★★☆☆☆
Robin DiAngelo’s cult classic, White Fragility, is a work of its time. That’s why her arguments are unconvincing.
All that she claims rests on the shifting sand that, as a white woman, she may be in the wrong for what she said the day prior. Ironically, she is well aware of this, but it did not dissuade her (nor me) from abandoning the book.
In pursuit of striking fame in the field of racial sociology by coining a term ('white fragility'), DiAngelo forgoes no logical fallacy, skews data, and leaves no room for the peanut gallery.
‘White fragility’ is the emotional, verbal, and internal responses that DiAngelo sees in white people when she identifies their racist behaviors in her role as a diversity trainer. She’s spent more than 25 years in this field and can predict (read: generalize) any and every response a white person will give. Further, she can know (read: assume), at their core, why they did that.
To prove the existence of this ubiquitous and unconscious racism, DiAngelo expands ‘racism’ beyond the intentional malicious actions of a member of the KKK or a 1960’s police officer in the South. Racism is anything a white person does that offends a person of color. (POC is used to diversify the vocabulary, but her book is largely about whites and blacks in the United States in the past four years.) I found myself willing to adopt this definition, though I’ll advocate for a spectrum because ‘racist’ is too strong an adjective for an unintentionally committed social faux pas.
The second hurdle that DiAngelo needed to cross was the irony of her place, as a white woman, in this conversation. To curb this passing identifier, that, in any other case, would disenfranchise her authority to speak on racism, she clarifies that her intended audience is white progressives. This way, if a POC or a conservative takes issue with her arguments, she can say, “I wasn’t talking to you.” Thank God I'm conservative because I believe DiAngelo would consider this review a sure sign of ‘white fragility.’
To further ingratiate herself as an authority figure, she claims two things. First, whites see themselves as the neutral, or default race, and that’s incorrect. I found her argument here convincing and it’s that thinking that led her to claim the second thing, which happens to be the second of only three things I agree with overall; that is, whites have a place in the conversation of racial equality and treatment.
While DiAngelo’s purpose is sound, maybe even noble, her logic, argument style, and overall book formatting are rife with issues.
To keep the self-flagellating reader (as opposed to her critics) reading, DiAngelo exploits a motivating aspect of every white person, but it’s an aspect of white people that she established, that is, the social horror of being called a racist. So, the DiAngelo-follower must keep turning the pages to know how to correct their racist behaviors. (Spoiler: They can’t.)
She used a number of logical fallacies but her favorite, by far, was the singular cause. To DiAngelo, the world doesn’t operate outside racial perceptions. But social interactions are infinitely complex, and the reason we do things just doesn’t all boil down to our skin color.
Repeatedly, she uses phrases like “virtually,” “most likely,” “certainly,” and even “probably.” These adverbs served to solidify the evidence she presented to establish the point she was making in that paragraph. Simply put, she has no statistical evidence for her claims.
In fact, her evidence for the existence of ‘white fragility’ comes from the irate and “predictable” outbursts of employees who, typically mandated to, attend her diversity training courses. This is hardly a random, double-blind, pool of people from which to draw substantive conclusions.
DiAngelo contradicts herself. At one point, it’s inferred that Toni Morrison should be praised as a writer, rather than as a successful black writer. But in another section, DiAngelo considers this “color-blindness” and decries the practice.
As another example, she says that Jackie Robinson was no extraordinary athlete, he was simply the first black player to be allowed in the MLB. Two pages later, she commends Ruby Bridges for her role as the first black student at a previously all-white school. Wasn’t Ruby Bridges simply the first black student allowed to attend the school?
DiAngelo repeats herself. Mercifully, this book was a short read, about 150 pages, but I estimate it could have been 100, at most, if she didn’t repeat claims she already made. Additionally, on the repeat mentions, she wrote as if it was the statement’s debut, as if it was uniquely relevant in each time she typed it. It wasn’t.
DiAngelo also repeats ‘umbrage.’ I’ll admit this was more of an irritant to me. In a book this short, some words, especially ones as infrequently used in society as ‘umbrage,’ should only be used a certain amount of times. ‘Umbrage’ exceeded that limit.
Lastly, her solutions solve nothing. While she allows “Oops!” as a legitimate response to becoming aware of one’s racist behavior, she expels white women from her classroom when they cry over the death of a black man, in part because it reminds POC of a pattern of white women falsely accusing men of color, like Emmett Till’s accuser.
On the whole, DiAngelo’s solutions amount to deferring to the authority of a POC’s sensibilities. Her recommendations for how to properly approach the conversation take no consideration for how people actually interact with each other. Her audience is encouraged to be “less white” and told that any emotional response should convert to gratitude.
Before reading this book, I was worried about its danger to society. Having read it, any thinking person should be able to perceive its illogic.
Any thinking person? Maybe I should still worry.
Comments