"It's not our job to educate"
12 Sep 2005 10:48 amThis is based on a comment I made in a thread in
rmjwell's journal here. The thread is about the idea "It's not our job to educate you about []ism."
My take is: Sure, I can choose to educate people. Sure, members of a group of people who are discriminated against can choose education as a way of getting more access to what they want. But people cannot require me/the group to do so.
Some people in the cultural mainstream or closer to centers of power take the attitude that whenever someone not in their group speaks up, that person *MUST* *JUSTIFY* their taking up public space; that person must take on all the work and all the responsibility for whether mainstream people are listening to them.
It can be a tactic for keeping people's ideas out of public discourse, insofar as they can just sit back and say "Yes, but" or "Sorry, I didn't like they way you put that" until the end of time.
If I want more power or access, ONE WAY is to try to educate people who have it to understand me better, so they'll decide I'm nice and give it to me. But it's not the only way, and I'm not required to go that route. There are other ways.
And in the situation where mainstream people are saying to a group farther away from the mainstream, "Why won't you join our movement?" and the group farther away from the mainstream is saying "Because you don't understand us," then it's DEFINITELY not the JOB of that group to educate the mainstream people. If they want to, then that's a good thing. But it's not their JOB.
I have no idea whether this is anyone else's take on the issue. It's my take on explaining to people how discriminiation and prejudice affect me as a member of some groups who are discriminated against. I do plenty of educating, but I resent the hell out of the attitude that I have to justify myself to people who have no interest in really hearing what I'm saying. I resent it so much that I would rather get far away from those people, and that means not spending energy on supporting whatever cause they would like me to support.
My take is: Sure, I can choose to educate people. Sure, members of a group of people who are discriminated against can choose education as a way of getting more access to what they want. But people cannot require me/the group to do so.
Some people in the cultural mainstream or closer to centers of power take the attitude that whenever someone not in their group speaks up, that person *MUST* *JUSTIFY* their taking up public space; that person must take on all the work and all the responsibility for whether mainstream people are listening to them.
It can be a tactic for keeping people's ideas out of public discourse, insofar as they can just sit back and say "Yes, but" or "Sorry, I didn't like they way you put that" until the end of time.
If I want more power or access, ONE WAY is to try to educate people who have it to understand me better, so they'll decide I'm nice and give it to me. But it's not the only way, and I'm not required to go that route. There are other ways.
And in the situation where mainstream people are saying to a group farther away from the mainstream, "Why won't you join our movement?" and the group farther away from the mainstream is saying "Because you don't understand us," then it's DEFINITELY not the JOB of that group to educate the mainstream people. If they want to, then that's a good thing. But it's not their JOB.
I have no idea whether this is anyone else's take on the issue. It's my take on explaining to people how discriminiation and prejudice affect me as a member of some groups who are discriminated against. I do plenty of educating, but I resent the hell out of the attitude that I have to justify myself to people who have no interest in really hearing what I'm saying. I resent it so much that I would rather get far away from those people, and that means not spending energy on supporting whatever cause they would like me to support.
no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 06:40 pm (UTC)*swoon*
no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 06:46 pm (UTC)The reason is simple. Groups of people have cultural beliefs that exclude many identities and even more behaviors. It get something that isn't inside the cultural belief system requires a shift in the culture. Cultures tend to resist change.
The Reaction Principle posits that arguing for change elicits argument for the status quo. This is one reason direct, confrontational activism meets very, very strong resistance.
All that said, there are many ways to "educate." Some are effective in given situations and some are not. Most of the education strategies that activists use aren't effective. There is an attempt to replace one "truth" with another "truth." Better, I think, to just get an inquiry going on the original truth without suggesting an alternative.
It is only possible to educate the willing. Shifting a population from "There is no problem" to "Maybe something here needs to be looked at" is a daunting task and has few immediate rewards. There is almost never the thrill of victory, that's for sure.
Heavy handed activism sometimes has a place in shaking people up and getting a conversation going but rarely moves the conversation forward past the starting point.
I think you are dead right to resent the requirement to justify yourself to get a piece of the freedom pie. The other routes are much more difficult and harder to see, though. Most activists are looking for other routes. It's another place where a little education could be useful. :)
Love.
no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 06:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 07:18 pm (UTC)Assuming the thing you want is actually theirs to give.
no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 07:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 07:50 pm (UTC)Dumb example: I can either ask you for your glass of water, or I can go to the kitchen and get my own.
no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Sep 2005 08:16 pm (UTC)Re: "It's not our job to educate"
Date: 13 Sep 2005 12:46 am (UTC)and i don't exactly feel it's my "job" to explain myself to people in the mainstream. but i do think that, if i am different, the responsibility to say so is mine, and the responsibility for educating is mine, and i actually like it that way -- who better to explain myself than me? i've rarely yet been happy when people in the mainstream have taking it upon myself to educate the mainstream about me; they seem to often get it wrong in odd ways.
of course, if the other person isn't really interested, no educating will happen, but i am usually perfectly willing to give it a shot first.
Re: "It's not our job to educate"
Date: 13 Sep 2005 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 13 Sep 2005 02:18 am (UTC)FWIW I resent that, too. I'd swoon, but I don't want to accidentally fall on
no subject
Date: 13 Sep 2005 05:21 am (UTC)In my more benign but also more Machiavellian moments, I consider that teaching is the most effective method I know of to win people to my side--and I use this method to good effect frequently. If I haven't yet persuaded, I feel that I just haven't yet taught effectively enough.
But no: it is not my job to educate people about the things I know because of who I am, as opposed to what I have learned. I'll do it if it suits me.
no subject
Date: 13 Sep 2005 07:46 pm (UTC)