White. Triggers.
Chapter 7 of White Fragility
I juxtapose the title of this post with the quote from Martin Luther King Jr. because there is a tension between what he says above and what DiAngelo says in this chapter.
It is important to note that this chapter, perhaps more overtly than any other so far, depends on a Foucauldian view of power. If you've not heard of this philosopher, Philosophy Talk gives a brief introduction to his theories of power. Elsewhere I have explored some of what I believe to be the underpinnings of this book. I provide that reflection below. 1
The biggest failing in Foucault's power theories is simply that there is no room for love, or worse, love is simply another manifestation of power immanent in a relationship. Hence the counterpoint I offered above from Dr. King.
I posted the title of this chapter, "White Triggers" as "White. Triggers." because, simply, to be white is to be triggered. Why? Well because:
When there is disequilibrium in the habitus - when social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they challenge our capital - we use strategies to regain our balance.
p 103
Scratching your head? First, according to DiAngelo, "Capital is the social value people hold in a particular field; how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others in terms of their power (italics mine) or status." p 102. Basically, if you are made uncomfortable, when you are unsure of your standing in a group or if your power is challenged, you throw a tantrum to restore things to what makes you comfortable.
No, really. Here, in her own words:
...white fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress in the habitus becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.
ibid.
These defensive moves are emotional displays of "anger, fear and guilt and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation." ibid. This is followed by a list of white triggers that spans pp 103 and 104.
Spoiler: they involve being white and running across racial things, like black people in positions of power, or people of color talking about being people of color, or people of color being unwilling to talk about being people of color, or people of color choosing not to protect white people's feelings about race, or suggesting that white people do not represent or speak for all of humanity.
Let’s look at two of those contentions:
People of color talking about being people of color
People of color refusing to talk about being people of color
Under the Foucauldian understanding of power, where power resides in systems, not in individuals, and where these systems operate below our consciousness, and where power is just the interaction between groups, white fragility is simply the unavoidable consequence of interacting in any way with anyone not white. And when we feel our power threatened we restore our sense of normalcy via white fragility. The two examples given above are interpreted as:
Challenge to white taboos on speaking openly about race
Challenge to the expectation that people of color will serve us
In other words, if we didn't ask them to tell us, they shouldn't. And if we ask them to tell us, they should. I do not understand how anyone can take this view seriously. This understanding only makes sense in a Foucauldian understanding of systems of power.
Further on Foucault: I read and now cannot find an interesting discussion about Michel Foucault that summarized for me the fundamental world view difference between his understanding of human relations and mine. The discussion was about a room with chairs in it. Foucault, who sees everything as an expression of power, would review the chairs, noting if they were high-backed that they were enforcing a sense of being upright, of being a righteous person. The arrangement of the chairs would be analyzed to determine who was in power and who was subordinate. For example, if there is one larger chair about which the others are arranged in a semi-circle, then clearly the one in the larger chair holds sway over the others.
From my viewpoint, an Aristotelian/Thomistic view, since people like to relax when talking or reading, etc., chairs are provided. Since socializing is part of our nature, chairs are arranged to facilitate conversation, or if a lecture, to facilitate the exchange of information.
You can convince yourself that anything you see is in a power relationship of some sort, and this may often be the case. But I question the assertion that these systems of power have taken on a life of their own and that they pervade and undergird all facets of human relationship. That we are unaware of how we participate and instantiate power relationships, I would have to agree with. But, I do not believe we are cogs in a machine and I do believe that "White Fragility" is built on this (misunderstanding) of human nature.
I find this viewpoint bleak.
Next Chapter: The Result: White Fragility
TL;DR — Critical Theory (CT) was influenced by Foucault, and Critical Race Theory (CRT) depends on his understanding of power. I kind of lump all of the world’s current problems into “things caused by CT”.
Re: Critical Theory
I wanted to try to understand some things that I had read regarding this book. For example, I had read that this book is a fruit of Critical Race Theory. So, what is Critical Race Theory? I found an article on CNN. I learned this:
Critical race theory recognizes that systemic racism is part of the American life, and challenges the beliefs that allow it to flourish.
So, it does seem that “White Fragility” is a fruit of Critical Race Theory (CRT). The article also explains, via some of the proponents of CRT, that
“Critical race theory is a practice. It’s an approach to grappling with a history of White supremacy that rejects the belief that what’s in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it,”
– Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor at UCLA and Columbia universities.
Here are a couple more things I found out from digging around on the internet:
Critical Theory (CT) seems to be the progenitor. Britannica’s article starts with this:
Critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed.
So, now I think I understand where the term “Marxist” comes from when describing CRT. But, note, CT is not CRT. So, I’m not sure it is accurate to call CRT Marxist. However, the methodology and assumptions are similar in both theories. Note that the assumption is that social structures exist through which people are dominated and oppressed. Frankly, it would be hard to dispute that.
Britannica has this to say about CRT:
Critical race theory, the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
Note the shift in emphasis. CT seeks to understand and overcome the social structures through which people are dominated. CRT asserts that those social structures are “law and legal institutions” and that they are inherently racist, full stop.
And where does that take us? Well, have you seen or heard about the Smithsonian exhibit that puts forward the idea that rationality and hard work are racist concepts? No, really.
When looking at social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed, and blending that with the assertion that law and legal institutions are inherently racist, it is not hard to conclude that any dominant societal value is racist. Believing that hard work and rational thought are desired traits makes it part of the dominant zeitgeist, and therefore racist.
What then has been the fruit of CT and CRT?
If you are white you are a racist.
Teaching kids to think rationally is racist.
Assessing their understanding of the material is racist.
Insisting that there is a body of material worth knowing is racist.
Suggesting that they didn’t understand because they didn’t work hard enough is racist.
CT has a stated purpose – understand the institutions that oppress and seek to overcome them. CRT – what is its purpose? According to the CNN article it is to challenge the beliefs that allow racism to flourish.
Oooookay. We should challenge the belief that rational thought is good because that simply allows racism to flourish. What should we replace that oppressive social construct with? “White Fragility?”
I just realized that this whole concept of White Fragility is devoid of the concept of love. The introduction of love to these hypothetical scenarios, not necessarily in the romantic sense but in the Christian acceptance, forgiveness, and inclusion sense, kind of wipes away all these weird defensive behaviors.