Even though DiAngelo explicitly disavows individualism, there is an essentially individualist mindset implicit in her argument: the individual who has to face up to her own socialisation in white supremacy. Individualism is bad because it suggests white people can escape from the forces of socialisation; but the only way to tackle white fragility, DiAngelo suggests, is by strengthening our individual capacity to sustain such conversations. White Fragility is not a utopian manifesto. It is not a Marxist polemic. It is a self-help book for white people who want to know how to confront racism.
Yet while many self-help books are about making you feel good, or at least providing you with the tools to feel better, this isn’t quite the same with DiAngelo’s work. There is a Lutheran-like emphasis on the need to purge yourself of racism. And there is a distinctly pessimistic strain: “Racism is so deeply woven into the fabric of our society”, DiAngelo writes, “that I do not see myself escaping from that continuum in my lifetime”.
The two books often bought alongside White Fragility, Saad’s Me and White Supremacy and Kendi’s How to be an Antiracist, encourage the reader to use a journal when reading the text – a confessional volume itemising their list of racial sins. Becoming an anti-racist is not a walk in the park.
In her 2001 book, Race Experts, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn analysed the intersection between race and the vogue for individual self-improvement in the wake of America’s civil rights movement. “The race experts”, she argues, “moved in to fill a void created by the collapse of the civil rights coalition and the loss of the clarity of the early movement, capitalizing on a long-term trend in American culture toward reliance on experts for guidance in all aspects of public and personal life”.
The civil rights movement was characterised by a commitment to egalitarianism and a universal standard of moral conduct: “It rested”, Lasch-Quinn writes, “on historical truths about America’s pluralism and its racial crimes. It rested on moral truths about harmony and justice”. The rhetoric of the new race experts, by contrast, is characterised by an emphasis on racial difference and individual self-expression: “The therapeutic notion of identity called for unlimited self-expression as a goal”, Lasch-Quinn writes, “instead of a collective rehabilitation aimed at the formation of a morally viable community”.
Nevertheless, underneath the seeming chaos of individual self-expression lurks the strictures of ritual: “Despite its ostensible commitment to baring all emotion and thought”, Lasch-Quinn writes, “it has its own rituals and forms that actually constrain certain kinds of expression, perhaps the kinds we as a public need the most”. We are encouraged to educate ourselves about racism, and what is lost in our vain attempt to make full sense of the complexities of race is compensated for by the security of race experts telling us what to do and think.
DiAngelo’s tone is earnest and straightforward. There is a charm to how briskly she addresses contentious issues. The world is confusing and she encourages humility in her readers. She has the charisma of a prim no-nonsense teacher.
Saad possesses a similar quality, but she is more explicit. Her book Me and White Supremacy began as a 28-day Instagram challenge. It then became a PDF workbook that was downloaded by over 100,000 people around the world.
It is written as a companion guide for white readers to unpack their complicity in white supremacy. Saad is our Virgil: with characteristic humility, she describes her work in the introduction as a “one-of-a-kind personal antiracism tool structured to help people with white privilege understand and take ownership of their participation in the oppressive system of white supremacy”.
That Saad was born in Britain and grew up there and in Qatar — where she currently lives — does not stop her from using a term like BIPOC (black, indigenous, and people of colour) to refer to ethnic minority people. Like all successful self-help authors, she knows her own audience: they are either American or have internalised American culture to such an extent they can read about the marginalisation of “indigenous communities” without batting an eyelid.
At times Saad sounds like a boorish Italian-American boxing coach from the 1950s, or a barking Army general in a Stanley Kubrick epic: “There are no safety nets, no shortcuts, and no easier routes. You will want to close the book, run away, and pretend you never heard of me”, she instructs her reader: “You will want to blame me, rage at me, discredit me, and list all the reasons why you are a good person and why you don’t need to do this work. That is a normal, expected response. That is the response of the white fragility and anti-Blackness lying inside”.
But you can, of course, overcome this. She is more upbeat than DiAngelo. Like an old-fashioned textbook, there are questions at the end of each chapter to answer.
Kendi’s How to be Antiracist, by contrast, is distinct in one important way from many other contemporary anti-racist books: he believes black people can be racist to white people. As a college student, Kendi briefly thought white people were aliens. He no longer believes this. “Whenever someone classifies people of European descent as biologically, culturally, or behaviourally inferior”, he writes, “whenever someone says there is something wrong with White people as a group, someone is articulating a racist idea”.
In How to be an Antiracist, definitions are absolutely critical for Kendi. He wants clear and consistent definitions on the terms racist and anti-racist. A racist is someone “who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or expressing a racist idea”. And an anti-racist is someone “who is supporting an anti-racist policy through their actions or expressing an anti-racist idea”.
How to be an Antiracist is the most unnuanced book I have ever read; he splits everything down the middle. There is no such thing as a race-neutral policy: every policy is either producing or challenging racial inequities. “The opposite of ‘racist’”, Kendi writes, “isn’t non-racist. It is ‘anti-racist’. One who ‘believes problems are rooted in groups of people’ is a racist”. By contrast, one who “locates the roots of problems in power and policies is an anti-racist.”
But for Kendi, being a racist is not the worst thing in the world. “It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur”, he writes. “It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it — and then dismantle it”.
Kendi, like DiAngelo with her concept of white fragility, is effectively saying: get over yourselves. Stop being squeamish about being called racist. This aggressively dispassionate style of reasoning, however, is opposed to the true emotional character of people — something earlier anti-racist activists appealed to rather than denied. How, for example, can we be animated to fight racial injustice if we strip racism of its moral content and treat it as simply an analytical tool? isn’t the fact we are upset by being called racist a good thing because it implies we have intuitively accepted the moral case for fighting racism? Of course, many evidently racist people deny they are racist because of the social stigma attached to being called racist. But it’s still possible to identify their dishonesty without diluting the moral content of the term. To do so would be to undermine the legacy of those who proscribed racial prejudice in polite society.
Ultimately, both Kendi and DiAngelo, despite themselves, fit established stereotypes about America. The individualism, the meritocracy (they are both now wealthy and distinguished public thinkers), the vigorous evangelical piety, and, perhaps the most American thing about them: the neurotic fascination with race.
In her latest book, Nice Racism, DiAngelo’s fixation with race reaches a new pitch of intensity. Among her practical solutions for confronting racism includes attending something called an affinity group. A white affinity group is white people meeting together to discuss their internalised superiority, implicit bias, confusion, and resentment — and doing this in a racially segregated space so as not to cause harm to “racialized people”.
Another thing she suggests is getting “accountability partners of colour”. This is a black person who has agreed to coach you, think with you, and challenge you on your inevitable racism. And you should pay them for this.
If you are inclined, you could also seek out white accountability partners. DiAngelo says she doesn’t offer to pay her white friends for this, but she generously informs us that “there are white people with strong analysis and deep experience who do offer professional aid coaching”.
Apart from the dangers of encouraging and retrenching racial segregation, there is something so intensely cringeworthy about all of this. An accountability partner? White affinity groups? DiAngelo’s prose, in this book, is deadening rather than enlivening, tedious rather than instructive. Her analysis and recommendations lack sophistication, original insights, sprightly sentences, and astute observations. It is like reading a HR manager’s attempt to write a bestseller.
How can we have constructive discussions about race when everything is so tightly scripted? How can we have genuine conversations when our emotions are disregarded rather than acknowledged?
DiAngelo evinces no curiosity about the lives of ethnic minority people: they come out of this book as shallow as a street puddle. There is no attempt to dig beneath the surface of oppression and marginalisation. How, exactly, can we build authentic cross-racial relationships on the basis of all of this?
But, as she reminds us in one passage, her book is not an attempt “to teach white people about Black people. I am seeking to teach white people about ourselves in relation to Black people and other people of color”. In the end, it is supposed to be about the individual white person overcoming a barrier to greater racial enlightenment. In truth, what is offered is not enlightenment but an emotionally and intellectually enervating form of narcissism.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThese people all seem to be irredeemable racists themselves.
So sick of these grifters. I am racist as I am white and I cannot be cured and must buy more of their wares.
Thanks to Tomiwa Owolade for providing us with such a wry, occasionally sardonic, overview of this literary genre.
I was particularly amused at Mr. Owolade’s paraphrase of DiAngelo: “Everywhere you look … black and ethnic minorities are presented throughout society as stupid, incompetent, and dangerous.” Does “everywhere” include the BBC’s drama output?
If any reasonably unbiased researcher looked at British television and radio drama, and advertisements, I’m sure they would find that this sentence is demonstrably untrue. It wasn’t even true twenty years ago. Perhaps it is true in the US, I don’t know.
Mixed race families are presented as the norm in UK advertising.
As they are here in the US. In fact, there are some fairly creative combinations being normalized.
DiAngelo got one thing right – white people often do get defensive over the accusation of racism. But the reason she gives – internalised racism – is wrong. Simply put, racism is now the worst moral failing you can be accused of. It’s equivalent to being gay in the 1950s or an adulterer in the 1850s. That’s why individuals – who may or may not be harbouring unconscious racism – reel from the accusation in horror. But acknowledging this would create a hole in DiAngelo’s argument, an unfalsifiable, self-serving circle in which to deny racism is to reveal it as much as an admission. All roads lead to racism and her trainings. It’s pound-shop Freudianism.
It reminds me of the infamous witch hunts of past centuries. If you admit you are a witch you are a witch. If you deny it that proves you are a witch. Same with racism today.
Quite. If you are sure and certain that you are not a racist and you regard racism as ‘one of the worst moral failings you can be accused of’ then you naturally feel upset if accused of it purely on the grounds of being of European descent. Not only that, but you know that denials are regarded as proof that you are. I’ve read about this sort of thing that the Chinese state practised during the Cultural Revolution. Agree that you are guilty and accuse a few of your friends and you will be allowed to live (not be cancelled).
Yes. To deny you are racist is to admit your guilt etc. Pure Kafkatrap. Further, Di Angelo is a mind reader, a person with the magical ability to know what a person’s internal state is.
…white people have been “socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority that we either are unaware of or can never admit to ourselves”. Everywhere you look you see white people in positions of political, economic, and cultural power; white standards of beauty are the norm; and black and ethnic minorities are presented throughout society as stupid, incompetent, and dangerous.
The 1st sentiment is an admission by Di Angelo about herself. Her claims about others are assertions made without demonstrable cogent evidence and hence can be dismissed without evidence. The 2nd sentiment is obviously true but does not tell us anything about the nature of the position of ‘power’ – is it competence or merit based authority etc – nor does it tell us anything about black and ethnic minority representation. The 3rd is an assertion without evidence and the 4th also asserted without evidence.
The one overriding feature of Di Angelo’s book White Fragility is that it tells me only about how the author perceives the world. And that view is an unsavoury pathological one in my estimation.
Exactly. What these books “do” is exactly what similar ones “did” in books with regard to the denizens of Gaul, or Carthage, or Africa, or India, or China, or, pick a place throughout human history. There’s doubtless a market for “XXX Fragility”.
Indeed, a classic case of projection.
“DiAngelo got one thing right – white people often do get defensive over the accusation of racism. But the reason she gives – internalised racism – is wrong. Simply put, racism is now the worst moral failing you can be accused of.”
It’s because we are rendered speechless with fury by the disgusting anti-white racism of our accusers.
Sorry, but life’s too short to read these nonsensical books. And the authors have the nerve to expect us to buy them. Sorry, No.
I agree. It’s weird to hear that they are all bestsellers!
They’re best sellers because the people who buy them think they should to be ‘woke.’
Tomiwa has done us a favour by reading them for us though. I salute his indefatigability.
YES!!!!!!!!!
I couldn’t get past the description of what “white fragility” is supposed to be. I must have been bristling too much. That or reacting to obvious BS.
Reminds me of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. There is a reason why not many people know of the latter. Hint, if one radical group gains more power and influence by throwing others under the bus, they will do it no matter how much their targets profess to fighting for the same cause.
There’s something very Catholic about this. The idea of original sin; that we are all sinners; the need to confess and do penance with the continual threat of either excommunication, or not getting to heaven. With a spectre of religious war and defending the faith lurking in the background; and priestly condemnation or inquisition if you step off the path.
Yes, it emphasises how intuitively religious humans are: ditch the idea of God, but replace it with secular sins and blasphemies instead; the woke influencers are the new priests; the demos are the new church.
Although the Christian concept of original sin is better as we’re all tagged: it makes no distinction for skin colour or for famous authors!
Yes, Tom Holland said he finds the idea of original sin very democratic!
Why Catholicism and not Protestantism? The author mentioned lutherism for a reason. Original sin is present in both Catholicism and Protestantism but in the later you can’t really be forgiven except by God’s grace. Which you won’t really know about until you die, but you must interrogate your inner self continuously to avoid sin. There’s no forgiveness by other humans. Also struggle sessions were common in Puritanism where people confessed sins in public, see pietism.
A Catholic anti racism would be a breeze.
A 5 minute confession of your racist sins every so often and absolution would be certain.
Well, that’s not Lutheranism, it is 17th century Calvinism.
Yes!!
The Sacrament of Penance is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card. Absolution is wholly dependent on true repentance. It doesn’t “take”, otherwise. And, ALL forgiveness is through God’s grace.
You have to do penance and you must not sin again.
Forgiveness is through God’s grace, but according to the catholic teaching, the grace given in sacraments confer ex opere operato – so the absolution is not dependent on the state of mind (true or phony repentance) of the recipient.
I wasn’t being totally serious.
Missing the ‘redemption’ and ‘forgiveness’ parts though. I’m an atheist through and through but I think I prefer Christianity to wokeology.
The genius here is not the use of circular reasoning in the arguments but rather its application in marketing. Buy my book and you prove me right; don’t buy it and you REALLY prove me right.
Nice to see now that there’s a range of products on offer. From simply downloading an e-book to paying $2,500 to cook dinner for someone who tells you why you’re bad, there’s a pitch to every pocket.
Owolade’s essay was insightful and a beacon of light in the midst of the lunacy.
Robin Di Angelo, Ibram X Kendi and Layla Saad are basically arms dealers in the culture war.
The racial grievance industry is enjoying a boom time. There are careers to be had and fortunes to be made.
We’ve reached a point where, regardless of how well-meaning people might be, before engaging in any worthwhile cultural or political debate, those taking part must first decide what sort of discussion they wish to have – one that sits comfortably within current moral fashion, or an honest conversation that deals with actual facts (however uncomfortable they may be).
Unless all participants agree that a real and honest conversation is preferable, then daring to voice perfectly justifiable thoughts in certain quarters will lead to (unchallengeable) charges of racism and kill any chance of rational debate.
It is also sadly true that the identity of the messenger is often as consequential as the message itself. The matter of one’s race, gender, age or creed should not add a jot or subtract a tittle from the validity of one’s argument – but we know that it does in today’s marketplace of ideas. Writing as a British, middle-class, middle-aged white man, I am on much thinner ice tackling contentious issues such as race than if I were black, or younger, or any of half a dozen other differentiators. Because according to Critical Race Theory, the very fact of my Whiteness supposedly stops me from being able to discern systemic racism – and thus I can be safely ignored. Any attempt to push back against that is dismissed as defensiveness and further proof of my racism – apparently.
It is therefore crucial that enough black intellectuals and writers take on the divisive racial myths being peddled by race-baiters, the leftish media and the ever-growing army of (largely well-meaning but chronically misinformed) young, indoctrinated woke – who I like to call the Children of the Quorn.
When I’ve tried to read and understand the messages put about by Ms DiAngelo and her ilk, it appears that the arguments rest wholly on guilt, and cynically seek to exploit that guilt for perceived gain. Organisations such as BLM seek to feed into a culture of guilt among whites, and victimhood among the black community. Rather than empowering those they claim to champion, it enfeebles them. It is frankly demeaning to imagine black people as perpetual victims of systemic white racism. It removes the idea that any Person of Colour has agency. It absolves such “victims” of the need to take responsibility for their actions, their choices and their future. Such infantilisation of an entire racial community has been the principle behind much that is holding people back.
Thomas Sowell has been making these points for many years. Now into his 90’s, and with BLM in the ascendency, his voice is needed more than ever. Thankfully there are other US intellectuals taking up the challenge – Glenn Loury and Coleman Hughes very much among them.
Here in the UK, we need to hear more voices such as Mr Owolade – despite the pushback they will doubtless receive. Trevor Phillips, once considered righteous by the BBC and Guardian, is now vilified because he dared speak the truth, he dared push back against the false narrative that the UK is an irredeemably racist country. Or witness the immediate denigration of the authors of the recent Sewell report. The comments made about them (in mainstream as well as social media) were overtly racist and deeply unpleasant, all because they challenged the race-baiters and pointed up the fact that poverty and social class and culture were determining factors of far greater significance than merely race.
Just a few years ago we were exhorted as a society to be colour-blind, to accept people simply as people, whatever their background, their lifestyle, their “differences”. What happened to that idea?
For many years I lived in London and worked in an industry (Broadcast TV) that was as diverse as one could possibly find anywhere. As far as we were concerned the arguments of Race, Gender, Creed, Orientation had been fought and won. We seemed at the time – perhaps naively – to be enjoying the peace.
Maybe those who are inclined to be activists feel they have to keep picking at the scab and reopening old wounds or there is no point to their existence, but it seems incredible that we’ve gone so far backwards and quite so quickly.
Identity politics is the very antithesis of those principles of universalism – it suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common.
Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?
How do people who claim to speak for progressive attitudes justify shifting the argument from Martin Luther King’s dream of a future where people are judged according to their character rather than the colour of their skin to the point where these activists are calling for PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE? That you are defined, as a person, solely by the groups to which you belong. To abandon that call for universalism in favour of separatism is surely a retrograde step?
That point seems so incontestable to me that I am utterly baffled how “progressives” can think this present strategy is advancing the cause of equality.
If you really want to help, if equality is honestly your goal, then tackle the real issue, Poverty, rather than cast around for excuses and scapegoats to blame and hold responsible.
You could have written this reply as summary in a longer form and we wouldn’t need Owolade’s piece. We are not advancing human progress by the self-reflection demanded in the racist books. In America some are trying to capitalize on white guilt, an original sin, that many fear applies to themselves. In Britain, I can’t imagine assignment of equal guilt. My ancestors had slaves for which I don’t have an apology. They remained with the household well after emancipation perhaps because they had become an extended family. But I bear no guilt about their circumstance. In the military I worked with troops of all sorts and did see racism but that was not tolerated well. It’s only over the last few years that the race conflict has arisen anew and I’m not sure why.
I think it’s just a tool in the toolbox of those who wish to overthrow the West and usher in a Communist ‘utopia’ which you can’t have unless you have the ‘oppressed’ rising up against their ‘oppressors’ and the dehumanisation that comes from collectivism rather than individualism. XR, BLM, neofeminism, trans activism etc all sound like branches of the same tree to me. Lots of noise, little in the way of real solutions, or even reality a lot of the time, and a wilful blind spot towards anything that does not fit their ideology.
I totally agree with your extensive and insightful comments and Owolade is a rare but much needed paragon of sanity, but whilst the ” racial grievance industry” is by far the most prominent it doesn’t have a monopoly on this type of unnuanced insanity. I’ve recently read of a British disability rights campaigner (I can’t remember his name) who wants to ban the phrases ”turn a blind eye” and ”turn a deaf ear” because they are ”offensive and upsetting” to anyone who is blind or deaf. In reality those phrases are neutral about blind or deaf people, but they criticise people who expediently ignore often legitimate complaints or pleas. If the campaigner doesn’t realise that,he is both intellectually and emotionally challenged, and is potentially spreading unfounded distress amongst people who already have REAL problems to contend with.
While dancing around the topic of individuality the author never asks if these authors favor equal rights or the new, never defined “equity”. Why? Likely because all these race baiters and grifters reject equal rights because equal rights, which is the essence of individuality, inevitably results in inequalities in property & life outcomes. This is true not just between races (however defined) but also amongst members of any group.
To achieve the primary goal of equity in outcomes between races there must be racist policies employed by government, companies, and institutions. Such policies have existed to a lesser degree in the US for around half a century and have not produced the desired equity- thus it is proposed by the left that we redouble those efforts. Absolute madness!
Equity = equality of outcome = communism.
“to teach white people about Black people. I am seeking to teach white people about ourselves in relation to Black people and other people of color”.
The blatantly racist practice of capitalising “black” while not capitalising “white” has to be called out every time without fail. These people cannot be allowed to get away with this.
One result of the ‘you’re white therefore you’re racist’ idea is that it fails to discourage white people to be racist. After all, if you can’t receive forgiveness and can’t change your apparently innate racist character you might as well accept the epithet and act accordingly. The philosophy is hateful and hopeless.
Exactly. It’s as if they *want* to create racists.
Being anti-racist confers such power and status it is no wonder that so many ambitious people are drawn to it. Why wouldn’t you use it against your enemies?
The reason white people don’t spend all day talking about any ‘-isms’ is probably connected with getting on with life. Why have they got to talk about racism, read books on it, etc?
I have a great idea. Mature white people must go on courses in local colleges to get certificates to prove that all is well. They can then frame these certificates and hang them in a window. Of course, they would have to go for retests every three years. I can’t wait to start.
The Government and the Church of England are ahead of you here. People like me already have to go through DBS checks and undertake online safeguarding courses.
Why bother bristling when you can just self-identify as BIPOC and join the pity party?
I always say, if racism is in our national DNA then we’re forgiven. After all, it’s impossible to change anyone’s DNA.
My favorite part of this essay in the note that both Kendi and DiAngelo are full fledged participants in the American dream. One black one white….Even if your individual effort is based on a Pet Rock marketing ploy you too can become successful and rich.
Pushing people’s guilt buttons is a path to wealth and fame.
Quite a frightening article What a strangely introverted community is described, where there is only the US, and only black and white to be discussed in the context of ‘racism’. .
All is said.
I do not even get why white people are being encouraged to somehow change how they think. We are who we are. We are not anywhere near a majority in terms of world population, in fact we are a pretty small minority. We have done what we have done, and achieved what we have achieved. Everyone else is not somehow a maltreated minority, they are the majority.