Did I argue against accusations of racism? I'm very sorry: I know that my arguments can't possibly have any intellectual merit, but I have to say them. Not because I'm not racist -- clearly I am, mea maxima culpa -- but because I'm fragile.
[Robin DiAngelo, professor of multicutural education at Westfield State University and author of What Does it Mean to Be White? Developing White Racial Literacy, has] heard it so many times, in fact, that she came up with a term for it: "white fragility," which she defined in a 2011 journal article as “a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include outward display of emotions such as anger, fear and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence and leaving the stress-inducing situation.”
So, as it turns out, any reaction I have will show how fragile I am. If I argue, I'm fragile. If I keep quiet and refuse to argue, I'm fragile. If I walk away, I'm fragile. I didn't realize that my fragility was so pervasive in my psyche. I thought that maybe there might be some way of talking about race -- other than genuflection at the liberal altar -- that wouldn't show off my fragility. But it's not the case.
It's so nice to be properly diagnosed after all these years. I apologize for my skin color and leave the field to my moral and intellectual betters.
Comments (16)
Sarcasm, Jake? Man, you have a thin skin, don't you? ;-)
Posted by MarcAnthony | March 18, 2015 1:49 PM
How dare you call me thin-skinned?! [Flounces stage right.]
Posted by Jake Freivald | March 18, 2015 2:23 PM
"Behaviors such as argumentation."
That one just takes the cake. I'm striving to think of a response. But I suppose that if one pointed out that perhaps the arguments in question are reasonable, perhaps "check your privilege" is _itself_ a bit of knee-jerk, mindless racism, that would just be my own manifestation of "white fragility." And besides, we all know that actually engaging in argument is so Euro-centric anyway.
Posted by Lydia | March 18, 2015 10:01 PM
Karl Popper would definitely have something to say about the unfalsifiability of this theory. The resemblance to Freudianism is quite striking.
Posted by Lydia | March 18, 2015 10:03 PM
I had the same thought about Popper, Lydia. And Kafka, as in The Trial.
Posted by Jake Freivald | March 19, 2015 6:53 AM
What about withering contempt?
Posted by Mike T | March 19, 2015 1:12 PM
Mike T's comment for the win.
I think that counts as "argumentation" and "anger" in their book.
Posted by Lydia | March 19, 2015 1:21 PM
Sometimes sarcasm is good. This is one of those times. You nailed the aggressive absurdity of Di'Angelo's thesis is, what, 50 words?
Thank you for this.
Posted by stephen N | March 19, 2015 4:06 PM
One could wish that this argument or the people promoting it could wither, like a plant. Unfortunately, Mike T., if they can't wither, your contempt can't be called "withering", and this particular plant flourishes under your harsh glare -- because by glaring, you're proving how fragile you are.
See how that works? You either feed the plant with cool excrement it likes at the roots or a glare at the top, but no matter what you do, by definition, you're helping it grow.
***
Stephen N, it's about 150 words, but I do tend to get long-winded. :)
Posted by Jake Freivald | March 19, 2015 4:56 PM
What the heck kind of remark is THAT? Are you being racist against those of us who don't even have any skin? Just because I lost my skin to a disease, you think you can belittle me, huh?
Those of us who HAVE NO RACE because we are skinless are tired of being ignored. No to money, honor, and privileges for racists who refuse to recognize us raceless people.
You would think that in a country BLINDED by race, we raceless people would be all the rage - who better than us to judge impartially between the races, hmmm? But no, we are shunted to the side as if we are too gruesome to even look at. When have you EVER gone out of your way to recognize one of us skinless people, even just to say hi or open a door? No, it's the back of the hospital and separate emergency rooms for us. Here's another example: Band-Aid makes bandages for whites (or 'pinks'), and for blacks, but nobody bothers to make bandages for the skinless. All because we HAVE NO RACE. So we HAVE NO victim group to be our spokesmen - to be our face out there. We are faceless.
Posted by Tony | March 19, 2015 10:38 PM
LOL, Tony.
Posted by Paul J Cella | March 19, 2015 11:28 PM
Well, there goes the neighborhood.
Posted by Jake Freivald | March 20, 2015 12:23 AM
*Commits ritual seppuku*
(In all seriousness - I once saw people trying to stop use of the word "lame" as an insult because it shamed disabled people. And yes, it was 100% serious.)
Posted by MarcAnthony | March 20, 2015 12:54 AM
It has been my experience for a long time that this only holds true when they think they're dealing with someone who accepts their premises and cares about their standing with them. Most conservatives cannot stand the notion of being called a bigot. Me? I could care less, generally, aside from the potential ramifications for career and such. That's it. I understand their words for the meaningless drivel they are and believe in Glenn Reynolds' (Instapundit) saying "punch back twice as hard" with such people.
Posted by Mike T | March 20, 2015 9:57 AM
I agree, Mike. I was really showing how it works from their perspective. Of course, we don't care about their perspective (except insofar as it affects us politically or others accept it) and it doesn't comport with reality.
Posted by Jake Freivald | March 20, 2015 12:42 PM
Sometimes I wish they'd just drop the pretense and tell us their agenda is a boot stamping on a human face forever and be done with it.
Posted by Scott W. | March 20, 2015 1:11 PM