Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sinchan's avatar

A fine article and argument. But there are some additional points to be made against the ideal of race consciousness. Before I state them, let me say the way it is practiced by major sections of the American Left today is not merely race consciousness, but race obsession. An article in the Washington Post about South Asian food is replete with references to racism, colonialism and imperialism. Anybody who went into a coma in 2010 and woke up today to read this article would be puzzled. Why look at EVERYTHING through that prism? The sheer one-sidedness and extremism of Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a concern. There is a totalitarian element here that seeks to explain all of human history through one idea. This is similar to Communism - in Communism, all of history could be encapsulated or made intelligible through the singular framework of class struggle. CRT replaces class with race. Here are three additional reasons to be very critical of the anti-modern and anti-liberal ideology of CRT.

1. It goes against the fundamental tenet of Enlightenment Liberalism which the philosopher Isaiah Berlin called "humanitarian individualism". Morally, it is profoundly wrong to reduce people to an identity that they acquired as an accident of birth. The fact that I am a brown man tells you NOTHING important about me, it tells you nothing about my uniqueness, my individuality as a human being which is not the sum total of my ascriptive identities. I would never privilege my race/ethnicity over everything else that makes me who I am and I will reject the demand from anybody else that I see them primarily through their racial or ethnic or gender identity. A rejection of individualism is a rejection of two centuries of liberal Enlightenment philosophy and the political culture and Institutions that we have built around this concept. 

2. Some people are encouraged to feel "virtuous" and "superior" solely on account of their skin color and others are encouraged to feel "guilty" in a personal sense and "inferior" on the same grounds. Every interaction of people between different races is seen through the lens of power in this ideology. This is a very unhealthy attitude. How do you know from someone's skin color that they are privileged? An upper middle class Indian professional in UK belongs to the "dominant culture" of successful professionals - he was able to achieve what he did because he was probably born into a family that emphasized human capital accumulation and other cultural habits associated with success -a working class white person is from a "subordinate culture" - he may have been born into a family that did not prepare him for achieving things in life. I may be white but I may have struggled with poverty and health issues all my life. How morally intolerable and anti-humanist it must be that we are able to make assumptions about other people based on their race without knowing a single thing about who they are as individuals and what their experiences are like.

Notice how the major religious traditions of the world and major philosophical traditions make universal claims that are not contingent on race. It is wrong to assign moral status to people based on race, it doesn't matter who does it or for what purpose. Martin Luther King wouldn't have called it "reverse racism" - he would have called it straight up racism, plain and simple.

3. CRT and its sort of totalitarian, Manichean vision is incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free society. Why should we listen to the arguments of others with whom we disagree if we believe that their opinions are not good faith efforts to reason about a complex world, but are necessarily expressions of the power of dominant groups etc? That is why the modern Left in American universities and cultural institutions is so intolerant and we are today discussing cancel culture. Good faith disagreement is not possible with this paradigm - all disagreements imply that you have the "wrong" standpoint which will perpetuate the racial status quo- there is nothing called "reason" or "logic" based on principles we all share- no universal ethical or moral principles, everything is about a contest of power between different groups.  It is not that the Left doesn't believe in free speech, with this ideology, they simply can't. 

Expand full comment
fittog's avatar

I expected to be very sympathetic to this article. But I'm afraid it understates some very serious harms / disingenuous crap that's been perpetrated for 20,50,250 years by people on the Right. This phrase in the article "while some white progressives have adopted a self-flagellating attitude, many others will see this as an excuse to take pride in their membership of a socially important group. Race consciousness is as likely to reinforce white identity politics as it is to liberate racial minorities" made me think of it. I think that looking back at the "canon" you see a shit-ton of racial pride / white supremacist thinking masquerading as 'neutral celebration of wonderful ideas and cultural content.' When Pat Buchanan announces how the Western Canon (greeks with democracy, the novel, the Enlightenment - does he like the enlightenment?) is the basis of WORLD civilization... it's not a very compelling argument. Though those things are wonderful, I think there is a serious bias in there that has been shown to be a lot of crap: see recent correctives about the history of mathematics and the role of the Arab world, Chinese civilization, to name a couple of obvious ones. So while I agree that this concentration will indeed continue to divide us, we have to acknowledge we've been dealing with an avalanche of white supremacist propaganda MASQUERADING as 'morally neutral history of philosophy, science, art.'

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts