What other questions would you ask to assess such narratives for lurking oppressive agendas?
Share them in the comments so we can all learn.
Share it | Send it | Keep it
6 Comments
charlie
on February 16, 2023 at 9:07 pm
So good. Thank you Liz!
Makes me ponder vulnerability further. In talking about vulnerability’s importance, Brene Brown emphasises that vulnerability first requires strong trust. I think people sometimes miss this when reading her work and instead think that she is telling us to all go out and tell everyone about our deepest selves. Cultivating strong trust relies on holding strong boundaries. I love Prentis Hemphill’s definition of a boundary: “the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously”.
Too often, I see people put in situations where they are required to be vulnerable without first having built trust or without their boundaries being respected. They are being made to put others’ needs/interests/curiosity ahead of keeping themselves safe.
It also makes me think about the phenomenon of code-switching (adjusting your behaviour / appearance / language to keep others comfortable and avoid discrimination), particularly among folks from marginalised backgrounds. Putting people in a situation where they have to code-switch completely sucks, but then blaming them for not being “authentic”, is just a double whammy, when it’s quite clearly a really smart survival/coping mechanism.
Obviously, I want us to build a world in which things like code-switching are no longer needed, and where people can safely express their true and full selves, but unfortunately we are still a fair way from that level of social safety and equity. So in the meantime, telling people to “be more authentic” feels like yet another, albeit slightly more veiled, form of oppression (as you so excellently articulate).
Oh wow, great reflections, thanks Charlie. Love that definition of boundaries and yes, code-switching is absolutely protective. The “insisting” on authenticity/vulnerability already indicates the situation/person is probably not safe, as opposed to invitations, options and a consensual pace of connection/relationship development.
Liz, thanks so much for this. I think it’s a really important inquiry and the absence – and sometimes discouragement – of this perspective within ‘authentic’ spaces can be really harmful. I’m so bugged by this!!
Has me thinking about the ways this insistence for authenticity as pre-defined by a very specific and rigid idea of what that means, can play out in counter-cultural spaces, too. One place I notice it is in more white-centric queer community, where the narrative around ‘coming out’ is almost seen as a developmental milestone, and can be very one dimensional. That narrative totally misses the complexity there for queer folk who have diverse racial backgrounds, for example … coming out to asian family vs coming out to white family being totally different experiences, not only to do with different cultural relationships to non hetero relationships & sexuality, but also considering a difference in values around individualism/collectivism. Sometimes not being ‘out’ to family is less to do with internalised shame and more to do with holding others’ perspectives in context, and valuing familial harmony. Though it’d be great for all to be able to be fully self expressed, all the time, in all the ways, it’s also worth considering that sometimes another person’s choice not to express in the exact same way as our cultural idea of what an “out” queer person looks like, has more intentionality to it than common narratives presume.
Bugs me because they’re just totally different experiences, and the internalised pressure to “come out” as per the dominant discourses around that in queer spaces can lead to more shame, self-criticism/judgment, self-wronging etc.
Another one that bugs me(!) is the subtle discouragement around any really thoughtful dialogue exploring issues of identity in counter-cultural authentic relating spaces, as though to speak about identity and difference is to deny the spiritual reality of oneness … and as such ‘isn’t spiritual’. (Which seems pretty dualistic to me, in itself!)
What I notice is that often the relating models these spaces work with hold individuals to a standard of radical self-responsibility – the image of the ‘ideal’ that the individual strives toward is total ownership of their inner feelings, responses to interpersonal interactions, etc. All that can be helpful to some ends, but I’m seeing can be oppressive when the cultural space denies difference on the level of identity and de-contextualises by discouraging a critical analysis through the frame of power/oppression. It’s a lot for an individual to carry on their shoulders – and individuals with marginalised identities carry a heavier load than those with more dominant identities.
I appreciate your questions to help point to and make visible the social dynamic. Another one I’ve heard Kelly Diels (really cool feminist coach for “culture makers”) use is “who gets off the hook?”, which I think is similar to your question “who benefits?”, but has a slightly different angle which has helped me to counter the western thinking pattern that can have me overly focus on the individual and zoom out instead to the interpersonal/collective/cultural dynamic.
Anyway this post really resonated in a great way for me, and apparently there’s a lot that bugs me about “authenticity narratives”, so you’ve given me a lot of food for thought. As well as the space to get some of my thoughts into words. Thank you!
Oh awesome Elissa, thanks for taking the time to share this – I just learnt a lot reading this! Yes, most sub-cultural/sub-altern spaces in the dominant culture are still ‘organised’ by patterns of domination and miss cultural and intersectional realities. I do see this changing in a few places, or at least, early realisations that they need to work on this!
And yes, who is defining what ‘spiritual’ and ‘radical self-responsibility’ is in these spaces? Generally white, middle-class folks who not yet grappling adequately with their role in perpetuating oppression and reaping the benefits of it. Incredible given the amazing work that is around, connecting the deep suffering of social marginality and oppression with deep spiritual paths.
Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman comes to mind – published a long time ago but still very relevant I think, and beautifully written. The first chapter starts: “Many and varied are the interpretations dealing with the teachings and life of Jesus of Nazareth. But few of these interpretations deal with what the teachings and the life of Jesus have to say to those who stand, at a moment in human history, with their backs against the wall.”
Love that question “who gets off the hook?”
This reminds me of the conversation about unmasking that is currently very alive in the neurodiverse community. There is a tendency (and I fall into this all the time!) to assign moral value or celebrate neurodivergent people who unmask as a signal of growth or even evidence of being a ‘good’ or ‘more activist’ neurodivergent person, and sometimes marginalize (either intentionally or unintentionally) neurodivergent folks who are not ‘out’ or who choose to keep their masking behaviours because it is safer for them. The assumption that being ‘out’ (like in the queer community, as elissa points out above) is a sign of a higher developmental milestones is what bugs me!
Oh yep. I do love the irony though, that judging someone as ‘developmentally inferior’ in this way is a sign of a need for ‘development’ in the judge. AND, I think the reason why this happens in sub-cultures/subaltern spaces is not just because of pervasive patterns of domination in the way we relate, but also because the process of liberation is so strongly defined by the mainstream/oppressor role, that the need to exceptionalism, polarise and position oneself in extremes seems necessary to make any progress.
So good. Thank you Liz!
Makes me ponder vulnerability further. In talking about vulnerability’s importance, Brene Brown emphasises that vulnerability first requires strong trust. I think people sometimes miss this when reading her work and instead think that she is telling us to all go out and tell everyone about our deepest selves. Cultivating strong trust relies on holding strong boundaries. I love Prentis Hemphill’s definition of a boundary: “the distance at which I can love you and me simultaneously”.
Too often, I see people put in situations where they are required to be vulnerable without first having built trust or without their boundaries being respected. They are being made to put others’ needs/interests/curiosity ahead of keeping themselves safe.
It also makes me think about the phenomenon of code-switching (adjusting your behaviour / appearance / language to keep others comfortable and avoid discrimination), particularly among folks from marginalised backgrounds. Putting people in a situation where they have to code-switch completely sucks, but then blaming them for not being “authentic”, is just a double whammy, when it’s quite clearly a really smart survival/coping mechanism.
Obviously, I want us to build a world in which things like code-switching are no longer needed, and where people can safely express their true and full selves, but unfortunately we are still a fair way from that level of social safety and equity. So in the meantime, telling people to “be more authentic” feels like yet another, albeit slightly more veiled, form of oppression (as you so excellently articulate).
Oh wow, great reflections, thanks Charlie. Love that definition of boundaries and yes, code-switching is absolutely protective. The “insisting” on authenticity/vulnerability already indicates the situation/person is probably not safe, as opposed to invitations, options and a consensual pace of connection/relationship development.
Liz, thanks so much for this. I think it’s a really important inquiry and the absence – and sometimes discouragement – of this perspective within ‘authentic’ spaces can be really harmful. I’m so bugged by this!!
Has me thinking about the ways this insistence for authenticity as pre-defined by a very specific and rigid idea of what that means, can play out in counter-cultural spaces, too. One place I notice it is in more white-centric queer community, where the narrative around ‘coming out’ is almost seen as a developmental milestone, and can be very one dimensional. That narrative totally misses the complexity there for queer folk who have diverse racial backgrounds, for example … coming out to asian family vs coming out to white family being totally different experiences, not only to do with different cultural relationships to non hetero relationships & sexuality, but also considering a difference in values around individualism/collectivism. Sometimes not being ‘out’ to family is less to do with internalised shame and more to do with holding others’ perspectives in context, and valuing familial harmony. Though it’d be great for all to be able to be fully self expressed, all the time, in all the ways, it’s also worth considering that sometimes another person’s choice not to express in the exact same way as our cultural idea of what an “out” queer person looks like, has more intentionality to it than common narratives presume.
Bugs me because they’re just totally different experiences, and the internalised pressure to “come out” as per the dominant discourses around that in queer spaces can lead to more shame, self-criticism/judgment, self-wronging etc.
Another one that bugs me(!) is the subtle discouragement around any really thoughtful dialogue exploring issues of identity in counter-cultural authentic relating spaces, as though to speak about identity and difference is to deny the spiritual reality of oneness … and as such ‘isn’t spiritual’. (Which seems pretty dualistic to me, in itself!)
What I notice is that often the relating models these spaces work with hold individuals to a standard of radical self-responsibility – the image of the ‘ideal’ that the individual strives toward is total ownership of their inner feelings, responses to interpersonal interactions, etc. All that can be helpful to some ends, but I’m seeing can be oppressive when the cultural space denies difference on the level of identity and de-contextualises by discouraging a critical analysis through the frame of power/oppression. It’s a lot for an individual to carry on their shoulders – and individuals with marginalised identities carry a heavier load than those with more dominant identities.
I appreciate your questions to help point to and make visible the social dynamic. Another one I’ve heard Kelly Diels (really cool feminist coach for “culture makers”) use is “who gets off the hook?”, which I think is similar to your question “who benefits?”, but has a slightly different angle which has helped me to counter the western thinking pattern that can have me overly focus on the individual and zoom out instead to the interpersonal/collective/cultural dynamic.
Anyway this post really resonated in a great way for me, and apparently there’s a lot that bugs me about “authenticity narratives”, so you’ve given me a lot of food for thought. As well as the space to get some of my thoughts into words. Thank you!
Oh awesome Elissa, thanks for taking the time to share this – I just learnt a lot reading this! Yes, most sub-cultural/sub-altern spaces in the dominant culture are still ‘organised’ by patterns of domination and miss cultural and intersectional realities. I do see this changing in a few places, or at least, early realisations that they need to work on this!
And yes, who is defining what ‘spiritual’ and ‘radical self-responsibility’ is in these spaces? Generally white, middle-class folks who not yet grappling adequately with their role in perpetuating oppression and reaping the benefits of it. Incredible given the amazing work that is around, connecting the deep suffering of social marginality and oppression with deep spiritual paths.
Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman comes to mind – published a long time ago but still very relevant I think, and beautifully written. The first chapter starts: “Many and varied are the interpretations dealing with the teachings and life of Jesus of Nazareth. But few of these interpretations deal with what the teachings and the life of Jesus have to say to those who stand, at a moment in human history, with their backs against the wall.”
Love that question “who gets off the hook?”
This reminds me of the conversation about unmasking that is currently very alive in the neurodiverse community. There is a tendency (and I fall into this all the time!) to assign moral value or celebrate neurodivergent people who unmask as a signal of growth or even evidence of being a ‘good’ or ‘more activist’ neurodivergent person, and sometimes marginalize (either intentionally or unintentionally) neurodivergent folks who are not ‘out’ or who choose to keep their masking behaviours because it is safer for them. The assumption that being ‘out’ (like in the queer community, as elissa points out above) is a sign of a higher developmental milestones is what bugs me!
Oh yep. I do love the irony though, that judging someone as ‘developmentally inferior’ in this way is a sign of a need for ‘development’ in the judge. AND, I think the reason why this happens in sub-cultures/subaltern spaces is not just because of pervasive patterns of domination in the way we relate, but also because the process of liberation is so strongly defined by the mainstream/oppressor role, that the need to exceptionalism, polarise and position oneself in extremes seems necessary to make any progress.