Where do I even begin?
I guess with my moments of confusion.
I wish the author would have gone more in depth into the benefits of having "hidden" aspects to publics. I'm coming at this from a fairly ignorant point of view, but to me it makes more sense to be transparent. Transparency and candidness are appealing and persuasive. I understand that publics need a time to form outside the view of the wider public, but in the case of I Witness it seems to me that the public was fairly cohesive. They had been talking about the event with the police among themselves for several months and had told their stories in the book. I will never be able to fully understand why they didn't let the police really have it.
Okay... I can guess: the police would have responded with defensiveness, and the members of the community might not have been met with respect in the outside public. I think I forget that there were possible repercussions outside the realm of the community/police meeting area.
I guess what throws me off about "hidden" aspects to a public is that I don't know what they are and what purpose they serve. Do they bind a community tighter? Are they for the purpose of establishing the message they'll take to the broader public? If so, can it truly be called "hidden?"
I was talking to someone who does Sustained Dialogues at MSU (and I'm going to one now!) and they talked about how they discuss where every person is the group is 'coming from' and try to create a dialogue about issues at the school that are free of prejudice. Is that how we, as white people, should try to approach issues unique to African Americans? Through empathy? Should we then expect the same amount of empathy from them?
I don't think we should expect empathy, but I think that's probably how change will be made. When learning about Native American rhetoric last semester, we studied how the rhetors navigated the realm of requesting change while trying not to piss off the people they were asking to change. They had to concede a lot of their rhetorical power in the interest of keeping their audience (the majority) engaged. Of course, some chose a more direct route, but the rhetors who gained regard and respect were those who tried to relate their experiences to a white person's experiences.
It really sucks that in order to get systematic racism through our thick skulls, the minority needs to diminish their power. Are there alternatives? SOS
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think you've brought up a really important factor here with the idea of empathy. I've been thinking about how a dominant group (or at least a more advantaged group) can aide in social change for another group, and I think that it comes down to empathy. I like to think that most people possess some form of empathy for subordinate groups, but a lot of people don't, and probably never will.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how much issues of prejudice play into public rhetoric. I'm in a Psychology of Prejudice class right now, and it's really helping me conceptualize some of the issues that come about in terms of publics & counterpublics. Anyway, there's an element of prejudice called "passive harm" in which groups don't actively try to take away the liberties of a marginalized group, but don't help either, thus harming the group. So, by standing on the sidelines and not taking some responsibility for social issues, are we harming marginalized groups?
I would argue yes. There's a degree of agency that outside audiences play in social change, and I think that's the ability to respond to a "call to action". How can we actually contribute to change? That's a harder question to answer...
It's been proven that dominant groups who help without listening only cause more harm. It's important for publics to form and norm on their own as they know their issues and needs most intimately. I think that if we want to help, the best we can do is just supporting from the sidelines and letting these counterpublics SHINE. Is that passive harm still?
Delete"... issues unique to African Americans..."
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm the kind of person that doesn't necessarily think, in today's transcultural atmosphere, that there are a lot of issues unique to any one group of people. Even with Kuebrich's article, I kept thinking about how many non-black victims of police brutality are being passed over.
I'm sure it sounds like I'm dismissing the issue being discussed, but you'll have to forgive me if I'd rather see this as part of a bigger picture - one that includes decent cops and Hispanic victims and domestic violence cases that get ignored by the system because the abused "chooses to stay" with the abuser.
So in terms of the "bigger picture" (more specifically, systematic racism), what do we do with the lines we've drawn? How do we focus on respecting our differences if we're too busy enforcing the boundaries? If we blur the lines that separate us, does it introduce a common ground or erase history?
Totally! I like the way you're thinking of this. Without being a member of that group, you can't specifically say that there are no issues unique to that group. I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "what do we do with the lines we've drawn." I guess we try to acknowledge them? I would say we don't enforce the boundaries I guess. Is erasing history a bad thing? Can history be erased?
DeleteI guess "the lines we've drawn" include those that encompass race and gender - the demographic lines that create our intersectionality. After we draw them, we use them as justification for categorizing publics as "group experiences". I've been thinking a lot lately about the differences between celebrating diversity and maintaining racial divides. Is one better than the other? Can we have one without the other?
DeleteI mean, we're all people... but we're people who use statistics to separate ourselves, and sometimes it feels like we're trying to reach toward using those statistics to become 'one people'. It also feels like we're failing. We can't erase income inequality unless we pay everyone very nearly the same; we can't erase our ancestry or lineage unless we refuse to acknowledge it.
Bringing the idea of concession in rhetoric is very important. The Native American example highlights how many of the recent social movements in the United States have tried to relate their struggles to the Majority. Many are quick to write off the behavior of the protestors in Ferguson or Chicago as violent or unnecessary. Unfortunately it is difficult to understand the struggle of Black Americans. The only way to at last try and pass some understanding is through engagement of understanding.
ReplyDeleteTRU. Do you think the protesters in Ferguson or Chicago are trying to appeal to the majority? I feel like they're trying to jar the majority awake rather than appealing to them.
DeleteTRU. Do you think the protesters in Ferguson or Chicago are trying to appeal to the majority? I feel like they're trying to jar the majority awake rather than appealing to them.
DeleteEmily - I think empathy is important too! I think one of the biggest problems is that most people resort to sympathy instead of empathy, which really drives people apart and therefore hinders room for change. Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Evwgu369Jw) is a cool video that discusses sympathy vs empathy on a very minor and casual scale but it gets the point across. Also, I used to be in the class Kristie is in and I agree that passive harm is what most white people are guilty of today. Most white people aren't actively yelling "I'm racist blah blah blah," but by not actively assisting minority groups and by not making it easier for them to succeed, we are hindering their success.
ReplyDelete