Don’t Forget Where You Are: Allies Are Incapable of Engaging in the Core of the Work First, an ally is a contingent figure. That is, an ally exists only in relationship to a movement of people who are organizing on their own behalf to change the unjust social structures that are hurting them. For example, black people are organizing all over the country to change a culture of impunity and brutality among police targeting black people. From an outside point of view, Black Lives Matter seems to have as its core the value and importance of black people organizing their own political power. It is a movement of black self-determination which has a significant focus on changing the behavior of police. Put another way, the Black Lives Matter movement will not go away when they change the culture of unaccountable police violence. Black Lives Matter will continue as a movement, building strength victory after victory. The truth of this can be seen in the broad political goals identified by leaders within the Black Lives Matter movement. The goals represent nothing short of a political and cultural revolution led by black people. The enemies of Black Lives Matter understand this well. Right wing political entities—who in theory should be supportive of checks on police power—are among the most reactionary elements defending indefensible abuses of police power. This is because independent political power organized by black people is threatening to right wing political entities, so deeply invested in maintaining the present system of white supremacy. The Black Lives Matter movement seeks to place black people and other marginalized people in the center of new structures of political power. This is why no matter how well-meaning or well behaved, a white ally is incapable of participating in the fundamental activity of Black Lives Matter—black people organizing power on their own behalf. White Allies may be involved in the movement and their work may even prove helpful. But such work is inescapably contingent. It is contingent upon the existence of a people organizing on their own behalf. It is contingent upon the successes of people winning fights on their own behalf. It is contingent upon the sacrifices of people taking enormous risks on their own behalf. This is not a question of whether I am doing a good job or a bad job at being an ally. Because I am not black, I cannot fully participate in the Black Lives Matter movement, I will always be a contingent figure. The same basic dilemma exists in any movement of people organizing on their own behalf, and the same problem applies to allies in other movements, for much the same reasons. On its own, this does not appear to be a deadly difficulty. But the problems run deeper. Get Off the Microphone: Allies Should Always Be Subordinate Because They Lack the Capacity to Hold Leadership Roles Second, the figure of ally can best serve an organizing effort by remaining in permanently subordinate roles. Any ally will lack at least two fundamental resources needed for leadership roles within an organizing effort. First, those who are personally impacted by unjust social structures are uniquely qualified to speak about why those structures are harmful and articulate the systemic changes required for real change. Second, people who are personally impacted by an unjust societal structure are well qualified to attract new people to join the effort as they can speak with integrity about the issue to those who are being similarly impacted. Strategizing and recruiting, these are the two most central leadership activities in any political movement. And only people who are impacted by an unjust structure are capable of strategizing and recruiting. To place an ally in a role for which they are not qualified will serve only to hinder the movement by taking up a leadership position that would be better left to someone personally impacted by the unjust social structure being worked on. A common saying among the champions who fought for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act was: Nothing about us without us. People without disabilities setting a “reform” agenda on behalf of others reeks of paternalism and condescension. It would destroy the very purpose of the ADA—the legal recognition and protection of the full dignity and humanity of people with disabilities. Viewed simply from a cold analysis of what would lead to success in the movement, allies would have done a terrible job of setting the agenda and organizing a movement. People with disabilities needed to be the leaders of the movement from the ground up, speaking on their own behalf about why the ADA was important and what it should contain. Only people with disabilities could organize those who might potentially benefit from such legislation and build the power needed to win. Allies, if they earnestly wished to see the movement succeed, ought to refrain from seeking leadership roles. Again, this is not a question of whether I am doing a good job or a bad job at being an ally. It is an inherent problem. Being really great as an ally will not qualify me to be a leader in the movement. To put it mildly, not every person who identifies as an ally will be content with the idea that they are to only ever hold a subordinate role in the movement. Managing the hurt feelings of disappointed allies becomes a new kind of work for the leaders of the movement. No one gets into the Black Lives Matter movement because they want to tend to the hurt feelings of white people. And yet this is often a part of what movement leaders have to do. It is counterproductive and a waste of time and resources. This might simply be perceived as an annoyance, but remember that it is an inescapable problem because allies are always contingent figures. And as far as inescapable problems go, this one is very, very serious. Burning it Down on Their Way Out: Allies as Potentially Dangerous Third, allies exists within a double-dynamic of the unequal distribution of power. When allies show up to a movement, they are late to the game and arrive to find structures of leadership already set up and functioning. On arrival they are given (or should be given) minor roles to play. If an ally gets too vocal or starts trying to take charge, they are quickly (and rightly) called out for their misbehavior. There exists a dynamic of unequal power. Within the movement, those who are organizing on their own behalf to change social structures hold greater power than allies who show up late to the game. This is often a direct reversal of the power structure that exists outside of the movement. White people possessed of tremendous racial privilege find themselves subordinate to black people. Straight people whose right to live and love as they choose has never been questioned find themselves subordinate to LGBT persons. Organizing efforts are, in this sense, very much like Jesus’ parables about the Kingdom of God in which the last are to be first and the first are to be last. And just as people were upset at Jesus’ parables, so too do many people accustomed to holding positions of power chafe when being told what they can and cannot do. This power dynamic, however, exists only within the movement itself. In other areas of the ally’s life, they will hold significant power in relationship to members of the movement. A man who is seeking to further the aims of feminism may need to be silent in feminist gatherings. But as soon as he departs that gathering the power dynamic will shift dramatically. Compared to a woman leader in the feminist movement, as he moves through the world our man will not be catcalled, he will not be sexually assaulted, he will not be denied career advancement because of his gender, there are not countries that are off limits to him because of gendered violence, he will not lose democratic elections because of his gender. He picks back up his male privilege as soon as he is outside of the feminist movement. Thus, allies exist within a double-dynamic of unequal distribution of power: within a movement they lack power because of who they are, outside that movement they hold power because of who they are. Intentionally or not, allies introduce an irreconcilable inequality of power into an organizing effort simply by virtue of their presence. This helps explain why leaders of a movement might be so careful with the feelings of allies. An ally whose feelings are hurt because they are not allowed to hold leadership roles is a potentially dangerous enemy. They know the names of people within the movement, know its meeting habits and locations, know its goals and methods, know its funding sources and potential funders. This is information that a movement’s enemies could (and do) readily exploit. The feminist movement has enemies, Black Lives Matter has enemies, LGBT activists have enemies, immigrants rights groups have enemies. Given the choice between spending time coddling the hurt feelings of an ally and spending time rebuilding an organization after its enemies have hit them where it hurts, it is easy to understand why a movement leader might choose coddling. This is, of course, a problem only because of the presence of allies within the movement. Were allies to simply be absent—or were they be trustworthy for reasons beyond personal integrity—the problem would not exist. These three traits of allies—being contingent, subordinate, and introducing an unequal distribution of power, make allies deeply problematic to any group seeking to organize on their own behalf. To be clear, the kinds of problems allies create are not inherent to any particular movement. Nor are these problems philosophical or theoretical. Allies create real logistical problems which require time and attention and resources from leaders within a movement to address—time and attention and resources which are diverted from the movement’s true goals. So where does that leave me as a person who might wish to be an ally to marginalized people? Incapable of making a difference in the world about the things that really matter? Incapable of contributing to the movements needed to save our nation's soul? Not at all. There is an alternative way to do this kind of work, one that rests on a different foundation and which leads to different results. The next part will outline that model.
2 Comments
Joan Smiley
4/7/2017 07:35:53 pm
I would think that having sympathetic others (allies), who can't be defined as a member of the group experiencing a challenge that deserves (requires) correction would be a valuable asset. Allies could be viewed as a supporting group that encourages those who are negatively perceived and inaccurately label.
Reply
Marc Brenman
4/18/2017 10:14:24 am
Good point, Joan. Allies are important, and not to be discarded. Prejudice against them is still prejudice.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm a Christian, a progressive, a pastor, and a community organizer. Archives
August 2017
Categories |