Lather, Rinse, Repeat
How Racism adapted to the Civil Rights Movement
Continuing this lengthy review of White Fragility by Robin Diangelo.
A friend of mine read the last post and asked, “… are you just going to repost the same thing for chapter 3 and 4, chapter 5 and 6, etc.? Might save you a lot of trouble.”
Well, let’s see. Two side notes: First, I did not provide page references in the previous post. I will remember to do so in this one. Second, I will continue to simply report, without critical comment, summaries of the main points in her chapters. Any comments that I might have will be in italics.
If you want to catch up, you can Start Here
Chapter 3: Racism after the Civil Rights Movement
Racism, to which Robin DiAngelo has assigned agency*, has adapted to the demands of the Civil Rights Movement such that “…modern norms, policies, and practices result in similar racial outcomes as those in the past, while not appearing to be explicitly racist” (p. 39). DiAngelo goes further.
In this chapter, I review various ways that racism has adapted over time to continue to produce racial disparity while it exempts virtually all white people from any involvement in, or benefit from, racism. - White Fragility, p. 40
One of racism’s adaptive responses was to co-opt Dr. King’s I Have a Dream speech. Specifically, the statement that one day he might be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin was seen as an “out” by white people. DiAngelo states that color blindness was promoted as the remedy for racism (p. 41).
Color-blind ideology makes it difficult to see the vast underpinnings of racism in our society. These underpinnings are largely unnoticed by whites, and so pretending not to see color makes it difficult to come to grips with the racism in which they unconsciously participate. Racial discrimination is thought of by whites as something that can only be intentional. So, if whites didn’t mean to be racist, then they aren’t—at least in their minds. The discrimination experienced by blacks is nonetheless real, whether or not it was intended.
DiAngelo describes something called “aversive racism,” which is something that well-intentioned, progressive, educated whites exhibit: “…aversive racists enact racism in ways that allow them to maintain a positive self-image (e.g. ‘I have lots of friends of color…’)" (p. 43).
Conversations among white people such as, “I told my friend not to move into that neighborhood, the schools are really sub-par,” are code for, “Don’t move into the black neighborhood.”
Culturally, white children learn at an early age that they are superior to people of all other races. Society sends a constant message that it is better to be white.
White millennials, while professing to be non-racist, are committed to an ideal of colorblindness that leaves them “…uncomfortable with, and confused about, race and opposed to measures to reduce racial inequality” (p. 47). That’s quite a statement. And this is caused by pretending to be color blind? Which somehow works toward the opposition of methods to address racial inequality? I’m trying to think that through, but her reasoning escapes me.
DiAngelo closes this chapter with examples of white college students practicing racism in private with other whites while espousing equality when in mixed groups. She asserts that racism’s adaptations over time are, in some ways, worse than concrete rules such as Jim Crow. Racism’s adaptations produce the same outcome, but whites are unwilling or unable to admit their beliefs.
The final sentence of chapter 3 serves as an introduction to chapter 4: “This intransigence results in another pillar of white fragility: the refusal to know.”
Chapter 4: How Does Race Shape the Lives of White People?
DiAngelo starts by stating that it is difficult to understand why white people can’t talk about race without understanding what it means to be white. She then says that virtually every white person in the United States shares all the things she is about to point out and that no person of color in this context can make the same claims.
These are the underpinnings of White Fragility:
Belonging – White people tend to be surrounded by other white people and so belong to the group. White people are in all the ads, on TV, lead the country, etc. Whites do not experience racism.
Freedom from the burden of race – Because whites are not socially conditioned to see themselves in terms of race, they don’t carry the psychic weight of race. Individual whites don’t see themselves as responsible or accountable for the fact that whites have discriminated against non-whites. Whites “…exude a deeply internalized assumption of racial superiority” (p. 55). I am not sure why individual white people should see themselves as responsible for the actions of other white people. Diangelo has a pretty fluid approach to the assignation of cause and effect; because I don’t see myself responsible for what someone else does, I exude a deeply internalized assumption of racial superiority? That’s a non sequitur.
Freedom of movement – Whites are free to move about the country at will without worrying about being accepted or rejected in any particular area.
Just people – Not just as in fair, but just as in unremarkable. In books, in conversation, the color of white people is not mentioned—it is assumed. Other races are called out, as when a white person says, “my black friend John.” DiAngelo says, “Virtually any representation of human is based on white people’s norms and images…” (p. 57).
White solidarity – The unspoken agreement to protect white advantage. Also, the agreement to not embarrass a fellow white person by calling out their racism.
The good old days – Essentially, any call to return to "the good old days" refers to a return to days of open racism. Also, only white people have "good old days" to reflect upon; non-whites have only repression and violence (p. 59). That is a very broad statement. Non-whites have only repression and violence to look back on? And for all white people, the “good old days” exclusively means when you could be openly racist?
White racial innocence – I honestly found this section confusing. I am unable to summarize. I was confused by the first sentence, and the confusion simply grew. She says, “Because we are not raised to see ourselves in racial terms or to see white space as racialized space, we position ourselves as innocent of race.” And, “I ask my readers to reflect deeply on the idea that white segregation is racially innocent” (p. 62). The discussion then turns to white privilege and ends with commentary on how wrong whites are to expect non-whites to tell them about racism. I think she was trying to say something about how whites treat racism as something that happens to people of color without white involvement. Perhaps whites see themselves as innocent of practicing racism? I’m still confused.
Segregated lives – Segregation is physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. White people want to be around other white people and, according to DiAngelo, would not really care if all non-whites disappeared. This is coupled with a sort of re-hash of the book thus far, and a call to action to grapple with how white socialization manifests in daily life and how it shapes our responses when challenged (p. 69).
So, what do you think of Chapters 3 and 4?
To be continued in Good and Bad Racists. However, next up, a digression to discuss Foucault, Critical Theory, and its illegitimate offspring.
Previous | Next
Footnote:
“In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I’m fascinated by this “assigning of agency” process. Is this akin to the animistic impulse of proto-religious understanding finding an outlet in the repressed spirit of materialistic modernism?