I like this perspective: what are we for? A lot of times, "what we are for" is a goal that is shared across the aisle in the most general or universal of ways e.g. fairness, freedom, safety, understanding. Describing yourself primarily in anti terms means that your identity is one based on conflict rather than connection or even dialogue…
I like this perspective: what are we for? A lot of times, "what we are for" is a goal that is shared across the aisle in the most general or universal of ways e.g. fairness, freedom, safety, understanding. Describing yourself primarily in anti terms means that your identity is one based on conflict rather than connection or even dialogue. It is living in battle mode, always.
I was recently taught or at least reminded of this lesson in, of all things, my agency's work with a DEI consultant. My colleagues were very eager to immediately rebrand our social services agency as "antiracist" and eventually the consultant pushed back, asking us in so many words "Why is the first thing that you want to do... is to define yourself as 'anti' something? Why not start with what you are for?" The fact that this was coming from a black woman may have been the initial reason that some didn't try to argue the point, and I guess I say that with some cynicism about my colleagues and activists in general. But the point really resonated with me.
Time and time and time again I see that if you define yourself as anti-___ (anti-racist, anti-woke, antidisestablishmentarianism), you end up simply mimicking the behaviors you abhor on the "other side" but in the opposite direction, and justifying it because all that matters is defeating them. No way to run a movement!
I like this perspective: what are we for? A lot of times, "what we are for" is a goal that is shared across the aisle in the most general or universal of ways e.g. fairness, freedom, safety, understanding. Describing yourself primarily in anti terms means that your identity is one based on conflict rather than connection or even dialogue. It is living in battle mode, always.
I was recently taught or at least reminded of this lesson in, of all things, my agency's work with a DEI consultant. My colleagues were very eager to immediately rebrand our social services agency as "antiracist" and eventually the consultant pushed back, asking us in so many words "Why is the first thing that you want to do... is to define yourself as 'anti' something? Why not start with what you are for?" The fact that this was coming from a black woman may have been the initial reason that some didn't try to argue the point, and I guess I say that with some cynicism about my colleagues and activists in general. But the point really resonated with me.
Time and time and time again I see that if you define yourself as anti-___ (anti-racist, anti-woke, antidisestablishmentarianism), you end up simply mimicking the behaviors you abhor on the "other side" but in the opposite direction, and justifying it because all that matters is defeating them. No way to run a movement!