Responding to Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan G. Johnson

As a social justice advocate who has much to offer in his field, Johnson argues in his writings that privelege is real, that our verbiage matters, and that everyone is affected by the power structures that are part of our culture. He argues that awareness and action are needed to understand that these systems are made by people and can be changed by people, and that this change is much more possible than critics suggest. And for the  most part, he argues this really well.

While I found I agreed with this central argument in Johnson's writings, I found myself struggling with some of the ways Johnson speaks of people who do not see where he is coming from. While I did not find him harsh, I felt that Johnson fell into a common trap I've observed in social justice movements of responding to name calling with their own version of "othering." In the same way that entrenched privilege looks at social justice advocates as "hippies" who are "too sensitive," Johnson and other social justice advocates seem to be unaware that they applying the same offensive mentality when they name humans as "defensive" (a different version of sensitive) and present them to the world as people who cannot be reasoned with. While this may be inadvertent, it is important. An example of this can be found on page 9, where Johnson mentions "It's become almost impossible, for example, to say sexism or male privilege without most men becoming so uncomfortable and defensive that conversation is impossible. They act as though sexism names a personality flaw found among men, and just saying the word ("Can we talk about sexism today?") is heard as an accusation of a personal moral failure. The same is true of all the other "isms."" While yes, people often bristle when these topics are raised, I disagree with Johnson's underlying premise that this is a flaw in the people who are being spoken to, and I would argue that seeing defensiveness as a detriment is a key factor in why these conversations often bear no fruit. 

Defensiveness is a challenge, not a flaw, and like most challenges, the approach taken usually determines the outcome far more than the challenge does. Countering the "othering" done by privileged groups by "othering" them as unhelpful, ignorant, and/or defensive prevents social justice advocates from creating a space in their movements where humans, innately intelligent, powerful, and (most often) altruistic humans, can see that they belong and can works towards their benefit and the benefit of others. When these benefits are truly clear, when underlying presumptions are aired and cobwebs cleared, change happens and even the most entrenched opposition can become the staunchest ally because their belonging came through striving.

I am not alone in this radical conversation conviction. I am privileged to belong and work at a school that values the development of staff through book clubs. One book we read this year was Crucial Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler (you can find the book on amazon here and a video of the key points here).  This book is very accessible - the writing style is personal and easy to read through. The content, however, requires taking a plunge and taking an inordinate amount of responsibility for every conversation in which you are a participant, especially when you do not see eye to eye with the person you are speaking with, but need to arrive at an urgent resolution. Every other page was a gut punch for me as I read and eye opening in how I had been approaching conversations as a person who most people get along with, but who has had my fair share of tiffs, yelling matches, and times when I have frozen others out. The book leaves absolutely no room to blame your conversational partner. It removes fault, in fact, and replaces it with responsibility, making it the responsibility of the reader to take ownership of every interaction they have rather than being a victim to the words or choices of others.

 

The book argues that first of all, the story we tell about the other person needs to be checked before we begin ANY kind of conversation. We are all guilty of what the book calls "villain stories," narratives we tell ourselves about how the other person is unwilling to understand us, unwilling to make the changes we need, and even out to hurt us. These villain stories are our subconscious trying to protect us, but they are often what charges conversations. They allow us to determine someone else is "other" and then destroy powerful conversations through silence or violence because we do not believe the other person is willing or worthy to discuss the topic. These stories often undercut social justice movements because "the opposition" is seen as unreasonable and unwilling to come to the table, and then never sent an invitation. That, or the "villain story" is sensed by the person invited to the conversation, and proven right because they know the conversation is performative at best and an attack at worst.

Social justice advocates need to check their "villain stories" before they lose their strongest potential allies. It's too easy to blame the other side for when conversations go wrong, rather than to truly, critically examine the lenses and approaches we use in these conversations. How do we really see people who seem to have a different ideology? Are they enemies? Or are they really humans to us, even if they never change? Experience proves over and over that "people rise or fall depending on your expectations of them." Do we have appropriate expectations of people who disagree with us? Are we presenting a world where they "lose" so someone else can win and then getting surprised that they seek to defend themselves? If this is the message often received when the topic of privilege is raised,  how can we make changes to our conversations to show the mutual benefits of the causes we advocate for rather than blaming the other person for their "defensiveness?" How can we shift from seeing justice as the victim of "defensiveness" to seeing each person as a reasonable human being who is a valued part of making the world a better place, even if they don't agree with our stances? In answering these questions, which should not be a quick or easy process, we can find ways to break down walls instead of reinforcing them.

While I truly believe that Johnson and other advocates are primarily speaking of their experiences, and that their intention is not to alienate, the "villain stories" they often share about "defensive" opposition lack critical qualities that investigate the conversation had, rather than the motives of the other person. They communicate the assumption that there are people who are unwilling to change, rather than that there are people who need a different kind of conversation, one that is often very hands on, in order to change. Until we truly are able to walk with people through the emotional process of change, of wrestling with ideas in messy ways, in airing out fears of scarcity or inadequacy, we are limiting the scope of people welcome in the process of making a difference, and we will be left again with the feeling that conversations are going nowhere.