There’s no denying that at least some social change has occurred because of a small number of activists highlighting injustice until support for change becomes the new normal, However, is that transition from vocal in minority to accepted among the majority slowed because so many activists discuss the change they seek within a zero-sum framework?
While many activists (correctly) point out ways in which a particular group unfairly receives less, the longer the explanation of the issue, the higher the chance the proposed solution will be to reshare the “wealth” or positively discriminate; even the briefest calls for change can contain the idea of transferring resources. For example, last week I encountered an article that men can’t be feminists because they benefit from male privilege so lack the ability to genuinely desire women’s empowerment. Leaving aside the issue of whether humans are capable of giving up a benefit for the good of others, it assumes empowering someone necessarily requires someone else losing out.
But why do I have to pay to knock down your wall? (©Probably Okay – CC BY SA)
There are situations where this is true: if I have a sandwich and you don’t, sharing that sandwich between us in any way requires that I lose some sandwich. However, many situations aren’t a “there is a small finite number of sandwiches” situation: the idea of hiring practices meaning someone has to lose out on a job is an illusion caused by a belief (i.e. not a physical law) that money should come from work; after all, if benefits were treated as a neutral and sufficient way to be paid, mothers &c. wouldn’t be driven into seeking work and some “average” people in work wouldn’t seek it, so the number of people seeking jobs would reduce; and the worth of money itself is an illusion caused by the belief we shouldn’t just share everything without expecting “fair” recompense.
The idea of work as a double illusion, a mirage seen in a fun-house mirror, is an example not a solution: building a better world requires more complex assessment than simply declaring a specific version of anarchy is perfect. But accepting the premise that giving some groups more than they have requires taking things away from white, cis men is alienating the people who, by the activists own words, have the most power; which might be as daft a strategy for gaining popular support and change as it seems.
Instead, focusing the first stage of the argument on how fixing some of the problems doesn’t require taking things from the majority, will not only neuter arguments from the opposite extreme that a call for change is a cover for radical hatred of white/straight/male people but also ease those people not involved in discussing the issue through current lack of strong feeling rather than active disinterest into the debate; which is the moment to bring in the second stage: showing that same majority why change is not only not terrible for them, but also good for family/friends/associates.
Advertisements Share:
