Headline keywords translated for those feeling sensitive about it:
"People"=not singular individuals/groups of; a selection of individuals that can be representative of a majority.
"across the socioeconomic spectrum" = not all people in each portion of the socioeconomic specturm, but people across the socioeconomic spectrum
In the US, racism often has a nuanced meaning beyond overt discrimination on white vs. black. Typically it's also about systemic benefits and policy in addition to the prejudice it was crafted to impose.
If you're not feeling those alleged benefits--and it's not because you question whether you'll get attacked or shot for wearing a mask to the store at this time, or if your name and way of speaking isn't reason for getting turned down for a job interview--it's probably because you're experiencing the legacy of racist policies that now apply to whole classes of people.
Folks who've been born into wealthy families like Betsy DeVos, the Koch Brothers, or the current US President and his children have no concept of what it's like to be among sweatshop employees who still get paid about 8 cents per garment in LA as of 2015 for companies like American Apparel; or to be tomato field workers get paid about $0.50 per field basket (which is about half of what they got paid in the 1950s if you adjust for inflation).
But at the same time, neither do middle class families and some low income families who believe/d if they simply work hard and smart it would solve poverty--or that because no one helped them, other people shouldn't get help either.
In a lot of cases I think there probably was a point in time that those assumptions came to be after they "survived and made it"-- and wasn't just because they wouldn't take time to imagine or learn from other people in extreme struggle.
It's more likely because they're so occupied with trying to make ends meet that it's hard to connect and their communities don't necessarily value or support each other the way poor and other cultures tend to rely on each other--so they couldn't imagine or see other ways that people struggle because of what the surviving in the economy seems to require from their lives.
Most of the people working the field and sweatshop jobs are stuck in very clear wage slavery due to policies that were set during the post-Civil War "Reconstruction Era".
But the fact that most people will deeply struggle to make ends meet and need to turn to unemployment benefits if the pandemic affects their lives in the wrong way says a lot about how most of us are actually stuck playing someone else's game.
It's easy to demand better work. It's challenging for others to meet that demand. Likewise, it's easy to demand social justice. It's challenging for others who might not know what social justice means to you, and what it looks like when they're doing it right.
Herein stands my claim that guidelines are easier to use than demands, less confrontational, and more likely to see action earlier on.
What might guidelines for social justice look like?
How might we implement and integrate them into our businesses and institutions?
I can guess the UN and human rights organizations have plenty of declarations. Those can provide the desired "whats." What we need most today however, are clear "hows" put into action and exercised on an operational basis.
Organizations which champion those guidelines can also share a certification--it's certainly something worth taking pride in.
Of course, we have every right to demand dignity and respect from ourselves and one another.
I think people (especially the author of this "article") confuse buzzwords with "fuzzy concepts"--ideas or words that can mean a lot of things depending on who you are and what you know. But here's the good news: when you hold the people slinging these "buzzwords"--which may actually represent something transformative and invigorating or simply reflect superficial frenzied hype in our communication--accountable through intentional dialogue (yes, another "buzzword"), eventually you'll find common ground. That's the whole issue with sustainability: people say "we want a sustainable future" and don't actually want things to continue as they do. They want something better. I champion (another buzzword?) for comprehensive sustainability--which means it coheres social well-being along with prudent economic action and environmental integrity. Many people might assume sustainability means installing twirly CFL light bulbs to end anthropocentric climate change and recycling to solve all our other environmental challenges. It's a "wicked problem" or "wicked process".
People seem take issue with not seeing the words he uses in the way that the community of foundations and community investment institutions do, but I suspect that's why he talks about dialogue and participation--so that everyone can find common ground and language to move together with. Pardon the contrary opinion, but I think Jason's statement is probably the most respectful approach to action: to explicitly declare actions beyond seeking participation and dialogue would be arrogant--he'd have to impose initiatives and look like he's doing so on behalf of Detroit. If people's participation and involvement are there, it's a bit simpler, but looking at his work, I think he recognizes that lasting change requires an inclusive co-creative approach. At this point figuring out sound actions probably matter more than imposing grand statements and agendae. For those whom the statements and agendae do matter, he's opened the door to discuss it and establish some degree of trust with them. That makes a lot of sense for the wicked problem/risk governance/democratic/restorative practice processes I've come across.
I've never met the guy in person, nor do I know his tendencies beyond the few items of information I've seen so far. That said, I don't think anyone's in a position to judge an individual in such a context. Have we had the opportunity to meet and maintain some degree of meaningful dialogue with the guy? Very few of us can say so. In sustaining our relationship with the person, is it possible and can we know whether our interactions have shifted their character and ideas over the course of a few years? People can change. Can you help highlight better paths for them to engage?
Yes, and for the sake of where and how we all live, I hope you'll strive to do so. Let's dialogue?
(buzzword? I think not, link goes to a thoughtful definition posed by the Public Conversations Project.)
Friday, April 12, 2013
Last week I briefly attended an event held at the N'Namdi gallery by artist ____ fleur, who discussed how the future of Detroit's aesthetic will likely move from a grungy/gritty presentation to something brilliant and colorful--she pointed to traditional African aesthetics, and even the diversity of existing architecture in Detroit. I used to think about parallels between abuse and the Detroit aesthetic--its music, a lot of its art, the stories in the news. There's something about some people who experienced deep and sustained harms where we find an attitude that's a mix of resilience and a weary-worn frankness. Sometimes, an element of guarded shame stands as a likely possibility. It's often comfortable to recognize it. You know you're at peace in their company but there's a certain darkness to how they live--unanswered or seldom explored questions remain like mysterious gashes: no one can tell whether they're still wounds to be healed or closed scars, and we've either developed habits for moving in ways that don't aggravate them, or are too afraid to move any further. Knowing that a lot of media and negative imagery already exists for both, I never expressed it to anyone before.
However, I happen to know several people who endured sustained abuse, sometimes terrifying in its truest sense, who can embody the most vibrant aspects of life. They often define what's possible for living in a better world, or demonstrate how to carry on by living amid its realities. In spite of misfortune, they continue, we live well. I also had the privilege to know so many brilliant people who know Detroit as their home do brilliant things. Their actions and the communities they create exist as the tinder and fuel aflame--the growing feathers of a phoenix--through which the city finds itself amid its ashes. While I've been through gunshots on the East side, I've also been to the Alkebu-Lan Village which soon celebrates a 35 years of exceptional karate in Detroit and sustained community enrichment that's drawn the attention and admiration of companies known for their mid-town investment presence like Quicken Loans.
Going back to the idea of parallels in mental illness and community: In a lot of ways, the negative media and identity stigma that many Detroiters loath mirrors the same imposition of identity a person undergoing mental health challenges meets when labeled with a certain disorder/illness. Identity becomes objectified by another, opportunity for change is denied in the reality constructed by those who impose/accept it as such.
"Today
there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either
nonviolence or nonexistence." -Dr. Martin Luther King
"It
springs rather from my conviction that, if our civilization is to survive, we
must break with the habit of deference to great men." - Karl Popper
I
think Dr. Martin Luther King Day (which I learned is not his birthday! That happened January
15th) is an appropriate opportunity to reflect upon and reinvigorate our
commitment to the timeless legacy and vision of justice exemplified by Dr. King instead of giving deference to him as an idol of noble
aspirations. More than that, I think we foremost
benefit from recognizing our ability to empower ourselves and each other (all
people, of course not just men). Another quote, this time from the living Bill Moyers, shares this belief that action is up to you: “What we need
to match the science of human health is what the ancient Israelites called
‘hocma’—the science of the heart. . . the capacity to see. . . to feel. . . and
then to act. . . as if the future depended on you. Believe me, it does.”
In
that regard, all of us are capable of discovering greatness in ourselves and
one another. Among their
accomplishments, civil rights proponents like King succeeded in empowering
people by promoting awareness and opportunity to engage in justice through
democracy with disciplined planning and steadfast implementation. I recently met the Reverend Dr. James Lawson, who worked closely
with Dr. King, in the autumn of 2012 after he gave a speech about non-violence. By miraculous coincidence, I met him one day after I tasted the gunpowder from a gunshot meant
to kill a person less than 8 feet away.
At first blush, non-violence can seem like a
fairly simple, even vague if not hollow, term. If someone draws a gun with malicious intent,
what other choices do we have? Guns,
much like nuclear weapons, can almost guarantee mutual destruction. Yet if we ask why one would draw a
gun to potentially kill extended family, or even carry one in the first place, the answer had to revolve around personal security and insecurity when you boil the situation down it to its essence.
Security is a sophisticated need. It’s inherently dependent upon complex
systems which are beyond the full control of an individual. Even one’s perception can skew our judgment of
an already shifting reality.
I
suspect an answer to dealing with potentially absolute violence lies in
interventions that meet the following condition: overcome our human tendency to
engage in rules that necessitate the reciprocal escalation of powers. Undermine or reshape the entire premise of
our value system for fighting—the “rules of the game”—by changing the
perceptions and paradigms which shape how and why we think about combative
engagement in the first place.
People
are complex; fortunately, science helps us find ways to effectively work with
complexity, including social codes and personal beliefs. Complex systems scientists recognize tangible
behaviors as necessary for persuading peoples’ values, paradigms and
worldviews (see the list of 12 leverage
points for intervening in a complex system here: http://www.sustainer.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf
). When appropriate, non-violence may
need to employ the use of non-lethal protective use of force
(check out Marshall Rosenberg's well-earned wisdom: http://youtu.be/21g1S7stoQI
), but no matter what, non-violence is exercised without malice in our actions. The way we communicate ideas, or even
notions, in language (can we speak without engaging in abuse or instigating
escalation?) usually becomes the first symptom for a potential intervention. To astute observers, it may be expressed visually in our physical posturing
and gestures (can you assert your presence without resorting to making it
threatening to others?) as well, and of course in how we physically interact with one
another (can you embrace and redirect a person's attack rather than impose force onto them? That's what the martial art Aikido focuses on).
Adding Popper’s contention about the notion of
“great men”, I gleaned another note for non-violence from Dr. Lawson: Non-violence operates via empowerment as its primary principle. “Non-violence
is premised on the idea that all people have power to act beyond the influence
of their circumstance.” But in this, there's a
challenge: unlike violence, which can quickly and easily interfere with the
integrity of an ideal like peace, trust, or love, non-violence requires
discipline, careful planning, and patient dedication.
We must act from a hope to overcome, we must plan to overcome.
Which leads us to another nuance of non-violence from Reverend Lawson: “Non-violence is the moral
equivalent to war. It requires
organization and discipline.” Consider the planning and commitment
that went into what we now see as watershed events: Coordinated planning took place for the
sit-ins from 1959-1964. The Montgomery
Bus Boycott officially began on December 1st of 1955, some of us heard that in
the history books or on television programs, but few of us realize the tenacity
of the cause: the boycott was sustained for over a year—381 days.
An ideal is a lot like other life-processes: education, communication and the arts, design, even ethics.
All of these activities involve intentions, actions, and consequences.
Among seasoned practitioners like Reverend Lawson, the term "non-violence" actually isn't representative of what people really strive for. Non-anything implies reaction and work that runs directly against something. If anything, I suspect people really strive to love--create it and do it. It's a noun, but most importantly a verb.
Love exists as a plausible ideal. We may bear compassionate and loving intentions. Caring actions may manifest loving intentions, and perhaps the desired consequence of compassion and love creates a legacy that reaffirms the intention and fosters more love.
Yet as an ideal, it becomes so expansive to act upon that many find--and take--temptation in believing ideals cannot happen in reality. Furthermore, it's possible, potentially even reasonable [using the word in a very strict sense, link goes to various definitions] though never justifiable, that a person can love the person whom they abuse. Their intentions may be true, but the actions they know or choose to express care through compromise the dignity and autonomy of another being.
This remains the challenge of Dr. King and many other notable living visionaries of our time: to truly validate worthy ideals such as peace, justice, and love all three aspects of the ideal must be good and present. That takes visionary planning to manifest dreams from ideal to real. When society-shaping, you need to do so with people, not just on behalf of them, and certainly not independent of them.
Keep it up, we shall overcome someday, but let’s discover the someday together, every day in our actions with one another.
. . .
Notes about music in the video above:
Minor variations and improvisations on the Civil Rights song "We Shall Overcome" recorded in the University of Michigan-Dearborn Wellness Center on January 21st 2013.
A few weeks ago I played it spur of the moment and it was a profound rendition if I say so myself, but I don't remember what I did and I didn't have anything to record it with at the time. There's some irony to the notion of playing a social justice song, solo, to no one but yourself on MLK day. I was somewhat disappointed that I missed a few opportunities including a symposium on social justice that day, so as I practiced other tunes, I decided to give the song another try in observation of the day as well.
I suspect playing a song used for civil rights alone doesn't quite contribute to making the dream manifest, but hopefully sharing it here might be worth your while. I'm drawing memory from a rendition I heard on a cd by Peter Paul and Mary when I was in second grade-fifth grade, and hadn't really prepared my playing as much as I now think I should have. Ongoing process...
How frequently do we contemplate what we find sacred among each other? Does the notion of "sacred" need to be reserved to a religious deity? At what point do we treat events in our lives and gatherings with one another as sacred encounters?
Considering life as an ongoing process, I imagine the life and death of an individual or community alike are sacred. One can find sublime mystery in the reality of our existence, if we look or perhaps listen carefully enough. In this photo, I played a then-incomplete tune of mine called "Lament of the Virtues" for the 2007 Virginia Tech Vigil (photo credit to the Dearborn Press and Guide). I used this photo as my profile picture on September 11th too because to me, they categorically reflect the same kind of problem: Some of the perpetrators who caused harm did so with fervor probably because they believed they had good reason to do so and a sense of greater purpose. But by acting in isolation or with people of similarly narrow interests, did they really know what they were doing?
Lament of The Virtues is a sacred piece. It's a call for sustained ethical action that starts and ends in the silence beyond the music:
Traumatic and tragic events can consume our reality, but if you're fortunate to survive, there's more to life than crisis—as far as I can tell, do your best to mindfully acknowledge their significance and keep moving.
There comes a point when one grapples with conflicting virtues. Strive to be good and righteous, but what happens when all your choices for ethical action compromise other ethical values of equal significance—which value inflicts the least harm? We’re forced to triage. These proximal problems yield no completely satisfying resolve. Complex as they are, hot-button political issues in the media like war, abortion, euthanasia, and almost anything else I can think of that leads to vehement entrenchment are proximal problems on a societal scale. Murders and massacres perpetrated by individuals reflect proximal problems on an individual level.
I believe these problems are a symptom of something bigger. Complex systems scientists might refer to them as part of a “wicked problem”—they’re integral to a system that’s challenging to define, and the system changes in ways that escape definition and perception as you interact with it.
The best solution to them emerges through prevention. At the least, reliable crisis prevention necessitates thoughtfully informed, authentically understood, creative, compassionate, and constructive vision and action. I suspect glimpses of love and joy emerge from an environment of this sort--it's a fleeting visionary ideal for living in a way that embraces the spectre of death and defies terrorism. In any event, to make that happen with some measurable impact, you must bring your best to every day and act upon the opportunities that matter. Somewhere between your individual actions and those of other people through community cognizance, making that vision a more tangible reality is possible. That's the quiet pause between each pulse: it's the silence between the music.
[Edit August 2013: I've linked to a guide I created for embracing/navigating complex systems and wicked problems based on my research on complex systems and risk governance between 2012 to early 2013.]
