May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829 3031

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 06:59 pm
Something I realised I left out of Various axioms of my anti-(racism sexism etc) (this extended conversation is definitely making me express a bunch of interconnected ideas I hadn't properly articulated before :))

EDIT: This is not a self evident truth, it's an axiom of the way I think. This does not mean it's right, but you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me otherwise :) (But one of my other axioms is question everything)

As I said there, if there is a society wide inequality which puts one group in a position of less power with regards to another, then the group with more power cannot be trusted to judge how best to fix that inequality. No matter how good their intentions(*).

Feminism and the fight against sexism needs to be mostly run by women.

Anti-racism needs to be mostly run by POC.

The left needs significant input from the poor and lower class. (Unfortunately once you have the power to change things you generally aren't lower class any more so this gets a bit catch 22ish)

etc.

And if you're in the more powerful group then you cannot rely on the opinions of other people in the same group.
If you're white, and the only people who agree with your opinions on race are white, and most POC think differently? Then no matter how well educated and well meaning you are, and how many other educated well meaning white people agree, you are probably wrong. And the only way to be less wrong is to go out and listen to what actual POC are saying. If you don't know what POC think you should probably go find out.

Also elected or otherwise acknowledged spokespeople have more weight than some random person from the less powerful group who happens to agree with you.

This can get complicated of course since none of these groups is a monolith and there's always varying opinions. Feminism especially contains many radically different opinions, plus of course there's all the women who don't feel represented by any of them. So there's no way to get The Single Opinion of the less powerful group, but that doesn't mean you can't make a concerted effort to get the general idea, and be open to their POV.

EDIT: This post is a rather simplistic description of a complicated issue, read the comments for a more nuanced view. Most importantly, I didn't add that yes, the less privileged group also needs to listen to the more privileged group, and in the end the best approach is usually a strong dialogue and carefully worked out compromise. But power dynamics being what they are, the chances of any compromise being too far in the less privileged groups favour is pretty small...

(*)Come to think of it, I don't think there even needs to be an inequality: it is impossible for one group of people to fully understand the experience and needs of another different group, and so it is vitally important that there is as much consultation and equal representation as possible in the decision making process and avenues of power. (Thus, democracy) But when there is a power imbalance this effect is magnified.
Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 03:19 am (UTC)
You know I was just thinking I'd been a bit simplistic and needed to say something about the need for compromise, and there you are you've said it for me :)

I mean unfortunately when a group is for some reason ill equipped to decide their own fate what happens is that everyone's approaches are flawed and there needs to be a lot of discussion and compromise. I remember worrying about this deeply as a child since I knew I didn't understand the world as well as adults, but also felt our voices were dismissed.

And people who have power/money/education do have knowledge which those who do not, do not. So yes, it does get complicated.

This post was written from/to the POV of the privileged group but I agree about your points on the need for people within less privileged groups to dialogue and compromise (not everyone does of course, but personally I've never been a big fan of the really radical "knock it all down and build it from scratch" approach to politics etc)

dialogue is always better than a one way conversation

In short: Yes.