White Fragility

International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, Vol 3 (3) (2011) pp 54-70
©2011 International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
White Fragility
by
Robin DiAngelo
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, 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 paper explicates
the dynamics of White Fragility.
I am a white woman. I am standing beside a black woman. We are facing a group
of white people who are seated in front of us. We are in their workplace, and have
been hired by their employer to lead them in a dialogue about race. The room is
filled with tension and charged with hostility. I have just presented a definition
of racism that includes the acknowledgment that whites hold social and institutional
power over people of color. A white man is pounding his fist on the table.
His face is red and he is furious. As he pounds he yells, “White people have been
discriminated against for 25 years! A white person can’t get a job anymore!” I
look around the room and see 40 employed people, all white. There are no people
White Fragility • 55
of color in this workplace. Something is happening here, and it isn’t based in the
racial reality of the workplace. I am feeling unnerved by this man’s disconnection
with that reality, and his lack of sensitivity to the impact this is having on my cofacilitator,
the only person of color in the room. Why is this white man so angry?
Why is he being so careless about the impact of his anger? Why are all the other
white people either sitting in silent agreement with him or tuning out? We have,
after all, only articulated a definition of racism.
White people in North America live in a social environment that protects
and insulates them from race-based stress.1
 Fine (1997) identifies this insulation
when she observes “… how Whiteness accrues privilege and status; gets itself
surrounded by protective pillows of resources and/or benefits of the doubt; how
Whiteness repels gossip and voyeurism and instead demands dignity” (p. 57).
Whites are rarely without these “protective pillows,” and when they are, it is
usually temporary and by choice. This insulated environment of racial privilege
builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the
ability to tolerate racial stress.
For many white people, a single required multicultural education course
taken in college, or required “cultural competency training” in their workplace, is
the only time they may encounter a direct and sustained challenge to their racial
understandings. But even in this arena, not all multicultural courses or training
programs talk directly about racism, much less address white privilege. It is far
more the norm for these courses and programs to use racially coded language such
as “urban,” “inner city,” and “disadvantaged” but to rarely use “white” or “overadvantaged”
or “privileged.” This racially coded language reproduces racist images
and perspectives while it simultaneously reproduces the comfortable illusion
that race and its problems are what “they” have, not us. Reasons why the
facilitators of these courses and trainings may not directly name the dynamics and
beneficiaries of racism range from the lack of a valid analysis of racism by white
facilitators, personal and economic survival strategies for facilitators of color, and
the overall pressure from management to keep the content comfortable and palatable
for whites. However, if and when an educational program does directly
address racism and the privileging of whites, common white responses include
anger, withdrawal, emotional incapacitation, guilt, argumentation, and cognitive
dissonance (all of which reinforce the pressure on facilitators to avoid directly
addressing racism). So-called progressive whites may not respond with anger,
but may still insulate themselves via claims that they are beyond the need for
engaging with the content because they “already had a class on this” or “already
know this.” These reactions are often seen in anti-racist education endeavors as
1. 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, dominant discourses, etc.
56 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
forms of resistance to the challenge of internalized dominance (Whitehead &
Wittig, 2005; Horton & Scott, 2004; McGowan, 2000, O’Donnell, 1998). These
reactions do indeed function as resistance, but it may be useful to also conceptualize
them as the result of the reduced psychosocial stamina that racial insulation
inculcates. I call this lack of racial stamina “White Fragility.”
Although mainstream definitions of racism are typically some variation of individual
“race prejudice”, which anyone of any race can have, Whiteness scholars
define racism as encompassing economic, political, social, and cultural structures,
actions, and beliefs that systematize and perpetuate an unequal distribution of
privileges, resources and power between white people and people of color (Hilliard,
1992). This unequal distribution benefits whites and disadvantages people
of color overall and as a group. Racism is not fluid in the U.S.; it does not flow
back and forth, one day benefiting whites and another day (or even era) benefiting
people of color. The direction of power between whites and people of color is historic,
traditional, normalized, and deeply embedded in the fabric of U.S. society
(Mills, 1999; Feagin, 2006). Whiteness itself refers to the specific dimensions
of racism that serve to elevate white people over people of color. This definition
counters the dominant representation of racism in mainstream education as isolated
in discrete behaviors that some individuals may or may not demonstrate, and
goes beyond naming specific privileges (McIntosh, 1988). Whites are theorized
as actively shaped, affected, defined, and elevated through their racialization and
the individual and collective consciousness’ formed within it (Frankenberg, 1997;
Morrison, 1992; Tatum, 1997). Recognizing that the terms I am using are not
“theory neutral ‘descriptors’ but theory-laden constructs inseparable from systems
of injustice” (Allen, 1996, p.95), I use the terms white and Whiteness to describe a
social process. Frankenberg (1993) defines Whiteness as multi-dimensional:
Whiteness is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege. Second, it is a
‘standpoint,’ a place from which White people look at ourselves, at others, and
at society. Third, ‘Whiteness’ refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually
unmarked and unnamed. (p.1)
Frankenberg and other theorists (Fine, 1997; Dyer, 1997; Sleeter, 1993; Van
Dijk, 1993) use Whiteness to signify a set of locations that are historically, socially,
politically and culturally produced, and which are intrinsically linked to
dynamic relations of domination. Whiteness is thus conceptualized as a constellation
of processes and practices rather than as a discrete entity (i.e. skin color
alone). Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad
levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives
and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are
actually only consistently afforded to white people. Whiteness Studies begin with
the premise that racism and white privilege exist in both traditional and modern
forms, and rather than work to prove its existence, work to reveal it. This article
White Fragility • 57
will explore the dynamics of one aspect of Whiteness and its effects, White Fragility.

Triggers
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. Racial stress results
from an interruption to what is racially familiar. These interruptions can take a
variety of forms and come from a range of sources, including:
• Suggesting that a white person’s viewpoint comes from a racialized
frame of reference (challenge to objectivity);
• People of color talking directly about their racial perspectives (challenge
to white racial codes);
• People of color choosing not to protect the racial feelings of white people
in regards to race (challenge to white racial expectations and need/entitlement
to racial comfort);
• People of color not being willing to tell their stories or answer questions
about their racial experiences (challenge to colonialist relations);
• A fellow white not providing agreement with one’s interpretations (challenge
to white solidarity);
• Receiving feedback that one’s behavior had a racist impact (challenge to
white liberalism);
• Suggesting that group membership is significant (challenge to individualism);

• An acknowledgment that access is unequal between racial groups (challenge
to meritocracy);
• Being presented with a person of color in a position of leadership (challenge
to white authority);
• Being presented with information about other racial groups through, for
example, movies in which people of color drive the action but are not in
stereotypical roles, or multicultural education (challenge to white centrality).

In a white dominant environment, each of these challenges becomes exceptional.
In turn, whites are often at a loss for how to respond in constructive
ways. Whites have not had to build the cognitive or affective skills or develop
the stamina that would allow for constructive engagement across racial divides.
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1993) may be useful here. According to Bourdieu,
habitus is a socialized subjectivity; a set of dispositions which generate practi-
58 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
ces and perceptions. As such, habitus only exists in, through and because of the
practices of actors and their interaction with each other and with the rest of their
environment. Based on the previous conditions and experiences that produce it,
habitus produces and reproduces thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions.
Strategies of response to “disequilibrium” in the habitus are not based on conscious
intentionality but rather result from unconscious dispositions towards practice,
and depend on the power position the agent occupies in the social structure.
White Fragility may be conceptualized as a product of the habitus, a response or
“condition” produced and reproduced by the continual social and material advantages
of the white structural position.
Omi & Winant posit the U.S. racial order as an “unstable equilibrium,” kept
equilibrated by the State, but still unstable due to continual conflicts of interests
and challenges to the racial order (pp. 78-9). Using Omi & Winant’s concept of
unstable racial equilibrium, white privilege can be thought of as unstable racial
equilibrium at the level of habitus. When any of the above triggers (challenges
in the habitus) occur, the resulting disequilibrium becomes intolerable. Because
White Fragility finds its support in and is a function of white privilege, fragility
and privilege result in responses that function to restore equilibrium and return the
resources “lost” via the challenge - resistance towards the trigger, shutting down
and/or tuning out, indulgence in emotional incapacitation such as guilt or “hurt
feelings”, exiting, or a combination of these responses.
Factors that inculcate White Fragility
Segregation
The first factor leading to White Fragility is the segregated lives which most white
people live (Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003). Even if whites live in physical
proximity to people of color (and this would be exceptional outside of an urban
or temporarily mixed class neighborhood), segregation occurs on multiple levels,
including representational and informational. Because whites live primarily
segregated lives in a white-dominated society, they receive little or no authentic
information about racism and are thus unprepared to think about it critically or
with complexity. Growing up in segregated environments (schools, workplaces,
neighborhoods, media images and historical perspectives), white interests and
perspectives are almost always central. An inability to see or consider significance
in the perspectives of people of color results (Collins, 2000).
Further, white people are taught not to feel any loss over the absence of
people of color in their lives and in fact, this absence is what defines their schools
and neighborhoods as “good;” whites come to understand that a “good school” or
“good neighborhood” is coded language for “white” (Johnson & Shapiro, 2003).
The quality of white space being in large part measured via the absence of people
of color (and Blacks in particular) is a profound message indeed, one that is deeply
internalized and reinforced daily through normalized discourses about good
White Fragility • 59
schools and neighborhoods. This dynamic of gain rather than loss via racial segregation
may be the most profound aspect of white racial socialization of all. Yet,
while discourses about what makes a space good are tacitly understood as racially
coded, this coding is explicitly denied by whites.
Universalism & Individualism
Whites are taught to see their perspectives as objective and representative of reality
(McIntosh, 1988). The belief in objectivity, coupled with positioning white
people as outside of culture (and thus the norm for humanity), allows whites to
view themselves as universal humans who can represent all of human experience.
This is evidenced through an unracialized identity or location, which functions
as a kind of blindness; an inability to think about Whiteness as an identity or as a
“state” of being that would or could have an impact on one’s life. In this position,
Whiteness is not recognized or named by white people, and a universal reference
point is assumed. White people are just people. Within this construction, whites
can represent humanity, while people of color, who are never just people but always
most particularly black people, Asian people, etc., can only represent their
own racialized experiences (Dyer, 1992).
The discourse of universalism functions similarly to the discourse of individualism
but instead of declaring that we all need to see each other as individuals
(everyone is different), the person declares that we all need to see each other as
human beings (everyone is the same). Of course we are all humans, and I do not
critique universalism in general, but when applied to racism, universalism functions
to deny the significance of race and the advantages of being white. Further,
universalism assumes that whites and people of color have the same realities, the
same experiences in the same contexts (i.e. I feel comfortable in this majority
white classroom, so you must too), the same responses from others, and assumes
that the same doors are open to all. Acknowledging racism as a system of privilege
conferred on whites challenges claims to universalism.
At the same time that whites are taught to see their interests and perspectives
as universal, they are also taught to value the individual and to see themselves as
individuals rather than as part of a racially socialized group. Individualism erases
history and hides the ways in which wealth has been distributed and accumulated
over generations to benefit whites today. It allows whites to view themselves as
unique and original, outside of socialization and unaffected by the relentless racial
messages in the culture. Individualism also allows whites to distance themselves
from the actions of their racial group and demand to be granted the benefit of the
doubt, as individuals, in all cases. A corollary to this unracialized identity is the
ability to recognize Whiteness as something that is significant and that operates in
society, but to not see how it relates to one’s own life. In this form, a white person
recognizes Whiteness as real, but as the individual problem of other “bad” white
people (DiAngelo, 2010a).
60 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
Given the ideology of individualism, whites often respond defensively when
linked to other whites as a group or “accused” of collectively benefiting from
racism, because as individuals, each white person is “different” from any other
white person and expects to be seen as such. This narcissism is not necessarily
the result of a consciously held belief that whites are superior to others (although
that may play a role), but a result of the white racial insulation ubiquitous in
dominant culture (Dawkins, 2004; Frankenberg, Lee & Orfield, 2003); a general
white inability to see non-white perspectives as significant, except in sporadic
and impotent reflexes, which have little or no long-term momentum or political
usefulness (Rich, 1979).
Whites invoke these seemingly contradictory discourses—we are either all
unique or we are all the same—interchangeably. Both discourses work to deny
white privilege and the significance of race. Further, on the cultural level, being an
individual or being a human outside of a racial group is a privilege only afforded
to white people. In other words, people of color are almost always seen as “having
a race” and described in racial terms (“the black man”) but whites rarely are
(“the man”), allowing whites to see themselves as objective and non-racialized. In
turn, being seen (and seeing ourselves) as individuals outside of race frees whites
from the psychic burden of race in a wholly racialized society. Race and racism
become their problems, not ours. Challenging these frameworks becomes a kind
of unwelcome shock to the system.
The disavowal of race as an organizing factor, both of individual white consciousness
and the institutions of society at large, is necessary to support current
structures of capitalism and domination, for without it, the correlation between
the distribution of social resources and unearned white privilege would be evident
(Flax, 1998). The existence of structural inequality undermines the claim that
privilege is simply a reflection of hard work and virtue. Therefore, inequality must
be hidden or justified as resulting from lack of effort (Mills, 1997; Ryan, 2001).
Individualism accomplishes both of these tasks. At the same time, the individual
presented as outside these relations cannot exist without its disavowed other.
Thus, an essential dichotomy is formed between specifically raced others and the
unracialized individual. Whites have deep investments in race, for the abstract
depends on the particular (Flax, 1998); they need raced others as the backdrop
against which they may rise (Morrison, 1992). Exposing this dichotomy destabilizes
white identity.
Entitlement to racial comfort
In the dominant position, whites are almost always racially comfortable and thus
have developed unchallenged expectations to remain so (DiAngelo, 2006b).
Whites have not had to build tolerance for racial discomfort and thus when racial
discomfort arises, whites typically respond as if something is “wrong,” and
blame the person or event that triggered the discomfort (usually a person of color).
White Fragility • 61
This blame results in a socially-sanctioned array of counter-moves against the
perceived source of the discomfort, including: penalization; retaliation; isolation;
ostracization; and refusal to continue engagement. White insistence on racial
comfort ensures that racism will not be faced. This insistence also functions to
punish those who break white codes of comfort. Whites often confuse comfort
with safety and state that we don’t feel safe when what we really mean is that we
don’t feel comfortable. This trivializes our history of brutality towards people of
color and perverts the reality of that history. Because we don’t think complexly
about racism, we don’t ask ourselves what safety means from a position of societal
dominance, or the impact on people of color, given our history, for whites to
complain about our safety when we are merely talking about racism.
Racial Arrogance
Ideological racism includes strongly positive images of the white self as well as
strongly negative images of racial “others” (Feagin, 2000, p. 33). This self-image
engenders a self-perpetuating sense of entitlement because many whites believe
their financial and professional successes are the result of their own efforts while
ignoring the fact of white privilege. Because most whites have not been trained
to think complexly about racism in schools (Derman-Sparks, Ramsey & Olsen
Edwards, 2006; Sleeter, 1993) or mainstream discourse, and because it benefits
white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of racism.
Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have
no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly
about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives
rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect
on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are
often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need
to…”).
Because of white social, economic and political power within a white dominant
culture, whites are positioned to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.
Yet whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating
those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to
claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in
fact, they don’t understand the perspective.Thus, theyconfuse not understanding
with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort,
also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right”
way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional
upset. When explained in a way that white people can see and understand,
racism’s validity may be granted (references to dynamics of racism that white
people do not understand are usually rejected out of hand). However, whites are
usually more receptive to validating white racism if that racism is constructed as
residing in individual white people other than themselves.
62 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
Racial Belonging
White people enjoy a deeply internalized, largely unconscious sense of racial belonging
in U.S. society (DiAngelo, 2006b; McIntosh, 1988). This racial belonging
is instilled via the whiteness embedded in the culture at large. Everywhere we
look, we see our own racial image reflected back to us – in our heroes and heroines,
in standards of beauty, in our role-models and teachers, in our textbooks and
historical memory, in the media, in religious iconography including the image of
god himself, etc. In virtually any situation or image deemed valuable in dominant
society, whites belong. Indeed, it is rare for most whites to experience a sense of
not belonging, and such experiences are usually very temporary, easily avoidable
situations. Racial belonging becomes deeply internalized and taken for granted.
In dominant society, interruption of racial belonging is rare and thus destabilizing
and frightening to whites.
Whites consistently choose and enjoy racial segregation. Living, working,
and playing in racial segregation is unremarkable as long as it is not named or
made explicitly intentional. For example, in many anti-racist endeavors, a common
exercise is to separate into caucus groups by race in order to discuss issues
specific to your racial group, and without the pressure or stress of other groups’
presence. Generally, people of color appreciate this opportunity for racial fellowship,
but white people typically become very uncomfortable, agitated and upset
- even though this temporary separation is in the service of addressing racism.
Responses include a disorienting sense of themselves as not just people, but most
particularly white people; a curious sense of loss about this contrived and temporary
separation which they don’t feel about the real and on-going segregation in
their daily lives; and anxiety about not knowing what is going on in the groups
of color. The irony, again, is that most whites live in racial segregation every day,
and in fact, are the group most likely to intentionally choose that segregation
(albeit obscured in racially coded language such as seeking “good schools” and
“good neighborhoods”). This segregation is unremarkable until it is named as
deliberate – i.e. “We are now going to separate by race for a short exercise.”I posit
that it is the intentionality that is so disquieting – as long as we don’t mean to separate,
as long as it “just happens” that we live segregated lives, we can maintain a
(fragile) identity of racial innocence.
Psychic freedom
Because race is constructed as residing in people of color, whites don’t bear the
social burden of race. We move easily through our society without a sense of ourselves
as racialized subjects (Dyer, 1997). We see race as operating when people
of color are present, but all-white spaces as “pure” spaces – untainted by race vis á
vis the absence of the carriers of race (and thereby the racial polluters) – people of
color. This perspective is perfectly captured in a familiar white statement, “I was
lucky. I grew up in an all-white neighborhood so I didn’t learn anything about ra-
White Fragility • 63
cism.” In this discursive move, whiteness gains its meaning through its purported
lack of encounter with non-whiteness (Nakayama & Martin, 1999). Because racial
segregation is deemed socially valuable while simultaneously unracial and
unremarkable, we rarely, if ever, have to think about race and racism, and receive
no penalty for not thinking about it. In fact, whites are more likely to be penalized
(primarily by other whites) for bringing race up in a social justice context than
for ignoring it (however, it is acceptable to bring race up indirectly and in ways
that reinforce racist attitudes, i.e. warning other whites to stay away from certain
neighborhoods, etc.). This frees whites from carrying the psychic burden of race.
Race is for people of color to think about – it is what happens to “them” – they
can bring it up if it is an issue for them (although if they do, we can dismiss it as
a personal problem, the “race card”, or the reason for their problems). This allows
whites to devote much more psychological energy to other issues, and prevents
us from developing the stamina to sustain attention on an issue as charged and
uncomfortable as race.
Constant messages that we are more valuable – through representation in
everything
Living in a white dominant context, we receive constant messages that we are better
and more important than people of color. These messages operate on multiple
levels and are conveyed in a range of ways. For example: our centrality in history
textbooks, historical representations and perspectives; our centrality in media
and advertising (for example, a recent Vogue magazine cover boldly stated, “The
World’s Next Top Models” and every woman on the front cover was white); our
teachers, role-models, heroes and heroines; everyday discourse on “good” neighborhoods
and schools and who is in them; popular TV shows centered around
friendship circles that are all white; religious iconography that depicts god, Adam
and Eve, and other key figures as white, commentary on new stories about how
shocking any crime is that occurs in white suburbs; and, the lack of a sense of loss
about the absence of people of color in most white people’s lives. While one may
explicitly reject the notion that one is inherently better than another, one cannot
avoid internalizing the message of white superiority, as it is ubiquitous in mainstream
culture (Tatum, 1997; Doane, 1997).
What does White Fragility look like?
A large body of research about children and race demonstrates that children start
to construct ideas about race very early; a sense of white superiority and knowledge
of racial power codes appears to develop as early as pre-school (Clark,
1963; Derman-Sparks, Ramsey, & Olsen Edwards, 2006). Marty (1999) states,
As in other Western nations, white children born in the United States inherit the
moral predicament of living in a white supremacist society. Raised to experience
64 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
their racially based advantages as fair and normal, white children receive little
if any instruction regarding the predicament they face, let alone any guidance in
how to resolve it. Therefore, they experience or learn about racial tension without
understanding Euro-Americans’ historical responsibility for it and knowing
virtually nothing about their contemporary roles in perpetuating it (p. 51).
At the same time that it is ubiquitous, white superiority also remains unnamed
and explicitly denied by most whites. If white children become adults who
explicitly oppose racism, as do many, they often organize their identity around a
denial of the racially based privileges they hold that reinforce racist disadvantage
for others. What is particularly problematic about this contradiction is that white
moral objection to racism increases white resistance to acknowledging complicity
with it. In a white supremacist context, white identity in large part rests upon a
foundation of (superficial) racial toleration and acceptance. Whites who position
themselves as liberal often opt to protect what they perceive as their moral reputations,
rather than recognize or change their participation in systems of inequity
and domination. In so responding, whites invoke the power to choose when, how,
and how much to address or challenge racism. Thus, pointing out white advantage
will often trigger patterns of confusion, defensiveness and righteous indignation.
When confronted with a challenge to white racial codes, many white liberals use
the speech of self-defense (Van Dijk, 1992). This discourse enables defenders to
protect their moral character against what they perceive as accusation and attack
while deflecting any recognition of culpability or need of accountability. Focusing
on restoring their moral standing through these tactics, whites are able to avoid the
question of white privilege (Marty, 1999, Van Dijk, 1992).
Those who lead whites in discussions of race may find the discourse of selfdefense
familiar. Via this discourse, whites position themselves as victimized,
slammed, blamed, attacked, and being used as “punching bag[s]” (DiAngelo,
2006c). Whites who describe interactions in this way are responding to the articulation
of counter narratives; nothing physically out of the ordinary has ever
occurred in any inter-racial discussion that I am aware of. These self-defense
claims work on multiple levels to: position the speakers as morally superior while
obscuring the true power of their social locations; blame others with less social
power for their discomfort; falsely position that discomfort as dangerous; and
reinscribe racist imagery. This discourse of victimization also enables whites to
avoid responsibility for the racial power and privilege they wield. By positioning
themselves as victims of anti-racist efforts, they cannot be the beneficiaries of
white privilege. Claiming that they have been treated unfairly via a challenge to
their position or an expectation that they listen to the perspectives and experiences
of people of color, they are able to demand that more social resources (such as
time and attention) be channeled in their direction to help them cope with this
mistreatment.
A cogent example of White Fragility occurred recently during a workplace
anti-racism training I co-facilitated with an inter-racial team. One of the white
White Fragility • 65
participants left the session and went back to her desk, upset at receiving (what
appeared to the training team as) sensitive and diplomatic feedback on how some
of her statements had impacted several people of color in the room. At break,
several other white participants approached us (the trainers) and reported that they
had talked to the woman at her desk, and she was very upset that her statements
had been challenged. They wanted to alert us to the fact that she literally “might
be having a heart-attack.” Upon questioning from us, they clarified that they
meant this literally. These co-workers were sincere in their fear that the young
woman might actually physically die as a result of the feedback. Of course, when
news of the woman’s potentially fatal condition reached the rest of the participant
group, all attention was immediately focused back onto her and away from the
impact she had had on the people of color. As Vodde (2001) states, “If privilege is
defined as a legitimization of one’s entitlement to resources, it can also be defined
as permission to escape or avoid any challenges to this entitlement” (p. 3).
The language of violence that many whites use to describe anti-racist endeavors
is not without significance, as it is another example of the way that White
Fragility distorts and perverts reality. By employing terms that connote physical
abuse, whites tap into the classic discourse of people of color (particularly African
Americans) as dangerous and violent. This discourse perverts the actual direction
of danger that exists between whites and others. The history of brutal, extensive,
institutionalized and ongoing violence perpetrated by whites against people of
color—slavery, genocide, lynching, whipping, forced sterilization and medical
experimentation to mention a few—becomes profoundly trivialized when whites
claim they don’t feel safe or are under attack when in the rare situation of merely
talking about race with people of color. The use of this discourse illustrates how
fragile and ill-equipped most white people are to confront racial tensions, and
their subsequent projection of this tension onto people of color (Morrison, 1992).
Goldberg (1993) argues that the questions surrounding racial discourse should not
focus so much on how true stereotypes are, but how the truth claims they offer are
a part of a larger worldview that authorizes and normalizes forms of domination
and control. Further, it is relevant to ask: Under what conditions are those truthclaims
clung to most tenaciously?
Bonilla-Silva (2006) documents a manifestation of White Fragility in his
study of color-blind white racism. He states, “Because the new racial climate in
America forbids the open expression of racially based feelings, views, and positions,
when whites discuss issues that make them uncomfortable, they become almost
incomprehensible – I, I, I, I don’t mean, you know, but…- ” (p. 68). Probing
forbidden racial issues results in verbal incoherence - digressions, long pauses,
repetition, and self-corrections. He suggests that this incoherent talk is a function
of talking about race in a world that insists race does not matter. This incoherence
is one demonstration that many white people are unprepared to engage, even on
a preliminary level, in an exploration of their racial perspectives that could lead
to a shift in their understanding of racism. This lack of preparedness results in the
66 • International Journal of Critical Pedagogy
maintenance of white power because the ability to determine which narratives
are authorized and which are suppressed is the foundation of cultural domination
(Banks, 1996; Said, 1994; Spivak, 1990). Further, this lack of preparedness has
further implications, for if whites cannot engage with an exploration of alternate
racial perspectives, they can only reinscribe white perspectives as universal.
However, an assertion that whites do not engage with dynamics of racial
discourse is somewhat misleading. White people do notice the racial locations
of racial others and discuss this freely among themselves, albeit often in coded
ways. Their refusal to directly acknowledge this race talk results in a kind of
split consciousness that leads to the incoherence Bonilla-Silva documents above
(Feagin, 2000; Flax, 1998; hooks, 1992; Morrison, 1992). This denial also guarantees
that the racial misinformation that circulates in the culture and frames their
perspectives will be left unexamined. The continual retreat from the discomfort
of authentic racial engagement in a culture infused withracial disparity limits the
ability to form authentic connections across racial lines, and results in a perpetual
cycle that works to hold racism in place.
Conclusion
White people often believe that multicultural / anti-racist education is only necessary
for those who interact with “minorities” or in “diverse” environments.
However, the dynamics discussed here suggest that it is critical that all white
people build the stamina to sustain conscious and explicit engagement with race.
When whites posit race as non-operative because there are few, if any, people of
color in their immediate environments, Whiteness is reinscribed ever more deeply
(Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). When whites only notice “raced others,”
we reinscribe Whiteness by continuing to posit Whiteness as universal and nonWhiteness
as other. Further, if we can’t listen to or comprehend the perspectives
of people of color, we cannot bridge cross-racial divides. A continual retreat from
the discomfort of authentic racial engagement results in a perpetual cycle that
works to hold racism in place.
While anti-racist efforts ultimately seek to transform institutionalized racism,
anti-racist education may be most effective by starting at the micro level. The goal
is to generate the development of perspectives and skills that enable all people,
regardless of racial location, to be active initiators of change. Since all individuals
who live within a racist system are enmeshed in its relations, this means that all
are responsible for either perpetuating or transforming that system. However, although
all individuals play a role in keeping the system active, the responsibility
for change is not equally shared. White racism is ultimately a white problem and
the burden for interrupting it belongs to white people (Derman-Sparks & Phillips,
1997; hooks, 1995; Wise, 2003). Conversations about Whiteness might best happen
within the context of a larger conversation about racism. It is useful to start at
the micro level of analysis, and move to the macro, from the individual out to the
White Fragility • 67
interpersonal, societal and institutional. Starting with the individual and moving
outward to the ultimate framework for racism – Whiteness – allows for the pacing
that is necessary for many white people for approaching the challenging study of
race. In this way, a discourse on Whiteness becomes part of a process rather than
an event (Zúñiga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002).
Many white people have never been given direct or complex information
about racism before, and often cannot explicitly see, feel, or understand it (Trepagnier,
2006; Weber, 2001). People of color are generally much more aware of
racism on a personal level, but due to the wider society’s silence and denial of it,
often do not have a macro-level framework from which to analyze their experiences
(Sue, 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2006). Further, dominant society “assigns” different
roles to different groups of color (Smith, 2005), and a critical consciousness
about racism varies not only between individuals within groups, but also between
groups. For example, many African Americans relate having been “prepared” by
parents to live in a racist society, while many Asian heritage people say that racism
was never directly discussed in their homes (hooks, 1989; Lee, 1996). A
macro-level analysis may offer a framework to understand different interpretations
and performances across and between racial groups. In this way, all parties
benefit and efforts are not solely focused on whites (which works to re-center
Whiteness).
Talking directly about white power and privilege, in addition to providing
much needed information and shared definitions, is also in itself a powerful interruption
of common (and oppressive) discursive patterns around race. At the same
time, white people often need to reflect upon racial information and be allowed
to make connections between the information and their own lives. Educators can
encourage and support white participants in making their engagement a point of
analysis. White Fragility doesn’t always manifest in overt ways; silence and withdrawal
are also functions of fragility. Who speaks, who doesn’t speak, when, for
how long, and with what emotional valence are all keys to understanding the relational
patterns that hold oppression in place (Gee, 1999; Powell, 1997). Viewing
white anger, defensiveness, silence, and withdrawal in response to issues of race
through the framework of White Fragility may help frame the problem as an issue
of stamina-building, and thereby guide our interventions accordingly.