![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
no subject
But a better example of your point is South Africa, for a start afaict elections aren't rigged like the ones in Zimbabwe so it's not unreasonable to see the leaders as representing the people's wishes.
And this sort of mess is an example of where my axiom breaks down. Because there are situations where it is not helpful to just let a group have complete autonomy all at once (or in some cases ever). I really don't feel I know enough to be comfortable saying What Went Wrong with South Africa (though obviously it has a lot to do with apartheid and colonialism etc) but as
This does not mean we should throw our hands in the air and say "Well, its unfair but I guess they should keep the power" (and I'm sure you don't think that!) But it does mean that giving power to the less powerful has to be approached in a more careful mutual-dialogue way than just giving them the reins and hoping for the best.
Another group that occurred to me after writing were the mentally disabled, children etc. They're not really in a position to completely decide their own fate, but are just as prone to being ignored/misunderstood as anyone else. So the only option ends up being a flawed compromise between autonomy and being controlled :/