Ibram Kendi, "How To Be An Antiracist": The Non-Racist / Anti-Racist Distinction [Updated]

Got a free copy. Wondered what it really said, though I've seen many references to it. I've also seen references to reasonable things Kendi has said--he doesn't seem to be a stark, raving PC cultist. But, of course, we've all heard accounts of what I take to be his most important idea--the non-racist / anti-racist distinction. It took awhile for the problems with it to start becoming clear to me--but I'd never really read much of what he actually had to say about it. As it turns out, it's pretty confused: 

What’s the problem with being “not racist”? It is a claim that signifies neutrality: “I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism.” But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle. The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “antiracist.” What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism. This may seem harsh, but it’s important at the outset that we apply one of the core principles of antiracism, which is to return the word “racist” itself back to its proper usage. “Racist” is not—as Richard Spencer argues—a pejorative. It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur. It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it—and then dismantle it. The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction.

The pro-/non-/anti- distinction is, of course, a familiar one in general. Nothing new there, really. So it's not really the distinction that's central here. Rather, it's his argument that it's not possible to be non-racist--that non-racism is actually a kind of (pro-?)racism. That's not true if we're speaking of just the logic of the situation. Being anti-x is a way of being non-x. Hm. In fact, it's even a bit more complicated than I was thinking--and I don't want to mess with all the details. But, anyway: 'opposite' isn't specific enough to do the work he wants it to do. Both non-racist and anti-racist can count as opposites of racist--and the latter can count as one type of the former, rather than counting as opposed to it. There's some kind of complication added when we're talking about humans and their attitudes that isn't there if were talking about ordinary properties. It's certainly odd--under prevailing conditions, anyway--to be not a racist but not opposed to racism. But it isn't impossible. Suboptimal. Weird. But not impossible. Anyway, the argument really seems to depend on the claim that mere not-racism is a "mask for racism." Which I'd guess might be true in some cases, but not in all. It's clearly not true when you construe color-blindness as mere not-racism, and then insist that not-racism is racism. If those are the rules of engagement, then color-blindness would be anti-racist. Jeez, what a mess. And I don't mean just Kendi's paragraph, I mean this reaction to it. There's just too much complexity here to do in this half-assed way--and that goes for both of us. Another tangle of problems originates in his assumptions about "anti-racism." 

The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “antiracist.” What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.”

No, no, no. Not right at all. First, being anti-racist doesn't necessarily mean that you're an activist out "confronting racial inequities." You can be against racism just by recognizing it's a bad thing--and, perhaps, acting accordingly if you find yourself actually confronting some racist situation. Analogously: I'm anti-murder, but I don't go out questing against murder. Though, if thrust into a situation in which i could stop a murder at reasonable risk to myself, I'd do so. Anyway, all this is especially clear if you realize that such pro-/non-/anti- points can be made about any bad thing--and you can't be an activist against every bad thing. But perhaps more importantly: even if you are someone who goes out in to the world to fight racism, you needn't "locate the roots in problems of power and policies." You can accept the traditional view that racism is mainly or largely a problem with individual attitudes. In fact, I think "the" problem is sometimes one kind of thing and sometimes the other. Much of the problem currently, IMO, is neither. Much of the problem is caused by persistent problems in black America that make unfavorable inductions about black Americans irresistible at least. It's irrational to think that all such problems come entirely from racist attitudes of non-blacks. And it's irrational to insist that people cease to reason inductively about race. In fact, there's at least some evidence that our thinking about race is pretty rational: we rely on tentative racial inductive conclusions about people people we don't know, and we tend to quickly override those conclusions (when appropriate) as soon as we have direct evidence about individuals. 

   Anyway. The PC/progressive left is largely irrationalist...and not generally made up of the very sharpest tools in the shed. Also, PC subordinates reason and truth to dogma. And: progressive orthodoxy is driven largely by fads (look at Google Trends for terms like 'structural racism.') So it's no surprise that they seem to have just accepted all this whole-hog and unreflectively. It's not that there's nothing interesting there--not at all. It's rather that it's way to complicated, and seems to contain way too many problems, to just accept it hook, line and sinker. 

[More importantly: even if it's unlikely that a person can be non-racist without being anti-racist, other things, e.g. disciplines face no such problem. To take the paradigm example, math is not racist--but it's also not anti-racist. It has nothing to do with racism one way or another. In fact, to do math correctly requires us to be simply non- all sorts of things without being anti- them. That is: qua mathematicians. Genuine inquiry isn't possible otherwise. To do e.g. epistemology correctly, you need to be able to bracket all sorts of important human commitments. This is one of the many things the intellectual left gets completely wrong. They just don't have the willpower and commitment to inquiry that's required to do it right--they can't bracket their political concerns. They're activists, not inquirers.]