Timenergy fragility vs. Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility
A case study in how the left side of the PMC likes to race-wash class dynamics.
What follows is an excerpt from David McKerracher’s book Timenergy. Timenergy is defined as “large, energy-infused, repeatable blocks of time reliably available within a society and between its members.” It is the opposite of time-without-energy (garbage time). It is the opposite of random bursts of energy that cannot be directed towards large and reliably repeatable blocks of time (restless energy). Timenergy is what we all lack. Timenergy theory is what McKerracher has been theorizing since before his M.A. thesis on the topic, and it is for the development of this work that Theory Underground ultimately exists. To find out more about its author, or how to get get a physical or audio version of the book Timenergy, there is more information at the end of this post.
Timenergy fragility vs. Robin DiAngelo
In this chapter I’m going to show that what Robin DiAngelo misdiagnosed as “white fragility” is, in fact, a universal experience among workers: Timenergy fragility! Because we do not have the timenergy to go deep into controversial topics and therefore refine our own nuanced positions, we get frustrated when others are telling us their own conclusions to which we are supposed to dogmatically submit.
We want to think for ourselves and have serious conversations, but we lack the timenergy to engage in such conversations. Instead of this common Democrat idea that we must overthrow racism before workers get to have nice things (like fair wages or timenergy), it is on us to turn the tables and say No more telling us what to think until we have the timenergy to actually “do the work” for ourselves! It is not just a matter of righting historical injustice, but also our intellectual integrity itself that is at stake.
“Fragility” is a bit of a buzzword today, thanks to White Fragility becoming an Amazon bestseller in 2020. Overnight, DiAngelo became “the new racial cop in town” according to Michael Eric Dyson (the old racial cop).[1] The subtitle of that book is “Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about race”—something DiAngelo should know a lot about! She has made a career going into workplaces to facilitate a specific kind of discourse about racism, i.e trying to get white people to recognize and admit that they have privilege.
DiAngelo asserts that the main reason “white people” resist talking about the politics of race is because they want to hold onto their positive self-image (what we would just call “dignity”). This refusal to take the L, so to speak, is done at the expense of recognizing one’s “white privilege.” This is, from her standpoint, very bad, because apparently this blocks all progress.
If you were paying attention in 2016 and 2020, a common response to the Bernie Sanders agenda of Medicare for All was that we have to focus first on racism, i.e. until the last white person admits to privilege and learns to grovel to Democrats, no Nice Things For All. I’m only slightly exaggerating, but you can see example after example of this in Finkelstein’s piece in Underground Theory.[2] Therefore, if your responses, or even body language, seems unreceptive in one of her mandatory H.R. workshops, then she attributes this to “white fragility,” a manifestation of racism. This is because she believes “racism is a deeply embedded historical system of institutional power.”[3] Failure on the part of a white person to acknowledge their “role” and “privilege” in this situation is, from her standpoint, what allows racism to continue.
There are a variety of issues with this popular book’s thesis, including the fact that DiAngelo takes any resistance to her mandatory H.R. workshops as confirmation of the theory. Not only is this the opposite of a scientific approach (it’s not falsifiable), but it is also very convenient for her career; it’s almost like saying, “If people think I’m doing a bad job at making workplaces less racist, that is because they are the real racists!” This would be problematic outside of a system where almost all political consciousness and solutions are framed by and for the professional managers of capital (PMC) to enhance its control over labor power. From the institution of racialized slavery until now, racialization and race consciousness have been used by elites as the go-to for understanding everything, because they benefit from workers identifying with their wealthy “counterparts.”
DiAngelo does not just teach people to be anti-racist, she teaches workers to see themselves as having more in common with people who merely look similar, regardless of class. In this worldview, the poor black or white person sees more in common with a rich black or white person than with one another.
What I want to focus on is none of that, which has been and can be expanded on elsewhere. For now, suffice it to say that what DiAngelo observes in these workshops is nonetheless real. It really is frustrating when others don’t want to talk about something you care about. I bet she hates that.
The problem is, people with time and energy privilege tend to not understand what those without it are dealing with. It is too easy to see others reacting in an ignorant and frustrated way as merely reactionary for not prioritizing the topic closest to your heart’s purpose.
DiAngelo is correct that she has immense privilege and that people react in fragile ways when she wants to talk about this, but she has inadequately theorized both privilege and fragility. Some of the fragility she encounters is no doubt solely rooted in the way some people simply resist the topic of race. However, without understanding timenergy fragility, she is going to see all resistance through the lens of race, privilege, and ignorance.
Timenergy fragility is when a person feels frustration or impatience with the topic being centered because they simply lack the time and energy to adequately research and then participate in the discourse. It’s not just about wanting to make sure one says the right thing. Most people have a sense of dignity, which means a resistance towards being told how to see and think of things. We want to be reasoned with, i.e. treated as rational adults who are capable of coming to our own conclusions if we are given the facts.
The professional managers of capital today often say people are simply not rational agents and must be manipulated. Beyond the fact that this is convenient to their class interests or career goals, there is truth in the belief that we are not primarily rational actors.
Going back as far as Plato, though, we have known that the human is not entitirely rational. We are pulled between our competing drives, and rationality is easily made to serve mere whim. Post hoc rationalization narratives conveniently offer themselves to elevate the ego. Some people, never having made a serious practice of checking such tendencies within oneself, then presume rationality itself is a ruse.
I do not aim to argue that humans are primarily rational, but that our capacity to reach the height of reasonable conclusions beyond mere preference or convenience must be honored. When not treated this way we correctly feel that our dignity has been compromised.
If an authority figure in the workplace wants me to sit in DiAngelo’s workshop, where she is advancing politically controversial theses as dogmas we must accept if we wish to not be perceived as racist, that is going to feel wrong to many… unless of course the employee is having their prejudices or pre-determined beliefs confirmed, finds enjoyment in these kinds of topics, rituals, or hazings, or unless the narrative being advanced is one that feels personally beneficial or self-congratulatory.
This is not just to say anyone who gets something out of such workshops gets off on self-hate, performative expressions of righteousness, or the like. A lot of what DiAngelo wants to talk about with people is important and is the kind of thing we should all get to discuss more often if we want. The issue is having the timenergy to do so.
When it comes to a controversial topic that requires a lot of research, but you don’t have the time or energy to thoroughly flesh out the different perspectives within the field, you learn to either take the authority of the supposed expert on faith, or you, at the bare minimum, nod along and learn to say whatever you’re supposed to in order to get back to whatever priorities have been demanding your attention.
Imagine career success depended on H.R. workshops having to do with theoretical physics, where you are told that string theory is incorrect and that you must espouse some other theory. Knowing none of the relevant information about who has advanced what theses within the field, how these theses were advanced, what concepts came from where and how these are contested, etc., most participants are going to feel frustrated. How much more so when the topic advanced has no scientific method and is instead done within the frame of “here is the correct perspective, you either agree with me or you are literally racist”? Who would want that?
To be told that there is a correct answer to a problem is not tyranny. When an expert tells the novice that they are wrong, this is not oppression. But when your career depends on participation in workshops where non-scientific “facts” are taught as an objective worldview, and done so under the threat of being let go, that’s another thing entirely. This is the definition of what I call “epistemological gaslighting” and “social blackmail.”
Epistemological gaslighting is where a person is told they need to agree with something they cannot verify for themselves; social blackmail speaks to the fact that if you don’t play along and agree you will be ostracized or punished in other ways.
This shit would be problematic even if such awareness raising workshops were effective at reducing racism in the workplace. Articles citing evidence to the contrary proliferating is besides the point we are to concern ourselves with here: Human dignity demands being treated as one capable of forming opinions and beliefs, or taking on perspectives, if and when the necessary information is made relevant and accessible in a relatively free environment. When one feels their dignity is being violated, it is understandable to feel frustrated and impatient. In such cases it makes complete sense to express resistance. Having this resistance framed as fragility, much less racism (a name that comes with severe social costs), obviously adds fuel to the fire.
How much worse is it when force-fed information in an environment where raising common sense questions or framings might come at the cost of one’s livelihood?
Anyway, to sum up this section and set it up for the next one… Most of what gets taken on the surface as the fragility of ignorant privileged people is really just basic human dignity putting up resistance to violations of intellectual integrity.
If people are talking about something that has high stakes, and that topic is not in one’s wheelhouse, most will feel compromised or vaguely wrong, and some will resist.
All of this obviously has implications for schooling itself, which is age-segregated, ranked, and compulsory, where your interests are said to be irrelevant or bad if they cannot be bent to, or made to accommodate or center, the seemingly arbitrary interests of authorities.
But we need not restrict ourselves to institutional environments in our examples. Take the typical parent: Never enough time or energy for themselves, tired and stretched thin between job and relationships, always being told by bosses, managers, and a society of others to focus on this or that or else there will be hell to pay. The child in such a household draws a picture and wants the parent’s acknowledgement, but all the parent says is “oh that’s really nice” without really looking at it. The child’s need gets frustrated, and how the child responds can likewise frustrate the parent.
Children act out for attention in various ways, which are more or less valid depending on a variety of factors that are arguable. The frustration felt by all parents is a form of timenergy fragility, the feeling of having others constantly demanding one’s attention when time and energy are fragmented. Never having the timenergy to do the things that must be done, much less the things that they want or need to do, parents are stressed out and incapable of looking after themselves, much less their dependents.
Thanks for reading!
This post is an excerpt from TIMENERGY: Why You Have No Time or Energy. Enjoy it serially here for free. If you prefer a physical copy, orders within the U.S. can get it at a discount here. Otherwise, I recommend getting it from Amazon. Or just follow this Substack and read it serially over time! Also, the Audible version of this is now available!
Get involved: If you want to get actively involved with the ongoing member-only content at Theory Underground, such as the seminar sessions related to timenergy research and critical media theory (examples here), become a TU member today!
Support: If you don’t have time to get involved but wish to support nonetheless, you can become a patron on Patreon or just fund the writing work by becoming a paid subscriber of this Substack!
Author bio:
David McKerracher (M.A.) is the organizer for, and founder of, Theory Underground, a teaching, research, and publishing platform by and for dropout workers with earbuds and burnt out post-grads who want to understand The Situation as a means towards figuring out the conditions of possibility for The Good Life. McKerracher’s background is in critical theory, political philosophy, existentialism and phenomenology. All of McKerracher's work revolves around a single question: What is the Good Life? McKerracher's questioning into the conditions of possibility for living The Good Life led him to an M.A. thesis on “Timenergy, the existential basis of labor power.” This work draws heavily from Marx and Heidegger. McKerracher developed this concept further in his first book called Waypoint: Timenergy, Critical Media Theory, and Social Change, and his second book simply titled Timenergy: Why You Have No Time or Energy. Because “Timenergy Theory” requires a more robust theory of libidinal economy and ideology, McKerracher has spent the last few years learning Žižekian and Lacanian theory of ideology from his compatriot Michael Downs. Instead of pursuing a doctorate, McKerracher founded Theory Underground, a vehicle for cultivating the kind of research and conversation necessary to take timenergy theory to where it needs to go, the long-term goal of which is to pave a way forward for humanity to maintain the conditions of a robust cultural plurality, harness automation-for-all, and ultimately, explore the universe.
End notes:
[1] This quote by Michael Eric Dyson is shown on the cover of White Fragility.
[2] Finkelstein’s piece in Underground Theory is an excerpt of his amazing work I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It. You should go buy both immediately!
[3] Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Theory Underground to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.