In this week's episode, I asked Ian and Sam a question on whether it was possible for someone to disagree with an aspect of a social movement but not be assumed to be against that said movement. I gave the example of Black Lives Matter and its use of civil disobedience in order to achieve their goal of social justice. I was not very sure on how I feel with certain levels of civil disobedience, especially the kinds of actions that saw the burning of police stations, riots and the lootings of shops. I personally thought there may be a problem with the proportionality of this havoc brought about by a movement, that some shop owners or policemen may not be complicit in the structural racism that BLM opposes but they are targeted by street justice. Yet, I also saw how the violence was a result of decades of oppression and the lack of response to the cries of a systematically oppressed race. However, I also had no problem with the pulling down of statues of racist historical figures. Essentially, I was confused on whether my internal conflicts made me a racist or an opponent of the BLM.
While Ian makes a good argument in defence of civil disobedience, it still did not answer my actual question on whether I can distinguish a movement from its cause. If I can't, then my disagreement with a certain extent of civil disobedience makes me an opponent of the civil rights movement. If I can, then it would mean that I prefer to support the civil rights movement in a different manner.
I am going to structure this essay quite simply, the first section will argue why I can't oppose a movement without opposing is cause, the second section will argue the converse.
You cannot disagree with a movement without opposing its cause
Aspects of the movement are often justifiable
This argument basically states that you cannot disagree with the movement when its actions are justified in its cause. If you do, you would inherently disagree with some aspects of the cause as well. I don't have the liberty to justify all aspects of every social movement in the world, so I'll be convenient and use BLM as an example.
One major argument against the BLM is that it uses violence to achieve its goal. I've seen people go as far to call it a terrorist organisation in order to oppose the violence that it uses. However, people overlook why supporters of this movement have to go this far in order to be heard. I can think of 3 reasons why they resort to violence.
The first is that violence is used all the time. Ian showed this very well, as violence is always used as a deterring factor that gives a government its authority. Basically, in order for a state to command organisations, institutions and people to do something, an act of disobedience against this will be met with some level of violence. People will get taken away from their homes and families in order to serve time in prison, and in some places like Malaysia, people may be physically hurt as well. Violence is also always used as a means to an end in times of war. Even though many would agree that war is bad, there has always been an argument against Neville Chamberlain and his unwillingness to declare war of Nazi Germany before Hitler grew too strong. There was a strong moral obligation to send soldiers to commit acts of violence in order to achieve a better future. Since we always commit violence in order to achieve justice, it must be justifiable for the BLM movement to do the same.
The second reason why violence is justified is that Black people have no other alternative to get their voices heard. This argument essentially criticises how democratic the US really is. Democratic voting is a mechanism in order to hold a government accountable. Through voting, you are able to elect the politicians who hold your interests in favour, or signal to current politicians your views so that they may be reflected in the government's laws and policies. As a result, there would be no need for a violent overthrow of a government or radical actions in order to get a government you want. However, this requires all citizens to have an equal access to their democratic right to vote, as it will ensure that everyone has an equal democratic voice. This isn't necessarily true; being legally able to vote does not equate to actually having the ability to exercise your democratic right. In order to maximise your use of the right, there needs to be a certain level of political education. This ensures that people will have as much information on their political candidates as possible, and be able to rationalise between the options they have so they can really choose the candidate in their best interest. Legally being able to vote also does not mean that everyone has an equal democratic voice. In many areas, the louder you are in a democracy corresponds with how much money you have. Rich people can sponsor their favourite politicians, or form super-PACs in order to make sure their campaigns are successful. They have the money to hire lobbyists in order to continuously pressure politicians to make decisions that favour them. Therefore, the votes (or the democratic voices) of some people count less than others. Voting does not really work fairly, and it is hard to assume that minorities who have been systematically oppressed are able to voice their concerns in a system that is rigged against them.
Nevertheless, I'm going to take a page out of Ian's book and steelman the argument. I'm going to assume that voting works perfectly fairly, and that Black people should vote for change rather than resorting to violence. This still ignores how ineffective governments tend to be when they have been tainted by partisanship. This basically refers to how some issues have been deemed to be a political issue that is fought over by parties, rather than a social justice issue that needs to be solved immediately. This is shown by how supporters of the BLM movement are usually Democrats, and many Republicans (both its supporters and its politicians) tend to stand against the movement. Not only do they effect the image of a movement (Republicans will naturally be skeptical of the "Democratic" movement), but the nature of partisanship makes it harder for any laws to be passed.
"The Congress has become highly polarized, making the passage
of legislation extremely difficult. For the first time in modern history, the
most conservative Democrat in Congress is more liberal than the most
liberal Republican. The number of seats in Congress won by a margin of 10 percent or less, meaning that they are up for grabs by either party, has
fallen steadily from nearly two hundred in the late nineteenth century to
only a little more than fifty in the early 2000s. Both political parties have
become much more ideologically homogeneous, and deliberative debate
between them has deteriorated. These kinds of divisions are not historically unprecedented, but in the past they have been overcome by strong
presidential leadership, which has not been forthcoming."
- an excerpt from Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order"
Therefore, even if they could vote fairly, the process of law-making will not necessarily be effective enough to enact changes that the public favour. This is why Obama's administration has arguably been very ineffective when it comes to his promise for universal healthcare, or why Trump has not been able to erect his border wall.
As a result, since Black people have very little opportunities to have their voices heard in a civil manner, they must resort to violence to catch the attention of both the public and the government, so they can force people to have discussions on the struggles they have gone through.
The third reason I think would justify the use of violence is the principle of self-defence. This argument states that in the event of a person/group becoming a victim of wrongdoing, they are often justified to do what is necessary to defend themselves. This wrongdoing is the core of the BLM ideology, as they have been systematically oppressed by their nation's institutions (whether it is the criminal justice system, education or even the government itself) to the point that it effectively values the lives of Black individuals less than the lives of others. In order to justify this claim, I would recommend you read or listen about the struggles Black individuals go through in their daily lives. Given that they have no other alternative through which they can protect themselves from this wrongdoing, violence can be used to voice out concerns that would otherwise be unheard of. This is their only way to defend themselves, they are justified in doing so.
In conclusion to this extremely long argument, it is usually possible to justify actions of a movement with the context of the cause that they are related to. By extension, to disagree with the movement may mean that you disagree with the cause as the movement is an essential part to the cause.
If you do not support a movement, you effectively oppose it, thus compromising its ability to achieve its cause
This has been one of the narratives that many individuals use to compel others to support their movements. Phrases like "silence means complicity" and "if you do not stand with us, you stand against us" force us to choose a side and have almost become such a meaningless reason to support a movement. I once told a joke that these phrases basically have the same logic as that used by rapists and sexual predators when they say that "silence means consent". Apparently, if you say nothing or refuse to choose a side, I can just assume your stance on a topic. Nevertheless, this line of argumentation does hold some truth to it.
The reason why any decision we make reflects our stance on an issue is because they often come with a repercussion anyways. Even if you don't vote for either Trump or Hillary, your reluctance to vote would mean one less vote against Trump. Any decision you make regarding your support of the BLM movement will affect their ability to achieve their goals. This happens in primarily 2 ways.
The first is that you will complicate discussions on the matter. If you disagree with the movement because of its civil disobedience, it does not matter that you support the cause. What happens is that you now belong to a group that opposes the movement. You validate many others who may also disagree with the movement, and you essentially become another voice that refuses to stand with BLM. Your reason to oppose the BLM movement also becomes another voice that diverts away from the more important discussion of structural racism. A good example of this is the All Lives Matter movement, in which its main purpose is to distract people from the core arguments of the BLM movement. They come up with linguistic arguments on how the name of the BLM movement is racist, how white people also get shot, or that they disagree with violence as a method to achieve change. All these individuals add to what already is a matter-heavy discussion, and flood it with more distractions so that less attention is given to the arguments against structural racism. Therefore, my skepticism of the BLM movement would also mean that I add legitimacy to doubters of the movement, and my opinions distract people from discussing about how best to fix structural racism.
Secondly, when there are less people standing with a movement, it often means that there would be more people standing against it. To take ALM as an example again, some members of the movement mainly disagree with the name of the BLM movement, believing that it is more racist than ALM. They hence believe that in order to achieve social equality would mean supporting the ALM movement. However, we still group these individuals (who may have their heart in the right place) together with the more white supremacist strands of the ALM. All these groups of people are similar that they oppose the BLM movement, and any forms of disagreement with the movement leads to you being a voice against the movement. This is especially more important when the BLM movement is the leading organiser and loudest movement when it comes to civil equality. Opposition against the movement would mean opposition against the leading representation of the cause. This adds to the argument earlier that any political decision, irrespective of whether it is direct or not, as a political repercussion. We must take some level of responsibility for the consequences of our decisions and support the more correct movement.
You can disagree with the movement without opposing its cause
On this side of the debate, I gave the example of my support of Palestinian liberation, yet my opposition of a major movement of that cause. This movement is Hamas, which is one of the leading movements in favour of Palestine. However, it has a reputation of essentially being a terrorist organisation and their attacks on civilians has been condemned as war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, Hamas is an extreme case and to compare BLM to Hamas is a real stretch. Let me try and explain better reasons than that.
It depends on what it means to disagree with a certain part of a movement, or even with a movement in entirety
When I gave the Hamas example in the podcast, I also said that I support the cause through other means or through better movements. That is a really generous view of what it means to disagree with a movement. Often times, when people disagree with a movement, it is assumed that people will by nature speak up against a movement. Nevertheless, people can choose to support other ways to go against the structural racism that happens in their society. This can happen through donating to organisations that help families who have lost family members to police brutality, or through taking part in initiatives that help reintegrate ex-convicts into society, or even through educating the public on the issues that happen in our society which is what my friends and I are trying to do through this blog and our podcast. These are constructive forms of disagreement, where there are direct efforts to help people with their cause through facilitating change in a different manner. It is these forms of disagreement with a movement which do not oppose a cause.
Are these aspects of the movement really justifiable?
Another reason why my Hamas example works is that the actions that they are responsible for are not easy to justify. Killing innocent civilians in order to send a message is wrong, and there are very few causes (if any at all) that can possibly justify the use of these actions. With relation to my personal dilemma, there are ways to prove that no use of violence is justifiable.
It may be true that we use violence frequently (through wars or the criminal justice system), but these events do not necessarily mean it is justified. Even though there have been precedents of an action, it does not automatically justify the use of that action. To simplify, just because we've done it before does not make it right. In fact, pointing out how we use it all the time is more of a call to act against the use of violence rather than justifying it. This is especially true when we relate it to the context of BLM, as they oppose police brutality on the principle violence is committed against a certain race. Of course, you can go into a much more deeper debate on whether the reason why violence is used is more important than the act itself. That probably merits a longer discussion than I can afford.
Furthermore, assuming that violence is a justifiable means to an end ignores that violence is an end in and of itself. Violence is an end result, it has an undeniable impact and it hurts lives. It is not proportional to the wrong that you often want to fix, and the victims of violence are not always complicit in the wrongs that you are against.
Moreover, these are problems that are inherent to violence.
You can almost never ensure that violence is targeted and proportional. I mentioned Jake Paul in the podcast and how he took the opportunity to steal alcohol from a restaurant. There are so many people in movement and it is hard to ensure that everyone will stick to a certain code of conduct. There may be people who will take advantage of the chaos or will go above and beyond what is proportional and inflict the justice that they see is right.
It may also be hard to track the victims of your violence and ensure only those who played a part in structural racism are the ones who face the wrath of your violence. Even the swarming of a street would mean blocking modes of transportation which will impact the abilities of other individuals who need to get a job or send their children to school. Nonetheless, I do want to make note that it may be possible to argue that complicity in a wrongdoing goes beyond those who are members of the police force and may extend to all individuals who have benefitted from a racist system.
Conclusion
I still cannot properly make up my mind on this, but after typing this essay out, I think I am starting to believe that I should put my full support behind a leading movement for an important cause, even if I do not fully agree with their use of civil disobedience.
- Paren
Comments
Post a Comment