You And What Army?

Perhaps “check your privilege” is just a form of in-group signalling, a move that distributes discursive power between people who see themselves as belonging to the same social and political community. It functions as a kind of progressive Robert’s Rules of Order, a relatively impersonal way to nudge or remind someone to stop dominating conversation or leadership.

The rhetorical use of “ally” operates very similarly. It comes out of a deep history of critical attention to the way in which whites, men, straights, abled or white straight abled men consistently grab the reins of political and social struggles for racial, gender or sexual equality and justice. Often unintentionally or unconsciously. The ways that space and power are ceded to dominant actors are often equally unconscious, evidence of the persistent power of stereotypes and discrimination. The reminder to be an ally is meant as a kind of habitual reminder against those tendencies, a sort of struggle checklist. Who is speaking to represent what a group or movement wants or is doing? How was it decided that they should speak? Who is claiming to represent what a group or constituency want or think? Those are always valid questions, and if a movement concerned with what’s being done to people of color or to women or to queers, etc., always finds that the answers are “somebody else”, then that’s a problem.

Uncomfortably, however, ally is sometimes used more expansively, in several ways. For one, it seems to me that sometimes the people who are most likely to police a debate or movement by asking some participants to recede into ally status are themselves people who ought to be “allies” in that circumstance. It’s very likely that in regular reading of progressive conversations in social media you will come across many examples of white straight men or women telling other white straight men or women what it means to be an ally and what the content and appearance of proper ally behavior in the conversation at hand ought to be. This is at least an intervention that begs for a self-reflexivity that it often lacks.

For another, without a fairly careful and historically self-conscious use of the idea, talk of allyship sometimes seems to function as a kind of in-group manipulation of eager outsiders who want to hang out with the in-group. A sort of progressive rushing of potential pledges, with some being sent off to the equivalent of a social justice Delta House. The point of reminding people about being allies is to not speak on behalf of groups or causes, to not anoint themselves as representative speakers without a representative structure for making decisions. The objective is not to produce a state of fawning dependency in someone who is essentially seeking a merit badge or other acknowledgement of their personal virtue.

More importantly, however, is that there is another meaning to “ally” that is strategically important to any group pursuing political or social change. The question in this case is not the distribution of power or authority within a group, but about what groups, institutions or causes require to make strategic gains, to achieve their goals.

“Ally” even in the sense of trying to be mindful of authority within a loosely progressive coalition or group is also a move that insists on at least the necessity and vitality of organizing struggles in terms of identities. Even if you invoke intersectionality, those identities tend to resolve into discrete, structured forms. There is a huge body of scholarly and political writing on identity politics, essentialism (strategic or otherwise), new social movements and so on, and I won’t try to laboriously navigate my way through it all. I don’t quite agree with the sort of left critique that Walter Benn Michaels and others have offered that puts class or economic inequality out there as the important and “real” issue. It should be apparent that I have my doubts about the wisdom of many forms of identity politics, but I would hope in some sense to be enough of an ally of sorts to say that their pursuit is not for me to say yes or no to: the strategic decisions involved are properly vested elsewhere, in other people and other communities.

The point where I and many others enter the picture, with whatever sympathies and knowledge we may have, is when groups, communities or institutions are not by themselves and of themselves sufficient to achieve their goals, protect their practices, or satisfy their needs. Some political and cultural projects don’t need allies or have very parsimonious requirements largely aimed at securing or protecting otherwise sufficient existing practices. Even in this case, the important thing to understand is that “ally” necessarily means someone who is not part of the group and does not share its direct interests or outlook.

Whether political and social actors need few allies or many, they have to think clearly about three things: 1) the instrumental goals that require allies; 2) which allies and why; 3) and what those allies need or want as the price of their support. If there’s no difference between supposed allies–same struggle, same fight–then they’re not your ally. They are you. If they are an ally, they’re not you, and don’t have the same interests and goals that you do.

If I can accomplish an important goal of mine entirely on my own, I will. Of course I will. Who wouldn’t? If it’s a goal that others seek in exactly the same fashion, again, why wouldn’t we just accomplish it if we could? If you can mobilize enough power to overwhelm or ignore any divergent or opposing interests, why not do so?

If we need allies, what we’re doing is recognizing first that there are people who do not share our goals entirely but who may support some of our goals. Second we’re recognizing a limit to our capacity or to our power, that we can’t do it on our own. It may be that one of our goals is to live in a world where there are other groups with other goals, of course. In fact, that’s almost necessarily true if we expect anyone to be our allies except in the most brutally cynical sort of Molotov-Ribbentrop sense: if we look for allies and don’t expect to betray or dispose of them at the first opportunity, we believe that our own goals are compatible with other goals, and our goals are thus limited or constrained in their scope. So third, you are recognizing that other groups and other people have different goals and needs that are at least tolerably distinct or divergent from your own, and that you can not only live with but support the difference between you and your ally.

That’s of course why talking as if you don’t need allies, as if you’re already sufficiently empowered, when this is absolutely not true, is such a bad strategic move. There’s very little reason for allies to join your cause if you’ve preemptively dismissed the need for such allies, or displayed contempt for the ways in which their priorities and needs may diverge from your own.

Perhaps many movements don’t think very clearly about alliances because doing so sometimes means that they come to discover that their own group is not the hero of the story or the prime mover of change. Sometimes thinking clearly about alliances means they discover that they are the ally to some more powerful or coherent institution or cause. Sometimes thinking clearly means they have to recognize that they don’t even know what they want or how they’re going to get it, or what the minimum necessary costs of an alliance might be. Sometimes, at least for progressives, they end up recognizing that a lot of muddled assumptions about the social coherence of the left are unwarranted. That’s precisely why many progressive coalitions have the half-life of Rutherfordium. Too many people want to just demand alliance and not enough people want to think about the ways that successful alliance requires suppressing or deferring or modifying some aspect of their own goals and needs.

Another part of Grasping the Nettle.

This entry was posted in Grasping the Nettle, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to You And What Army?

  1. CarlD says:

    Again all this seems right to me. I’ll add the observation that much depends on whether one sees the movement compromising down from ideals or compromising up toward them. Platonists make very bad allies.

  2. Timothy Burke says:

    Yes. Compromising down ought to be a serious red flag for anyone who is being named as an ally. Any movement that is expressing the view that they’re compromising down is almost inviting allies to mark their calendar for future betrayal. Compromising up means that the movement is communicating that their goals include a better world in which that movement will remain only one of many legitimate perspectives.

  3. Fred Zimmerman '82 says:

    I think I like what you’re saying here a lot (although it’s so abstract it’s hard to be sure). One of my biggest beefs with the “check your privilege” crowd is that it defines people out of the in group. Better to articulate universal standards of justice and work towards them.

  4. Josh says:

    Better to articulate universal standards of justice and work towards them.

    Right, this is the good-faith explanation for “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”. Or the argument that discussions of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre shouldn’t have focused on the fact that the victims were women. Only it’s still misguided: injustice is not distributed equally. Focus on the universal and you erase the specific, targeted nature of injustice.

    As for this:
    It’s very likely that in regular reading of progressive conversations in social media you will come across many examples of white straight men or women telling other white straight men or women what it means to be an ally and what the content and appearance of proper ally behavior in the conversation at hand ought to be.

    I know you don’t mean it to be, Tim, but this is a hell of a catch-22 you’ve set up. As a straight white person, tell another straight white person how to be a good ally and you’re arrogating something to yourself; don’t do it and you’re forcing members of the out-group to do something they’re probably sick and tired of doing, and are more likely to be ignored for to boot.

  5. Timothy Burke says:

    Ok, but consider that this is just a catch-22 slightly downstream of the way demands for allyship can generally establish a catch-22: e.g., that all expression runs the risk of being called out as an attempt to dominate or control if it is coming from a subject historically associated with domination, based on a retroactive assessment of whether its content is deemed acceptable or not.

  6. Josh says:

    Absolutely! But being called out for attempting to dominate or control isn’t the end of the world, and if it really is a good-faith discussion there’s almost always a way to discuss that. It may require more effort on the part of the person who’s being called out than they’re used to, but, well, that’s basically the situation members of the out-group have found themselves in all along.

  7. Timothy Burke says:

    The thing is that it may not be the end of the world for the person so called, but it might be bad moment for the collective effort that a group or movement is pursuing. Because at least some of the time, the calling out is simultaneous with a move to control something potentially broad for purposes that are far narrower or more particular.

  8. Bob says:

    I have a very odd reaction to this, and I’m curious to hear the thoughts of others. I’m a white man married to a black woman, and I have two children who black or half-black depending on how you like to define the term. I also have a distrust of the boundary-policing that identity politics often entails, which long predated my marriage or children.

    It feels strange to be “an ally”, as if I personally have nothing at stake in how my children are treated by society, and also in how they choose to respond to it. It feels like an important part of being a father to these children to grapple with their status vis a vis society, and also to help them to do so, to provide a moral compass, and to set boundaries for them. But equally I am not black, and with that I recognize that I don’t understand the black experience from the inside, except as anyone can hope to understand another’s experience by sympathy.

    Is there a set of roles for raising and guiding children that are different from the role of “ally” and “group member”? If so, what makes this relationship different in kind rather than degree from that of close friend or mentor? Surely this is exactly the experience any father of any woman has?

    I can’t help but leave with conflicted feelings, and I would welcome answers that others may have.

Comments are closed.