![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Many organizations and activist groups talk about empowering this or that group. Over the years I've heard this from groups fighting sexism, racism, heterosexism and other isms.
Yesterday, as I heard this again, I noticed that I have a strong physical reaction to the phrase. So I had a look. What is that I hear and what do I find troubling about it? It is arrogant. (something I have some personal familiarity with!). To think that I have some special gift to bestow on some poor powerless person (or group) that will give them some of the power they seem to inherently lack is boldly arrogant.
As I looked at this, I realized I can't even think of another point of view about it which I think is part of the blindness of privilege -- in my case, white, male privilege. There might be another point of view that would seem workable to me, but I can't see it at the moment. So I'll just talk about the issues I see with "empowering" some group.
1. People are empowered. There are only barriers to their full expression. And those barriers are the world view they were born into. The barriers are systemic. Cultural conversations about how things are suppose to be. Change the cultural conversations and full expression blooms. The most telling example I can think of is in San Francisco. The cultural conversation in that city no longer suppresses the expression of same-sex attractions. This did not happen because someone decided to empower gay people. This happened because a large enough percentage of the population in San Francisco woke up. What that took is beyond the scope of my comments here.
2. People revolt. Trying to empower some group without dealing with the systemic suppression in the culture will predictably lead to a violent uprising and subsequent increase in violent suppression. Maybe not every time, but it would be a good bet. Even Gandhi had his hands full trying to prevent full scale civil war in India. And failed to some large degree. Sometimes the violence is relatively low-level like the violence against anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war. Sometimes it is much stronger. Like the riots and arson associated with black/white relations. A lot of neighborhoods were burned to the ground by people who felt completely suppressed by the dominant culture.
3. What to do? Well, I'm through with the notion that I'm going to "empower" some group. I think I'm going to play with the other side of that coin. I am much more interested making a lot of noise about the systemic disempowering conversations. It strikes at the heart of privilege. It is a much harder coarse of action, I think. Harder in that there are fewer intermediate, obvious, feel-good moments. I also think that it is the strategy that will produce a shift in the way human beings relate to each other.
There. The first cut at my thoughts on this issue.
Yesterday, as I heard this again, I noticed that I have a strong physical reaction to the phrase. So I had a look. What is that I hear and what do I find troubling about it? It is arrogant. (something I have some personal familiarity with!). To think that I have some special gift to bestow on some poor powerless person (or group) that will give them some of the power they seem to inherently lack is boldly arrogant.
As I looked at this, I realized I can't even think of another point of view about it which I think is part of the blindness of privilege -- in my case, white, male privilege. There might be another point of view that would seem workable to me, but I can't see it at the moment. So I'll just talk about the issues I see with "empowering" some group.
1. People are empowered. There are only barriers to their full expression. And those barriers are the world view they were born into. The barriers are systemic. Cultural conversations about how things are suppose to be. Change the cultural conversations and full expression blooms. The most telling example I can think of is in San Francisco. The cultural conversation in that city no longer suppresses the expression of same-sex attractions. This did not happen because someone decided to empower gay people. This happened because a large enough percentage of the population in San Francisco woke up. What that took is beyond the scope of my comments here.
2. People revolt. Trying to empower some group without dealing with the systemic suppression in the culture will predictably lead to a violent uprising and subsequent increase in violent suppression. Maybe not every time, but it would be a good bet. Even Gandhi had his hands full trying to prevent full scale civil war in India. And failed to some large degree. Sometimes the violence is relatively low-level like the violence against anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war. Sometimes it is much stronger. Like the riots and arson associated with black/white relations. A lot of neighborhoods were burned to the ground by people who felt completely suppressed by the dominant culture.
3. What to do? Well, I'm through with the notion that I'm going to "empower" some group. I think I'm going to play with the other side of that coin. I am much more interested making a lot of noise about the systemic disempowering conversations. It strikes at the heart of privilege. It is a much harder coarse of action, I think. Harder in that there are fewer intermediate, obvious, feel-good moments. I also think that it is the strategy that will produce a shift in the way human beings relate to each other.
There. The first cut at my thoughts on this issue.
Tags: