Hi all,
I had some additional thoughts on White Fragility, so let's have a classic TOA riff-off. As usual, the thought as it originally appeared in my book notes will be in italics.
A belief that racism is committed in isolation by bad people helps prop up a system that serves people based on the color of their skin.
White supremacy can be a problematic term for those who associate it with extremist hate groups.
White superiority is often left unnamed or even denied by white people, which makes it hard for even the most liberal among them to cease participating in systems of domination, inequity, or control.
As I concluded in my reading review, the main idea in this book is that participation in biased systems leads people to commit acts that would otherwise be labeled as racist were it not for the protection offered by these same systems. This understanding is elusive for those who consider racism a behavior exclusive to evil people.
Defensiveness is generally a tool used to maintain the status quo.
The defensiveness that people demonstrate toward being accused of racist behavior has some relationship to the idea that bad people, and only bad people, can be racist.
Respect is a challenging idea to define, as it tends to have certain nuances in the definition. For example, in a white-centric environment respect means [...] a focus on intention over impact.
Robin DiAngelo's point about the focus on intention over impact resonated with my experience, and I wonder if this is the difficult mental leap for the defensive - how is it possible to be racist if your inner thoughts and feelings are free of prejudice, bigotry, or hatred? The problem in this thinking is obvious to me - it's a lot like saying someone who throws punches is a pacifist because, at heart, he favors peace.
There is a distinction between racist behavior and systemic racism. Any individual can show a prejudice against someone else solely due to skin color. The systemic aspect is social or institutional, manifesting as collective power or privilege over another group.
Backing a collective prejudice with the power of society, institutions, or government transforms racism from a series of events to a system.
My standard for a biased society is one where knowing information that should be specific to a person's circumstances gives me an improved chance to makes guesses about that person's group identities. I'm reminded of an oft-cited statistic pertaining to Boston's household wealth - "the median net worth of a white family is $247,500 while the median net worth of a Black family is just $8". If I tell you that I know a family in Boston with a six-figure household net worth, do you assume I'm speaking of a white family?
It may be hard to see a direct link of a given policy to such statistics, but it's there if you work out the implications, as this paper from the Center for American Progress has done for a countless number of examples.
Many people shy away from giving feedback to someone who won’t accept it, often allowing the relationship to wilt away under the pressure of growing inauthenticity and distance.
DiAngelo's point here speaks to my experience, but likely not in the way she'd intended - I just don't know many people who accept feedback in any sense of the term. It's unlikely her point was a roundabout way to highlight the ongoing feedback drought, but I don't think the average person is going to suddenly change course as it relates to their racist behavior even if they receive thoughtful feedback on the matter. I think this insight benefits from an acknowledgement that giving feedback isn't an appropriate solution for the type of person who never accepts it under any circumstances.
Working with others in terms of racism means looking inward and validating someone else’s point of view.
I read this as a reminder that it's more important to correct behavior than it is to succumb to the righteous instincts of the moment. This is without question a challenging approach, particularly if you are dealing with a bureaucracy or are personally wounded, but finding common interests is always the productive approach in a situation where two sides find themselves taking opposing positions.
You don't have long
I am on to you
The time, it has come to destroy
Your supremacy
OK, I won't even pretend this came from this book, or any book - those are lyrics from "Supremacy", a song by Muse; who better to end a riff-off?
Thanks for reading.
Endnote / encore
DiAngelo has significant experience as a meeting, seminar, and workshop facilitator that she weaves into White Fragility. I give her the benefit of the doubt in terms of what she's learned from her work, but there were two insights tied to her role that I felt created more confusion than clarity. First, I wondered if the effect of being criticized in public was a more relevant explanation for the reaction of some participants than the factors she cited in the book; longtime TOA readers may recall that one of my golden managerial rules is to never criticize a subordinate in public. Second, although I recognized the negative effect of a white person crying in front of people of color in the context of a discussion about racial issues, I didn't understand why she added that given how sometimes people do cry, she tried to be thoughtful whenever she cried in such settings. Will someone in the vicinity know the difference between a person who is crying from guilt and a person who is crying thoughtfully? If anything, it seemed to undermine her point about the importance of impact over intention.
I bring this up to highlight the potential complexity of these discussions, particularly in a group setting where the participants are likely to arrive from all walks of life, and to consider its effect on the outcome of such conversations. The work described in White Fragility is perhaps too challenging to leave to the impersonal environment that I am all too familiar with from my experiences in meetings, seminars, or workshops. My suggestion to those interested in taking the steps DiAngelo describes is to supplement these larger gatherings with smaller groups of trusted friends, family, or acquaintances, from whom you can accept honest feedback while remaining open and transparent about your own perceptions, challenges, and experiences.
