Speaking on behalf of the oppressed
So I started some drift in this thread.
This is what I said:
I'm not speaking as a moderator. And this isn't about thread proliferation, but about what it means to speak on behalf of an oppressed group that one doesn't belong to.My respectful advice is to not do it. This is perhaps one of the most consistent points I've raised on babble, time and time again, across a wide variety of issues. I don't mean to sound like a broken record but it's an issue that I believe many progressives are unaware of, as evidenced in the ways in which certain groups of marginalized people are "spoken about" and not listened to on their own terms.
Yes, this will mean a number of voices are not represented in the babble context. That is a separate issue.
Speaking on behalf of others who are differently oppressed than oneself, particularly if one has access to the information, stories, issues and struggles of "the other" through academic, news media and third party sources is, in my personal and professional opinion, not okay. Ever.
Oppressed folks, such as women of colour and Aboriginal women marginalized by sex work, for example, have struggled with poverty and systemic oppression for a long time going very far back into Canada's history. Women in those communities can, will and do speak for themselves. If we on babble don't have access to their voices, again, this is a separate issue which is also about the nature of online discussion boards in general.
triciamarie asked a question:
One question: do you think there is any legitimate way to speak out against oppression affecting others? Is there any validity in construing an issue more broadly, eg in the case of prostitution, as a women's issue? How much do we have to be personally affected before we can legitimately talk about an issue?
and Polunatic gave an answer:
As for Maysie's point, I agree that people speaking "on behalf" of other people is inappropriate. However, there are still ways that people can speak in support of comments and analyses made by those who are experiencing that oppression first hand. One way is to link to articles that articulate those views to ensure those voices are heard even if members of that group aren't here themselves.Every oppressed group should and does have allies who don't need to remain silent because they haven't lived those experiences directly. To negate that would be to negate the concept of solidarity which no one has suggested.
to which remind responded:
Maysie has done just that, so I am not sure how you can say no one hasn't.
I would like to learn more about the difference between "speaking on behalf of" and "speaking in support of". How would that look on a discussion forum?
Voice appropriation happens all the time, and it's always the more powerful taking the voice (or the culture, etc) of the less powerful and co-opting it in various ways. Speaking on behalf of an absent voice, in the context of leftist progressives, is so naturalized that when challenged can result in huge affronts to the assumed "expert" position of the colonial west.
On the other hand, being an ally is never speaking "on behalf of" and therefore allies are not included when I advise to not speak on behalf of an oppressed group to which one doesn't belong.
This is my advice, as an anti-oppression advocate, activist and educator for over a decade. I'm choosing to share my advice, and whoever is reading this can do whatever the fuck you want to. This is my advice only.
My original post, and this thread, is being written by me as a babbler, not as a moderator. My opinion does not reflect on any active, current, past or future babble policy as far as I can tell.
Sadly, I can't help if my words are twisted to mean "no Canadian can protest against the war in Afghanistan".
...
triciamarie, thanks for your question, it's a fair and honest one. I think Polunatic has answered it with his comment about allies. My only addition is that sometimes a community may invite or even request that someone outside the community speak to other outsiders about the issue. This is a very specific response, though, and again is initiated by the folks with lesser societal power. When it happens, and an ally is entrusted with this task, it's often very issue-specific and is always grounded in acknowledgement that the speaker is there at the request of the various names of the organizations/communities.
A quick response 'cause I really do have to get back to the job which actually pays the mortgage. I think a large part of it involves being very thoughtful, and explicit in the post, of the issue of POV.
As a white dude of privlige, I've taken some time to try to understand what that means for me. It's an ongoing journey. But when I post, I know I'm posting from that point of view. IE: I've spoken about the experiences of Muslim newcomer women in Scarborough. I won't say "they feel this way". Or "this is their experience". I may quote what I've been told by an individual and present it as such. I may report having heard conflicting accounts from varying women from somewhat different cicumstances and even try to interpret, but I always try to be explicit and hold up the lense I'm looking through.
As a white dude of privlige, I also have to know when I've said my bit, the limited value of my bit, and when it's time to yield the floor. The great thing about discussion forums like this is that it can provide a unique platform for lived experiences of all kinds, and here we like to encourage that.
Cross posted with Michelle and remind. While I can ask for only respectful responses, I know it's beyond my control to always receive them.
Michelle I have no answer to your question. I have only my opinion and how I attempt to work in solidarity with others in the real world. Based on my learning, through trial, error, mistakes and fuck ups that I have done in my personal, professional, activist and political work.
Off the top of my head I will say that there is very little possible resolution in the context of babble, except for those who already understand what power dynamics and systemic power and privilege means in their daily lives. Or for those who are prepared to examine what that means.
I think the best is when there exists a plurality of opinion on an issue that primarily impacts a marginalized community, and a poster -- not necessarily a dude, but usually white -- has managed to find some marginalized person or organization within that community who agrees with White Poster's pre-existing opinion on the topic. Then that marginalized person or organization becomes The Sole Expert on the subject, and we should all be listening to them!
Nevermind that there will exist others in the community, or other organizations, that disagree entirely. Self-hating members of the community, surely!
Maysie wrote: ...being an ally is never speaking "on behalf of" and therefore allies are not included when I advise to not speak on behalf of an oppressed group to which one doesn't belong
Maysie, you know the deep respect I hold your work in, but this is a circular argument. By such a standard, anyone who speaks in support of an oppressed group will always be open to accusation of speaking for them, or on behalf of them and not being a real ally. As for a community inviting someone frm an oppressed group to come forward and educate folks about an issue, I don't see how this can be described as "initiated by the folks with lesser societal power". Or are you saying that it always should be and that, to give an example, Angela Davis being invited to speak at McGill by white adult men is unacceptable?
P.S.: I hope this question will be deemed "fair and honest" too - I am very ill at ease with the current demonization of some babblers and threats against them.
Speaking on, speaking on, the behalf of the oppressed is a fairly interesting position to hold, and quite difficult to hold too, I presume.
Is not the label of "ally" based upon individual judgement, as opposed to a formal thing, on a discussion forum? How does one separate, or individualize, that frame of perception, or realization, so that it is accepted that such is the case?
That's a very valid point but I have yet to find any Aboriginal women who disagree with the Aboriginal Women's Action Network nor even a single Aboriginal voice that supports the decriminialization of pimping. I'm not saying the don't exist, but I did not go hunting for a group that would agree with me.
The dreadful dispropotionate violence against Aboriginal women in Canada is being used to support decriminalization of the entire industry even though their community has expressed no such desire and has specifically spoken out against it.
If there are unheard Aboriginal voices that support decriminalization by all means help them to amplify their words and I am not being sarcastic. However if you have no knowledge of their views on the topic I consider it appropriation of their voices to claim to speak on their behalf.
I'm not claiming to speak on anyone's behalf. If you're saying there is no plurality of opinion in a particular community then that community isn't really a good example of what I was referring to.
Actually, martin, you have touched upon an issue that all allies must contend with and deal with, as allies. To face such accusations and be able to address them. No ally can (or should in my opinion) be free of such accusations, ever.
Let's take an example very far from the issue that it sprung from.
I'm not an immigrant. Suppose I work with a group such as No One Is Illegal. I will identify myself as a non-immigrant and take direction from the group to actions, etc. Offering my suggestions and ideas of course. I may be asked to do more public work, perhaps because of the real fear that folks without status live every day, that I do not fear by virtue of my birth certificate, passport and health card. Or I may not be asked. My hypothetical work with a group such as NOII is not about my ego and what I know (or think I know) it's about the work, people are being exploited and removed from the country after living here, paying taxes here and raising their children here.
So let's say someone says to me, "What are you doing here, you're not an immigrant, you have no idea what we're going through" I need to be able to respond. No it's not comfortable, no it doesn't feel good. But being an ethical ally requires difficult conversations, and even leaving if one's presence is in fact not helpful.
I of course do not mean any of this to imply in any way that any babblers need to leave. This happens in political movements and actions and I'm sharing my experiences and those of my fellow activists.
Snert, we don't often agree. I want to, in the spirit of a friendlier babble, thank you for every word of post #7. The issue of plurality, and arguments / disagreement / lack of consensus within marginalized communities (that one is still an outsider) is complex and of course will vary across different specific groups. Again, there is no cookie cutter answer except to be respectful and to continually act as though one is not the expert.
I guess part of the problem is that those of us who speak from a point of privilege--the vast majority of Canadians, actually--be it, gender, class, race or sexuality privilege, don't want that privilege challenged when we speak about a subject, even sympathetically. I think it is critical to point out that when you speak in support of an oppressed group--women who want the vote, same sex couples who want to marry, Afghans who want to end foreign occupation--you must, like oldgoat pointed out, interrogate your own position in that discussion. The academic words for this would be to ironize, problematize or subvert your authorial position. But really, it just makes you uneasy. White, middle-class Canadians don't generally deal well with uneasiness, and so feel that they should be able to proselytize in favour of whatever cause célèbre that comes to mind from an untroubled perspective. Theoretically, this means you are speaking from a position of conscious contradiction; but in practice, it means being respectful of others who are closer to the real experience of oppression, listening to them, and acknowledge your outsider status. As anyone who works with oppressed groups will tell you, the 'uneasiness' you experience is a small price to pay for privilege.
I saw Thomas King, a Cherokee novelist and lecturer, speak the other day at the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver. He began his talk--which touched on issues of colonialism and racism--by thanking the Musqueum people for allowing a Cherokee on their unceded territory. It's funny how people who have experience oppression are usually much better at recognizing this contradictory and troubled position.
Maysie and Catchfire, I am well aware of the imperative you speak of. This effort toward accountability and problematizing any authority I am offered as a male has always been played out in the work of Montreal Men Against Sexism and my own. For instance, I systematically refuse speaking assignments unless a front-line feminist is invited along (and I don't choose which one). This precaution doesn't extend, however, to refusing to speak in support of a group I am not part of. I do so, as carefully as I can and never attempting to hide my gender/race/ability privilege; I go to some lengths to make it part of what I am denouncing and to use my experience of those privileged communities. And I DO leave whenever I am asked to by a collective decision.
I totally agree with you that it would be unethical to choose to quote a member of an oppressed group whose position would merely agree with my own, but differ from that of the majority of her peers. I really don't think this is what is happening on the current issue (e.g. AWAN's position in the Aboriginal community) and, as always, I try to let my relatively meagre interventions be guided by feminist organizations and individuals whose experience and process are far more developed than my own - even if the mainstream media don't rush to their conferences and activities and no major industry lobby stands to gain from their efforts. I am just a voice and totally outfront about where it is rooted.
Hmmm...
Is your sharing more valid and full of worth, than others who are professionals and activists, and in particular in the the field of VAW? Or are they equal?
martin, thanks for sharing, but I need to remind folks that this isn't a "prove your ally cred" thread. These are real struggles and real people's lives that we, most babblers, and I include myself, are yakking about.
Thank you Catchfire.
Another thing that occurred to me, Michelle, regarding your earlier question, is that without a critical ally lens, it then becomes the "thread of duelling quotes" where poster A finds all voices that support their side, and poster B finds all posts that support their side. And there's endless quotes back and forth. Not that interesting, to me at least.
I'll ask this in a way that doesn't happen here: what if male posters did this around women's issues? How well would this go over? This is what can happen when there is no/little representation, and yet the imperative to speak about it, like what Catchfire said, persists. It takes humbleness and self-control to not insist on always being the expert. It's a journey I find myself on, always.
I've worked as a front line worker, manager and a consultant in the VAW sector for close to 10 years. I am by no means the only voice out there. There is rough consensus in the sector, but by no means agreement. I will not say that my voice is more or less valid, as this isn't about me.
If we use this measure, then no one can talk on anything that deals with oppression here, as any measure can be used to say that none of us are oppressed just by the fact we have privilege enough to post here..
But yet you have proven yours in several posts now. :confused:
You are indeed correct this is a about "real struggles and real people's lives" that we are speaking about. And I, for one, have not lost that focus for 1 second.
Personally, I have no issue with reading links and excerpts, and they are given all the time here on any given topic, and I find them pretty damn interesting reading, most often. And when voices and circumstances are not present here, I really appreciate being directed to where their voices are, as in the case of makwa's link. I want to come to my personal opinions from an informed view as possible. And I see no reason why this topic should be any different, given we are ALL coming from a position of privilege, and the only other option would be to have no discussion at all, unless all voices were present on any given issue.
A little while back on a visit to babble I spoke of the importance of checking one's privilege (and yes, I was upset). To me, that is probably one of the most important aspects of being an ally on an issue, when you are not an actual member of a group experiencing oppression. On that particular thread, there were people who were speaking forcefully about trans issues, trans experiences, and trans rights who were had not identified themselves to be trans, and who did not appear to recognize that being physically congruent with your gender identity is indeed a privilege. I also have privilege in that regard.
This is my experience. I do know full well the temptation to speak out on issues affecting different groups, particularly when they are under-represented. There is value in that, and I certainly recognize that. If a group of white people is assuming that everything's hunky-dory and not considering the effect of their actions on people of colour, and one of the white people says, whoa, wait a minute, maybe we should think about this ... well, then, that's better than not having anyone speak at all. Challenging oppression is important. What I need to be aware of, and what I've been called on, is that my voice is considerably less important than the voices of members of the actual group. And if no such member is there to speak for the group, then there's a larger problem.
When somebody IS present and is saying "this is my experience" and "why don't you listen to me" then it behooves any of us who are not members of that group to respect that. It doesn't mean people can't hold different opinions, it means that we have to give greater consideration to the person who actually has experienced oppression and marginalization, than to those who have not. That we respect that they have a much greater right than we do to speak on the issue. Otherwise we marginalize them all over again.
I have learned that when somebody from a maginalized group tells me to "check my privilege" I need to STFU and think about it. If they are willing to generously provide me with some education, that's great, otherwise it's my responsibility to examine why they felt it was important to tell me that. And to understand how I may be contributing to their further oppression, rather than doing what I wanted to, which is to help. And I sure as hell need to put my ego on hold while doing so. It's not about me.
The other thing I need to recognize is that I may have strong, informed, well-articulated opinions on what I think are the best ways to deal with a particular social problem. And I'm usually more than happy to discuss and debate them. My experience has been that members of marginalized groups (that I don't belong to) often tremendously appreciate it when somebody with privilege has taken the time to educate themselves and to be aware of different issues, but they - completely justifiably - will get pissed off if it's implied that I know better than they do. And that's not just about their experiences, but also about what they think should be priorities and directions to take.
The analogy of male voices in the feminist forum is a good one. This is an argument that will probably always continue, but these are some ways I've seen it explained over and over:
-- When men come in and dominate the discussion they are drowning out women.
-- Men do not have the same experience as women, so it is important for them to listen to women's experiences.
-- Men have privilege. Men who want to be allies need to recognize that.
-- As a man, you can be an ally (and yes, thank you), but that means understanding that when women ask you to check your privilege or to stop speaking on behalf of women, you do so.
-- Just because somebody is challenging you on your privilege, does not mean they think you are evil.
-- And, finally, it's so very tiring continually having to reassure men that they're the good guys, that they're okay, that we appreciate their support, simply because they jsut got upset when we asked them to back off.
Now, in this case, how about substituting "sex worker" for "woman."
Hi ya tehanu
Unfortunately, I just find more discontinuity in your words and positions.
But it is nice to see you.
Thanks Tehanu, it's always great to read you.
remind, it might be helpful and more collegial if when someone writes a long and impassioned post, rather than vague gestures towards 'discontinuity' you would actually engage with the specifics you particularly disagree with. Otherwise it sounds like you have subjective or ideological investments that you are unwilling to approach sceptically. It also has a tendancy to make a discussion like this personal.
Discontinuity = disagreement these days? Who knew. Thanks for the heads up.
And thanks too for the personal chastizement, always good to receive them from a privileged white male.
Perhaps it is not me who is not approaching all of this sceptically and has ideological investments that are subjective to themselves?
I choose not to go into it further for a very good reason, but am registering my sentiments that there is discontinuity going on, and perhaps if people looked and read closely they could see it as well.
You are a very hard person to talk to, remind. I don't really know what you're trying to accomplish.
i really appreciate this discussion. thank you.
Nor I you.
And that would be your personal opinion again about me, catchfire, should I now start in on you in a personal way too?
The deaths of aboriginal women have been used by people not from that community to support decriminalization. Nobody consulted them on that.
Using Aboriginal experiences to support a political argument they haven't expressed support for is speaking out of turn.
Bringing the actual voices of Aboriginal women here is not "speaking on their behalf, representing them, or even being an ally" which implies a direct relationship. It's just putting their voices on the table.
You don't want to hear the voices of the many aboriginal womens groups across the world because you don't like their views so don't pretend you are being all progressive and "checking your privilege".
Martin and I are the only ones questioning the cheerleading for prostitution on this site. Remind was neutral, still is on the issue I think.
On the other "side" there is Susan, Stargazer, Unionist, and a bunch of others as well as un-named mods.
When I post, without comment, the words of ex-prostitutes, of aboriginal groups, or anyone else, it is not me speaking it is them. To use the excuse that they shouldn't be heard because I'm the messenger is not progressive no matter what fancy words and theories you dress it up in.
Accusing the Aboriginal Women's Action Network as being "privileged rich women" is out of line.
#34 (permalink)
"Those women [AWAN members] don't work on the street," Davis said in a phone interview with the Straight. "They're wealthy, privileged, and they don't understand their actions.
As Davis is here and posted it herself she is making that accusation, but I guess that's okay because Susan is talking about them not quoting them which is much better.
Being progressive isn't about having all the right theories down pat, that is an illustration of your privilege. People who are oppressed don't care who presents their words as long as someone does so honestly, clearly, and in support of their cause.
Consider the women being prostituted for 2$ a pop up to 15 times a day just to survive, in Bolivia, where it's legal.
What would they say to their situation being used by Canadians in support of legalizing the entire prostitution industry here? What do you think their response would be to me saying they would probably be willing to wash toilets with their bare hands to escape the life they are forced to live to survive.
Ask yourself in your heart as a progressive person which of the two viewpoints most likely reflects how they feel about prostitution?
If you say the first, check your privilege.
And Tahanu, the issue of decriminalizing pimps and brothels goes well beyond the rights of sex workers. No one is ever forced to be transgendered. No one is ever trafficked to be transgendered. Minors aren't exploited by the transgendered. There are not huge numbers of people who used to be transgendered denouncing transgenderism. Transgendered people are not backed by a massive billion dollar industry with a vested interest in promoting transgenderism. The rights of the transgendered are not in conflict with the rights of workers. Communities haven't been destroyed by transgenderism. "Sex worker"and "transgendered" aren't even close in being equivalents on this topic.
I guess my post could be read as chastising, but I was just trying to understand your approach to babblers like Maysie and Tehanu, with whom you disagree, but rather than discuss constructively with them, you register your disagreement with a curt smilie, or a vague criticism like 'discontinuity'. Were you just trying to let us know that you disagree? I mean, we're not taking a vote here. Instead, Tehanu's interesting and personal response to the question posed in this thread has been shortchanged at best, ignored at worst. What did you hope your contribution would add?
What did you hope your personal commentary on me would add? What are you trying to accomplish with it?
Frankly, I owe you no explanations whatsoever.
And how about you stop this thread derailment about me, before it gets really ugly? Because I can state for sure it will.