Who Should (And Shouldn't) Be Leaders/Members of Social Movements

In reference to the numerous threads about feminism, and who can and cannot be a feminist, or be a leader in the feminist movement, I thought it would be interesting to address this idea that membership and leadership in a social movement can or even should be limited.

Social movements deal with society as a whole. They may, in practical terms, be advocating for the end of discrimination against one group in that society by advocating for equality for all of society, but their movement impacts all of society, as do the consequences of their particular goal. To be successful, ultimately, society must embrace their goals.

To say that the leadership or membership of a social movement can be limited or should be limited to only the group or groups being discriminated against is to miss the larger point in an unfortunate way. Limiting members and leaders to only members of one group is what you do when you want identity politics. Since the group is only advocating for itself, it wants its members and especially its leaders to be part of that defined group identity so that only they will make decisions regarding what direction to go. The members may have voting rights for example on where to go, whereas everyone else outside the group can help out if they want, but get no say on where the group goes. Groups based on identity politics can and do often advocate for their group at the expense of others, and this is because the goal of identity politics is their own groups well-being, not being worried with other groups, which can indeed be seen as competition.

The goal of social movements is an idea or ideology, and not the well-being of just one group. Some social movements end up overwhelmingly helping one group incidentally to achieving their goal, but their motivation is still quite different. I think identity politics and social movements overlap quite often enough and can be hard to tell apart in some cases.

If a social movement aims for gender equality, for example, then members and leaders should be from all parts of society, since this is not an advocacy group for one particular identity, it is for an idea that effects everyone and will take everyone to achieve. However, advocacy groups for only women would consider such a social movement, especially back in the day, as a great ally and as having somewhat overlapping goals as a discriminated group, while advocacy groups for men would see it as a threat. Indeed, the women's advocacy groups would be part of the social movement and leaders in it as well.

I would like to say that identity politics is not necessarily a bad thing (though there are many obvious cases where it is and quite a lot of downsides, but that's another thread), and for many minority groups out there, it is one of the few effective ways to influence wider society in some cases, but social movements are not identity politics. They are about whole societies, and to be the most effective, they need members and leaders from all backgrounds to achieve their goals.

I understand that leaders need legitimacy, and legitimacy can come from shared experiences that only come from your identity, but social movements include everyone. If there is a leader in the gender equality movement who is a male, that person will have more legitimacy for other males, etc. etc. And society as a whole is who the social movement must address. Certain identity political groups within the social movement will compete and even want to control the direction of the social movement in their favor, but this isn't what the social movement is about.

I have begun seeing quite a few conservatives equate social movements with identity politics, or to conflate them, and I really don't think we, as progressives, should do the same. The Tea Party is one example, of a "social movement" that is hijacked by identity politics, indeed, by several competing groups. The "social movement" turns out to be anything but, and the membership and leadership of the "movement' only confirmed the identity politics it was. The Tea Party is now cynically viewed by your average American as not a social movement but a lobbying group, a piece of identity politics. Occupy Wall Street was a great point of contrast, even though even it, like any other social movement, had to compete with identity political groups wanting to dominate the movement, it was much more successful at maintaining its role as a social movement rather than identity politics.

If you want your group to be seen as identity politics, then you should indeed have all members and leaders be of that defined group identity, but if you want a social movement to be effective, you'll want members and leaders from every group out there.

Yes...

When it comes to equality, whether among gender, race, or sexual orientation etc. etc., we need leaders from every background. If leadership is only relegated to those who are being discriminated against, then the bigger point is being missed by that group and their advocacy will not be as effective.

Every movement NEEDS leaders from all backgrounds to be the most effective and persuasive in educating the public, which, guess what, is made up of people of all backgrounds.

If men can only be advocates and allies in a movement that is about gender equality, then it really is saying the movement isn't about gender equality, it is about women, and that is mere identity politics, advocating for one specific group at the expense of another.

I recognize white male privilege, yet I still oppose affirmative action...

because it doesn't work. The point of affirmative action is to close gaps among demographic groups that exist for a whole slew of reasons, historical prejudice and discrimination chief among them, and some present as well. But affirmative action doesn't solve this problem. Gaps are still just as bad now as they were when affirmative action was first put in place.

The reason why is fairly obvious. By the time affirmative action kicks in, it is already too late. Yeah, you can artificially boost a person into a position, but that won't take away the fact that that person, despite that position, is still underprivileged in every other way, except now maybe for salary (maybe). You might see affirmative action first kick in in college. Well, that's far too late by that point. If you want to solve those gaps in achievement, you have to go to the source of the problem: poverty. Especially areas of concentrated poverty. That's a much tougher sell politically and a lot harder to do though, so we have this affirmative action band-aid that doesn't really do anything to the inherent problem but make people feel good.

Also, I'm kinda sick of all white males as always being portrayed as the most privileged. They aren't always, a large percentage of people of different colors and women do indeed have more overall privilege than many white males, and white males themselves indeed are the recipients of affirmative action in some cases, especially when it comes to class. I don't like the stereotype for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it gives the right ammunition to feel like a victim and to ignore the fact that affirmative action even helps white males indvidually (but does nothing to solve our income inequality, among other inequalities, for example). I rarely hear about white female privilege, or any other sort of privilege really. We all have privileges (hell, being an American is one hell of a privilege at the expense of many others in the world, for example), but it seems the ONLY privilege ever discussed is of the white/male/straight variety, which is pretty limiting. ESPECIALLY when you consider that privilege from money is the most powerful of the privileges today in most areas of life. I don't think that particular privilege should be ignored when it is central to what privilege is today.

I definitely think we need to educate people on how the US is NOT a perfect meritocracy, because if you believe that, then you will oppose ALL government actions to close gaps, including ones that actually work, like poverty reduction. Affirmative action is one that doesn't work and which gives easy ammunition to the right, after all, progressives are all about merit and NOT privilege, and having to betray this philosophy for "the greater good" of a policy that doesn't even work doesn't seem rational or consistent, because it's not.

Do I really care that much about affirmative action though? Beyond it being an ineffective political strategy and policy, not really, I'd rather get poverty reduction and discussion going than opposing affirmative action, that is my priority, and it involves a de-mythifying of the US as a perfect meritocracy, which helps all around anyways, and a discussion and understanding of privilege. Many white straight males in the Republican Party are underprivileged compared to their party leaders in many many ways, but getting them to recognize that, or even swallow their pride to see reality, is the hard part.

What a horrible analogy, and it's part of the problem...

Any group based on race or sexual orientation should be able to listen to legitimate criticism from any other person if they want to be halfway rational. They don't have to accept it and they don't have to agree with it. Can these groups be wrong, even about their own identity? Of course, considering that each group has opposing sides within them anyways. Log Cabin Republicans anyone? Can a straight person not legitimately criticize them? If their straightness is worthy of dismissing their legitimate criticism, then it's not rational. Can white groups not be legitimately criticized by black people? Really? I mean, there are many white groups I can think of that would never accept the opinion of someone else of another race on their group, and guess what, that's not a rational idea.

Course, these groups can never have someone be "the voice" for all gays or all blacks, much less all women, which is not what feminism is about anyways, because individuals don't get to choose their sexual orientation or gender or race, much less the "voices" of these non-chooseable traits. Political groups or activist groups within these social groups? Sure. You choose to be a part of them, or not, no matter your race, gender, etc.

I would hope that any group would welcome anyone who agrees with them, no matter their race, gender, etc. would welcome them to speak for them, or listen to others outside their group, or actually admit being wrong even if the person telling them isn't part of their group. I would also hope you could be welcomed as an equal participant. The fact that you think you can't and won't is the crux of the problem. It is not rational to act this way, it is the worst kind of identity politics, and it's not something that should be condoned or supported. It's what many on the right do, though, attributing people like Al Shartpon to being "the voice" of all black people, for example. And it also is the sort of logic that gives tokenism its power. As long as you're part of that group, so this logic goes, the ONLY other people that can legitimately criticize you must be part of that group. That is not rational.

There are many women opposed to feminism, and it is as legitimate for men to call those women out as for women to. Not more so. But just as legitimate. It is GOOD to have people with different perspectives agreeing on the same philosophy, and each perspective does nothing to diminish the legitimacy of a philosophy. Feminism isn't about who knows more about being a woman, it's why should women be treated equally, why should genders be treated equally.

Nate Silver 538 Update: National Polls Shift To Obama, Align With State Polling

Another horribly poor way of talking about privilege....

If the point is to get straight white males who deny privilege to accept it, well then, it's a poor way to go about it.

First, what is the point of focusing on three types of privilege only? Namely, sexual orientation, race, and gender. If the topic is privilege, which encompasses far, far more than just those three groups, why the focus of privilege on just these three?

These articles always go about saying "everything else being equal" as well, but what's the point? Might as well address privilege for what it really is, a very complicated issue with all sorts of factors, some which are much more impactful than sexual orientation, race, or gender, but aren't even discussed for some reason?

Then, specifically going after the "straight white male", over and over again, will of course put people on the defensive. I understand the temptation to generalize grandly about such topics, but it's counterproductive and not a great way to start discussion.

I find that the vast majority of people, regardless of their race, sexual orientation, or gender, do not recognize their own privileges. I think people quickly notice the privilege of others, and the relative disadvantages they have, but no one wants to recognize their own privileges, at least not easily. So to just focus on the "straight white male" seems rather silly, when everyone needs to recognize privilege, and it seems to miss the point. Indeed, I think the weird concentration on just the "straight white male" makes any other combination feel like they don't need to examine their privilege, since they are not the "most" privileged.

I think it is this strange sort of need to pick a combination of only three factors and come to some sort of definite conclusion of "who has it easiest" which seems to miss the whole point of understanding privilege, which is simply to have empathy and understand that we don't live in a perfect meritocracy, and hopefully work towards more of a meritocracy that provides equal opportunities to all. It seems to scapegoat one group of people as the ultimate purveyors and benefactors of privilege, when in reality, many in that same group lose out on a lot due to privilege, just maybe not privilge derived from just those three factors. Why alienate people that suffer from the same system?

I think discussing and understanding privilege is great and needed, but the needling of just "straight white males" makes no sense and isn't a good strategy to get people (much less straight white males) to examine their own privileges, much less accept that we don't live in a perfect meritocracy. The whole "American exceptionalism" of the right is based on such a myth, but even people on the right complain about their lack of privilege and disadvantages, they just have a hard time recognizing the system of privilege is the reason why. Privilege is about a lot more than race, sexual orientation, and gender, much less saying "who has it easiest" in grandly generalized, subjective pronouncements.

No, you're not excused...

I can understand your anger at some of the media and especially those on the right who do play up black opinions on gay marriage, but why are you directing that anger at DU? Seems you are doing exactly what they want you to, lashing out at allies and people who agree with you.

You are arguing a strawman, no one said that all blacks are homophobic or bible-thumpers.

But there is nothing wrong with discussing certain disparities in opinion between groups to try to understand them and fix them. I constantly ask why so many working class whites vote Republican. Nobody here is blaming blacks as a group for these laws. The people to blame are all those who voted for it, no matter their color.

Obama doesn't support gay marriage...

almost certainly for political reasons.

But still, very sad when the guy I will vote for puts his political strategy before the civil rights of others, and in all honesty, I don't see it as a good strategy anyways.

Kinda makes his speeches about other civil rights ring especially hollow and make him seem incredibly hypocritical.

MSNBC hurts the liberal/progressive cause

I know many on here like some of the shows on MSNBC. Heck, I even like to watch Rachel every now and again, she is pretty much the only one that I can kind of stand. But MSNBC, like all corporations, wants to make profit. That is its priority.

In this country, 40% of people identify as conservative. Fox saw this and saw a business opportunity. Corner the conservative 24/7 news market with biased entertainment reporting. Done. MSNBC came later to the game, and saw the untapped (though relatively smaller market) of liberals (only 20% of the country identifies themselves as such). Well, they have cornered it, and with a lot of success. Indeed, as their viewership has risen, it has driven them to take a more biased tone.

Is it quite as biased or partisan as Fox? No, but then again, the left in this country is relatively moderate and small, so it doesn't need to be. But MSNBC isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart. It is doing it for profit, pure and simple.

Increasingly, I find myself having to battle false equivalencies with others. They are everywhere of course, that the Democrats are just the same as Republicans, that Fox is the same as MSNBC, etc. The thing is, I kind of agree (to a point) with this argument anymore. No, Democrats aren't just the same as Republicans, but they aren't far apart on a lot of issues, and in terms of tactics and strategy, well, Obama just got a Super PAC. And I don't want corporations like MSNBC to represent liberals, because their motives are wrong as are their tactics. I don't want to be the flip side of Fox News, even if it's not quite as heavy handed about it.

I don't want entertainment/opinion shows that stretch and bend the truth to fit a partisan bias to represent liberals. Or that have bombastic/rude hosts that appeal to emotion to win out over logic and facts. And some MSNBC hosts do this quite a lot now, even my beloved Rachel at times. The fact that it is all motivated by profit really underlines it for me as well. That this is a corporate strategy to pay shareholders, pure and simple.

Yes, MSNBC hosts do tell the truth as well, and some might say it is best to fight fire with fire in a sense. In our broken political and media system, they may be right from a purely tactical viewpoint. But in the process MSNBC is doing a lot of harm to liberal causes by supposedly representing them. It breeds cynicism if you ask me.

It's always interesting to see...

the prejudice and double standard of some on DU with their jumps to conclusions before anything is really known about the story, including whether it's true or not, simply depending on whether it messes up their world view or reinforces it.