Fragility

= used in the context of identitarian Cancel Culture, where self-declared harm becomes the criteria for suppression of freedom of speech, pluralism and the rights of expression and employment

See: White Fragility ; or: Yascha Mounk on Woke Fragility

Discussion

Steven Lawrence:

"the Overuse of the word “harm” People who are strict adherents of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) theories are likely to assign the word “racist” to the intentions I may have held those many years ago in compelling the students in my middle school classes to collude in the “erasure” of their own identities and subcultures. Some are also likely to be unforgiving not only to my intentions, but are likely to also pre-decide in accordance with their ideologically-conditioned beliefs that these students were traumatized, “erased,” or dehumanized due to this exercise. This type of condemnation is often due to the over-application of the word “harm” to events and scenarios that may not in fact be harmful. This phenomenon is what Dr. Nick Haslam investigated when he coined the term “Concept Creep” in his groundbreaking paper in 2016. Difficult or uncomfortable experiences and differences in perspective are not conclusively “harmful,” although I understand that this idea is the predominant one in the current era.

But, they would be wrong in condemning me.

We have to allow room for people to evolve, grow, develop, and transcend previously held beliefs about themselves, others, and reality. After all, what is education (learning) for, if not to help people to transcend world views that were narrower before? Must we destroy people for not understanding what has not yet been understood? Why build an industry around education, which is about growth, if we are meant to condemn those who have not yet grown out of views that are not in alignment with the ideals of perfect inclusivity.

It’s also important for me to acknowledge that this exercise was a mistake that I and many other educators made at that time—one that I strive to no longer make. That mistake is the discounting of the legitimacy of my students’ own home culture and ways of speaking and communicating (discourses). I now understand that this can have the effect of rendering students of color as mere satellites orbiting around the “default” planet of legitimacy and formal acceptance that the language, norms, and customs of European-Americans have enjoyed as the primary culture-setters of the Western Hemisphere over the past two thousand years. This is a primary insight from post-colonial theory that I find useful.

To offset the delegitimizing of my students’ own communities, norms, and ways of communicating (discourses), I now add another part to the elevator pitch (paraphrased) I share with students in all the courses I teach:

“Language is fluid and is constantly changing. So much so that many are now using the term Language of Wider Communication (LWC), which includes English and its many influences from multiple other languages. The way you speak in your homes and in your communities is every bit as legitimate and beautiful as Standard American English. In fact, your own discourses (ways of speaking) impact the growth and development of LWC. In this class, we will learn to code-switch. No language is more appropriate or more legitimate than any other. We just need to know when to use which discourse (code) and in which circumstances.”

Over the past few years, I’ve come to appreciate the need to consistently work towards a balance that can best serve students from all backgrounds—holding high standards that everyone should strive to, adjusting the approach to teaching those standards so that everyone can be reached in their own unique ways, and empowering students to respect themselves enough to find their own ways through this dynamic."

(https://groundexperience.substack.com/p/organic-dei-empathy-beyond-ideological)