White Fragility

[angrysoba]

Is this Robin Diangelo's MO? (In this clip she is played by Martin Freeman)

 

[Checkmite]

Does your culture allow people to assert a preposition is true and then later assert it is false when it's inconvenient? My culture recognizes that such behavior is inconsistent, untenable, and not respectable.

Which preposition are you referring to?

I don't know why you keep going to the "hard work" one, I have never mentioned it. For what it's worth, I have avoided this because the infographic is not as simplistic as "hard work", and the concept of "hard work" is nebulous (e.g., does it mean physically intensive tasks?).

No, but it's where the nitpicking about a trait's inclusion in the list implying negativity began (with posts #111 and 115). Your argument chose a different trait to focus on, but at its base is the same argument: "what's so wrong with valuing [item on list]?"

Are you denying that economic realities can be a consequence of social perceptions?

No, in the sense that if a person is perceived to belong to a cultural group that is "foreign", "un-American", or "inferior", that perception might include a presumption that for instance the person does not "view time as a commodity", which may lead to that person not being hired.

I've already said so many times that a trait being in the "white northern European culture" list doesn't imply exclusivity. I'll extend that, to apply to the definition, not just the operation, if that makes sense. These are not all-or-nothing propositions. A culture that does not venerate "delayed gratification" the same way that WASP culture does, doesn't necessarily not value it at all, to the point of abandoning the very idea of patience. A culture that does not believe that hard work is inexorably linked to success and vice-versa does not necessarily believe there's no point whatsoever in working hard. A culture that does not favor a regimental devotion to the almighty clock in general, can still also believe that if you do make an appointment you should keep it. And so forth. A failure to recognize that these things aren't binary in nature (or that, for instance, how "white northern European culture" approaches or prioritizes these concepts is the correct way and alternative approaches are wishy-washy or noncommittal) is a big part of the problem.

If Alice is raised to believe "Wealth = Worth" (A quote from the infographic, this is referring to "worth" as in personal value) and Bob is not raised to believe "Wealth = Worth", all things being equal, won't Alice probably be wealthier than Bob?

No, not in the least. There is probably a very tangible reverse-correlation there - people who have wealth ARE more likely to consider "Wealth = Worth" to be axiomatic; but I haven't seen anything to convince me that the opposite is the case. Surely there are legions of poor people who also believe the concept to be true, and any number of people who attained wealth and then lost it in a manner that suggests they didn't believe that to be true. And of course, there is what I consider to be the more objective fact that actually becoming wealthy is a culmination of several factors, the most important of which are beyond the individual's control regardless of what they believe.

But think about your question. I know you have argued that you personally never invoked the "work hard" belief-trait; but doesn't the premise of the question logically presume it? Why would merely believing that "Wealth = Worth" make one more likely to be wealthier than someone who didn't believe it, if not because ostensibly someone who believes it will be more willing to put in "the work" that supposedly creates wealth than the person who doesn't?

 

[Beeyon]

No, but it's where the nitpicking about a trait's inclusion in the list implying negativity began (with posts #111 and 115). Your argument chose a different trait to focus on, but at its base is the same argument: "what's so wrong with valuing [item on list]?"

Wrong. That is not my argument, never was, and is not remotely close to what I am saying. You've done this repeatedly. You appear to be determined to fit your interlocutor's position into the box of your choosing so you can dispel it without thinking. Expect no further response.

 

[cullennz]

Because it is an observed sociological phenomenon, and it takes very minor immersion into a different culture to realize that punctuality is arbitrary and how late someone arrives is a social norms.clearly grasped by people in the culture.

Sorry but do you have a link showing this?

I can get different countries might be more flexible depending on how hot the places are and just a social cruisy attitude to things (example here, unless it is some formal dinner like a wedding/meeting, you just rock up at some stage. "Having a BBQ at around 4, see you there"), but I have not seen it linked to ethnicity.

 

[shuttlt]

Sorry but do you have a link showing this?

I can get different countries might be more flexible depending on how hot the places are and just a social cruisy attitude to things (example here, unless it is some formal dinner like a wedding/meeting, you just rock up at some stage. "Having a BBQ at around 4, see you there"), but I have not seen it linked to ethnicity.

We are talking about culture. The issue is that lots of culture still maps pretty well to ethnicity. Unless we start going into genetic differences in testosterone, the claim isn't that ethnicity is the cause here.

 

[shuttlt]

I understand that punctuality is a relative value, and that those who are aligned with the dominant culture will be at an advantage. But punctuality is distinct from some of the list items which have their own effects independent of the dominant culture.

Imagine two cultures. In one people diligently turn up on time for meetings. In another people turn up late and routinely fail to show up at all. On average, I suggest the first of those is going to be more efficient. Is somebody who routinely turns up late for lessons not going to be at at least some disadvantage to somebody who turns up on time, all other things being equal.

Example 1. Jim is a Blue in a purple dominant culture. Purples value punctuality where blues do not. All things else being equal, we assume that Jim's outcomes (education, career, dating, etc.) will be worse than the average purple.

Example 2. Jim is a blue in a orange dominant culture. Blues think their personal worth is defined by their wealth and oranges do not. All things else being equal, despite not aligning with the dominant culture, we would expect Jim to be wealthier than the average orange (though perhaps a bit of an outcast because the oranges see him as miserly).

The first culture would be purple supremacist, since, at least in the limited terms of your example the traits that the culture rewards are the traits of the dominant group. The second one might be blue supremacist since it rewards a trait held by a blue. Equally, nobody says the US is asian supremacist so it's hard to say. The story being told is of the rules being set by an exploiter group to hold back an exploited group. The story is being told to achieve a political end. There may be no useful political end in making blue the bad guy if there are two few blues.

I get saying we should be aware of how American culture pushes "Wealth = Worth", and I totally agree that we should resist looking down at people who choose to defy the "Weath = Worth" paradigm. But should we act surprised when those people have less money? Should we be offended when someone who is ok with calling it quits when their basic needs are met has less money than someone needs to maximize their income to feel like a worthwhile human? Should we take efforts to make sure that these people all have the aame amount of money?

I'm not surprised if that's what you are asking. But this is what systemic racism means. The system produces different outcomes for different groups. That's why there is the push in California to allow racial discrimination to restart so identical outcomes can be achieved.

Edit: Or, is this whole idea that Americans of different races, on average have meaningfully different cultural values on important aspect of modern life pernicious?

This is a derail since if Diangelo is going to associate these things with whiteness then it's pretty clear she does think there are such differences. Having said that, for myself I would say that there are meaningfully different cultural values that impact success. It would seem remarkable on it's face if all the different ways of approaching the world led to the same outcomes. That would be proof of both the existence of God to my mind, and him being a communist. Just look at different cultures around the world, their different levels of productivity. Are we going to say that none of that was a product of culture?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Imagine two cultures. In one people diligently turn up on time for meetings. In another people turn up late and routinely fail to show up at all. On average, I suggest the first of those is going to be more efficient. Is somebody who routinely turns up late for lessons not going to be at at least some disadvantage to somebody who turns up on time, all other things being equal.

I think you are making two errors.

1) in cultures that show up late to things, both parties show up late at around the same time.

2) Relating productivity to success is itself an internal cultural measure. Other dominant cultures can value different things. The dominant culture itself is imposing subjective standards to be judged.

 

[shuttlt]

I think you are making two errors.

1) in cultures that show up late to things, both parties show up late at around the same time.

I disagree. Partly on the basis that the punctuality thing is just one example and hence trivial. Really though, I guess it comes down to what you mean by "around" the same time. Lots of the modern world involves scheduling and efficient handoffs. If unreliability and lateness becomes routine, then you have to build slack into the system reducing efficiency.

2) Relating productivity to success is itself an internal cultural measure. Other dominant cultures can value different things. The dominant culture itself is imposing subjective standards to be judged.

Sure, but there is a real world out there. At the end of the day enough people have to value hard work and planning for the future that the crops get planted and we don't all starve. It might be possible to create a society that didn't value productivity, but would we have enough to eat/be able to afford modern healthcare/pensions etc in such a society?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I disagree. Partly on the basis that the punctuality thing is just one example and hence trivial. Really though, I guess it comes down to what you mean by "around" the same time. Lots of the modern world involves scheduling and efficient handoffs. If unreliability and lateness becomes routine, then you have to build slack into the system reducing efficiency.

The modern world is in its current form because the group that wanted it that way subjugated and harmed millions of others that may have been fine going in a different direction.

 

[Brainster]

Is this Robin Diangelo's MO? (In this clip she is played by Martin Freeman)

She's a little more sophisticated than that, but yes, that is the essence. She comes up with her definition of racism that indicates all white people are perpetuating racism and when the white people object it is proof of their white fragility, which perpetuates racism. As several people have pointed out this makes her theory non-falsifiable.

 

[shuttlt]

The modern world is in its current form because the group that wanted it that way subjugated and harmed millions of others that may have been fine going in a different direction.

That's a story we could tell about the past. Is the modern world really what that group wanted? Which group? White people? Did the 16th Century Spanish and English form one group with the same vision of the future united by whiteness?

An alternative story might be that for tens of thousands of years different cultures were in a game of cultural evolution and cultural survival of the fittest. At some point a few thousand years ago around the mediterranean there were significant advances. Different strands that fed out from that compete, advance and stall over the millennia since. Where we are is the result of the same cultural evolutionary forces that have always been going on. Blaming one culture for this is ridiculous, there is a word for what blaming one race is. Different native american tribes competed with each other in this way. Different african tribes competed in this way. In asia many of the same cultural innovations were made independently. Hard work, planning for the future and a bunch of other things would have come to dominate regardless because they give you a competitive advantage.

Really I think it is the reverse of what you said. Rather than hard work and all the other stuff being valued because the dominant group liked those things, I'd say that the group that dominated did so because their culture was more "fit" in the Darwinian sense.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's a story we could tell about the past. Is the modern world really what that group wanted? Which group? White people? Did the 16th Century Spanish and English form one group with the same vision of the future united by whiteness?

An alternative story might be that for tens of thousands of years different cultures were in a game of cultural evolution and cultural survival of the fittest. At some point a few thousand years ago around the mediterranean there were significant advances. Different strands that fed out from that compete, advance and stall over the millennia since. Where we are is the result of the same cultural evolutionary forces that have always been going on. Blaming one culture for this is ridiculous, there is a word for what blaming one race is. Different native american tribes competed with each other in this way. Different african tribes competed in this way. In asia many of the same cultural innovations were made independently. Hard work, planning for the future and a bunch of other things would have come to dominate regardless because they give you a competitive advantage.

Really I think it is the reverse of what you said. Rather than hard work and all the other stuff being valued because the dominant group liked those things, I'd say that the group that dominated did so because their culture was more "fit" in the Darwinian sense.

Fit in a darwinian sense is a subjective value just like any other value.

 

[Checkmite]

Really I think it is the reverse of what you said. Rather than hard work and all the other stuff being valued because the dominant group liked those things, I'd say that the group that dominated did so because their culture was more "fit" in the Darwinian sense.

That only makes sense if the group that is now dominant merely filled in the empty spaces left over after other cultures with different values failed by themselves; but they didn't.

 

[Checkmite]

Sure, but there is a real world out there. At the end of the day enough people have to value hard work and planning for the future that the crops get planted and we don't all starve.

I believe that statement is an example of question-begging.

Remember, yet again, the list doesn't invoke "hard work" as a opposed to "laziness" or lack of motivation, but rather the ontology that success is caused by hard work (and the lack of success caused by its opposite).

 

[shuttlt]

Fit in a darwinian sense is a subjective value just like any other value.

That depends. If I'm going to judge somebody's spiritual worth off the back of it, sure. The most unworldly sufi is just as worthy as the most hard working specimen the protestant faith has ever produced. However, you don't need to come up with a multi-century long race based conspiracy theory to explain why things like hard work, planning for the future, and half the things on that list are going to end up being characteristics associated with worldly success.

The world may change such that being lazy and unfocused become key attributes to being successful, or a culture that was once hard working and focused loses those qualities. But that doesn't mean we need conspiracy theories to explain why all these characteristics have proved successful up until now.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That depends. If I'm going to judge somebody's spiritual worth off the back of it, sure. The most unworldly sufi is just as worthy as the most hard working specimen the protestant faith has ever produced. However, you don't need to come up with a multi-century long race based conspiracy theory to explain why things like hard work, planning for the future, and half the things on that list are going to end up being characteristics associated with worldly success.

The world may change such that being lazy and unfocused become key attributes to being successful, or a culture that was once hard working and focused loses those qualities. But that doesn't mean we need conspiracy theories to explain why all these characteristics have proved successful up until now.

But we are back to your definition of success being arbitrary.

Conquering the world is not a given measure of success. Technological advancement or wealth isnt, either. You may choose to value it.

 

[shuttlt]

But we are back to your definition of success being arbitrary.

I'm happy to defer to DiAngelo on this for the moment. If she is complaining some groups are under represented in some areas, then being represented is a measure of success. If she complains that some people are being paid more, then pay is a measure of success. If she complains health outcomes are worse for one group, then good health outcomes are success. If she is complaining some groups don't have enough access to power then that is a measure of success. Is her definition of success so different here?

If we are opening this up to radical definitions of success when we are thinking about conquest, did the native American's consider the Indian Wars a success? Were they using some definition of "success" that is so alien to whiteness that I might be applying my white thinking to it and thinking they failed, but in fact they succeeded?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

That racist has good advice for heart health.

 

[pharphis]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

Ryan Long makes weekly hilarious videos (like this one). He teases the woke people most often but I do like that he pokes fun at others as well... this particular video you linked seems to have gotten a lot of publicity being retweeted by people like Bill Burr.

He also recently had a discussion with James Lindsay (many here will be familiar with him) but I haven't listened to it.