White Fragility
Ratings38
Average rating4.1
15
Ratings38
Average rating4.1
White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress. Although white racial insulation is somewhat mediated by social class (with poor and working class urban whites being generally less racially insulated than suburban or rural whites), the larger social environment insulates and protects whites as a group through institutions, cultural representations, media, school textbooks, movies, advertising, and dominant discourses. Racial stress results from an interruption to what is racially familiar. In turn, whites are often at a loss for how to respond in constructive ways., as we have not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop the stamina that that would allow for constructive engagement across racial divides. leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This book explicates the dynamics of White Fragility and how we might build our capacity in the on-going work towards racial justice.
([source][1])
[1]: https://robindiangelo.com/publications/
Reviews with the most likes.
As a white person, this is the most important book I've ever read. If you're open and willing to truly engage, listen and learn, you will love this book. If you're not yet ready to accept discomfort and a ton of emotions that are uncomfortable, this is not for you.It has been an eye-opener to me and has answered so many questions (all of which started with ‘yes, but...' to which I had no previous answers. I started off taking notes thinking I would write down a quote here, another there but I've filled pages and pages with so much from the book, I almost copied it all down.I will continue to refer to my notes and this book for the rest of my life and am incredibly grateful to [a:Robin DiAngelo 5283261 Robin DiAngelo https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_50x66-6a03a5c12233c941481992b82eea8d23.png] for writing it.
I finally read this (my sister had purchased it a while ago) mostly because of the unrest after the murder of George Floyd. I have to say, I was kind of shocked by how unrelenting it was; I think it's a useful and valuable book for sure. Kind of interesting how whether or not books like this(white people talking to white people about racism) existed before DiAngelo released White Fragility, none seems to have ever been nearly as popular or impactful.
Just a couple things I didn't like. Literally two.
- I felt she spent a lot of time repeating herself(probably necessary) and not enough time explaining certain terms and concepts she used. While reading, I tried to read it as if I were a skeptical/defensive white person. Early on in the book, she starts talking about how schools/America are still “segregated,” but doesn't quite explain much of how or why. Seems like something easy to balk at if one is looking for any reason to discredit the book and its ideas: Title 9 exists, de jure segregation à la Jim Crow no longer exists. At the same time, I think she mentioned that she wouldn't be explaining how America has been/is racist, and it's certainly a tall order to do so in one book (whose length would certainly turn people off). I guess I just wish there were some sections explaining certain things more fully, instead of repeated same-y anecdotes about her experiences in various workshops.
- The chapter on “White Woman Tears:” I definitely agree with the issue of white women weaponizing their emotions against people of color. What I don't agree with is the idea that it's somehow offensive when white women cry or are visibly upset when they are confronted with racism's effects on people of color. It's the first section of that chapter, I believe, and I just couldn't see the real justification for the embargo on this behavior. Personally I think that the black woman that approached DiAngelo was mostly in the wrong to say that “she didn't want to see any white woman's tears today.” Sure–if I were watching a white woman cry about unarmed black people getting shot, I would definitely be wondering if she were a decent “ally” herself and not just...sad about seeing people die...but I don't think that this emotional barrier should be maintained or erected. I can't see what purpose it serves. It's okay to not want performative/narcissistic tears to end up burdening or harming people of color, but not all instances of white women crying where race is a cogent factor can be classified as such. Feels like telling men not to cry in front of women in a feminist context–this actually doesn't help men, or women, and emotional repression probably makes a lot of tangible problems like domestic abuse worse.
Otherwise, powerful book; I definitely recommend it.
I Though this book was really interesting, well built and def helped me question further my bias and consideration of my own position as a white person in a race based society.
My regret is that I would have love to find a kind of discussion with an expert, who is a POC. It makes me want to read more an educate myself further, but not with a book not written by a white author.
