Racism, as DiAngelo uses the word, does not mean the explicit profession that there are essentially different human races and that some are better than others. That, she says, is an unsophisticated folk definition of racism (I’ll call that “racismF”).
The definition she prefers (what I’ll call “racismS”) is that racismS is a systemic, usually (nowadays) non-explicit or euphemistic, often subconscious, interlocking and pervasive set of social, cultural, and political devices that reinforce white supremacy. [...]
The folk definition, racismF, is in fact one of the pillars of white fragility. Because, according to this definition, racismF is the conscious, explicit endorsement of an unconscionable belief system — all we white people have to do to stop participating in racismF is to disavow racial bigotry and then congratulate ourselves for our good sense.
I would maintain the opposite: that racismF is the original definition of racism, which deservedly acquired its strong negative connotations (think of the image of a good, virtuous, even altruistic minority member, consistently better behaved than most white people, and a white person saying “Yeah, well, he’s still bad and not to be trusted because he isn’t white”); and that activists like DiAngelo are trying to push their own new definition of racism as racismS, probably for political purposes. (Ask yourself why they don’t just use a different term to avoid confusion. They could consistently say “structural racism”, but do they?) Specifically, it seems that they’re trying to take advantage of the negative affect towards racismF and everyone’s intuitive reaction of “Well, of course racism is bad and no one should be racist”, by claiming that being against racism means being on board with all of their increasingly extreme proposals, and threatening to tar any opposition as racist. It seems to be a disappointingly effective tactic.
Some of the activists probably genuinely believe that racismS is the correct definition. Likely even the majority; it only takes a few at the top of their intellectual hierarchy to promulgate a new definition in academia, and then those who look up to the few might just assume they’re justified and propagate it to the rest. However, since DiAngelo is in the business of saying “just because you don’t have any bad intentions doesn’t excuse you from participating in a system that leads to the same result”, I feel I should extend to her the same level of charity.
I see where you’re coming from, and I also wish I didn’t have to do the extra work to remember the correct technical definition of racism when I read White Fragility. That said, I expect that when I read a book in a particular discipline that I will need to be more attentive to the terms of art in that discipline. For instance, when I read a book of physics, I don’t expect the author to cater to my folk definitions of “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”, and so forth: instead, I expect that I will need to learn how to use the terminology of the field precisely as its practitioners do if I am to follow its arguments and learn what they have to teach.
For instance, when I read a book of physics, I don’t expect the author to cater to my folk definitions of “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”
Since you assume that physics book authors won’t cater to the laymen’s ordinary definition of the physics terms of art you may be surprised then reading most books on classical physics. The authors go to painstaking effort to make their content accessible to laypersons. I have not yet read a textbook on classical physics that didn’t take the time to explain that “work” in a physics context means Force x Distance and only refers to what you do at your day job if you’re pushing a cart around or lifting a tray of food. I know this because I was a computer science undergrad who took a few physics courses as electives and was surprised at how accessible the textbooks were given that they were of course designed for physics undergrads.
Also no physicist claims that their definitions are the “correct technical” ones or are somehow better or more useful than the ordinary definitions. Many physicists I know feel that physics terms which share a spelling with colloquial terms should be changed on the physics side of things to prevent confusion. Or at the very minimum the distinction should be kept clear.
I see where you’re coming from, and I also wish I didn’t have to do the extra work to remember the correct technical definition of racism when I read White Fragility.
There’s nothing technical about the definition of racism that gets used by people like DeAngelo. In physics a definition becomes technical when it’s well defined enough to objectively measure the resulting effect. There’s nothing that makes their definition more inherently correct either.
In the civil rights area a lot of laws were passed to combat racism and I would say that the resulting legal concepts of racism are the nearest we have to a technical definition of racism and that definition is about discriminating for people based on the their race (perceived race).
I would maintain the opposite: that racismF is the original definition of racism, which deservedly acquired its strong negative connotations (think of the image of a good, virtuous, even altruistic minority member, consistently better behaved than most white people, and a white person saying “Yeah, well, he’s still bad and not to be trusted because he isn’t white”); and that activists like DiAngelo are trying to push their own new definition of racism as racismS, probably for political purposes. (Ask yourself why they don’t just use a different term to avoid confusion. They could consistently say “structural racism”, but do they?) Specifically, it seems that they’re trying to take advantage of the negative affect towards racismF and everyone’s intuitive reaction of “Well, of course racism is bad and no one should be racist”, by claiming that being against racism means being on board with all of their increasingly extreme proposals, and threatening to tar any opposition as racist. It seems to be a disappointingly effective tactic.
Some of the activists probably genuinely believe that racismS is the correct definition. Likely even the majority; it only takes a few at the top of their intellectual hierarchy to promulgate a new definition in academia, and then those who look up to the few might just assume they’re justified and propagate it to the rest. However, since DiAngelo is in the business of saying “just because you don’t have any bad intentions doesn’t excuse you from participating in a system that leads to the same result”, I feel I should extend to her the same level of charity.
I see where you’re coming from, and I also wish I didn’t have to do the extra work to remember the correct technical definition of racism when I read White Fragility. That said, I expect that when I read a book in a particular discipline that I will need to be more attentive to the terms of art in that discipline. For instance, when I read a book of physics, I don’t expect the author to cater to my folk definitions of “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”, and so forth: instead, I expect that I will need to learn how to use the terminology of the field precisely as its practitioners do if I am to follow its arguments and learn what they have to teach.
Since you assume that physics book authors won’t cater to the laymen’s ordinary definition of the physics terms of art you may be surprised then reading most books on classical physics. The authors go to painstaking effort to make their content accessible to laypersons. I have not yet read a textbook on classical physics that didn’t take the time to explain that “work” in a physics context means Force x Distance and only refers to what you do at your day job if you’re pushing a cart around or lifting a tray of food. I know this because I was a computer science undergrad who took a few physics courses as electives and was surprised at how accessible the textbooks were given that they were of course designed for physics undergrads.
Also no physicist claims that their definitions are the “correct technical” ones or are somehow better or more useful than the ordinary definitions. Many physicists I know feel that physics terms which share a spelling with colloquial terms should be changed on the physics side of things to prevent confusion. Or at the very minimum the distinction should be kept clear.
There’s nothing technical about the definition of racism that gets used by people like DeAngelo. In physics a definition becomes technical when it’s well defined enough to objectively measure the resulting effect. There’s nothing that makes their definition more inherently correct either.
In the civil rights area a lot of laws were passed to combat racism and I would say that the resulting legal concepts of racism are the nearest we have to a technical definition of racism and that definition is about discriminating for people based on the their race (perceived race).