I have always been uncannily interested in all worldly matters, whether they were mine or not. I am perpetually upset about trash thrown on streets I don't live on. Honking at people cutting through lanes that are not mine. I never thought that to be a bad thing. A true believer that 'life's most persistent and important question is what you are doing for another' (Martin Luther King), I thought this to be the only acceptable way of living.
But the recent years have scared a lot of us into limiting our policing. Rightfully so, and in some cases – not because of the hazard and headache, but because it might not be the right thing to do. Asking others to not do something is becoming a grey and murky area as the years go by. Like my hair.
And why shouldn't it be, you might ask. Policing others is not anyone’s job, or duty. In America, for example, individual liberties hold such a high place that governance even by the government is frowned upon.
The matter, however, is not so simple. A censor board needs to exist. Otherwise, going down this rabbit hole would mean questioning everything – from fact-checking by companies to protesting injustice done to others – leading to mayhem. The idea of abolishing the police is fair in concept, but impossible in practice.
A specific category of speaking on matters 'out of place' is more sensitive than others. Speaking for a community.
Speaking against others' suffering - speaking up for concerns that are not your own lived experience - has been challenged as token and supremacist.
White saviourism is the most known. Some call it nothing but the perpetuation of racism when white people try to 'save' black lives. I was in a conference myself (part of the organizing team) where good intentions paved the path to hell when black women attending the event (these were the George Floyd days) erupted at the organizers for having white women panelists trying to sympathize with women of colour. In the history of Indian feminism, British women liberating Indian women out of oppression led to good things, but not without grief. There are countless such examples- from the US federal government designing programs for native Americans, the liberation of Muslim women (the Karnataka debate right here in India), missionaries coming to 'civilize' tribes….
When I wrote Queer Chronicles, this was my biggest worry. Even if fictional – will my right to write these stories hold? Did I have the right? When does Allyship become appropriation – I was asked in a recent event. A younger me, blinded in my glory of doing good, would have scoffed and choked at the question. Today, I consider it valid. The examples above are all from which several good things have happened, but they are also examples of oppression and assumptions. Assumptions made for others.
A painter can paint things unseen. A director can imagine characters. A writer can too. It is not only a matter of assumption vs. accuracy – but also of creative liberty. Fiction is not documentary, and creation itself implies it doesn't exist.
See how complicated this can get? But it can be simplified too, and needs to be. Ours is an age of data, yet no information, and therefore, for sanity, simplification is important. All of this is my take and my take only. Take it or leave it, but do think about it.
First, who has the right to speak for others? I believe everyone does. And everyone should if they see, hear, smell, know, or feel injustice. The difference lies, however, in understanding the semantics. It must be speaking up for others – not speaking for others. Appropriation is when we try to make something our own – typically without the owner's permission, the dictionary says. Making another's cause our own is a good thing. Thinking of solutions for others can also work if they have been consulted. But feeling only you know what is best - is robbing them of their agency. That is assuming they do not know what's good for them and hence an act of 'saving' is needed. 'Liberating' people who can bear their own arms is ok. But only by assisting their fight, not designing it.
Here, I group a community as 'them' to keep things simple. But whether it is women's rights or LGBTQIA – intersectionality and individuality is as important as the grouping. A big part of the concern on 'outside' allies comes from real and perceived lack of understanding of this notion. It is important to remember, however, taking this too far causes an issue too – the issue of division within, and everyone becoming an 'outsider', for no experiences are equal.
Second, where does one draw the line on 'agency'? Should a line even be drawn? You are probably wondering when reading the paragraph above, what if ‘they’ really don't know what's good for them? How do you know 'they' haven't been 'conditioned'? Too ignorant, and stuck deep within generational cycles of deprivation – maybe 'they' truly need to be saved? If all adult communities (I will leave individuals out of this) should be allowed what they'd like to do for themselves, then cult suicides shouldn't be interfered with....
A controversial but critical question. This can't be generalized, nor can it be whitewashed. For yes, there is a matter of objective rationale. Conditioning is also a fact of life. In women's rights and modern medicine (for example vaccination) discussions, this comes up often.
But this can also be simplified. I suggest we assume agency and seek to understand the matter case by case. Using the same objective rationale, it's not too hard to distinguish in most cases.
Third, why should a community let others speak up for them? It's a risk. There have been betrayals of trust, wrong assumptions, saviourism, and exploitation. I believe that it is critical to have allies who are outside. In a recent interview on Queer Chronicles, Indroneel Mukherjee (socialite and fashion designer) echoed what I had always believed. Without allies, breaking into what is outside one's sphere is hard, if not impossible. And if a sphere is not broken through, it stays contained – as in, segregated. Women need men as allies in the fight for equal rights. Cis allies need to bring trans rights’ conversations mainstream. Especially in minority rights, it's the simple logic of strength in numbers. In a recent CNN panel, an expert spoke on why the current government is going after trans rights. It's less than 1% of the population – that is why. Minority rights need to be majority concerns. That can only happen through allyship.
Fourth, should there be creative liberty? Can we create characters who are not us? Yes, of course. Otherwise, only documentaries, still-life paintings, and non-fiction books would exist. Recording sounds of rain and mixing them with traffic noise would be the extent of creation in music. The devil is in the intention here. Responsible creation is important. Which isn't difficult if the intention is right. The intention doesn't have to be altruistic. But the intention should include 'do no harm'. Now, let's refrain from dissecting this to death – for that is not required, and is also detrimental. Anything and everything can cause unintended harm. However, it's not hard to be sensitive and aware. If a movie, a book, or a statement is made with the proclaimed intent of raising awareness, it should be well-researched. Mistakes can happen even with the best of intentions, but as long there's the willingness to listen and course correct, it does more good than harm. It opens dialogues and leads to understanding – as it did for me for the identification vs. assignment of gender while writing Queer Chronicles.
Lastly, sigh, the question of intention. Not for creation, but for allyship. Are allies truly and fully altruistic in their support, or are they in it for themselves? My answer to that is who cares? Very few things are 'truly and fully altruistic' and there's nothing wrong in doing well by doing good. If anything, the latter leads to persistent motivation and prioritization. It can be ignorant but is rarely malevolent. And even if it is, bringing those ill-intentioned missteps forward also allows for conversation. I am not being naïve in underestimating the harm that exploitation causes. I am merely pointing out that in many cases (for example corporate allyship) there are benefits of performative sponsorship and profiteering that can, and should be reaped.
To sum it up, I am making an adamant plea for allyship – the right to speak up for others.
If done right, that will eventually…slowly but surely… end the concept of 'others'.
Dr. Tanushree Ghosh (Ph. D. Cornell University, Chemistry) is Director at Intel Corp., a social activist, and an author. Her blog posts, op-eds, poems, and stories are her efforts to provoke thoughts, especially towards issues concerning social justice. She is a contributor (past and present) to several popular e-zines incl. The Huffington Post US (where her first post on returning to India as the mother of a daughter went viral and was picked up by Yahoo News and where she subsequently authored many successful op-eds on gender, Syria war, mental health, the western media’s coverage of the Brazil Olympic and so on), The Logical Indian, Youth Ki Awaaz, Tribune India, Women’s Web, Thrive Global, and Cafe Dissensus (where she hosted her own segment on social satire titled Black Light).
Comments