Race is a man-made social construct. A largely (but not solely) American one at that – originally created to justify unequal treatment and oppression for economic gain. Race, as we typically identify it, is an idea and concept more than it is a biological reality and it certainly isn’t a Kingdom reality. The Kingdom reality is one (human) race made in the image of our Creator God and many ethnos (nations, ethnicities).
One of the main problems I see with “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard For White People to Talk About Racism” is that DiAngelo advocates hyper-focus on yet another social construct called “Whiteness” to counteract the problems in our nation that have stemmed from the social construct of race.
DiAngelo specifically says in the book that her goal isn’t to offer the solution for racism but to bring light to how “one aspect of white sensibility [white fragility] continues to hold racism in place.”In my own words, the essence of the book is to help white people be more aware of their “whiteness” and how their whiteness creates problems (inequities, oppression, etc.) for people of color, and particularly black people. And when I say be aware of whiteness, I’m not at all referring to skin color but to the social construct called whiteness as defined by sociologists.
According to DiAngelo, if you are white in America you internalized a racist worldview by default, you should never say “I am not racist” and you can (and should) spend an entire lifetime working on identifying your internalized superiority and work on being “less white” (less racially oppressive). She says it’s impossible to have a positive white identity because white identity is inherently racist and white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. At the same time, she doesn’t suggest not identifying as white either because that in itself would deny the reality of racism.
Exhausted yet?
To be clear, the book isn’t all bad. DiAngelo raises many good points and she provides some healthy and genuine opportunities for self-reflection and dialogue that may be uncomfortable yet can be transformational.
However, overall:
1. the tone is not hopeful or redemptive – it’s rooted in ongoing sin consciousness for white people
2. her antidote is endless striving that is hyper focused on looking at everything through the lens of ones race.
3. it swings too far by only giving credence to discussing problems with race in society as structural (rather than it being both individual and structural).
My goal in this commentary isn’t to be overly critical of Robin DiAngelo. I don’t question her sincerity, only her approach. “White Fragility” lacks important Kingdom truths that are useful for the common good. It’s wide acceptance as racial healing gospel is essentially the harvest we are reaping for failing to sow seeds of Kingdom centered solutions for addressing both the individual and systemic sin of racism.
