Since my introduction into the foray of academia, the usage of the ethnography has been touted as one of the most effective and impactful research methodologies to undertake. I disagree, as it is the systematic literature review or meta-analysis as the best method (biased as it was my dissertation). I earned a master’s in education, so the ethnography is touted as the gold standard in that field because it focuses on all the wonderful aspects of a reactionary-left academic lens: lived experience, connection to culture, power dynamics etc. Each ethnography works like a movie, the researcher introduces the subjects, deeply studies them, finds problems, uses their expert knowledge to find solutions commonly outlining the problem in an oppressive system. Thus, that is why the Critical Race Theory (CRT) reactionaries love the ethnography because it is a template for their justification of revolutionary change to a power dynamic all while fostering a tender connection to a community. However, the ethnography might have another side to the coin, perhaps antithetical to the CRT scholars.
The ethnography is the observation of a particular culture examining behaviors and interpretation therein. Ethnography uses a social constructionist lens embracing the conjectural ideation of individuals for the express consent of learning about a certain culture. We can trace the modern form of ethnography back to Bronisław Malinowski and his work Argonauts of the Western Pacific in 1922. However, the most famous reflection of ethnography relates to Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem The White Man’s Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands. Obviously one can look at the two works and notice questionable methods such as Kipling’s justification for civilization of the Filipino savage, and the scientific discovery of ‘changing’ the noble savage on island archipelagos for the benefit of Malinowski’s science. Less of the issues involved with the validity and haphazard stance as outlined in LeCompte and Goetz but rather the naivete and conflation of ethnographic predispositions as outlined in Banfield leading to less desired outcomes and more social animosity.
Much like any methodology, its uses are relative to the situation and have flaws but it’s the general naivete and conflation as found in the words from Malinkowski or Kipling that introduce questions of racism in ethnography. This leads to the question: why is ethnography so commonly used in critical race theory? The origin of the racial ethnography presents naïve and obfuscated racial views in works that attempt to outline racial justice under the perceived context of social justice. A quick search on Google Scholar of ‘critical race theory AND ethnography’ rendered 400,000 results. Observing the most relevant articles, you see some of – what I would call – actual problematic racial justifications in CRT literature.
- First study – out of the universities of Harvard and Utah – suggest immigrants are incapable of being in an American education system because of its lack of vibrancy and consejos (cultural values) such as looking at people differently through race.
- Second study – two white women, one representing the private Tufts University – define what is problematic through their observations of everywhere racism and distributive justice even with racial bias training. Not to mention – the anti-Semitic pseudonyms.
- Another study – featuring two white women from southeastern American universities – draws the connection of racism and literacy through their conception of “[white people] presented as hard workers who wanted to get to work on time” which stratifies a daily action by all humans, dividing it by race, and suggesting certain races cannot meet these standards.
Now one might see this and say: so what, you picked some quotes from some research articles and this shows some form of racism through the method of ethnography? Well using this evidence alone, I can confirm my original thesis that this discussion of familial culture, distributive justice, and conceptualization of racialized individuals involves a haphazard and naïve conflation of the plight of marginalized individuals. Thus, a singling out the issue and being the ‘white-left’ educated solution is best for the whole marginalized society.
One cannot help but see this and align it with the concept of the white savior mentality. This is a common trope, especially in movies, where the white individual through a form of ethnography ingratiates him or herself into a culture that is not their own, eventually becoming that culture. Hollywood embraces this style as a feel-good story but offers a sense of tokenism of ‘we are the benevolent ones saving people from the ills of systemic racism’. Another term that relates to this is the Baizuo (Chinese: 白左) – literally meaning white left – is an epithet to reflect western left ideals feigning progressive emotion but displaying hypocritical selfishness. The white savior along with the baizuo are akin to the Malinowski claim of introducing science to the noble savages to better their lives, much like the CRT ethnographers introducing distributive justice, or dignity and pride to better themselves and make them more aware of the systems the researchers perceive.
One might also wonder what renowned economist and unintentional ethnographer Thomas Sowell would think about this white savior concept? Perhaps he would see beyond the action of the researchers and analyze why this method of ethnographic critical race theory might be perpetuating the victimization of black and brown people towards a less rational and competent society. Sowell saw the rise of left-wing activism perpetuating a status of victimhood that is cyclical to the marginalized individual through playing the rhetorical game of CRT with race in the center and all troubles oppression surrounding it. Thus, one might conclude that CRT scholars also contribute to the victimhood narrative.
Perhaps one of the most pernicious observations is the hypocrisy behind the white savior mentality and feeding perpetual victimhood. You are not apart of the team unless you are victimized is a surface level understanding to CRT ethnography. A deeper, more troubling realization connects to Carl Jung’s conception of hypocrisy to an individual’s dark side that is unrealized using heuristics, euphemisms or “beautiful synonyms” for the express consent of power. Much like the CRT activists, the academic ethnographers do not advocate for the advancement of equality in the tradition of Martin Luther King; it is using the divisive form of racial equity to ameliorate power to the hands of the all-knowing expert as the savior of the noble savages.
Sure, a rebuttal from the CRT ethnographer might be to suggest ‘that it’s because of mine and your inherent bigotry that we need to perpetuate this concept further for understanding’. This of course plays right into Jung’s dark shadow of hypocrisy. A less refined term, the race grifter as one who uses the trope of their ‘systemic racism’ to justify their role in this action. Going deeper, we may be able to observe that the most racially insensitive are the ones who take up roles attempting to fight and remedy their own racism. As in, the ones who rail against the racist constructs of our society are railing against their own self-made constructs of racism in their own mind. One would not have to look far and see the work of Robin DiAngelo and her apparent anxiety whenever she enters a room with black people as suggested in White Fragility.
I find that this compliments the work of Wokeness and Its Not-at-all-racist Doctrines of Disempowerment by James Lindsay as contributing to the troubling stereotype of victimization culture through CRT. One can look at the implications when a CRT ethnography base is established assuming a naïve voice based on superficiality. One situation comes to mind involving CNN analyst Kirsten Powers (a white lady) who attempted to lecture a black journalist, Thomas Chatterton Williams, on how and when to use the n-word. Perhaps the loudest voices of the CRT ethnographers – either by trade or artistic rhetoric – are manifesting their own racism through maintaining a subversive control over the narrative. Perhaps it is the ones who propose white fragility and anti-black racism, like Ibram Kendi, who must come to terms with the slave trade in which African tribe leaders and colonialist were culpable. After all, if we are to follow the 1619 project, are black people also victimizers of systemic racism? One might conclude that the framework of CRT ethnography is to observe, analyze and interpret culture, but the systematic outcome relays tokenism, narcissism, and a craven appetite to be the savior over their internal racism.
carsonbabich.com 