I wish to clarify something about my critique of "magical thinking", because it involves a number of claims that I've actually never heard or read anyone else express before (the argument might be out there somewhere in the ether but I've never seen it) . . .

I've criticized "magical thinking" about white supremacy in the United States and France in numerous scholarly and popular publications. If you've read HOW TO BE LESS STUPID ABOUT RACE, you'll be familiar with the general claims. But here's an older essay: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/frances-approach-to-fight_b_7231610

What I wish to clarify is the ontological framework of my critique. This is important, for several reasons. First, because although I develop conventional sociological critiques of material power relations, I'm actually not a materialist.

I should specify -- I both am and am not a materialist. Experientially, I live between "two worlds", that is, the conventional world of appearances that most humans call "reality" and a spiritual, non-material world I know to be reality.

Secondly, and relatedly, I've directly *experienced* what one might call "magic" in the context of my spiritual practice. As a non-materialist, I have all kinds of "magical", even "paranormal" experiences that are part of my ordinary life.

So my critique of magical thinking in discussions of race and racism is coming from the perspective of someone who *actually* experiences "magic". But it is quite clear to me when I am operating with a materialist ontology and when I am operating with a non-materialist framework.

What irritates me is when people allow magical (non-material) thinking to seep into and distort discussions of material power relations. It's fine to believe in magic! But at least have the intellectual honesty to admit when your claims are not rooted in what most call "reality".

I have had multiple disagreements with anti-racist activists and scholars who earnestly make magical claims like "We can end racism!" or "We can live in a world without violence!" without anchoring their analysis in any sensible or logical way to the material world of power.

Ontology is about how we define "what is" -- the nature of reality. If you are relying upon "hopes", "dreams" or wishes upon a star to solve material power relations, then you are engaging in what I would call an ontological mismatch at best, and ontological dishonesty at worse.

I just think it's important, especially but not only for intellectuals, to practice rigor in being clear and honest about the nature of our claims.

I have even seen atheists who make claims about anti-oppression work and "justice" that are actually rooted in non-material, magical thinking. And that's fine, too -- just be honest with yourself and with others when your argument is not entirely consistent with a material world.