A solution to this problem is possible, however, by fundamentally shifting what one understands an ally to be. This alternative model will be called “strategic alliances”.
A strategic alliance is an explicit agreement between two separate organizing movements to join their power for a period of time. This is done in order to achieve goals that would be impossible for either movement to achieve alone. Each aspect of this arrangement serves to solve the problems previously enumerated. Allies are contingent. But strategic alliances exist between two or more separate organizing movements to further their own direct interests. Allies ought to be permanently subordinate. But strategic alliances require each party to take the lead at different times. Allies introduce a dynamic of unequal distribution of power. But, strategic alliances require each party to treat the other as having equal dignity and equal claim to power. First, strategic alliances exist between two or more separate organizing movements to further their own direct interests. Say there is a group organizing fast food workers for sick time protections for their workers. Say, further, that there is a labor union working for guaranteed sick time for all workers. Such groups might form a strategic alliance. The interest of the fast food workers is protecting their people from losing their jobs when they get sick. The interest of the labor union is to avoid having to bid for contracts against firms whose costs are artificially low because they do not pay for sick time. Their interests are not the same. At other times, the interests of fast wood workers and a labor union might even be in conflict. But each group exists for the purpose of organizing on behalf of their own interests and—for a specific period of time—those parties can agree to work together toward a shared goal. Each partner in the strategic alliance may participate in the alliance fully, rather than on a contingent basis. Each partner can, in fact, be counted on to participate fully because it is in their own interest to do so. Entering into strategic alliances only with partners that have their own interests at heart solves the problem of “allies” having only a contingent stake in a movement. Second, Strategic Alliances require different people to take leadership at different times. Remember that allies ought to be subordinate because they lack two critical resources needed to organize powerfully—personal experience of pain cause by the unjust system being targeted, and the capacity to invite people similar to them to join in the movement. Keeping the example of the fast food workers and the union, each of these groups has its own distinct interest in working for sick time protections. Those interests are driven by pain that is distinct to each group. The fast food workers have stories of working through illness and injury. The unions have stories of stagnating pay and being out of work as job after job goes to unscrupulous cut rate labor providers. Because the fast food workers and the unions have different interests, motivated by different pain, one or the other of these parties will be more effective than the other depending on the circumstance. Say the movement is looking to build their base among low-wage home care workers—the fast food workers will need to take the lead because their stories of being exploited for labor will resonate. Say the movement is looking to build support among politically connected and organized groups like chambers of commerce—the unions will need to take the lead because their stories of struggling to compete in a cut throat market against unscrupulous firms will resonate. Different members of the alliance will need to take the lead at different times if they are to be effective. In a strategic alliance, diversity among membership in the alliance is critical to effective strategy. Diversity is strength. This model avoids the trap that allies fall into, of always and only filling a subordinate role in someone else’s movement. Finally, Strategic Alliances require a leveling of power, both within a movement and outside. Within the strategic alliance, power dynamics will be revealed through logistics. How should the group be funded? How will its leadership be chosen? Who will publicly speak for the movement? Who gets to decide any of that? In deciding on these critical questions and dividing authority amongst the distinct interests represented, there is a fundamental principle operating: neither member of the strategic alliance can demand something from the other that they themselves will not willingly submit to when the situation is reversed. And the situation will be reversed. Neither member can be expected to supply all the funding all the time, neither member can decide on all the leaders all the time, neither can do all the talking all the time—because such an arrangement would be intolerable for one of the parties. No one will long put up with a situation in which they have ceded all authority in a fight for issues that matter to them personally. Unequal power sharing within a movement threatens the strategic alliance’s goals and, therefore, does not serve the interests of anyone within the movement—not even the party which holds greater power! To hold power over the heads of friends and dictate their behavior is the dubious luxury of those who are not trying to change the world. There is no way to solve these questions other than through negotiation among the members and no two situations will involve exactly the same answers to these questions. But what about the unequal distribution of power outside of the movement? If the different parties within an alliance occupy different positions of power and authority within society, won’t this cause inescapable problems within the movement? It is possible, after all, to imagine the existence of cultural divides between fast-food workers and a union. It is possible to imagine racial tensions between fast food workers and a union. What does a strategic alliance do to solve these kinds of problems? First, strategic alliances break down the barriers of interpersonal relationship that exacerbate cultural and racial divides. By working closely together to coordinate strategy, these parties cannot help but learn about one another. Why is it that Wednesday night meetings don’t work for the Pentecostal fast food workers? Why is it that the Muslim trade-unionist doesn’t serve food or coffee when they host breakfast meetings? Animus and prejudice and resentment flourish in the absence of relationship. Real relationships that can exist across differences can thrive when they are cultivated by doing shared work. One cannot help but admire a person’s strength when that strength is in service of a common goal. As long as the shared work of the alliance persists, the parties exist within a counter-culture. The shared work of transforming unjust social systems can help break down barriers. Summary Allies are contingent and unable to participate in the fundamental purpose of a movement, but strategic alliances require full participation from all parties in order that all might advance their goals. Allies ought to be always subordinate within a movement, but strategic alliances demand frequent balancing of power and interest among parties. Allies insert a dynamic of unequal distribution of power, but strategic alliances build an alternative counter-culture in which people who are not supposed to get along are empowered to treat one another as having equal dignity through negotiation. If a person wants to give up on being an ally to marginalized groups and instead be part of a strategic alliance among peers, how are they supposed to begin with this alternative model? First off, there is much that they must stop doing. They must stop trying to improve the lives of “the less fortunate”, as if people are not best capable of fighting on their own behalf. Instead they must decide to be deeply connected to their own community. They must refrain from inserting themselves into movements of people organizing on their own behalf. Instead they must search their own life for places where their personal pain is created and maintained by unjust social structures. For some, such a search is quite easy. A person who grew up in an extremely poor family may have suffered innumerable indignities caused by the unjust and horrific gap between rich and poor in this country. A person whose parents are not legal citizens may have suffered a lifetime of fear and anxiety created by racist xenophobic policies. A person in treatment for a mental illness may be unable to gain employment because of discriminatory and illegal bias against people with mental illness. A woman may see her male colleagues time and again advance beyond her professionally, being lied to at every turn about the sexist and patriarchal reasons she was passed over for promotion. The very first thing a person must do if they wish to be part of a strategic alliance is to articulate how their personal pain is created and maintained by unjust social structures. The second thing a person must do if they wish to be part of a strategic alliance is summon anger at the way they have been treated and to organize on their own behalf to do something about it. They must organize people who are being hurt by society just like they are, they must build an organization or become a part of one. That organization must go out and fight on their own behalf for their own interests. Maybe that looks picketing the big box store that closed down local jobs and shipped profits to a wealthy few. Maybe it’s organizing to run an opponent against the local sheriff unless they agree to stop targeting people of color for unwarranted investigations into immigration status. Maybe it is publishing a list of the home addresses of every employer in town with zero women managers. The important thing is that they go into action, that they fight for their own legitimate interests against those who profit from their pain. The third thing a person must do if they wish to be an effective ally is to assess in a clear eyed way what they and their organization are able to accomplish on their own. Were they effective or ineffective? What did they achieve with the power they had? What could they have achieved if they had more power? It is this last question which is critical. Because any organization of people fighting for their own interest will quickly realize that they could achieve more of their own goals with more power. Such a realization, made in all humility, is necessary to form a true strategic alliance. Because the only way to fundamentally build more power is to partner with people who do not happen to share the same pain, but who are also fighting for their own distinct interests. Such people might be worthwhile partners in a strategic alliance. Find a group that is also organizing on own behalf. If one group is organizing for immigration reform, they might reach out to a group trying to force the police to wear body cameras. If one group is organizing against a big box retailer, they might reach out to a group trying to address a food desert. What is important is that the group being reached out to has its own base of power, its own reason for existence, its own leaders, and a clearly articulated sense of what is in their own best interest. Sit down with them, ask them what they have already achieved and what they still hope to yet achieve. Each group should assess, with honesty and humility, whether there is any way their organization might help the other achieve their goals. Each group should assess, shrewdly and tactfully, whether the other group might help them achieve their own goals. If the answer is mutually “yes”, then a strategic alliance is possible. There are, of course, several provisions. This would have to truly be in the best interest of a future partner. After all, it is best not to undergo any risky strategies with a mere all, someone who might abandon you if things get difficult. Whatever is being asked of one partner had better be something the other partner would be willing to do too. It’s possible to lose months of organizing effort supporting some other organization, if that organization turns around and refuses to help in turn. Once you have had experience in a strategic alliance, it is easy to see why allies are so problematic. And it is easy to understand how to avoid those problems. Imagine that you are a white person and a leader in an organization of people in recovery from opiate addictions fighting to reform police treatment of addicts. You will have no tolerance for a well-meaning “ally” with no experience in the world of addiction and recovery barging in and trying to take over the movement. You would not allow them to claim leadership roles better suited to people in recovery, you would not allow them to become the public face of the movement, you would not allow them to engage in recruitment or strategizing. Even though you are white, you would have an easy time understanding your proper place if you were working for a time with Black Lives Matter on a joint campaign aimed at the local police. You would not try to take over leadership roles within Black Lives Matter, you would not put yourself in the center of that organization because you know from experience how insulting and disruptive it would be. As someone who understands deeply that the world of addiction and recovery is complicated and cultural, you would not be insulted if someone pointed out ways that you were ignorant about the nuances of racism. As someone who cares deeply about addiction and recovery you won’t be interested in taking on potential allies whose interest is that of a tourist or thrill seeker—why build strategy around a part-timer? You would insist on forming relationships only with people and organizations doing real work on enduring problems affecting them personally, people who you know will be in the fight for the long haul because it is their fight too. Being a part of a movement that is organizing on its own behalf will allow you to avoid and mitigate the problems associated with being an ally.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm a Christian, a progressive, a pastor, and a community organizer. Archives
August 2017
Categories |