Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, and White Fragility

Right about the time, in the last quarter of 2014, when deep consciousness surrounding the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO and Eric Garner in Long Island, NY, was beginning to grow, a lot of media attention was being focused on their deaths/murders, and certain people were beginning to get very angry, and I began seeing all kinds of things online being presented as potential answers, explanations, and general framing's for the growing questions people were asking about America’s racial life. Some of these presentations put forth to address these questions many were asking were things I saw as being credible and helpful. Others I saw as being much less so. Some of the items that were presented as solutions or explanations, to my eye, seemed to be of a type that made the situation even worse. This is where so called “White Fragility,” I believe, comes in.

It was while engaging in my own part of this challenging process, early in that process, that I became aware of a paper entitled, White Fragility by researcher and university professor, Dr. Robin DiAngelo—a white, female academic and social researcher. Various groups of people—progressive social activists, people who worked in the fields of diversity and inclusion and cultural competency, whiteness studies, and others, began to float this paper on social media and other places during this time of great and growing racialized unrest and turmoil in America. The paper was lauded in many of these same circles as a credible explanation for why white people, as a whole, have a difficult time engaging in discussions about racism, white privilege, white supremacy, and related topics. I am aware, because of my deep involvement in Zen in particular and Buddhist Studies in general, that some of these same conversations were also taking place in some Buddhist and Zen spaces as well.

The copy of Dr. DiAngelo's paper I saw had been retrieved from the annals of the International Journal of Critical Pedagogy where it had been published in 2011.

From the very beginning I had a palpable uneasiness with the paper before I even read one sentence of it. I had a strong gut aversion to the title—White Fragility. I eerily sensed something ominous my way coming.

By the time I came upon this paper I had come to a place in my life where I had developed a personal distaste and a deep uneasiness with theoretical and human research based propositions and hypotheses that felt a need to present their ideas couched within a presumed to be sound scientific framework of what I saw as unnecessary name calling, finger pointing, and negative character framing directed at particular people, groups of people, or specific identity groups. A research paper with the title, Black Rage or The Asian Dragon Lady Syndrome or Understanding the Drunken Indian Syndrome would have certainly brought about the exact same response from me as the one I had when I first saw that provocative title--White Fragility. 

My guess is that there are a whole lot of white folks out there who have never even heard of so called white fragility. Yes, for you neophytes out there, there is now this thang called white fragility. Read 'em and weep. In some ways I think it is a good thing that many people have not heard about this. If there are lots of white folks and others out there who haven’t heard of this, it holds out hope that this overwrought stereotype masquerading as a real, viable thing is perhaps not getting much play outside the very specific quarters one would expect it to be quickly welcomed into. At the other end of the spectrum however, many of you white folks may have people of color friends and colleagues who are progressive social justice activists or diversity and inclusion folks who view you as being intrinsically “fragile” in the same way Dr. DiAngelo suggests. You might not look so kindly on that characterization or upon knowing that you might have friends who view you in such an unflattering way. Take note.

The idea that Dr. DiAngelo felt such a strong imperative to potentially color (pun intended) the entire white population of the world as being specifically “fragile” in one sweeping and seemingly infallible "fail" swoop is fairly astonishing to me. And it is a sweeping characterization otherwise it might be called something like “intermittent white fragility” or “randomly occurring white fragility.” But, alas it isn’t. Dr. DiAngelo has named her new group based pejorative—white fragility, joining such others as all black people being lazy, all American Indians having a biological pre-disposition toward alcoholism, and there being a real thing commonly expressed as The Asian Dragon Lady.

I initially read Dr. DiAngelo’s scientific paper, White Fragility, four times. It was only after reading it this number of times that I felt confident in my initial assessment of it.

I came away from those four readings with an absolute certainty there was never nor is there now a real thing called “white fragility” within the entire compendium of human scientifically provable experiences. And I also came away from those initial four readings very reaffirmed in my understanding that there are most certainly human fragilities of all kinds and expressions that indeed show up and in countless concrete expressions in society and in the world. I came away reaffirmed in my understanding that there are all kinds of human failings, anxieties, forms and expressions of woundedness, expressions of emotional immaturity, or any number of other things that can indeed be characterized as a general expression of “fragility” of some kind or another and that these can show up in countless ways in the human animal--all kinds, forms, shades, sizes, colors, and ethnicities of the human animal.

There are however, two places where I in fact believe white fragility truly does exist. I believe white fragility absolutely exists in the dualistic ego mind. This is a place that is very expert and incredibly adept at creating divide and conquer strategies that are extremely ingenious, seem incredibly plausible and legit, and is very creative at manipulating its hosts and feeding on its hosts weak spots, fears, and anxieties. And I believe white fragility also exists in a certain expression of emotional reality that shows up primarily as off-the-charts frustration experienced by some people of color and some of our more overzealous white allies. This is an emotional reality that needs an outlet for its near inability to comprehend what it experiences with certain white folks if finds so incredibly tedious and unconscionable. It simply needs some kind of expressed outlet. The belief in something like "white fragility" makes complete sense to me as a type of outlet this energy would seek. I understand the frustration. I can’t however, condone its oppressive expression.

Further, what Dr. DiAngelo and others are, I believe, in some cases, intentionally and willfully mislabeling as white fragility, is likely yet another of the unbelievably complex and deep expressions of pure and simple privilege—and not just white privilege either—privilege in general. I believe perhaps most humans have some form of privilege at our immediate disposal. Perhaps none of these expressions of privilege want to be called out. Most people in America, for example, who own their own home, would likely fiercely balk at the idea that their ability to own said home comes about as a result of the direct and systemic oppression of someone else—perhaps millions or billions of others. No, the vast majority of people would likely be quick to point out how they had earned said home with their individual hard work, meticulous planning, skillful and arduous attention to fiduciary detail, etc. Imagine, now, if you will, how white folks, for the most part, must navigate this world we all live in. White folks are essentially told that not only their homes but literally every single thing they possess of any value whatsoever came to them singularly by the fact that they have white skin. You’d be extremely defensive too and in a state of deep denial if this was the energy you too had to deal with All. The. Time. You can lie but you can’t lie convincingly enough if you try and deny this. It takes an extreme degree of spiritual fortitude, development, psychological maturity, and humility not to fiercely defend what we believe we got through our own devices. It is this response born from the energy of privilege that is probably being miscast as white fragility. When this is added to that emotionally based frustration I mentioned above, is added to the extremely and sometimes evil and conniving dualistic ego mind—Viola! The Easter Bunny…ummm, I mean, make believe white fragility!

Now to Dr. DiAngelo’s White Fragility paper itself.  I found this paper itself to be sloppy and careless science at best—dangerous pseudo-science at the very worst. I found it to be completely unconvincing in its attempt to persuade me that the author had come up with something real that was worthy of my attention and serious consideration.

It is my hope that all further potential explorations into this concept by Dr. DiAngelo, if those further explorations are without significant alterations to the constructions presented in the paper I read, do not find grant money sponsorship nor further publication. I do not believe the idea of “white fragility” as presented in the paper of the same name positively contributes whatsoever to race discourse in America nor in the world. I believe it is a detriment and a distraction to such discourse. It is my (hopeful) prediction that the eventual fate of the future of this bogus and harmful concept of white fragility will necessarily be hindered by the evidenced based, peer reviewed, and double blind study standards that collectively often apply to social science research. This is my hope at least unless Dr. DiAngelo makes wide, significant, and fundamental changes to the presentation I read in her paper.

In this paper, Dr. DiAngelo also includes what she calls “a cogent example of White Fragility.” In this so called cogent example, she references a training she was giving in a workplace setting in which a white female attendee left the training upset. The worker retreated to her desk after she received what the paper terms as “sensitive and diplomatic feedback on how some of her statements had impacted several people of color in the room” 

Let’s look at this a little more closely and deeply, shall we?

Dr. DiAngelo, for example, expects the reader to simply take her word for it that the woman’s retreat back to her desk is solely the result of what specifically happened in that training room. I do believe that is a fairly reasonable assumption one might make. I do not however, believe it is the only possibility by any stretch of the imagination and definitely not the only possibility in the realm of social research that requires other possibilities be ruled out. If Dr. Di Angelo were a freelance and unseasoned journalist instead of a tenured social scientist/researcher/professor I might not expect more from this "cogent example." However, I do expect more from a scientist/researcher/professor who is purporting to convince the world of the validity of her newly minted group based pejorative, and so will future potential grant sponsors and funders.

Perhaps the woman in the so called cogent example suffers from some mental, emotional, or physical ailment that at least partially contributed to her flight from the training room. Perhaps the woman suffers from panic attacks. Maybe she is simply a drama queen. Perhaps there were long standing and intense conflicts or “bad blood” between her and the co-workers we are told she is insensitive to during the training. Maybe she has recently ended a romantic relationship with a black man and has experienced trauma and/or anger/ and/or possible rejection, hurt feelings around it all that provided strong bearing on how she conducted herself in that training. Hey, stranger things have happened. The point is, Dr. DiAngelo gives no indication that she has explored nor teased out any other potential factors that may have explained or contributed to the woman’s behavior before jumping full blast to the conclusion that the woman unerringly, incontrovertibly, and unquestionably is suffering from so called White Fragility which, of course, it completely benefits her to believe and jump to because she in the major stakeholder here in the presumed reality of so called white fragility.

Also, since she has come up with this new pejorative—White Fragility—and also presumably has been giving the type of diversity training's that play a central role in her cogent example and for a very long time, one would think she would have an extensive file of "cogent examples" from which to choose from and include in her paper. After all, this is what she is now seemingly most professionally invested in—convincing us all in the validity of white fragility. Yet she only puts forth one cogent example of it (and a very poor one, I might add). If she has them filed away somewhere, she doesn’t bother to include them. She doesn’t even mention them. She only gives us one single cogent example for something as presumably wide in scope it necessarily or potentially effects every single white person on the planet. It seems very suspect to me that she only presents one cogent example of white fragility here.

Additionally, I stridently question the academic rigor of this paper as well as the entire foundation of what she wants us all to believe when she sat down to compose the paper and she only included one cogent example of white fragility. She does give us one other similar example near the beginning of the paper that she doesn’t call a cogent example. Are two presumed and not very deeply explored examples of White Fragility really supposed to be enough to justify a character flaw potentially to be found in an entire group of people on the planet? She didn’t, after all, name it Very Intermittent and Very Randomly Occurring White Fragility. She needs to justify and validate that extremely bold assertion called white fragility, far more convincingly.

Further, with regard to that woman who leaves the training because of her supposed white fragility—most people are uncomfortable with being publicly challenged and in front of people they know or work with no matter how “sensitively and diplomatically” one might believe this challenge has been presented.

Every single day I observe people being strongly triggered and strongly reactive in situations far less intimidating than what I can imagine took place in that training room with Dr. DiAngelo. When I was homeless in Oakland I spent a lot of time in McDonald’s restaurants because of the free internet. I very often witnessed people throwing unbelievably intense and severe temper tantrums because of something like receiving a small order of fries instead of the medium order of fries they thought they had ordered. I’m not talking here of a quick and mild rebuff and redirecting of the McDonald’s employee nor of giving some mildly sassy though essentially harmless "attitude" to the employee. No, I’m talking women taking out their earrings in preparation for full-on battle while screaming a colorful assortment and stream of expletives at extremely high decibels while simultaneously literally trying to reach over the counter, seriously going for the (completely shocked) workers throat. I kid you not. And the triggered and reactive men were no better.

We now live in a world where many people simply don’t know or seemingly don’t understand the concept of restraint nor public decorum. We engage in totally overwrought and tension inducing public scenes and displays spurred on by our completely out of control reactivity, lack of self-discipline, and seemingly raw, bloodthirsty instincts that lie just a razor thin distance below the surface. Perhaps people just watch too many reality shows these days. I don’t know. What I do know is that it takes unbelievably very little stimulus to set many people off these days and have them behaving like raging maniacs in very public spaces—on public transportation, in public libraries, in hip and trendy restaurants in Noe Valley in San Francisco, on urban street corners, etc. It’s very scary. Such behavior is completely normalized in America today, especially in large urban areas and metropolitan centers. When considering this, the woman who left Dr. Di Angelo's training seems like an extremely mild mannered little kitten compared to the ferocious, bloodthirsty tigers and tigresses I've seen in action in all kinds of public settings in urban America.

If this had been a paper entitled Black Fragility or Latin Fragility instead, and with a similar lackluster presentation of cogent examples presented, justifying its presumed existence, which I am convinced someone could have easily have come up with containing at least as much of a premise for them as DiAngelo comes up with as a premise for White Fragility here--I wonder how many of the exact same people who have lauded, praised, and have been impressed with Dr. DiAngelo’s work here, would even give such a paper called Black Fragility or Latin Fragility even a serious passing glance? Or an even better question—I wonder how many would have been completely outraged and would have made sure we all knew just how outraged they were?

Finally, I believe everything Dr. DiAngelo attributes to “White Fragility” is explained by forms and expressions of human fragility and human failing that are present in and that can be appropriately generalized to the entire human population on the planet where they pertain to various regularly occurring and observable failings that can show up within a certain large percentage of people representing many different groups of people. So instead of us having “Alcoholics Fragility,” or “Drug Addicts Fragility,”or “People living with Depression Fragility,” or “Narcissistic Personality Fragility,”or “Obsessive Compulsive People Fragility” or “People who have been Traumatized Fragility”—all of these are correctly presumed to be subsumed under the general human condition of “human fragility,” and so should so called “White Fragility.”

It saddens me there are people like Dr. DiAngelo out in the world who are motivated, for whatever reasons, to characterize real personal failings people in the world have and are dealing with through pejorative and sensationalized labeling and scapegoating. It especially saddens me in this particular instance where I know there will be all kinds of guilt and shame ridden, progressively minded, very good intentioned white folks who will innocently fall prey to these shenanigans of hers. I absolutely know there will be white folks who will confidently and proudly label themselves as suffering from this new, intrinsic personality flaw du jour that has now come onto the academic, social justice, and/or diversity and inclusion scene—enabling some portion of them to now evaluate themselves in some new, negative, and completely concocted false light. 

One result of this will be that others of us will be able to triumphantly add white fragility to our cache of verbal and conceptual weapons to use on these same misguided, good- intentioned, self-labeling folks and others. So a new way to divide and conquer and insult and blame has now come onto the scene. I can now fully envision White Fragility conferences occurring various places in The San Francisco Bay Area. Of course they will be in The San Francisco Bay Area--probably Oakland, and maybe eventually other places in America as well, in the near future, though definitely in Oakland. At these conferences, guilt and shame ridden, misguided, good- intentioned white folks will get the opportunity to gather and verbally beat up on themselves and ask for absolution for their presumed offensive sins and will also get the privilege of getting beat up on by so called “experts” on White Fragility who’ve been flown in and paid big bucks specifically for such a purpose, for a day or a week-end, all in the name of fake “science,” and fake “social progress,” and fake “personal development.” God help us all.

Here is a PDF copy of Dr. DiAngelo's White Fragility paper: White Fragility paper