Political Solidarity

5. The Paradox of the Participation of the Privileged

F IVE The Paradox of the Participation of the Privileged As we have seen, the solidary group is somewhat fluid; perhaps we might even call it disorganized. Formal decision-making structures generally do not exist, though, of course, factions within solidarity may organize and establish formal structures and procedures. The women’s movement for liberation is a very useful example in this regard. The social movement is quite amorphous , but within the political solidarity of social activists opposing sexist structures, institutions, and practices, there are subgroups or organizations. While it would be difficult to attribute a particular decision-making procedure or power structure to the entire solidary group, it is possible to describe the procedures and structures of many of the subgroups. So what, if anything, can we say about the decision-making within­ solidarity? Is it possible to call it, for example, a form of deliberative or practical ­democracy? Are there leaders? Do some people have more authority or authenticity as decision-makers than others? Does each participant contribute to the decision-making and the activity of political solidarity in the same way? In approaching these questions, it is helpful first to examine some of their constituent parts. The last chapter looked at many of the issues regarding the collective that we are calling the solidary group and ended with some discussion of decision-making. In this chapter I continue this thread by first examining the issue of equality within solidarity. As we saw in Chapter 3, solidarity requires mutuality, which presumes a sort of equality. But, as I will show, equality in political ­solidarity is quite different from equality within other forms of solidarity, deliberative democracy, or classical liberalism, though 152 Political Solidarity that does not preclude the use of deliberative democracy within solidarity’s structures. The second major question of the chapter examines the desirability of participation of non-oppressed and privileged with the oppressed in solidary groups. I raise a number of problems and highlight what Simone de Beauvoir would call the ambiguity of their participation. In particular this section cautions against the imposition of dominant modes of behavior and ­decision-making, thereby leaving unchallenged some oppressive practices. For example, the mere presence of an individual from a privileged or dominant social group may keep individuals from traditionally oppressed social groups from acknowledging or voicing their thoughts. The oppressive structures may run very deep. Many feminist theorists and postcolonial theorists have noted the debilitating impact of structures of language and thought, and I draw on their insights to explore the ambiguity that arises from the participation of the privileged. Often, the participation of former oppressors or of people clearly privileged by a form of oppression or injustice in the movement or movements to end that oppression takes a paradoxical form. The social movement to end oppression tries to go very deep to root out or challenge seemingly entrenched systems. Those individuals who are not subject to oppressive systems but instead benefit from them may be unaware of the myriad ways the structure of systemic oppression privileges them. They may even wish to draw on their privilege as they simultaneously recognize the need to end oppression in its other manifestations . But in order for participation to be authentic, as we shall see, it is necessary to challenge all manifestations of an oppressive structure, including the privilege that might otherwise provide power within social settings. ­Notice, however, that that does not necessarily mean abandoning all of the power that comes from privilege. Ultimately, I argue that it is not only ­desirable but, depending on the specific nature of the movement, may even be necessary for non-oppressed, former oppressors, and members of privileged groups to participate in political solidarity. Some of the power enjoyed by former oppressors or those privileged by oppression might be acknowledged and transformed effectively to aid the efforts for social change. The third major theme of the chapter springs from this. I offer some suggestions for what is meant by authentic participation, focusing especially on the epistemological requirements that reinforce moral commitments to solidarity . I suggest a variety of commitments entailed in the initial commitment to political solidarity and a variety of strategies that may be employed to ­ensure 153 The Paradox of the Participation of the Privileged authentic, non-oppressive, non-domineering participation. ­Throughout this last section, I draw extensively on some of the creative work done in feminist epistemology. In...