On Moderation

[bcholmes]

I was surfing and found Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail", and was rather struck by this passage:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I think that this nicely articulates some of my feelings about what's going on with queer rights movements in the world. Among, for example, Democrats who would sell out queer rights to elect a president.

I think there are several ways, in my own life, where I prefer the "negative peace" that Dr. King refers to, because absence of tension is sooooo seductive. Mostly, I like to think that these don't relate to Really Important Stuff, but I think that it's important to be rigorous about examining these tendencies in myself.

Comments

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I think that quite often activists fail to see the importance of moderates. While a great deal of stuff in the quoted portion is certainly true and regrettable, and while I think that telling somebody to not rock the boat is not so much a function of a moderate as it is a function of a conservative, I've always been what I think of as a moderate (when placed in opposition to an activist, say) and I think that it's an important role. Activists are important to introduce ideas and to push agendas into the public eye. However, I don't think that that many people side with activists in terms of the overall population. I think that what sways many Average Folk(tm) is when they see other everyday people who don't seem to be caught up in an active fervor agreeing with those platforms. I think that it's more convincing when your ordinary, everyday neighbour says, "You know, I think that what he's saying has a lot of merit," than when somebody marching on Capitol Hill with a placard says it. The reason that I think that that has a lot of influence is that it's easy to case activists as "them," and think that what they're saying doesn't speak for the common person, and it's easy for people to feel disconnected from their passion. However, neighbours, friends, co-workers, family members: Those people are "us" instead of "them", and it's harder to avoid when you say, "Say, what about those wackos?" and one of those 'us' people says, "I'm not convinced that they're wacko. I find that when I listen to what they're saying it makes a lot of sense." Also, meeting someone who is Thing X (black, queer, etc.) that's being debated and who is a totally ordinary person goes a long way as well.

That's not to decry the activists, or people who stand out in a crowd, or anything of the sort, mind you. I think that the most effective approach is a multi-pronged one.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I think that your statements are true, descriptive statements about how things are. That doesn't mean I don't have antipathy toward how things are.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

I relate to and agree with much of what you just said.

Hmmmm

[(Anonymous)]

Hello There,

I think that I have a major problem with the idea that change must be carried to people by other people who look and/or act like them. I know that this is generally how things happen but I do feel that it serves to reinforce the divisions between groups. I detest mechanisms that always leave someone behind and the "they are just like us" argument feels like one of the most insidious to me in that respect.

I prefer means that force people out of their comfort zones because my gut feeling is that anything else serves to support the status-quo. Without direct communication with those who are obviously different, those we may label "other", how can we develop an empathy that extends beyond simple guilt and fear?

Peace,
Auntie

Ooops

[evilauntie.livejournal.com]

Sorry,

Didn't realize I was not logged in.

Peace

Re: Hmmmm

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying. That said, I don't advocate an idea that change is *only* accomplished by those who are alike. What I think is important is for change to come from multiple sources. I think that if you *only* confront people with differences and *only* try to push them out of comfort zones, you won't get as positive a set of results as if both radical and familiar frames of change are present. My comment was not intended to imply that radical activism has no place, but that I often find that radical activism overlooks the value played by lower-key forms of change from familiar sources among the populace.

I think that the divisions between groups is exactly what this two-pronged (or multi-pronged) method addresses. It's much harder to view, say, gay people as "them" if you don't know any of them, if you don't have any gay friends or neighbours or co-workers or if the only gay people you know are people you've always considered "radical" or "out there" anyway. The idea of common people living their lives as examples is exactly to try to erase those boundaries -- to make it impossible to view people as "others" or as "them".

Suppose, using the above example, that in a place that has no same-sex legislation, all LGBQTT people and their allies refused to work for any company that didn't have a solid benefit structure for same-sex partners. That would certainly be a striking display of activism. However, you could then never tell anybody, "Statistically, four of the people in this office are gay." The HR person being told to enact such a policy would never be exposed to Diane's partner Emily at the company picnic and would never go home thinking about that. Nobody would go home thinking, "You know, Steve at work is gay. And ... he's an okay guy. Maybe I need to think about this further." And the people who think, "Nobody *I* know is gay. It's just all those fags out *there*," might actually be right. It'd be easier to draw a line.

I grew up Muslim. I'm not Muslim now. However, in the time that I was, I think I changed the minds and prejudices of more people by being Muslim and being a rational, intelligent, ordinary guy who was also Muslim than I would have by any amount of shouting and placard-waving.

On the other hand, in both of the above examples, if there's nobody waving the placards and refusing to work in the workplaces without same-sex benefits coverage, then there's nothing to connect the everyday friends with, nobody saying, "Look THIS is what's wrong, and how the people you know and love are being hurt."

So ultimately what I'm saying is not that change happens only by people who feel familiar or that it only happens by radical movements, but that "it takes all sorts".

Re: Hmmmm

[evilauntie.livejournal.com]

I agree that the multi-pronged approach has some pluses. The problem I see with using assimilated individuals as a bridge into the mainstream is that they tend to sell out members of their wider community, who may not fit into the mainstream as well.

This happened within the Jewish communities during the pre and especially post WWII periods in the USA. It is happening within the sex/orientation and gender minorities right now. Many people are being silenced or invalidated, brushed aside as "too far out" or "troublemakers" by folks who are chasing the mainstream carrot. When concerns around class, race and trans inclusion are raised within the community, the individuals raising those issues are frequently accused of "infighting".

I usually can't pass as straight enough (in "gender" and/or sexuality - like most ppl know the differences *shrug*) for long enough to get and keep decent job - like a living wage and benefits would be nice. When I have had a decent job I have been outed or read and fired. It is perfectly legal in my state (part of the USA) to fire a person for sexual orientation or for gender presentation -BUT- almost everyone here is more worried about getting married.

Do I show up at the state house to support marriage rights? Yes, because I think its the right thing to do and also strategically important. Do I get repeatedly sold out when employment non-discrimination legislation comes up? You bet.

Maybe my best shot is to marry someone who has benefits and hope they don't get fired when they apply for benefits for me.

The way I see it, self presevation is largely instinct. There will be some assimilated individuals who will take risks for others but I am guessing that the majority are not going to stick their necks out if they feel they are getting most of what they need. Most have a keen appreciation of just how tenuous their acceptance is with respect to society at large and also sense how hostile an environment we are living in today.

Peace

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

That's also exactly the way I feel about most of the Democratic Party. It's very much the emotional basis for my vote for Nader in 2000, rather than Gore. I probably would have voted for Cobb last year, but I knew Ohio was going to be close, and Kerry is a vast improvement over Bush, even if he's not perfect. But ever time I hear a particular national "liberal" radio host say that the Democrats need to move to the centre, not to the left, to succeed in the elections to come, I get mad. The Democrats moved to the centre in 2002, supporting the resolution to make war in Iraq, and they lost seats. Kerry moved to the centre and fudged around on gay marriage, and he lost. When you make yourself not so much of an alternative to the Republicans, you remove more and more of the impetus for voting Democrat rather than Republican. I'm so sick of this "pander to the centre" attitude. I want true progressives to emerge as a political force, but noone in the Democratic Party seems to feel that way. And with they way they're trying to hand the nomination for 2008 to Hillary already, we may as well just change the party name to Republican Lite (with 1/3 less hate and discrimination!).

[boxofdelights]

Mostly, I like to think that these don't relate to Really Important Stuff, but I think that it's important to be rigorous about examining these tendencies in myself.

Yes. Because it's all too easy to decide that something is not the Really Important Stuff when I myself am not one of the people for whom it is life and death.

I only really understood this after I gave birth to a child with a penis, and suddenly Men's Issues were transferred from "Oh, sure, it would be nice if..." to Really Important Stuff.