On the pigeonhole argument when it comes to writing & thinking about race/racism. We’re told...oh, you will be pigeonholed, careful you may want to write about other things in the future, indeed you may, but I find the logic so problematic I want to say a few things short thread.

1) this argument only exists because race scholarship is devalued & it is devalued because of white supremacy. This is need to be understood.

2) and it is particularly devalued when black scholars study it. White ppl* can by & large build careers studying racism & indeed many do and become authorities.

3) Every scholar needs a niche, an area of expertise or focus. For example if I was a psychologist studying the impact of divorce on children, or imposter syndrome in the workplace or bystander phenomenon. No one...I repeat, no one would tell me, I am pigeonholing myself.

So you can clearly see there’s more going on...

4) When I started studying racism within psychology I was discouraged (to put it mildly), there is more to life than race! It’s not all about race DESPITE the fact, in this country the intersection of race, racism and psychological health & functioning is virtually non-existent.

Clearly the objective reality is...it’s not been about race, it’s never been about race actually

5) If you want to write about race, do so. If you want to write well about race...then you need to dedicate time thinking/reading about race, like you would do any subject matter. But this process of thinking, reflecting, seeing...may make those around you VERY uncomfortable.

And really the pigeonhole argument speaks to this. It speaks to the fear of being seen. The fear that you will see through those around you, and recognise patterns, they may not dare see themselves. This is the real albeit often unconscious fear.

6) DO NOT BUY INTO THE DEVALUATION OF RACE SCHOLARSHIP. Abeg. Some of the most astute thinkers & scholars write about racism...indeed, I have not come across a bright brain who has not interrogated race dynamics...from Einstein to Chomsky, from Morrison, to Fanon...

What does that tell us? Think for yourself.

Yet everyone seems to think they are experts on race or can think about race and that they should be given a platform to talk about it, when some of the sharpest minds have been grappling with the phenomenon. You think doing race scholarship is low grade scholarship? For shame.

7) My personal view is that racism is one of the most complex & sophisticated social system. And to get any close to grasping it’s working, we need to understand power, we need to understand language, we need a firm knowledge of history, we need to understand group dynamics...

We need to understand the psyche, we need to understand institutional functioning, we need to understand binary thinking, we need to understand identity formation, we need to understand constructions of difference, it helps if we know basic philosophy...

We need to understand class & we need to understand gender & we need to understand norms & pathologisation. We need to understand colonial logics & we need to understand change & systemic transformation...

Does studying racism will limit your understanding of the world?

I thought not too.

That is the reason those of us who come from interdisciplinary backgrounds have a clear advantage and produce the most solid race scholarship.

In fact studying racism has made be a better therapist, a better writer and a stronger thinker & better more grounded psychologist actually. So no not every POC should study & write on race and it’s ok not to be interested but equally let’s give respect & thanks to those who do.

Push back whenever you see that nonsensical ‘pigeonhole’ argument. And understand its functions (which some of us can better understand because we understand race ironically).

Fin.