Dilemmas of the Moment of (Lost?)Opportunity: Questions Movements Confronting Structures of Power and Privilege Must Grapple With
(I initially wrote this brief piece following the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020. Since then I have used it to spur conversations among my students and faculty on the DEI Committee. Given some of the related debates following the re-election of Donald Trump last week, I thought I would share more widely here. I have much more to add along these lines, hopefully in another piece in the near future.)
-Shadi Mokhtari, American University (August 2020)
In the United States and internationally, considerable new space to call for and pursue changes which social justice and human rights activists have long sought has opened up. The moment is however, not without its array of dilemmas, trade offs, contradictions and potential pitfalls. Below is a non-exhaustive list of questions with which proponents of meaningful change must grapple.
1. When is the time to resist, demand, shame and call out and when is the time to engage and call in? Sometimes resisting, shaming and calling out is necessary and sometimes they produce unnecessary alienation. Likely elements of both are necessary, but what circumstances call for more of one over the other?
Further, what forms of "call out" can be either unethical or counterproductive? Do we have ethical obligations to those who may suffer unjust consequences after being falsely called out? Are we bypassing “due process” through social media call outs? Are such cases avoidable or unavoidable? Are we doing enough recognizing of the humanity of others while we demand they recognize ours?
2. Should advocates for change have a more nuanced view of/ approach to those we address? What are the many categories between “threatened privileged class resisting change” on one end of the spectrum and “the marginalized” demanding change on the other end? How should we differentiate between those proactively inhibiting change, those doing so passively, allies, potential allies capable of being persuaded/ having their consciousness-raised?
How can we look at the police officers who kneeled in the George Floyd protests and account for even the diversity (some purely co-opting, some truly feeling solidarity and some in between) among that group?
How do we receive well-intentioned, but arguably imperfect/ potentially flawed or problematic activism/ allyship from activists, from formal institutions, from corporations or from the public at large?
3. How do we measure success/ progress? Social movements try to change policies and/or have institutions adopt their vision of social justice. Traditionally "success" often means handing over implementing to the same state or an institution we are targeting (e.g. DEI at universities), but in line with what Neil Stammers argued long ago, paradoxically once they adopt "the cause", these institutions can readily co-opt it. While appropriating or at best watering-down is often the outcome, genuine changes in norms and consciousness as well as concrete change are also simultaneously possible, though they may still be some distance from what activists envisioned. Thus, often, we cannot understand DEI initiatives as either entirely failed and co-opted or entirely successful, but somewhere in between. Should some more complex or relative measures of success be used?
At the same time, "Incremental change" can be code for little change, cosmetic change or managed change. Those who are suffering from current structures for so long rightly seek meaningful structural change and are tired of being told to wait while things remain fundamentally unchanged. They do not want to figure out how to maneuver a system that in its foundations is stacked against them. Can it be that "the more things change. the more things stay the same" is true at the same time that real inroads towards normative and even structural change are taking shape?
These questions are likely related to dispositions of hope and cynicism which are both arguably necessary. Sometimes, as Lori Allen has put forth what underlies cynicism is actually the hope that things should and could be different. It can also be argued that without cynics among us, never satisfied with the degree or pace of change, we would see less change. However, does cynicism also have a psychological dimension that prevents us from seeing progress and openings for progress?
4. Should there be a hierarchy of marginalizations? Efforts to date have led to the recognition of many different forms of subjugation and marginalization as well as their many intersections. Yet, some forms of marginalization seem to be treated with more gravity. Can we argue that in fact some forms of marginalization and discrimination (perhaps based on visible physical features rather than those that are hidden) are more of a problem then others? Could such a “hierarchy” be in some instances justifiable and necessary and in other instances be problematic?
What about the ways the marginalized might marginalize others, for example the misogyny or racism of ethnic minorities? How do we contend with the fact that often, being marginalized and marginalizing others are not mutually exclusive phenomena?
Finally, who can speak for "the cause"? Can one marginalized group speak for the other marginalized groups? How do we simultaneously recognize what is unique in particular experiences of subjugation while also leaving room for shared experiences and alliances among different marginalized groups?
These questions are not new; they are already being widely discussed by various scholars and practitioners. However, placing and considering them side by side in this form may provide a clearer big picture view of the dilemmas, tensions and ethical questions posed by the current moment of opportunity.
