Language is important: Why we are moving away from the terms ‘allyship’ and ‘privilege’ in our work
By Dr Muna Abdi
The impact of systemic oppression is that it is all around us. It is part of our social world and we are all affected by it. The casual, insidious attitudes and behaviours that we often do not notice, play a pivotal role in upholding these systems. Even in our attempts to dismantle them, we may find ourselves shaping our thinking (and actions) with tools that have been designed to hold these very systems of oppression in place.
Language shapes how we make sense of our experiences and sets parameters that guide our understanding of what is (and is not) possible. However, language is not fixed, it is dynamic and just as it shapes, it too is shaped.
An integral part of anti-racism work is challenging the taken for granted, and explicitly naming the problem. That problem is White supremacy and we are all affected by it. Those of us who seek to become aware of and challenge this system we have been socialized into, must recognize that our experiences are inherently relational and interconnected.
This post is an individual and organizational commitment to learning, with a recognition that our practice cannot evolve if the frameworks we use do not change.
Moving forward, we will not be centering the terms ‘allyship’ and ‘privilege’ as a starting point in our work. Opting instead for terms such as ‘solidarity’ and ‘structurally enabled/embedded advantage’ to shift us from oppositional framings, towards language that recognizes our interconnected experiences.
When language does not serve us
Over the last few years I have experienced ongoing discomfort with the language that is used in anti-racism work. I fear that in our attempts to name the dynamics of systemic oppression, we have adopted language that holds in place the very hierarchies we seek to dismantle. The terms that particularly concern me are ‘privilege’ and ‘allyship’ because both present a false dichotomy that separates our experiences and shapes them as oppositional. However, despite my discomfort, I am guilty of using both terms (and others that raise similar concerns) both in the training I provide and in my writing. I have justified it as “shared language within the anti-racism community” and “language that allows us to support one another”, even going as far as to say “it’s the closest language we have to what we need to name”, and genuinely believing that.
In my re-reading of Audre Lorde, Paulo Freire and bell hooks, I recognize how the language that I have been using has limited not only my own personal anti-racism journey and consciousness raising, but fundamentally the spaces I create with others to explore and develop praxis. The language we use names our differences in ways that separate us, rather than enabling us to seek spaces for mutual and authentic engagement across difference. Racism as a system was created to sustain a hierarchy, based on socially constructed notions of difference. It is a system that relies on distortion and this distortion impacts behaviour and expectations. We think within this framework, often without realizing, and as a result, recreate these same hierarchies of difference in our activism.
As anti-racists, we must examine the tools we use, and language is a tool.
The framing of ‘allyship’ is problematic for a number of reasons, and these are just some that I have been reflecting on:
The term plays into the false idea that there is a hierarchy of oppression and that we have to ‘show up’ for others before we fight for our own self-interests. Although ‘allyship’ asserts an ongoing need for self-reflection, it does not allow space to examine the distortions that frame and misname our differences.
It is framed to put the moral responsibility on White people to assist people of colour in anti-racist struggles. It positions White people as supporters, with no interests of their own at stake in these struggles. This often means that White people move into anti-racist action through feelings of guilt, obligation or sympathy.
Allyship is shaped and determined by those who are structurally advantaged, and the conditions of engagement often imply that it is optional, aspirational, intellectual, and for personal development, rather than an onus on social/ collective responsibility, with an acknowledgement that our collective wellbeing is interwoven.
Although the term ‘solidarity’ is often referenced within definitions of allyship (and most certainly in the definitions I have used), the language around allyship has unintentionally resulted in a move away from solidarity. Unlike solidarity, which requires us to relinquish power and work through tensions and conflicts, allyship work often risks very little, having only to deal with social discomfort and encouraging introspection as political action.
Allyship work is often done alongside marginalized people; but the dynamics of power in collaborative spaces, often results in marginalized groups carrying the burden of educating, sharing narratives of trauma and holding to account the ‘allies’.
Although ‘privilege’ is helpful for naming the unearned structural advantages some groups have, and in mobilizing some action on an individual level, the term is also problematic, for many of the reasons outlined above, and additionally:
People respond to the term with frustration and agitation. It creates a visceral response and often awakens feelings of guilt, shame and denial that can shut down further conversations. The term names advantage as located at the individual level, and this often poses an affront to the self-concept of an individual who may see the term as accusatory or an indication of a moral flaw. This does not mean choose language to appease those who may be resistant.
It remains fixed on the centrality of Whiteness. The focus becomes ‘what can White people do?’, which inadvertently separates the individual from the system. Privilege often highlights the commodification of racism, which can be a useful starting point to mobilize those who are confronted, but it does not offer a way forward that can be sustained.
It has no origin story. We attach privilege to individuals, without exploring how it has been produced by a system of oppression and is in fact the end manifestation of the way in which that system operates.
Racism as a system constructs us as binarily opposites, but the outcomes it produces create the conditions that legitimize other overlapping and interconnecting behaviours. By positioning us outside of one another’s experiences, and focusing only on the manifestation of oppression at an individual level, we maintain those binary positions and fail in our practice, to understand the intersectional and relational impact of oppressive systems.
We often talk about ‘privilege’ as if it is the cause and not the consequence of oppression. We fail to challenge our thinking that frames the outcome of the system of oppression as the reason for the system of oppression’s existence in the first place. E.g. male advantage is not the reason for Patriarchy.
Change requires change
I want to suggest that we move towards language that allows us to, more honestly, frame what we are seeking to achieve through our praxis. In re-reading bell hooks’ ‘All About Love’, I am reminded that radical change, requires a commitment to a love ethic.
“Embracing love ethic means that we utilize all dimensions of love-- "care, commitment, trust, responsibility, respect and knowledge"-- in our everyday lives.”
― bell hooks, All About Love: New Visions
As human beings we are creatures of connection, but we are having to navigate the world within systems that are designed to disconnect us. Instead of nurturing creative moments and deeper connections, the language and frameworks we work within, position us away from one another and disguise the complexities of our encounters. The irony in our practice is that as much as we strive to work with one another, the chronic disconnection in our language (and thus practice), results in an immobilizing anxiety that ensures that our yearning for connection remains unfulfilled.
Moving forward, I choose to commit to a more loving and honest approach to my anti-racism praxis and embed it into every aspect of our work at MA Education.
Solidarity will be explicitly named and will be framed within a love ethic as defined by hooks. ‘Allyship’ will no longer be centered in our work.
Structurally enabled/embedded advantage will be named in all of its manifestations with an acknowledgement of how it can be located at an individual level. ‘Privilege’ does not capture the complexities of structural advantage and so will no longer be centered in our work as a starting point.
This language shift is important because….
It allows us to name the problem of racism and the distortions that hold it in place
It allows us to build a framework that emphasizes cooperation, compassion and care
It’s easy to stay within the familiar. We are taught to see familiarity as safety and difference as a threat. “Cultures of domination rely on the cultivation of fear to ensure obedience” (hooks, 2000). We stay away from what feels different, not realizing that by staying within a space of fear, we maintain a culture of separation.
If fear upholds structures of domination, then love must be the tool we use to dismantle it.
“Love takes off the masks we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within.”
― James Baldwin
OUR COMMITMENT: Over the next few weeks we will be critically thinking about the language used in all of our learning and promotional materials, and reflecting on how we use language to frame the spaces we hold. Please look out for a follow up post on how we continue to consider how we use language.
I invite you to engage in similar critical reflection and to consider the extent to which language limits or strengthens the relationships and connections your work requires.
WHAT WILL BE YOUR COMMITMENT?
A reminder that impact will always override intention.
“Love is an action, never simply a feeling.”
― bell hooks
These tensions are not new. Here are some resources that have engaged with some of the ideas highlighted in this post:
‘All about Love: New Visions’ by bell hooks
‘Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches’ by Audre Lorde
‘What White People Can Do Next: From Allyship to Coalition’ by Emma Dabiri
‘Notes of a Native Son’ by James Baldwin
‘Art of Loving’ by Erich Fromm
‘Catching History on the Wing: Race, Culture and Globalisation’ by Ambalavaner Sivanandan
‘Care of the Soul’ by Thomas Moore
