Power Dynamics

I don't like the politics of 'Rich v Poor'. 'The poor' are disempowered, but often those fighting for them do so in a divisive ("Punch Up"), and condescending way. The poor don't need representation by others as much as they need unfair obstacles to be taken out of their way. A lot of what we have, our 'endowment' of talents and social capital, is pure luck. Where we are born. Who our parents are. The random experiences we have, and people we meet. Pitching it as a "Civilising Mission" leads to people offering (their) solutions to situations they themselves have never been in. Rather, from behind a veil of ignorance (i.e. not knowing what the luck of birth will give us), we should want to maximise the minimum resources available to everyone. Then people, and communities, can represent themselves. Power matters, yes. But it isn't a fight, it is a case of seeing the power that already exists, and releasing it.

Familiar Oppression (Rich)

This post is in response to Tim's guest post on Cultural Appropriation. Rich is a friend from university in Cape Town, South Africa who now lives in Sydney, Australia. Rich has written before on Happier Cities and Oozing. His own blog which focuses on sustainability is called 'The Pointy End'.

There is no doubt that cultural appropriation has happened throughout human history. It might not even be such a stretch to say that cultural appropriation is human history. That it has often been painful is probably beyond question. Conquest, migration, language, art…

We white africans are a mish-mash of afro-european weave that carries with it a lot of pain and a lot of extraordinary creativity. Over our shared colonial history there have been brilliant exponents of sensitive appropriation; of putting on the clothes and language of the other to tell better stories, to make better music, to taste better food. That there are creative cross-cultural pioneers that forge a way forward for us; in other words that cultural appropriation can be done right; is self-evident.

But let’s get real.

Most cultural appropriation is not sensitive. Most cultural appropriation is a game that is played by the powerful on those with less agency. It is often an act of taking without permission, without consultation. It is blackface. It is ‘knowing Africa’ after just a visit to Morocco.

A white Dutch woman in a Zwarte Piet costume

There is a social currency, social legitimacy, to familiarity with once-oppressed people. There is a power in being acceptable to the people our ancestors royally fucked over and on whose backs our privilege was built. I think we all leverage this to our advantage.

I think that the authenticity of cultural appropriation is the degree to which it is freely given, rather than taken. Were someone of Zulu heritage to take exception to a son of apartheid using their language, their song, their dance (especially commercially), they would be entirely entitled in that view.

It doesn’t really mean much for the takers of another’s culture to build narratives that support their taking.

Perhaps most importantly, like racism and sexism, it only really works one way on the power spectrum. We know reverse racism is a bullshit concept, because of the history of racial exclusion. We know reverse sexism is a bullshit concept because of the history of women’s exclusion from the workforce and power structures of society.

So too here.

Which makes consultation the cornerstone of authenticity. If you are the current end-game of a powerplay that has caused pain to people, best to engage with them before assuming aspects of their identity and culture.

That cultural appropriation can be done sensitively is not to say that it cannot be done insensitively. Our only hope at understanding the difference is to ask.

And not to take offence if someone calls us out on it.

World We Have

We think in stories, but stories are summaries. The truth is far more complicated. Most politics is a Game of Thrones driven by these summaries. Leaders, parties, ethnicities countries, religions, ideologies and various other groups float above and dip into reality. Reality is made up of relationships. Complex, juicy, emotional, connections between real people who don't know everything there is to know about each other. Relationships which discover. Relationships which change, grow, break, renew, linger, inspire, depress and create the meaning that makes life worth living. 

We shouldn't look to leaders to see what type of world we want. 

We should grow relationships within the type of world we have.

Having Power

Once upon a time when we mostly looked the same, smelt the same, and wanted the same things stories tell us we liked the idea of a King. In a very complicated world which we did not understand, this King would be delivered to us by God to make decisions on our behalf. If we were lucky, we got a Philosopher Warrior Poet Servant King. Good or bad, the King decides.

At the opposite extreme is a world where we all make our own decision. The Governments role is simply to ensure that we are safe and assist with dispute resolution by adjudicating law where decisions clash. Good or bad, you decide.

As tribes have gotten bigger, the difference between the life of the decision maker and the life of each decision receiver has gotten huge. Even if we elect a leader, she is unlikely to be able to represent all our views. We have definitely favoured moving to a world of more liberty. The challenge is what happens when we feel people are making decisions about their health, wealth and happiness which we don't think are in their best interests? We can't believe these decisions are made consciously. Making decisions for people is at best parental, and at worst very condescending. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein suggest the idea of a 'Nudge'. The way decisions are framed or given to us affects us. It is almost impossible to frame things neutrally. If that is true, they argue that choosing to favour the 'better' choice isn't being condescending or parental and benefits society.

An example they give is on opting in and opting out of organ donation. The difference between consent rates in countries which require you to choose to be an organ donor are remarkably lower than those which ask you to choose whether not to be an organ donor. Most of us go with the default. It seems we are making our own decisions, but we are really following the path of least resistance. Even where we 'have the power', those setting the path have a very powerful role. 

Source: Eric Johnson and Daniel Goldstein

Even then, there is more power over future little changes than over the current way we do things. Another powerful idea is the 'save more later' principle. It is well known that people don't save or invest enough. Most live hand to mouth and so never build up enough capital to work for them so they don't have to. It is hard to cut back your spending. With 'Save More Later', you commit to saving a bigger proportion of any increases you receive. You commit in advance. Like saying you will go to gym tomorrow. Like saying you will wake up early tomorrow. We are good at that. Unlike going to gym or waking up, saving more can be a default. You can set up a debit order and the money gets taken off your account immediately as it comes in. Your stronger self can make good decisions for your weaker self.

People have far more power than they think they do in liberal democracies. But it is true that our decisions can be impacted by those who understand how we tick better than we do. Having power is one thing. Knowing you have power and making decisions consciously is another.

Quotes on Power

From Bertrand Russel's `Power'

1. The doctrine of Liberals [...] Men were to be free in so far as their actions did not injure others [...] almost any opinion worth either advocating or combating is sure to affect someone adversely. The right of free speech is nugatory unless it includes the right to say things that may have unpleasant consequences to certain individuals or classes.

2. success should, as far as possible, be the reward of some genuine merit.

3. The State should not regard itself as the guardian of truth in science, metaphysics,
or morals.

4. It is bound up with democracy and the right of discontented communities to autonomy; in a word, with the right to peacefully achieve what would otherwise be achieved by revolution.

5. Quoting Gibbon : `The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people to be equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.'

6. Instead of different newspapers, each devoted to the interests of one party and encouraging the dogmatism of its readers, he will advocate a single newspaper, in which all parties are represented.

7. A man says St Paul, `is the image and glory of God:but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. Neither was man created for woman; but the woman for the man' (I Corinthians xi, 7-9)

8. Monarchy makes social cohesion easy, first, because it is not so difficult to feel loyalty to an individual as to an abstraction.

9. Certified lunatics are shut up because of their proneness to violence when their pretensions are questioned; the uncertified variety are given control of powerful armies; and can inflict death and disaster upon all sane men within their reach.

10. I believe that few men are cruel if they have had a wise early education, have not
lived among scenes of violence, and have not had undue difficulty in finding a carreer.
11. Nothing improves the moral level of a community as much as an increase in wealth, and nothing lowers it so much as a diminution of wealth.