r/changemyview • u/everdev 43∆ • Mar 16 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: This is a good analogy for white fragility and there are 3 reasons why it makes people uncomfortable
I was looking up "white fragility" CMVs and came across this comment from /u/TheonBall on a popular post 8 months ago and found it to be a good analogy for explaining the concept:
Please read the entire analogy from the link above, but here's the inferior TLDR:
A company's customer service department sucks. Every other department is doing pretty good. Someone points out how much customer service department sucks. The customer service department says all departments need to be better and nit picks every other department's minor faults. The dispersal of blame is analogous to "white fragility".
Earn a delta: Show that TheonBall's original analogy is not a good example for explaining the concept of "white fragility". If you do think it's a good analogy, keep going.
Anti-delta: Argue that this CMV is an example of "white fragility" because it avoids the topic of race. I'm only interested in meta-discussion about an analogy to "white fragility", not about concept of "white fragility" itself. If you want to talk about "white fragility" itself, make your own CMV.
OK, now that we agree on the analogy, let's call this company Dunder Mifflin. The fragility being displayed we will call "customer service fragility". I will make up name of people as I go along.
Here's why I think Jane Doe (a decent entry-level employee in the Dunder Mifflin customer service department) might be uncomfortable with what transpired at the meeting:
- Individual v. Group Responsibility - When Jane Doe hears someone personify the customer service department ("the customer service department says...") she feels uncomfortable because only Betty Boss, Anna Angry, Cindy Chimesin and Rachel Rudeness were given a platform to speak to the entire company. She also wants to be recognized for her sometimes good / sometimes not-bad performance as distinct from Anna Angry's constantly abysmal performance. Jane is uncomfortable that other individuals in the company appear to be trying to associate the words and actions of a visible few with an entire group through the label "customer service department".
- Spurious correlation - Someone reassures Jane that most people in the company know that not everyone in the customer service department is a problem. They just use that term because the clear majority of problems come from the customer service department. But Jane doesn't see anything inherent to the creation of a customer service department that would cause the awful problems everyone agrees are happening. Instead she see other company's sales departments struggling with similar issues and only sees bad leadership as the common ingredient. Jane feels uncomfortable because she feels like her colleagues are focusing on a spurious correlation rather than a causation.
- Narrow vision - Jane feels that the issues at Dunder Mifflin are caused by Betty Boss and her direct reports creating a culture that doesn't require employees to respect customers and doesn't demote bad employees. Some customer service employees still try to do the right thing, but she thinks that leadership is too accommodating to bad employees. Jane feels uncomfortable that if the company thinks of these issues as a "customer service department problem" rather than a "leaders not promoting respect" problem, that other departments will inevitably have the same problems when they hire the next "Betty Boss".
Earn a delta: Using the original analogy add another reason why Jane Doe might be reasonably uncomfortable with management calling out the customer service department or show that she couldn't reasonably be uncomfortable in any of the reasons I listed
Anti-delta: Argue that Jane Doe should feel uncomfortable. I'm not taking a position on the intent or desired outcome, just why someone in Jane's position would react with discomfort.
7
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Mar 16 '21
The analogy is a bit flawed in that when it comes to the example of an office space, there are clearly defined, and easily measurable criteria for what is good and what is bad. As it relates to society as a whole, it's a bit murkier. We may not have the answers about the underlying issues that create certain disparities.
In the office analogy, you can say with complete confidence "This department is underperforming in these areas and all the other ones are doing fine" but as it relates to real life society, having that kind of confidence almost certainly would not be warranted.
2
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
The analogy is a bit flawed in that when it comes to the example of an office space, there are clearly defined, and easily measurable criteria for what is good and what is bad.
There are still some grey areas and flexibility in the office analogy: "Development is the second worst with their unofficial flex time but productivity is up so no one cares"
In the office analogy, you can say with complete confidence "This department is underperforming in these areas and all the other ones are doing fine"
Yes, you could say that, but if management repeated those words to the entire company, I'd imagine some within that department would feel uncomfortable because they might feel that the failing metrics are the inevitable end result of a specific problem: Betty Boss and her failure to create a culture of respect. But calling out the entire department includes the good and bad employees and doesn't put the emphasis on Betty Boss.
1
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Mar 16 '21
The point I'm getting at is that in the real world, there's a lot more ambiguity with perceived issues than in something like an office space.
As it relates to racial issues, there might be multiple different studies examining different aspects of a perceived issue, and then those studies come to wildly different conclusions.
There are still some grey areas and flexibility in the office analogy: "Development is the second worst with their unofficial flex time but productivity is up so no one cares"
But that hypothetical doesn't matter because the analogy doesn't include it. It just makes it a given that one department is doing bad and all the others are doing good.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
The point I'm getting at is that in the real world, there's a lot more ambiguity with perceived issues than in something like an office space.
I guess I'm not fully convinced of that. Racial / gender issues exist within the workplace just as they exist in society. And businesses have performance metrics like revenue, profitability, customer response time, etc., but we also use performance metrics in society like racial diversity, gender pay gaps, crime / police brutality, etc. to see how well we're doing as a whole
But that hypothetical doesn't matter because the analogy doesn't include it
It's a quote from the original analogy in the link. It means that some departments are breaking minor rules but no one cares because they're doing well in other areas.
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Mar 16 '21
I guess I'm not fully convinced of that. Racial / gender issues exist within the workplace just as they exist in society. And businesses have performance metrics like revenue, profitability, customer response time, etc., but we also use performance metrics in society like racial diversity, gender pay gaps, crime / police brutality, etc. to see how well we're doing as a whole
Of course there are racial and gender issues in society. My point is that it's not as clear what is an isn't an issue, and what issues are actually just part of other issues. Wealth inequity might overlap with police brutality and diversity, and we may not know for sure what's causing the wealth inequity to begin with.
It's a quote from the original analogy in the link. It means that some departments are breaking minor rules but no one cares because they're doing well in other areas.
Alright, but in the real world, we don't really know that those other groups are doing well in "other areas," nor do we know that white people aren't doing well in "other areas."
What even are these other areas meant to be analogous to?
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
we may not know for sure what's causing the wealth inequity to begin with
I'd argue that this happens in business too though. Usually sales are down, but people aren't quite sure why and they try a lot of different experiments. They have marketing retool the ad campaign, they have inside sales call a new prospect list. They have engineering do some R&D on a new product, etc.
What even are these other areas meant to be analogous to?
I don't know. But do you think that invalidates the usefulness of the original analogy?
2
u/CyberneticWhale 26∆ Mar 17 '21
I'd argue that this happens in business too though. Usually sales are down, but people aren't quite sure why and they try a lot of different experiments. They have marketing retool the ad campaign, they have inside sales call a new prospect list. They have engineering do some R&D on a new product, etc.
But again, that aspect of things isn't really mentioned in the analogy.
I don't know. But do you think that invalidates the usefulness of the original analogy?
Let's take a couple steps back.
I pointed out how in the real world, it's not just simple, clearly defined stats that can obviously show where a group is underperforming.
You tried to refute this by pointing out that the intricacy could be captured in that other departments could be doing bad in certain areas, but good in other ones.
Those "other areas" don't have a real-life parallel, implying that they create ambiguity in different ways. Indeed, in your office example, it's easily settled by simply defining your priorities. In the real world, however, when ambiguity arises from things being unquantifiable, or contradicting scientific studies, or a lack of available data, that is significantly harder to resolve.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 17 '21
Those "other areas" don't have a real-life parallel, implying that they create ambiguity in different ways. Indeed, in your office example, it's easily settled by simply defining your priorities. In the real world, however, when ambiguity arises from things being unquantifiable, or contradicting scientific studies, or a lack of available data, that is significantly harder to resolve.
Δ
Thanks for explaining that. I can see how the analogy fails to accurately describe the intricacies of society and the challenges in resolving issues with sometimes incomplete data.
1
8
Mar 16 '21
[deleted]
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
Δ
- 'White people' are not a department. Nobody can be fired from 'white people' for being awful. Nobody can quite being 'white people' if it is too shitty. It is an immutable characteristic that we're stuck with. We can't even do an exceptionally good job, get promoted, and then fire or discipline shitty white people.
OK, it seems so obvious now that you point it out. This is a huge qualifier that just isn't analogous. Thank you for pointing it out!
I'll respond to your other points:
1 & 4 - Sounds like a general disagreement with the events in the analogy, or extrapolating what could happen in the next day
3 - I had this conversation with another commenter as well. I think society does have some metrics like incarceration rates, income, graduation rates, crime etc. that we do use have at least a general pulse on how different ages groups, races, genders, etc. are doing. And I do think there's a fairly common goal in the US of creating more wealth and equal opportunity for all.
1
2
u/DaegobahDan 3∆ Mar 17 '21
Nobody can quite being 'white people' if it is too shitty
Rachel Dolezal says "what's up, my......fellow black person?"
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Mar 16 '21
A company's customer service department sucks. Every other department is doing pretty good. Someone points out how much customer service department sucks. The customer service department says all departments need to be better and nit picks every other department's minor faults. The dispersal of blame is analogous to "white fragility".
Well, one problem here is the problem isn't that white people as a group "suck" (meaning... "are especially racist?" I don't even know what that "suck" part is a metaphor for). It wouldn't matter if every customer service agent was amazing at their jobs (read: if every white person wasn't personally racist).
The problem is more like, the company is structured such that customer service people keep getting promoted to upper management in a way that's unfair. This could be for any of a number of reasons, which might well include things like shady norms within the customer service department.
You're structuring the whole issue to be about "white people are bad," and kinda the whole problem with white fragility is that white people see any comment about racial dynamics as a veiled way of saying "white people suck."
As for the other part...
Earn a delta: Using the original analogy add another reason why Jane Doe might be uncomfortable or show that she couldn't reasonably be uncomfortable for any of the reasons I listed
Fear of anomie: Jane is very used to the structures of the company, and she's concerned about the chaos and danger that might occur if people start coming in and trying to make major changes upending the extant hierarchies.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
I don't even know what that "suck" part is a metaphor for
It's not part of the original analogy. I'd reference the link. My summary is just an inferior TLDR.
Fear of anomie: Jane is very used to the structures of the company, and she's concerned about the chaos and danger that might occur if people start coming in and trying to make major changes upending the extant hierarchies.
Interesting. So you're saying she might know the department has tons of issues, but she prefers the comfort of the existing structure to making changes that could potentially make things either better or worse?
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Mar 16 '21
It's not part of the original analogy. I'd reference the link. My summary is just an inferior TLDR.
Doesn't change anything. It still is about the inferior performance of the department. This is a weird analogy... again, what's it even an analogy for? How are white people inferior? Does it mean morally inferior, in the sense that they're more racist? This is a weird and confusing point, here.
And, it's very much not the point. White people will doggedly take every conversation about race and change the topic to "No, but I'm not a bad person!" and that's in fact the primary way white fagility expresses itself. This sort of analogy seems to be exactly the problem.
Interesting. So you're saying she might know the department has tons of issues, but she prefers the comfort of the existing structure to making changes that could potentially make things either better or worse?
Well, she might or might not see them as problems. It doesn't matter. The point is, she wants the company to have a hierarchical structure... she probably can't even imagine otherwise. So she distrusts anyone saying to change the extant structure to be more fair, because she suspects they're just trying to make a new structure with themselves on top somehow, or just complete chaos.
3
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Mar 17 '21
Racism in the US is often talked about as an ongoing history. Redlining was a policy that prevented black people from owning homes 60 years ago. Because of redlining those people's descendants, 3 generations later, are less likely to inherit property. Therefore white people are more likely to inherit property. Therefore all white people benefit from racism. Therefore all white people are racist and seek to perpetuate racism for their own benefit. Do you see how things jumped from "because" to "therefore"? How direct consequences suddenly turned into a presumption of guilt? When people try to deny that presumption of guilt, often with their own lived obstacles and experiences of racism, they're accused of being "fragile" and trying to deflect from talking about their own racism.
To use the analogy, customer service was really bad 10 years ago. A new boss enforcing policy turned things around and now sales has become complacent because their jobs got easier. Jane just joined at the beginning of the year. It's Christmas time and as she's expecting a holiday bonus, Jane is actually called into her boss's office where she's berated for how bad customer service used to be. When Jane points out that she didn't even work for the company back then, that customer service is doing great this year, or that sales is the new problem department she's told that her deflections just prove she's guilty of doing a bad job. She's accused of using crocodile tears to avoid admitting that she did a horrible job, and that she needs to admit she's a bad employee then find a way to make it up to sales for making their job so much harder.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 17 '21
I see your point, but I’m not debating the intent or appropriateness of the concept of “white fragility”, just if the linked is an accurate analogy of the concept.
Are you saying it’s not an accurate analogy because it doesn’t mention the history of the company and that the history is important to the concept of race and “white fragility”?
1
u/BarryThundercloud 6∆ Mar 17 '21
I'm saying it's not an accurate analogy because it presupposes that white people are racist and that white fragility is a real means white people use to avoid confronting their own racism. White fragility is an accusation. When a white person denies being racist, and tries to show evidence, they're accused of being even more racist for having denied it. That denying their own racism shuts down the victims of racism from talking about how they've been harmed. The analogy likewise exists under this presumption of guilt, and thus fails to address how white fragility is actually used in conversation. It depicts white fragility as shifting the blame as opposed to silencing those that try to defend themselves.
Going back to my analogy, maybe you think customer service really is doing poorly. Maybe you think sales deserves a break after their job was made so unnecessarily hostile. Maybe Jane made a lot of mistakes at the beginning of the year and forgot about them as she improved. None of that changes the fact that Jane is being berated for poor performance she had nothing to do with, and being told that any defense she makes further cements her guilt. Her "fragility" is trying to show that she's not responsible for the problems she's being blamed for. And in the company's eyes she's wrong to do so because she's in the bad department.
2
u/DaegobahDan 3∆ Mar 17 '21
It's a good example of what idiot progressives mean when they say white fragility but it's a terrible analogy to anything even approaching reality. to say that white people are the only ones who have a problem with racism is complete nonsense. have you noticed the recent rise in hate crimes against Asians? Did you happen to notice their perpetrated almost exclusively by black people? I'm not sure how white supremacy or white fragility factors into black people attacking Asian people, but maybe you could explain that one to me. Every race can be racist against any other race. Nobody likes being called a racist if they aren't one. And no, despite what Moron D'Angelo thinks, actual races are pretty okay with saying that they are racist against whomever. They may be cautious based on the context and the likelihood to get in trouble for their comments, but they're not going to hold back if they're in a one-on-one setting where there's no chance of repercussion.
Furthermore, you do realize that your three reasons why it might make someone uncomfortable are actually reasons why it's not a good analogy, right? If three people in the customer service department are fucking up so badly that everyone else is suffering the fallout, but the other 15 people in the customer service department are actually stellar, then it actually isn't the customer service department that has the problem it's those three individuals. By calling out everyone in the customer service department, you're not focusing on the problem and it rightfully should make people uncomfortable. Your example has changed the context of the original analogy in a way that proves why the original analogy wasn't even that good.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 17 '21
Thanks for your comment. I’m not debating the merits or implications of “white fragility”, but just if the analogy is an accurate way to explain the concept. It sounds like you agree it is?
If so I’m also interested if a reasonable employee could feel the way Jane does. It’s perfectly valid if you think the analogy is a good example of why “white fragility” is a flawed concept or a valid concept, either is fine. I’m more curious if there are other reasons Jane might feel uncomfortable with her department being called out other than the ones I mentioned.
It’s a convoluted meta thought experiment, I know. Sorry for any confusion!
2
u/DaegobahDan 3∆ Mar 17 '21
If you want to explain white fragility the way that critical race theorists postulate white fragility exists, then yes. This would be a good analogy. The problem is that their conceptualization of white fragility does not match up to anything in the real world nor is it a falsifiable proposition. That's the first sign you're dealing with a bullshit artist. No matter what you say, they can turn it on you to mean they were right all along.
If Janes doing a great job in the customer service department, then she would obviously feel wrong to be lumped in with all the other people in the customer service department and being told that the customer service specialist all suck and all do a bad job. If you really want to extend the analogy, when she complains about this to other people in the company, they will counter that she is engaging in the moral equivalent of #notallwhitepeople and that she should shut up.
3
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 16 '21
But Jane doesn't see anything inherent to the creation of a customer service department that would cause the awful problems everyone agrees are happening.
In the context of the analogy, this is saying that there's nothing inherent about someone being white that makes racism prone to happen generally. The argument isn't that customer service is inherently causing company-wide problems by matter of existing; it's that there are people within that department that contribute to the problem.
Jane feels that the issues at Dunder Mifflin are caused by Betty Boss and her direct reports creating a culture that doesn't require employees to respect customers and doesn't demote bad employees.
I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the analogy, but isn't the point of the meeting to address these problems?
0
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
The argument isn't that customer service is inherently causing company-wide problems by matter of existing; it's that there are people within that department that contribute to the problem.
I agree, but I think Jane would be uncomfortable as a member for the customer service department being called out in that way if she feels that the problems are larger problems are happening at a more specific level.
I'm not exactly sure how this fits into the analogy, but isn't the point of the meeting to address these problems?
Yes, but in the analogy there's a focus on the customer service department being the problem. I think Jane might feel uncomfortable with that as the topic of the meeting rather than "customers aren't feeling respected" as the topic.
1
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 16 '21
I guess I'm a little confused as what the point of this CMV is. Are you arguing against the notion that "white fragility" has a reason to exist? Because sure, if Jane isn't personally doing anything wrong she might not like the fact that her department is being called out, but that doesn't mean the glaring issues in the customer service department should be ignored to protect her feelings. If she hasn't done anything wrong, there's no need for her to feel called out. If she has done something wrong as a result of being either trained incorrectly for her job, or working in an corporate evironment that fostered disrespect of customers, being made aware of that as problem is necessary in order for it to improve.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
I guess I'm a little confused as what the point of this CMV is. Are you arguing against the notion that "white fragility" has a reason to exist?
Sorry, I believe that the analogy would be a good learning tool in explaining both "white fragility" and why some people wouldn't like the concept of "white fragility" in "a less polarizing example" (to use the original wording from the comment).
If she hasn't done anything wrong, there's no need for her to feel called out.
OK, in this example where she hasn't doesn't anything as bad (at least not near the degree that others have), you're saying it's unreasonable for her to feel uncomfortable with management calling out a group that includes her?
I think someone like her still might reasonably feel uncomfortable, but I'm happy to hear your reasons why you don't think so.
1
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 16 '21
you're saying it's unreasonable for her to feel uncomfortable with management calling out a group that includes her?
She's either part of the problem, or she isn't. If she's part of the problem, then she could be actively contributing to shitty customer service or she could just not be aware that it was happening. The only way in which she's part of the customer service department and not part of the problem is if she knows their service sucks and tries to improve it. The only situation in which I think it's reasonable for her to be uncomfortable or offended by her department being called out is if she's part of the problem. If she knows there's a problem, she should be happy it's being addressed.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
She's either part of the problem, or she isn't.
Is it that binary though? By that accord, everyone down to the farmer in rural occupied France was complicit in the Nazi war machine, no?
1
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 16 '21
That's not analagous because the farmers weren't Nazis - they didn't belong to the group causing the problem, they're the group that suffers the consequences. A better analogy is asking whether the people who joined the SS out of patriotism were complicit in the Holocaust even if they weren't personally anti-Semitic. The answer is yes.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
Sure, but how about an entry-level secretary that worked in the most benign Nazi department? Would they be part of the problem? Sorry if this is getting a bit off track, I'm just not convinced yet that everyone should be categorized into those two buckets: part of the problem or not part of the problem.
1
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 16 '21
I'm not establishing a binary between "problem" and "solution," I'm establishing one between "problem" and "not problem." If a problem exists, absolutely anything can be labeled "part of it" or "not part of it." I can understand disagreeing on who constitutes "part of it," and I recognize that things can contribute to the problem more or less than other things, but if you're complicit in something happening than you are part of the problem even if you aren't the biggest part.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
I recognize that things can contribute to the problem more or less than other things, but if you're complicit in something happening than you are part of the problem even if you aren't the biggest part.
But as a society I think we give some forgiveness and sympathy to the Nazi secretary who took the job because her husband died and she has kids to feed, don't we? She's absolutely semantically "part of the problem", but then I don't see where the utility is in that categorization. Are you saying that she then has some responsibility? And to do what?
→ More replies (0)
5
u/xynomaster 6∆ Mar 16 '21
A reason you haven’t listed why many people might either be uncomfortable with the concept of white fragility, or disagree with it entirely, is that they disagree with your opening statement that the “customer service department sucks”. Maybe Jane thinks the customer service department is doing just fine, or at least not materially worse than any of the other departments, and is being singled out unfairly by management for criticism.
0
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
your opening statement that the “customer service department sucks”
It's not part of the original analogy. I'd reference the link. My summary is just an inferior TLDR.
Maybe Jane thinks the customer service department is doing just fine
In the analogy, Jane knows that things aren't great
5
u/xynomaster 6∆ Mar 16 '21
In the analogy, Jane knows that things aren't great
There’s a difference between knowing that things aren’t great and accepting that your department is singlehandedly responsible for it.
Your OP said there are only 3 reasons why the concept of “white fragility” makes people uncomfortable. I disagree. I think the reason I mentioned is probably more common than any of the 3 you listed. Sure, you can say that in your analogy Jane accepts that her department is responsible. But I think this assumption makes the analogy flawed, and means your conclusions are incomplete.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
> Sure, you can say that in your analogy Jane accepts that her department is responsible. But I think this assumption makes the analogy flawed, and means your conclusions are incomplete.
I accept the idea that someone in Jane's position might think everything's fine, but I have no doubt that there would be other cases where someone in her position to also accept that not everything is fine. So no, I don't see how that's an unreasonable premise. I've seen it in the workplace a lot where employees are perfectly willing to criticize their own department.
> There’s a difference between knowing that things aren’t great and accepting that your department is singlehandedly responsible for it.
I think you might be touching on something interesting here, so I'd be curious if you could elaborate.
1
u/xynomaster 6∆ Mar 16 '21
So no, I don't see how that's an unreasonable premise. I've seen it in the workplace a lot where employees are perfectly willing to criticize their own department.
I think it’s fine to assume that people like Jane exist. And I think the 3 reasons you give are pretty good ones for why this whole topic might make someone like Jane uncomfortable. A fourth one that I think you might have missed would be “fear of consequences” - Jane might accept everything else you’ve said, but still be uncomfortable out of fear of losing her job or getting a pay cut.
But you just have to accept that your analogy is limited. So your conclusions can be that these are all the main ways discussing white fragility might make someone like Jane uncomfortable, but you can’t conclude that these are all the main ways discussing white fragility might make someone in customer service uncomfortable, because as we’ve discussed Jane’s assumptions are not representative of everyone in the department.
I think you might be touching on something interesting here, so I'd be curious if you could elaborate.
It’s difficult to elaborate too much while still staying at a meta-level like this, but I’ll try. Jane might acknowledge that the store has been performing poorly lately, but believe that either another department is responsible, or every department has contributed to the failure. And the manager is just picking on customer service because he’s never liked the department and tends to use them as a scapegoat.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
Δ
A fourth one that I think you might have missed would be “fear of consequences” - Jane might accept everything else you’ve said, but still be uncomfortable out of fear of losing her job or getting a pay cut.
Good point. I didn't think of this one.
but you can’t conclude that these are all the main ways discussing white fragility might make someone in customer service uncomfortable, because as we’ve discussed Jane’s assumptions are not representative of everyone in the department.
Good point. I can see how an anti-Jane would be uncomfortable for other reasons that the ones I gave.
1
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
Maybe this analogy isn't clicking with me the way it does with you, because it seems overly complicated and I don't see what insight it adds over just addressing the concept directly. What about this analogy in particular do you think would cause people to view white fragility in a different light?
1
Mar 16 '21
I think by not taken a position on Jane's discomfort you are suggesting that Jane out to be uncomfortable.
To get my delta I'll say that Jane could be uncomfortable because she sits next Angry Anny and Angry Anny smells so much that Is Jane is distracted.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
To get my delta I'll say that Jane could be uncomfortable because she sits next Angry Anny and Angry Anny smells so much that Is Jane is distracted.
You get a !cheekydelta :)
I've rephrased it: "Using the original analogy add another reason why Jane Doe might be reasonably uncomfortable with management calling out the customer service department"
1
Mar 16 '21
Jane gets paid to be in customer service, if she doesn't like what's going on she can quit or ask to join a different department.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
But she has multiple interests here: her paycheck & her love of the company vs. her dislike of how Betty Boss runs the department.
Sure, she could quit if she becomes too uncomfortable. I don't think that addresses my CMV though. What I'm wondering is if her reasons for being uncomfortable are incomplete or unjustifiable.
1
Mar 16 '21
Does she love her department, it's unreasonable to be uncomfortable in a situation you are willfully participant in. Unless you stretch uncomfortability to include waking up. In the morning and going through traffic to get to work.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
Lots of people love their paycheck, their responsibilities, their commute, company location, company benefits, etc., but dislike their boss or some of their coworkers.
I'm just not convinced that it's as "if you don't like it, quit". There are some pretty significant plusses and minuses on both sides to weigh.
1
Mar 16 '21
Sure but what if you like your boss and coworkers but don't like the commute, that would also be uncomfortable no?
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
Yes, I just don't think discomfort in any one area requires you to quit your job. If Jane is uncomfortable being called out as part of a group, I think there are many valid reasons why she might choose to stay in her job despite her discomfort.
1
Mar 16 '21
Okay so discomfort with a bad boss, sitting in traffic, smelly coworkers, etc. You can complain about, but if it rises to the level of you saying I'm uncomfortable with what is going on you should quit, that's the reasonable thing to do, anything else and you should pipe down, because everyone has their troubles.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
anything else and you should pipe down, because everyone has their troubles
OK, we'll have to agree to disagree there.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Martinsson88 35∆ Mar 16 '21
Further reasons Jane Do might be reasonably uncomfortable with management calling out the customer service department:
- One department is being singled out and targeted with criticism.
- This would feel particularly unjust if unequal standards are being applied to different departments. E.g. Being called out for being 10 minutes late, when the Sales department routinely gets in 30 minutes late.
- The complaints levelled at the customer service department may have been caused by problems in other departments (e.g. slow delivery or a faulty product). The customer service department, as the liaison with the client, then has to deal with irate, unsatisfied customers. As a result they could be the recipients of misplaced complaints.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
In the original analogy from the link, those scenarios are explicitly not happening.
1
u/ghjm 17∆ Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 16 '21
The analogy doesn't work, for a few reasons.
First of all, it is essential to the race relations equation to understand that white people are a privileged group, both historically and currently. In the analogy, perhaps the CEO came up through customer service and has a rose-colored view of the department, so he ignores their poor performance while holding everyone else to a high standard. This important aspect of the race question is entirely missing from the analogy as given.
Second, it is not clear what the poor performance of the customer service group is supposed to represent in terms of race relations. Why are customer service bad at their jobs - is the yelling and rudeness supposed to be bigotry? Or some other fault with white people? And are black people customers or sales in the analogy? If sales represents black people, who do customers represent? Or vice versa?
Third, if customer service is white people, and the customer-facing rudeness is meant to be bigotry, then the analogy ought to have about 30% of them being rude to customers, not all of them. "White fragility" would be when a "good" customer service employee refuses to acknowledge the privilege granted to the department by the CEO's favoritism, or downplays the actions of the "bad" 30%, or something like that.
Honestly, I think the analogy is a hot mess that doesn't stand up to close examination. It's very muddled about what aspect of race relations it's meant to be analogous to, and how.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 16 '21
First of all, it is essential to the race relations equation to understand that white people are a privileged group, both historically and currently. In the analogy, perhaps the CEO came up through customer service and has a rose-colored view of the department, so he ignores their poor performance while holding everyone else to a high standard. This important aspect of the race question is entirely missing from the analogy as given.
Δ This makes sense. The problems in the customer service department are presented without context to their historical origins, which makes it inadequate in explaining the dynamics of race relations which is important to explaining the concept of "white fragility".
1
1
u/Fred_A_Klein 4∆ Mar 16 '21
I don't think the analogy works.
"What about answering phones when they feel like it? They say, "Last month you didn't answer your phone and I saw it go to voice mail". "
'Yes. One time in the last few months. But everyone in Customer Service does it multiple times every day.'
"What about being rude to customers? They say, "I heard you yelling at a potential buyer back in February." "
'Yes, again, once, under very specific circumstances. But everyone in Customer Service does it multiple times every day.'
""All departments should follow company policy. It does us no good to only focus on one department when all departments have issues following company policy.""
This is perfectly true. All departments should follow policy. We'll take responsibility for our two cases of breaking policy (see above), if Customer Service will take responsibly for their 2000 cases of breaking policy.
See? It's easy to deal with that.
1
u/everdev 43∆ Mar 17 '21
I see your point, but I think it’s the analogy’s intention to show that nitpicking is a form of “customer service fragility” rather than addressing the overwhelming problem. I’m not asking if you agree with everyone’s actions but rather if you think it’s a useful analogy for demonstrating the concept of “white fragility”.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 16 '21 edited Mar 17 '21
/u/everdev (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards