I can only judge by what she writes. Because I find her writing so removed from reasonable positions, I’m not confident she is able to make reasonable distinctions about anything. Essentially I completely discount her body of work.
There’s a contingent of folks who casually toss accusations of racism, white supremacy, fragility, etc. around and expect those terms to not be destructive to discourse. I take the opposite view. Those terms are essentially rhetorical nukes. Use of them without strong evidence means I no longer take the speaker seriously, and largely will have nothing further to do with them.
Anyone with any knowledge of lawyering knows that a 4 billable hour a day target is fucking absurd. Many firms have 2000+ hours per year billed hour requirements, or else disciplinary action is taken. Some firms have more than that. Few have requirements that are significantly less.
In practical terms, that means that many lawyers have to literally bill 8 hours a day, 50 weeks a year. Which sounds like “Oh, that’s just billing a normal working day, no big deal.” Yeah, but they also bill in like six minute increments or something equally small. So you go take a shit? That’s either six minutes you have to make up somewhere else, or you have to somehow bill for it. Traffic make you a half hour late? Yep, you have to work an extra half-hour somewhere. Firm makes you go to some team-building bullshit for an afternoon? Yep, you have to make ALL that up somewhere. Kid gets sick and you have to go pick them up from school? Same.
But you’re already billing a full day of work, every single work day. So it adds up to a LOT of overtime. It’s a huge part of why women are underrepresented in the legal profession- not because law schools don’t graduate roughly equal numbers of women as men, but because with societal expectations of child care and family coordination, most female lawyers just can’t keep their jobs up and bill 2000+ hours a year.
I have little doubt that if Obama was employed as an associate at a normal firm, that he was putting in a full day and then some.
It’s really weird how invested you guys are in this whole “Obama never had a full time job!” thing. He was a 2 term president. I highly doubt he really cares whether you or anyone else gives him credit for anything he did or didn’t do in his past. Maybe just let it go at this point? Don’t we he have actual issues and problems in the world to focus on now?
I agree with this assessment – I interpret the wiki passage to mean that she was referring to some white people who exhibit defensiveness but not necessarily all. I don’t think she or anyone would argue that identifying racism is an exact science; it’s a social science, which involves phenomenology and the evaluation of specific experiences.
I would submit phenomenology is what makes it hard for a lot of white people to understand what racism actually is, and that it is nearly impossible for the tribe with power to understand what it is like to live without that power. This reality applies not only to race but also to gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, and so on. It’s especially difficult when individuals among the tribe don’t view themselves as necessarily having power, and many of these said individuals might be demonstrably frustrated by not having power and influence they believe they ought to have (e.g. “incels”).
Talking about race is not an accusation of racism. For example, she says that one thing she does in her training sessions is to ask participants to talk for one minute about how their race has shaped their lives. She says that white people are often flummoxed by the question, leading to defensiveness and other odd reactions. She asserts that this is not because all white people are racist, but more likely that we have adopted a view that to be white in our society is to be the norm.
If I asked you to speak about how your race has shaped your life, would you have nothing further to do with me?
There are two ways one can respond to perceptions of racism and white fragility.
I acknowledge that I can’t always convince someone that I’m not prejudiced, but I can accept that. Even so, I think I would be troubled by the accusation and I would do what I could within reason to refute the charge. At the same time, I would listen to the complaint. I would listen to what someone has to say, provided that they give me the opportunity to defend and explain what I said and what I meant, and what I didn’t mean. That seems to me the reasonable balance to strike.
But if someone’s position is, well I can’t disprove that I’m a racist so I really don’t care what complaints you have, so f*ck you I’m not listening, then that, to me, is suspicious. That seems a lot less reasonable, at least in my view. By the same token, I would say that if you haven’t said or done something that is incontrovertibly racist, then I think you deserve a chance to make your case that you’re not a racist, even if you might have said or done something that could have been influenced by your own personal biases. If you’ve done your best to explain yourself and that you meant no harm, it’s equally unreasonable for someone to say “Screw you, you’re irredeemably racist, and I’m not going to let you explain yourself”
I think the whole point of getting past racism is that as individuals, we have radically different life experiences. It pays to first acknowledge that, and it’s important to listen and communicate.
I think much of the problem of the Diangelo approach, and may be why she gets pushback, is that I for one do not feel the burden of proof is on me to prove I am not a racist. Even if someone else says it could have been influenced by my personal biases.
Could it be that I am being a racist? Sure. But you have to show me - you don’t get to assume it by default. If that’s “white fragility”, well, OK, whatever.
Being white in our society is the norm. Most people in the US are white. That may be why the question flummoxes people - “how has being the same made you different?” is difficult to answer.
It is a difficult question for anyone to answer. It is like asking someone how it is to be a human. Answering this requires someone to step out of themselves and imagine how it feels to be non-human.
However, I don’t think race is quite that hard. Like, I can’t imagine what life is like for my cat because he has never talked to me about his life experiences as a cat or a non-human. But despite being the numerical majority in our society, white people do have access to the stories of non-whites. It seems to me being exposed to these stories should equip most white people with the basic language and understanding necessary for talking about their own racial experiences.
The problem is that lots of white people don’t want to even listen to stories told by non-whites. Just listening respectfully without being argumentative is too much for some whites to handle.
What is the context of the discussion? Since no one in their right mind would go to a diversity training unless it was required, these trainings are generally tied to employment. Asking someone to speak for two minutes about anything in front of their bosses or colleagues is a recipe for high anxiety. Asking them to talk about a subject that could get them fired and or branded a bad person is even worse.
The rational thing to do in a diversity training is like talking to the police or being grilled by a spouse, keep your head down, and your answers short until you find out what you are being accused of.
I’d agree. I simultaneously think there have been many terrible quality discussions on this topic on this board as well. I’ve expressed the thought for here for many many years that casual accusations of racism do damage when it comes to seeking justice for actual racism.
Of course not. That’s not nearly the same thing as a casual accusation of racism without basis. DiAngelo characterizes people’s behavior based on their race. To me, I find that pretty crappy.
Substitute being accused of being racist to being accused of secretly wanting to molest children and babies. Should a person need to spend a single iota of effort making your case that you don’t actually want to molest children and babies? Maybe they are exhibiting unconscious signs that they desire to to this. That’s about how I see accusations of racism without strong evidence. If someone accuses a person of wanting to molest children without strong evidence, the normal response isn’t going to be, let’s talk it out and let the person defend themselves, no. It’s going to be to tell that other person to piss off.
I do not believe myself to be free of prejudices. (or you, whoever you are, but this inquisition response is about me.) I do believe myself to be something other than a catalog of my prejudices. The prejudices of my ancestors are not elements of my character.
I don’t care if you are prejudiced. I don’t consider it, or any other elements of your psychological condition to be of relevance to me. Your behavior is, when it affects my life. And my behavior is when it affects your life. It is my considered opinion, based on the actual biology of H. Sapiens that race is a fictitious categorization constructed to achieve social advantage. Pride in ones race is a delusion, irrespective of what race you believe yourself to be.
No thanks, I don’t want to race. I stroll. Or sit.
You may believe me to be of whatever race you wish, and assume that I have whatever shortcomings that categorization implies to you. I don’t care to participate in your racism. If you care to hate me, feel free. If it is important to believe that I hate you, you will believe it. You can even assume it is your race, or mine that makes me believe the things you believe I believe.
In both cases, I would be offended and alarmed by the accusation, as both are damaging to my personal reputation, which I actually do care about. With regard to both hypothetical accusations, I would want to know what the evidence is, or what they think it is. If it’s just a baseless opinion, then I would probably accept that for what it is and try to ignore that person and remind them that defamation is against the law. If they submit evidence, then we could discuss the evidence and debate what it means. I think this is the ideal, rational way to view it. Of course I admit that I’m not rational 100% of the time - nobody is, really, but I digress.
You could say piss off, but that response will certainly not make the accusation or the suspicions go away. People can say that they don’t care all they want, but it pays to care about your personal reputation, and the only way to debunk those sorts of suspicions is to respond reasonably to the extent that someone is willing to listen and comprehend. Now if you’ve attempted to do that and those who accuse you refuse to listen to you, well then one could be forgiven for giving the finger.
So if someone calls you a racist in real life, you’re honestly saying that you don’t care? I find that hard to believe, because as someone who prides himself on not being a racist, I would be offended if someone said to a third party that I am, in their view, a racist. I would want to know why. Knowing why and explaining myself won’t necessarily change their opinion of me, but I accept that. Honestly, most people I know whom I don’t consider themselves to be racist would be offended and would deny the charge. Being smug and saying “I don’t have to listen to you” just seems absurdly stubborn, and in and of itself, offensive and hostile.
And for the record, I’m not accusing you of being racist - not even passive aggressively. I guess I just don’t necessarily agree that you’d just shrug and say “Oh well, whatever.” I think you’d probably care more than you realize and you’d probably defend yourself because you acknowledge that it’s potentially injurious to reputation, and that you fundamentally don’t view yourself as a white supremacist or a male chauvinist or whatever. Most people push back against accusations they believe to be damaging and false.
Having said the above, maybe the word we’re really looking for isn’t “racist” but “biased”. Almost all of us are biased, even if we don’t consider ourselves to be racist. We think, say, and do things based on perceptions we have of people, and many of these perceptions are so far down into the subconscious that we barely know they exist until someone points it out to us. I suspect that this is one reason why people reflexively deny charges of white fragility because a) they don’t even know that they’re being biased, and b) it conflicts with how they want to view themselves.
Which just goes to the idea that for white people, simply talking about race is perceived as a threat. That’s fucked up.
Plus, the idea that talking about how not to be racist (or sexist) in the workplace is a trap for white people is even more fucked up. I did a sexual harassment training not long ago and learned an awful lot. Like, that someone can’t just cry “sexual harassment” and win tons of money – the threshold for harassment is actually far higher than I expected.
Where do you get this idea that she kicks off each training session with casual accusations of racism directed toward the white people in the audience? I think you’re projecting an awful lot here.
If you think sociologists shouldn’t be in the business of studying behaviors of various groups, and reporting on their findings, I guess you’re making an argument that sociology as a field of study should not exist.
Can you expand upon your thoughts on this? For instance, if you were at a party, and someone asked you if you like Stevie Wonder’s music, you replied “No, I don’t like Stevie Wonder’s music”, and a third person said “That’s racist!” then you would waste your time trying to defend yourself to that third person?
ISTM that feeling the need to react to accusations of being a racist is part of the white fragility that Diangelo and others decry. For better or worse, I don’t suffer from that kind of fragility. “You are part of whiteness and whiteness is racism” or “assuming that the norm is the norm is racist” or even “isn’t it possible that you are unconsciously racist” don’t get much of a reaction from me - at least, not until they show some specific way that I am being racist, even unconsciously.
That’s why stuff like this -
which is a restatement of the same question of “how has being average given you an advantage?” doesn’t do much for me. If it is racist to think that white people are the norm, and white people are the norm, then I am going to need more than just the assertion to care very much.
WADR that seems like another aspect of the attempt at a Catch-22 Diangelo is trying. If I am accused of being a racist and I react defensively, that’s white fragility. If I don’t react defensively, or much at all, that is being smug, offensive and hostile.
I am probably older than you, and “explain how your problems are my fault even unconsciously” is a reaction I have found to be useful over the years.
If white people are treated just averagely in society, and everyone else gets worse treatment, I’d say that’s worth some thinking about. At the very least, questioning why everyone can’t be treated as the norm and have similar access to jobs, similar outcomes in the criminal justice system, etc.
But it should also be setting off alarm bells as to why one group of people get significantly better treatment, and why that is so. The unexamined life, etc etc.