadership; being presented with information about
other racial groups, 'through, for example movies'
where people of colour are not stereotypes, as a
challenge to 'white centrality'.
This often leaves whites at a loss for how to
respond because the necessary skills or stamina
are not part of their habitus [an open reference
to Bourdieu]. Disequilibrium is produced by
'unconscious dispositions' and depends on the
power the agent has [but it's not usually anger,
far more likely to be patronising condescension,
or some sort of relativism? The responses above
are lower-middle-class or working-class?]. The US
racial order is unstable depending on the state,
but facing constant challenges [echoing the
original notion of white fragility as arising in
colonial contexts?], and this is echoed in the
unstable habitus.
White fragility is inculcated by segregation on
multiple levels, including geographical,
'representational and informational' this leaves
white interests and perspectives as central and
gives white people an inability to see any
significance in the perspectives of people of
colour. They feel no loss over the absence
of people of colour, and thus absence is seen as
'good' in schools or neighbourhoods. White people
see their perspectives as objective and realistic,
as a viewpoint of universal humans representing
all of human experience, and not racialised,
not needing to be recognised — 'just people' (59)
— hence the common claim that we all need to see
each other as human beings, as individuals rather
than any sort of 'racially socialised group'.
Individualism erases history. If there is racism
it is the problem of other bad white people.
A defensive response sometimes arises when whites
as a group are accused of collective benefit. This
is 'narcissism' (60) arising from white racial
insulation, an inability to see nonwhite
perspectives as significant. There are often
contradictory discourses used interchangeably —
for example we are unique and all the same — and
these deny white privilege and the significance of
race. Being an individual and outside a racial
group only applies to white people. Race is
disavowed, for individuals and institutions,
concealing unequal distribution and 'unearned
white privilege'. Individualism covers both cases.
Individualism also requires a 'disavowed other',
an abstract that depends on a particular, 'raced
others' especially [but this needs explaining —
why not gendered others, or classed others?
Legacies of slavery or colonialism?]
Whites expect to be racially comfortable and need
no tolerance for racial discomfort, so when it
arises, something seems wrong and something needs
to be blamed. Counter moves are warranted,
including penalisation, retaliation and refusal to
continue engagement. Racism is never faced, and
those who break white codes of conduct are
punished. Comfort is confused with safety, and
whites feel unsafe 'when we are merely talking
about racism' (61). [ignores non-verbals let alone
microaggressions]
Ideological racism [not defined, it means formally
organised?] has strongly positive images of
whites, and strongly negative images of racial
others and this means an enduring sense of
entitlement: success is the results of their own
efforts, racism is little understood, racial
arrogance emerges from dominance, the knowledge of
people who have thought 'complexly about race' can
be dismissed including those with 'intelligence
and expertise' who often meet 'trivialised
encounters with simplistic platitudes' [he means
poor devils who try antiracist training?]'
Whites could legitimise black people's assertions
of racism, but usually claim they don't understand
the perspective, and then confuse this with not
agreeing — 'racial arrogance'. They demand polite
and rational explanations without emotion, but
even there often agree better if racism is seen as
something related to individual white people not
themselves.
White people enjoy a deep sense of belonging in US
society, because whiteness is 'embedded in the
culture at large', reflected back to us in heroes,
standards of beauty, role models, textbooks,
media, religious iconography, virtually any image
deemed valuable. Whites enjoy racial segregation.
Sometimes they feel uncomfortable if segregated by
race in antiracist endeavours. They prefer
segregation to be euphemised in terms like 'good
neighbourhoods'.
Race is a problem for people of colour, so white
people don't bear any social burdens associated
with it. White people often refer to their luck in
growing up in an all-white neighbourhood. White
people who do bring up race are still likely to be
penalised, however [he speaks from experience?],
But generally race is for people of colour to
worry about.
White people receive constant messages that they
are better and more important — [centrality
in media and culture again]. We might explicitly
reject the notion that one race is better than
another, but 'one cannot avoid internalising a
message of white superiority, as it is ubiquitous
in mainstream culture' [again no positive black
stereotypes in sport, popular music or sexual
prowess?].
Children apparently have ideas about race very
early, perhaps in preschool, in the USA, and again
this is often unnamed and explicitly denied.
Unfortunately white moral objections to racism
'increases white resistance to acknowledging
complicity with it' (64) and there is 'a
foundation of (superficial) racial tolerance and
acceptance'. Protecting a moral reputation is
sometimes chosen as more important than changing
participation. Other whites embrace a discourse of
'self defence' seeing themselves as victims, being
blamed and attacked, even though 'nothing
physically out of the ordinary has ever occurred
in any interracial discussion that I am aware of'
(64). Those who object claim to be morally
superior, to blame others with less social power,
to see discomfort as dangerous and so re-inscribe
racist imagery in a 'discourse of victimisation'.
Rather than seeing themselves as the beneficiaries
of white privilege, they see themselves as
'victims of antiracist efforts', that 'they have
been treated unfairly via a challenge to their
position'.
One example is provided arising in a workplace
antiracism training session. One white participant
left the session clearly upset after receiving
'(what appeared to the training team as) sensitive
and diplomatic feedback on how some of her
statements had impacted several people of colour
in the room' (65). Other participants said that
she was upset because the statements had been
challenged. She might have been having a heart
attack, they said, and thus all attention was
immediately focused onto her.
Many whites use the language of violence in their
antiracist encounters. This sometimes taps 'into
the classic discourse of people of colour… as
dangerous and violent' and is of course a
perversion of the actual danger that exists
between whites and others, trivialising the
history of violence. It is a projection of tension
onto people of colour. It authorises forms of
domination. Another antiracist worker reports a
new incomprehensibility because the new racial
climate in America forbids the open expression of
racially biased feelings — the result is 'verbal
incoherence — digressions, long pauses, repetition
and self correction'. [Excessive caution is
inevitable?] This might indicate a lack of
preparation to engage and this maintains white
power. White people do notice racial locations and
discuss this freely among themselves, sometimes in
coded ways, but refused to directly acknowledge
their race talk: this can lead to split
consciousness and incoherence. Racial
misinformation like this will be left unexamined.
Retreat from the discomfort of authentic
engagement means and inability to form authentic
connections and will preserve racism.
White people often believe that antiracist
education is necessary only for those who interact
with minorities, but the suggestion here is that
it is critical for all white people to build their
stamina to engage discussions of race. They must
do this even if there are a few people of colour
in their immediate environment because otherwise
we preserve the view that whiteness is universal
and non-whiteness is other. We will not be able to
bridge crosses racial divides. If we keep
retreating from discomfort, we will only work to
hold racism in place.
Institutionalised racism needs to be tackled, but
antiracist education 'may be most effective by
starting at the micro level' (66), developing
perspectives and skills to enable everyone to
actively initiate change. All of us who live in a
racist system are responsible 'for either
perpetuating or transforming that system'— 'white
racism is ultimately a white problem'. Many white
people have never been given direct or complex
information about racism. People of colour are
more aware of racism on a personal level but
'often do not have a macrolevel framework'(67).
Critical consciousness about racism also varies
between groups — many Asian heritage people have
never discussed racism in their homes. Overall,
the signs of white fragility should be understood
as 'an issue of stamina building' which should
'guide our interventions accordingly'.
|
|