Social Activism

I posted this on another platform and though it might be good to share here. It isn't meant to be a discussion as such - it's more of a reflection, but feel free to post comments/start a discussion


So I was listening to the soundtrack from “Hamilton” (quelle surprise!) and the following bit stood out to me:

[WASHINGTON]
Watch your tone
I am not a maiden in need of defending, I am grown

[HAMILTON]
Charles Lee, Thomas Conway
These men take your name and they rake it
Through the mud

[WASHINGTON]
My name’s been through a lot, I can take it

For those unfamiliar with the show, In that particular scene, a young and passionate Alexander Hamilton challenged a fellow solider to a duel for badmouthing their general, George Washington. He won, and after the duel, Washington called him aside and gave him a stern talking to, including the above. He’s saying that it’s not Hamilton’s business to defend him to others. He’s been though plenty (and worse), but he’s a a grown man who can handle his own.

And it made me think about a a lot of current social activism. Particularly the kind that comes from those who are not oppressed/marginalized. I’m speaking particularly about people of privilege getting all bent out of shape at the slightest provocation to the LGBT or POC communities (for example).

I write this as one of those people. Many a time I’ve gotten offended on behalf of others, and allowed it to make me combative and argumentative. Not as passionately as some, but it was definitely there. I’m guilty of doing this, and I own that. But more and more, I’m wondering if it’s doing more harm than good. I’m starting to see it as pretty arrogant, claiming to speak for people who can speak for themselves and would likely do a much better job.

I do think that certain groups need our help and support. It should be the duty of everyone, individually and as a society, to try to lend support to bolster those who need it and to give them a platform to speak for themselves. We “on the outside” should be building those stages and welcoming those who wish to speak to their experiences onto them. But striding into the spotlight to speak for another is little more than saying “LOOK AT ME!!! Look at how wonderful and socially aware I am! Look how strong I am standing up for someone who is powerless!” *flex flex*

Is that really empowering to those who are truly powerless, or is it taking away their opportunity to empower themselves?

Although I’m absolutely guilty of doing it, I’m starting to think that picking fights on someone else’s behalf (unless it’s specifically asked-for in a particular situation) shows an rather presumptuous and juvenile approach to social change. So I encourage us all to be really mindful of exactly who we’re helping when we choose to fight on someone else’s behalf. Are we really acting as a constructive part of the solution, or causing more conflict and resentment?

I think the key is understand the difference between being a good ally and trying to show off what an enlightened little snowflake you are. We're also learning first hand that true injustice isn't always apparent. I think as allies the best thing we can do is point to someone who is experiencing the injustice and speaking out against it, and use our privilege to say "listen to them."

I wrote a REALLY long answer that I was going to post, but this picture explains my point far better than I ever could:



It's all about what exactly it is you're fighting for

Brick wrote: I wrote a REALLY long answer that I was going to post, but this picture explains my point far better than I ever could:

It's all about what exactly it is you're fighting for

Oh, I LOVE that!! Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Yours is far more concise, heh heh.

Good point!! The difference between defense and attack can be hard to work out, especially since they often invite an instinctive counter reaction. I guess defending someone is most appropriate when they are unable to do it themselves.

Certainly I think its a good instinct "to set the oppressed free" but action requires appropriate knowledge of the circumstance and crafted application to maximize positive effect while minimizing negative consequences - which tends to be contrary to the instinctual drive to just rush in and act.

Very good call on seeing that some people do it to be all "Look at me! I'm sensitive to the plights of the little people!" Which I would imagine is still demeaning. In fact, we have a maxim about that.

Intervention: To know when not to act.

A Jedi knows how inaction can have as great an impact as action and how some of the greatest lessons are self-taught. To be a victor is also taking that victory from those you protect. A Jedi intervenes only when a Jedi's intervention is required.

One thing we also have to think about is whether or not the help is wanted. I am sometimes accused of having issues with that maxim because I just want to help people so much that I end up doing things for them. I'm getting much better, but I still work on it.

I think this is a really interesting topic, and it's something I've been guilty of myself as well. I want to stand up for other people, to support their cause, and I think that word really says it all: support. No matter how helpful I want to be, if I am not a member of the marginalized group, that cause can never be my cause. It can be something I believe in, obviously, and something I support. But it's important that those who are truly a part of that group have their voices heard, not just the rest of us shouting "I AGREE!".

I think the centre of supporting a cause is by actively listening to that group. What do they need? It might not be what I think they need or want. I can provide them the kind of support that they want, if they want it. And if they don't... well, I can still make it known that I can be there for them in the future.

It seems to me that if we are attacking or defending a group, we are still categorising people, still casting in-groups and out-groups, still throwing a cover over the similarities to say : "these people are not like me (but are just as worthy)". As it turns out, the part in parentheses doesn't tend to come through as loudly. As we work toward social justice - hopefully resisting any notions of utopia along the way -, we do not need to wage a war against discrimination, but more to advocate treating everyone with respect, empathy and compassion (where warranted).

It is sort of funny how we're brought up with the urge to be heroes, yet how little we are instructed in what heroism is. It requires a little more than just having a cause to champion. One has to undergo a transformation of perspective ; merely using someone else's position of disadvantage to re-upholster one's ego in the colours of activism is not really serving the principle of Justice. Truly, authentically regarding one another as equal human beings irrespective of their skin colour, age, gender, sexual orientation or physical and mental ability is a much more genuine step towards that goal ...

... perhaps.

Alexandre Orion wrote: It seems to me that if we are attacking or defending a group, we are still categorising people...

Categorizing people, on its own, is not an evil, bad, or undesirable thing. Only when that categorization is used out of ignorance or hatred to confine people to the boundaries of their categorization is it a negative force impacting folks.

steamboat28 wrote:

Alexandre Orion wrote: It seems to me that if we are attacking or defending a group, we are still categorising people...

Categorizing people, on its own, is not an evil, bad, or undesirable thing. Only when that categorization is used out of ignorance or hatred to confine people to the boundaries of their categorization is it a negative force impacting folks.

True ... Yet, the sentence, in its entirety is more about "if we are attacking or defending" :

It seems to me that if we are attacking or defending a group, we are still categorising people, still casting in-groups and out-groups, still throwing a cover over the similarities to say : "these people are not like me (but are just as worthy)".

... is more about the categorising people in order to exploit that category, just as you were pointing out (ignorance or hatred). Even in thinking one is doing a good thing by "charging to the rescue," getting offended when a category is (or might be) insulted, can be merely a softer form of exploitation.

Certainly we are going to categorise - or at least remark the distinctions - and we will do despite any efforts not to do. That is just how our minds function at their best. We need to be able to notice traits and characteristics, even/especially uncommon ones. It is the exploitation, for mis-guided "good" or ill that poses the problem here.

Thank you for pointing that out, Steam.