Why I’m Cautious About the Term “White Fragility”
It’s useful, but it often gets misused
What is white fragility, anyway?
The phrase “white fragility” first made the rounds in progressive circles a few years ago, then became more common after George Floyd’s death, when Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility zoomed to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. I think the term has its place — but I’m concerned that it’s getting misused.
White fragility is an emotional, defensive response among white people to the sensitive topic of racism. Here’s a definition by DiAngelo:
“In a nutshell, it’s the defensive reactions so many white people have when our racial worldviews, positions, or advantages are questioned or challenged. For a lot of white people, just suggesting that being white has meaning will trigger a deep, defensive response.”
I do think DiAngelo’s onto something here. I’ve seen white fragility at work, and it’s helpful to have a term for this phenomenon.
Many white people are uncomfortable thinking of themselves in racial terms. Just like members of other races, we’re part of a group with distinctive historical and cultural traits, but until recently we were conditioned to think of ourselves as neutral or raceless.
Some white people also feel uncomfortable with this topic because they believe discussions of race are unnecessarily divisive. Shouldn’t we all just be colorblind? A few people of color agree with this view — but most often, people of color appreciate efforts that help white people gain awareness of racism and racial bias. This heightened awareness generates empathy for their common struggles.
White people may also feel uncomfortable talking about race because they assume they’ll be seen as the “bad guy.” Nobody wants to be called racist. White people can feel insulted when these conversations seem to imply that they themselves are racist.
For all these reasons, defensiveness around racism is common, just as DiAngelo says. White people may become flustered, angry, or hurt over this topic, and these strong emotions can take over conversations. White fragility makes it hard to talk about race — which gets in the way of progress on racial justice.
(The term “fragility” has been adapted to scenarios beyond racism, too. “Male fragility” is another phrase we’ve all heard.)
Critiques of “white fragility”
Not everyone is on board with the concept of white fragility. A few writers, even a few liberal writers, have lambasted it.
Most recently, in summer 2020, linguist John McWhorter wrote a scathing review of DiAngelo’s book in The Atlantic. He says the idea of white fragility puts white people in an untenable situation, unable to voice dissent or express any emotion without being labeled “white fragile:”
“Remember…that you are not to express yourself except to say Amen. … Whites aren’t even allowed to say, “I don’t feel safe.” Only Black people can say that. If you are white, you are solely to listen as DiAngelo tars you as morally stained…
“One might ask just how a people can be poised for making change when they have been taught that pretty much anything they say or think is racist and thus antithetical to the good. What end does all this self-mortification serve?”
McWhorter, who is black, also says the book condescends to black people by implying they can’t handle white people’s emotions:
“Despite the sincere intentions of its author, the book diminishes Black people in the name of dignifying us…. Few books about race have more openly infantilized Black people than this supposedly authoritative tome…. DiAngelo’s outlook rests upon a depiction of Black people as endlessly delicate poster children.”
Calling someone “fragile” just makes them more “fragile”
McWhorter and a few others have attacked this concept so stridently as to demand that it be thrown out. I’m not so sure. I do think it’s useful — but I have three complaints about its misuse.
First, I’m concerned that when brought up in tense conversations, saying “white fragility” only escalates the tension. It’s a self-generating concept: the more you use it, the truer it becomes.
By definition, white fragility essentially means defensiveness among white people about the topic of race — but the word “fragile” is far more inflammatory than “defensive.”
Saying “white fragility” will generally exacerbate the “fragile” effect being named. If someone is being defensive, telling them they’re being fragile is bound to make them more, well, fragile. So to reduce white fragility, it may be necessary to stop calling it white fragility — at least in the heat of a discussion with a white-fragile person. I think it’s most useful when reflecting on one’s own white fragility or when talking about such conversations, but not within them.
Not all defensiveness is fragility
Second, I’m troubled by the way well-meaning progressives often mistake all white defensiveness for white fragility.
The thinking goes something like this: White fragility is a type of defensiveness among white people around race. Therefore, all defensiveness among white people who are talking about race must be white fragility. If A is a form of B, then all forms of B must equal A.
But this is incorrect; there’s another reason white people might feel defensive in conversations on racism.
White fragility is defensiveness about the topic of race, but along with topic, tone also affects conversations. Anyone, of any color, will feel defensive in response to certain tones or behaviors. This defensiveness is natural and even appropriate.
Political psychologist Diana Mutz describes the key role politeness plays in conversation:
“I define ‘uncivil discourse’ as communication that violates the norms of politeness for a given culture…. In what I define as a polite or civil interaction, participants cooperate to maintain each other’s positive public self-images. In an uncivil interaction, they do not…. In the political world, as well as in social interaction more generally, politeness and civility are not arbitrary norms of etiquette akin to using the correct fork; they are rules that allow people of diverse views to smooth over differences and promote social harmony. Following the rules of civility/politeness is thus a means of demonstrating mutual respect.”
(Diana Mutz, In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media)
All cultures have norms of respect, and it’s natural to respond defensively when they’re broken. Such defensiveness can be wrongly dismissed as fragility — but these norms are essential for a functional society.
Let me demonstrate what I mean.
A too-familiar example
Imagine a conversation between two white people, Ms. Antiracist and Mr. Skeptic.
“This country is so racist,” says Ms. Antiracist, shaking her head. “Look at all the police shootings of unarmed black people. It’s appalling.”
“But those police shootings aren’t necessarily racism,” protests Mr. Skeptic. “You know, unarmed white people get killed by police, too.”
Shocked and offended to realize he’s a skeptic, Ms. Antiracist turns on him. “How can you even say that? Black people are three times more likely to get killed by police! Have you been sticking your head in the sand?!”
“Yes, but crime rates are different in different communities…”
“Don’t you ‘but crime rates’ me! The police are racist. If you can’t see that, I’m sorry, but I can’t help you. I’m sick of your gaslighting; here’s a list of books to read. Go educate yourself.”
“Who’s gaslighting who?” Now Mr. Skeptic is angry, too. “I can’t say anything without being accused of racism! That’s insulting. I’m not racist, and I’m sick of being bullied by liberals.”
“Bullied?! Listen to yourself! You’re so racist you can’t even see it. If you’re too white-fragile to accept that, that’s your problem. I’m done.”
With that, Ms. Antiracist storms off. Or more likely, she unfriends Mr. Skeptic — this scenario plays out most often on social media.
Fragility or appropriate sensitivity?
We’ve all seen conversations like this, unfortunately. Perhaps we’ve been in a few ourselves.
If you’re passionate about antiracism, you might feel that Ms. Antiracist’s anger is justified — and I often agree. But my question is: was Mr. Skeptic being white-fragile?
In this scenario, I would argue that he wasn’t. He did become defensive, but his defensiveness wasn’t a response to the topic of racism. He responded to this topic with a calm, reasoned statement: “Police shootings aren’t necessarily racism.”
Ms. Antiracist became emotional first, and she quickly broke several norms of respect: she made accusations, interrupted, and condescended to Mr. Skeptic. His anger was a natural response to her tone — her aggressive, disrespectful behavior.
Anger over racism is justified, and I’m not telling anyone not to feel angry; this post isn’t intended to police anyone’s tone on this heated topic. But what I am saying is this: if you choose to express your anger in a way that breaks norms of respect, then the person you’re talking to will likely become defensive — and such defensiveness isn’t white fragility.
Of course, there’s also the possibility that Mr. Skeptic’s defensiveness is partly fragility. A person can be both white-fragile and reacting to disrespect; it can be hard to parse this out. But regardless, my point is that not all white defensiveness is white fragility.
Defensiveness may relate to either a conversation’s topic or its tone. Within the umbrella of defensiveness, white fragility is a response to topic.
Fragility or disagreement?
There’s a final way this term gets misused: when antiracists fail to discern white fragility from disagreement about racism.
In the example above, Mr. Skeptic disagreed with Ms. Antiracist about the causes of police shootings. Ms. Antiracist became quickly offended at his disagreement, blaming his stance on willful ignorance and white fragility. But again, this begs the question: was his disagreement fragility?
Again I say “no.” Various people of color agree with Mr. Skeptic. From provocateurs like Candace Owens to intellectuals like Thomas Sowell and John McWhorter, there are people of color who feel racism is not as pervasive and impactful as many progressives believe. Of course, far more people of color do believe it’s pervasive and impactful — but still, the naysayers can’t all be white-fragile, because they aren’t all white.
While many white skeptics may indeed be white-fragile, mere disagreement about the impacts of racism is not enough to make a person white-fragile.
When we assume all disagreement is white fragility, we imply that there’s only one correct view on race in America — a view that is inviolable and beyond question. Anyone with a dissenting view must be white-fragile, because dissent has no basis in reason. Although I’m antiracist myself and believe skeptics are wrong, I also see the insidiousness of this way of thinking. Truth can never be revealed through dogmatism.
White fragility is real, but be careful how you use it
I’m not ready to throw out white fragility just yet. I aim for nuance and try to avoid binary thinking in general, and I believe a term can be problematic yet still have merits.
The merit of this term is that it gives language to a real phenomenon. I’ve seen white people blow up at first mention of race or racism, becoming ridiculously defensive right out of the gate. It’s an aggravating habit that makes it nearly impossible to talk about this important topic.
Here’s an exchange I’ve seen countless times on Facebook:
MS. ANTIRACIST: I’m appalled by the police shootings of unarmed black people. We can do better; we have a long way to go on racism in this country.
MR. SKEPTIC: I am so sick of being called racist! [Then a huge block of text about how he’s not racist, neither are any of his friends, liberals are the real racists, and he’s So Hurt And Angry.]
White fragility is a real thing.
Nevertheless, I want my antiracist friends to realize there are more nuances we can add to our thinking:
- Defensiveness isn’t always white fragility — it may be a response to disrespect.
- Disagreement about racism isn’t always white fragility, either.
- Telling someone they’re being “white fragile” won’t help, even when they are.
True white fragility is just as DiAngelo said: an overly emotional, defensive response to the topic of racism. Perhaps the best use of this term is not for labeling others — it’s for reflecting on our own behavior and working not to be white-fragile ourselves. Now that’s something I can get behind.
