Robin DiAngelo’s Fragile Narrative
The deep irony of DiAngelo’s work is that she demands exquisite sensitivity from everyone in all social interactions, but her own gross insensitivity is displayed on virtually every page.
For many people, 2020 was a nightmare that refused to end. For Robin DiAngelo, it was a very good year. In the aftermath of the George Floyd riots, her book White Fragility, surged to the top of the bestseller list. It sold more than 100,000 copies, making her a wealthy woman. This summer, DiAngelo released her newest work, Nice Racism. The most interesting feature of this book can be summarized in three words: It didn’t sell.
On the face of it, there is nothing extraordinary in the collapse of a mediocre book. Bad books drop from the printing press into obscurity every day. Normally, though, the author’s previous work is not still listed by the New York Times. How did DiAngelo’s bright moment pass so quickly? What does this mean for the ongoing debate over Critical Race Theory?
DiAngelo’s work has already received intense criticism from writers across the political spectrum. They found it condescending, hypocritical, or just racist. These charges are probably fair, though it can be difficult to judge, because DiAngelo’s meandering narrative does not readily cohere into a cohesive argument. To a certain extent, this is probably intentional. DiAngelo (under the influence of deconstructionists like Michael Foucault) has a fraught relationship with rational discourse, which she tends to see as an instrument of oppression. She describes herself as an expert in “discourse analysis,” which in her own words is, “a method for identifying how language positions speakers in relation to social others in recognition that language is sociopolitical, not simply a neutral transmitter of a person’s core ideas or self.”
The goal of discourse analysis, in other words, is to look past the truth claims that people make, and instead assess tone, terminology, and the broader social and political context. Who speaks the most, and with whom do they agree or disagree? How do people’s claims and arguments reflect and affect their own social status, and that of their interlocutors?
Within reasonable limits, this sort of analysis can sometimes yield helpful insights. Nearly everyone has the occasional Foucauldian moment, when they notice the nefarious potentialities of narrative. For DiAngelo though, “discourse analysis” seems to have swamped all other forms. She isn’t really in the business of making arguments, or responding to other people’s. On one level, Nice Racism is clearly a follow-up to White Fragility, which was one of the most hotly discussed (and heavily critiqued) books of 2020. But DiAngelo offers almost nothing by way of direct rebuttals, or responses of any kind to identifiable public writers. A few stray paragraphs are devoted to a flyby dismissal of John McWhorter, one of her most eloquent critics, but for the most part she devotes page after weary page to shadow-boxing anonymous detractors, whom we meet through DiAngelo’s anecdotes. She seems to find ignorant, insensitive people around every corner: on airplanes, in taxi rides, and of course, in the diversity seminars that she facilitates for a living. Unsurprisingly, these faceless interlocutors are easily vanquished. One hardly needs reasoned discourse to defeat such opponents.
An Insensitive Subject
As a reviewer, it is difficult to know what to say about such a book. Even when I disagree intensely with a book’s content, I normally try to do the author the courtesy of engaging his argument directly. This book, though, just doesn’t quite rise to the level of argument. Beyond that, the author herself seems to have objections to reasoned discourse. Also, there is the issue of redundancy. I could repeat the critiques of McWhorter, Jonathan Haidt, and others who have already written articulate responses to DiAngelo’s views. Since they remain on the table unanswered, this doesn’t feel particularly worthwhile. It really is not possible to advance the dialectic, because that isn’t a game that DiAngelo plays.
With no argument worthy of the name, readers may find themselves looking back at the author herself. By the end of the book, I was indeed overwhelmed with both pity and revulsion for this wretched-seeming woman. Everywhere she goes, people seem to be shouting, crying, or storming away in disgust. The problem is not limited to her fellow whites! DiAngelo also tells stories about offending or alienating BIPOC friends and associates. One cannot but notice that there is a common denominator across all of these unhappy anecdotes. It’s not white fragility.
The deep irony of DiAngelo’s work is that she demands exquisite sensitivity from everyone in all social interactions, but her own gross insensitivity is displayed on virtually every page. She brags constantly about her “expertise” and deep insight, but this façade falls immediately whenever she starts talking about real human beings. She is astonishingly deaf to the nuances of human relationships and human feeling. She cannot understand the complexities of human motivation. A writer like Chris Arnade brings unseen people to life before our eyes; she seems to reduce everyone to a cardboard cutout. She shows no interest in understanding or learning from the people she encounters, or even in finding more effective ways to persuade them. It’s easy to understand why she is constantly offending people. Her entire perspective on the world just feels bleak and dehumanizing.
Examples are legion, but I will content myself with one. In one chapter, DiAngelo rails against white women who speak in her seminars about their marriages to black men. This, in her view, is extremely insensitive. “There is a long and painful history,” she sniffs, “surrounding white women in relationship to Black men.”
-
El Shaddai, The God Who Is More Than Enough
Spiritual warfare is both real and perpetual. The evil one is either waging battle to prevent unbelievers from coming to salvation and to receiving eternal life or he seeks to render believers disobedient, ineffectual, or undisciplined, thereby, failing to achieve God’s great goal for them, that is, “To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”
I can still picture Mr. Sells, our Old Testament professor at Columbia Bible College holding up one hand and shouting in his booming voice, “El Shaddai, the God Who is more than enough!” He taught Survey of the Old Testament, and we were studying the names of God. Despite the fact that it was a survey course, he pressed us to study the Old Testament in depth and to glean principles for everyday life, as well as to learn facts and history. I doubt that any student who passed through that class will ever forget the name, “El Shaddai.”
The common translations of El Shaddai throughout the Old Testament are Almighty God, God Almighty, or the Almighty. El Shaddai also carries the meaning of sufficient, hence, “The God Who is more than enough!” If we think long enough on the subject of God’s sufficiency and the fact that He is Almighty, we can derive a limitless source of comfort, encouragement, and satisfaction.
When I first came to Christ as my personal savior, I knew an elderly 90-year old Christian woman. Mrs. Kirkpatrick taught Bible to the women of the inner-city church where I grew up. I remember her saying often, “Satan is mighty, but God is almighty.” This dear lady was keenly aware of the spiritual battle being waged. She was not ignorant or unaware of Satan’s power; however, she focused on the fact that God is more powerful and He is sufficient for any trial or battle. We cannot afford to underestimate the power of the Christian’s archenemy.
A. W. Tozer wrote, “A right conception of God is basic, not only to systematic theology but to practical Christian living as well. It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current in the middle years of the twentieth century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the most high God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to moral calamity.” If Tozer is right, and he was a unique, prophetic man of God, we are in serious trouble.
It is rare that spiritual battle is mentioned today. One of the few times we hear it referred to is when there is serious illness. Perhaps we’re too sophisticated and don’t want to draw criticism for conjuring up images of warfare. We may prefer the respectability gained by being just plain, “normal” folks. If this is true, then we have one fine indicator of just how mighty Satan is—mighty enough to lull us into spiritual complacency, and for some—spiritual death.
Spiritual warfare is both real and perpetual. The evil one is either waging battle to prevent unbelievers from coming to salvation and to receiving eternal life or he seeks to render believers disobedient, ineffectual, or undisciplined, thereby, failing to achieve God’s great goal for them, that is, “To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.”
It’s up to us to recognize the danger we face daily and unrelentingly. The spiritual battle might be on an individual basis. No matter who we are, “El Shaddai” is on our side. However, the battle also faces us as a corporate body, especially at this time in history—when the culture around us becomes more paganistic—the evil one will seek to take advantage to discourage, and divide the children of God. But God Almighty, our all-sufficient God, is the same and has not changed. He is with us and for us.
Let’s focus on “El Shaddai, the God Who is more than enough,” to be our arm and strength in these days. Let’s not forget that Satan is mighty, but our God, “El Shaddai,” is Almighty! Let’s join those who sing the song, “El Shaddai, age to age You are the same by the power of the Name.” Let’s praise Him forever.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa. -
Supreme Court Hands Religious Freedom Win To Postal Worker Who Refused To Work On Sunday
In ruling for the government worker, the high court overturned its 1977 precedent that said employers had to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious beliefs and practices, so long as it did not create an “undue hardship” on the business. The new decision tightens the “undue hardship” standard, and could make it easier for some individual employees to secure a religious accommodation in the workplace.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously for a postal worker in Pennsylvania in an important religious liberty dispute, over now far employers should go to accommodate faith-based requests in the workplace.
Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier, from Pennsylvania, asked the court to decide if U.S. Postal Service could require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, which he observes as the Sabbath. His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued in April that the court should revisit a 50-year-old precedent that established a test to determine when employers should make accommodations for their employees’ religious practices.
In ruling for the government worker, the high court overturned its 1977 precedent that said employers had to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious beliefs and practices, so long as it did not create an “undue hardship” on the business.
The new decision tightens the “undue hardship” standard, and could make it easier for some individual employees to secure a religious accommodation in the workplace.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would be an “undue hardship” for the business. A Supreme Court case from 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, said employers could deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose “more than a de minimis cost” on the business.
Streett argued that the court should scrap the “de minimus” test, which he suggested has been abused by lower courts to deny religious accommodations, in favor of the plain language of Title VII, which would define “undue burden” in the same way it is defined in other federal laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Read More
Related Posts: -
Losing Your Life for the Sake of Christ
Genuine saving faith, which only those who have lost their life for the sake of Christ have, is proven valid and is completed by works. These works are the proof of genuine saving faith. These are righteous works, not just religious activity. These works are acts that conform to God’s revealed Word. James tells us that these are acts of compassion such as giving to the poor and helping them to be warm and filled instead of just telling them that you will pray for them. We are not saved because we do these things, no; we do these things because we are genuinely saved.
34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:34-38 (NASB)
Jesus is coming back soon. Are you ready? Are you trusting in man-made or self-made religion to be what God will recognize as sufficient so that Christ will be your Advocate before the Father when you are judged? Without Christ as your Advocate, you will have no defense. How does Christ become our Advocate? How do we know if He is our Advocate? Let us examine Christ’s own words about this.
23 And He was saying to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me. 24 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. 25 For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits himself? 26 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Luke 9:23-26 (NASB)
What does it mean to “come after” Christ? Is this simply the act of joining a church? Jesus is taking to people who have been following Him and listening to His teachings as He ministered to them. He turns to this large group of people and tells them plainly that to be His disciple one must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Christ. If one does not do this then they CANNOT be Christ’s disciples. What does it mean to deny self? This is relinquishing personal control of one’s life in surrender to Lordship of Christ who is control of it. The taking up ones own personal cross is referring complete commitment to Christ even if it means death or persecution. When Christ says that His disciples must follow Him He is referring to living ones life according to His example as well as coming into fellowship with His other disciples.
Christ then tells us that these things sum together into a losing of ones life for His sake. Those who deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow Him have given up a self-centered life of rebellion against God for the sake of Christ and the gospel. In return, they will find everlasting communion with God. On the other hand, those who live a self-centered life focused on the present world will not find eternal life with God. Those who have found eternal life with God have lost their life for Christ’s sake, but have actually saved their life.
Read More
