![[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
Or more boldly, isn't it possible that as a non-POC, your public theorising about how to set up an antiracist movement is actually "running" antiracism in and of itself, even if your conclusion is that POC should run the movement? Does that mean your conclusion can't be trusted?
Yes. Of course there are two options here: I'm right, or I'm wrong, and thus can be trusted as much as anyone else :D But certainly I would hope anyone reading this who agrees with me would then go see what actual POC are saying (and while I've found several who think racism is less of a big deal than I do etc, afaict they still all thought their opinions on race were more significant than mine)
Also I think axiom was too strong a word: good general rule only to be ignored under extreme circumstances is better. Any decision involving people is going to be messy and flawed whatever ideas the decision is based on.
And yes, as several people have pointed out, there are many examples of organised groups of people on the bottom end of a power dichomotmy going Very Bad. Then again, I quite deliberately didn't say, for example, that anti-racism should ONLY be run by POC, just that it should be mainly run by them, and I think there are situations where outsiders do have to step in. But it should be done very very carefully and with as much consultation and dialogue as possible.
As to whether or not anyone can ever effect broad scale social change, or if we should just work on our local pockets where we have most control and understanding: I like to think we can. And if we can't it doesn't hurt to try. I agree that working on a local scale is often the most effective option. It is, afaict, the main thing POC say to do in the few cases anyone asks :)
Something I haven't made clear is that the two most significant driving factors in me writing about racism etc on my blog are (a) getting it straight in my head to help me deal with this stuff in "real life" better and (b) Encouraging discussion and understanding in my "local community" ie fandom (both Perth fandom and internet fandom) So yes, it is what I'm doing.
if one's politics have a certain sphere of influence, does any aspect of them dealing with things outside that sphere of influence actually matter?
Given how varied my flist is (a good quarter of them are american I would say) and the variety of situations in which I find myself (perth fandom, work, international fandom, voting on national and international issues, etc) I need a fairly flexible framework.
But there's a reason that when gyges_ring brought up Europe in another thread I tried to change the subject: while it might be useful to have a decent understanding of european racism it's not something I need very urgently, and since very few europeans read my blog it's not something my posts are designed to specifically deal with. I don't much point in angsting about whether or not my ideas apply very well there as long as I'm willing to admit ignorance when it comes up rather than applying them rigidly.
But that said: I am at heart still a pure mathematician. I like my axioms to apply universally, it's more elegant :D
no subject
nb in case anyone else comes across this, for the sake of full transparency here is a POC who thinks white people's opinions are just as worth listening to as their own. I thought about disagreeing but decided the logical paradox was too much for me :)