Listen to the people at the bottom of the pile

[sqbr]

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.

Comments

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I take what you are saying completely. It is very easy for privilege to distort information about the disempowered, and the only way to overcome that problem is to directly listen to those who lack it.

But the more powerful group is the one with the power. And the issue works both ways -- it is often difficult for those who lack privilege to see the issue from the point of view of the privilieged.

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.

But if you are in a group with little access to power, and the only people who agree with you are in the disempowered group? Then no matter how well educated and well meaning you are, you have a lack of power, and what you think probably won't actually matter, because the people who believe it are disempowered.

I take your point -- listen to the people who are at the pointy end of the problem, not the concerned bystanders.

Unfortunately, in practice, it can easily lead to problems. If you alienate most of the people with power from your movement by telling them they cannot be trusted, it is a disaster. And if you cut out of the dialogue those people who are from the empowered group, but have actually already spent a lot of time consulting and learning, you make things harder for yourself for no reason -- especially as those people who have a significant understanding of the perspective of both the empowered and disempowered groups are only able to provide significant insights not available to those who only see half the picture. The disempowered are uniquely equipped to understand the perceived problem, but they are not uniquely equipped to find the best solutions.

In particular, those who are familiar with obtaining and wielding power are in the best position to know how it is most effectively used, often much more so than those unfamiliar with obtaining and wielding power. In a modern social democracy, obtaining and wielding power is a very complex activity.

So, sure, people in power need to consult with the disempowered group, and consult regularly and widely and with an open mind if they are to do the right thing. But it is easy to overstate or overapply this rule and cause disaster for a movement. You have to always remember that the issue works both ways, and the privileged also have insights the non-privileged lack, and dialogue is always better than a one way conversation.

[alias_sqbr]

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.