Head on a Swivel: You Can Pay Attention to the President and Vote

Why can't we pay attention to what the president of the United States of America says regarding the constitution AND vote?

I have seen too many people say to ignore Mr. Trump's promise to end birthright citizenship and go vote. I do not see why the two should be considered mutually exclusive.

Mr. Trump is the Head of State, Head of Government, Commander and Chief, and the de facto leader of his party. He is important, to say the least. What he says matters. People listen to him and act upon what he says.

We know from the past that Mr. Trump has not handled the writing of Executive Order well enough to do what he claims he intends for them to do, but perhaps he is more able and learned than some give him credit.

I am not sure where people get the idea that the three branches of government are "coequal." I know it is not a Lockean idea; and honestly, I see it as self-evident that where there is privilege, there is superiority. Hopefully, if it comes to be, the Supreme Court will interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as it is plainly written, but conservatives are clever gaslight-ers and have no shame in judicial activism when it suits them. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump reveres President Andrew Jackson, who is reported to have said after the decision of Worcester v. Georgia, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

I listen to Ezra Klein's podcast on occasion and he sometimes likes to remind his listeners that this time is neither the 1960s nor the 1860s. I am not wholly convinced we will make it to 2060, given the current path we are on, and it does not take much to start a constitutional crisis.

Even if our institutions and the people who serve in them hold strong, as I hope they will, these things take time to settle and only the Lord knows what will happen if and as we go through the midst of it. Whatever you are feeling right now, your emotions are valid and you have a right to express them.

In conclusion, midterm elections are in some ways a referendum on the president, though he is not on any ballot. I hope that those who can will exercise their right to vote with the intentions of perfecting our union and not destroying it.

The Peculiar History of African-Americans

"It is our duty to fight for our freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains." - Assata Shakur

Legitimate government draws its power from the consent of the governed. Our country was founded on that principle. Our country was also founded on the idea that the bonds that unite citizens are not eternal, and that if government is ever destructive to its ends, the people may revoke their consent and revolt against their government. John Locke writes that citizens unite for  "the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates." He puts emphasis on the word "preservation," but "mutual" is the operative word. The social contract in America is failing black people in regards to fulfillment of this purpose. They do not live as long as their counterparts and are more likely to die at the hands of the state, they are more likely to be imprisoned, and more likely to live in poverty. Why then should they consent to be governed in a country that has systematically oppressed them?

In his treatise on The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau quips that "man is born free and everywhere he is in chains." In the state of nature, a priori to civil government, people exist in a state of perfect freedom and equality. In it, one is free to do as he wishes, so long as he does not violate the law of nature: the golden rule which is self-evident to people across cultures. Each person is equal in jurisdiction and dominion. Locke writes that "every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature."

While the state of nature is one of liberty and equality, it is not a state of security. Though Locke differentiates the state of nature from the state of war, unlike Thomas Hobbes who calls the state of nature a war of all against all, Locke admits that each cannot enjoy the freedom and power one has in the state of nature for they are "constantly exposed to the invasion of others." For the protection of their property, people come together to form governments in want of three things:

1. "an established, settled, known law"
2. "a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law"
3. "power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution."

Subsequently, each gives up their perfect freedom to do whatever they wants for his preservation and satisfaction, in accordance with the law of nature, to live under the laws of government. In addition, "the power of punishing he wholly gives up," granting the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

I do not write about the state of nature and the social contract to suggest that it was a historically accurate process. Rather, social contract theory should be seen as a thought experiment that determines the legitimacy and purpose of government. Historically, the creation of governments and the relationship between the government and the governed are much messier. For many Americans, their lineage is a story of their ancestors leaving a land of oppression seeking opportunity for themselves and their posterity; whereas, African-Americans have a peculiar history - even within the diaspora - as they were brought here to serve the ends of others and continue to live in the land of their oppression. The history of African-Americans is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the infringement of their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:

They came to America, not by choice but by force, chained together in conditions so decrepit that millions never survived the voyage.

As colonists fought for their right to self-governance, blacks were stripped of their language, history and religion and treated as property whose purpose was to fulfill the desires of their oppressors.

Their very existence contributed to the political clout of their oppressors, as slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes, but given zero-fifths of their God-given rights.

In the Antebellum South, they lived under violence to the worst degree, in order to keep them subjugated.

Their families were split up as fathers, mothers, sons and daughter were sold like cattle, and African-American women were raped by their oppressors.

A new nation was formed, in rebellion, declaring it a lie that all are created equal and that the negro's natural and normal position is slavery. Even after its defeat, monuments to this unnatural and illegitimate cause litter the country.

Upon their emancipation, African-Americans still lived as second class citizens in a separate and unequal conditions while under the threat of extra-judicial lynchings and terrorism.

In disproportionate numbers, African-Americans took up arms to fight for the liberation of others across the globe in two Great Wars, only to come home to their continued subjugation.

They migrated north to escape the lynchings, bombings and demonstrations of the Klu Klux Klan, only to live in inadequate slums and to find a racism of a subtler variety.

When they stood up to demand equality, they were met with violence at the hands of the police and their leaders were assassinated.

After achieving de jure equality, a generation of African-Americans was lost to death, addiction and imprisonment as the government introduced crack cocaine to their ghettos while simultaneously starting a war on drugs.

In today's political climate, one party does everything to prevent African-Americans from voting and attracts the vote of those who hate them, while the other party takes their support in bloc for granted.

African-Americans face housing and job discrimination, are even treated differently than their peers by their doctors, and disproportionately live in sickness and poverty.

And, they are denied due process and equal protection as the police disproportionately kill them with impunity.

Some may say that the election of Barack Obama proves African-Americans "have no more excuses," as if the success of one man washes away the sins of generational and institutionalized racism. However, Barack Obama has his own claim peculiarity. While black people across the globe have had to endure racism and colonialism, President Obama is not the descendant of African-American slavery. The dreams he got from his father are different than the dreams I got from mine.

This is neither a call for revolution nor the dissolution of political bonds between African-Americans and their fellow citizens. Although, precedent shows that doing so is justifiable. The aforementioned grievances are neither light nor transient. However, as President Clinton said in his first inaugural address, "There is nothing wrong with America, that cannot be fixed with what is right in America," but one must question how much longer African-Americans will patiently suffer such a long train of abuses and usurpations. It is their right, it is their duty to fight for their freedom. Like Thomas Jefferson, "Most blessed of the Patriarchs, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just[,] that his justice cannot sleep forever." It is their duty to win. The American government should heed Samuel Adams's advice to Governor Gage and "no longer insult the feelings of an exasperated people." They have nothing to lose but their chains.

Trust the Process: Social Identity Development, Wokeness, and the Allegory of the Cave

During the Summer following my Freshman year, several I got to attend the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education (NCORE) with several other students, and faculty and staff, on behalf of Rollins. I've slept a lot since then, so I don't remember too much of the conference. I do remember learning that Tim Wise was white when he came on stage to deliver the keynote address. I thought for sure the guy who wrote a book defending affirmative action had to be black.* Despite its name, NCORE doesn't only examine race and ethnicity; it looks at social justice as a whole in academia. Before the conference actually started, I sat in a pre-session module on social justice training. I don't remember much from it because, again, I've slept since then. But, I do remember purchasing a book from the instructor on teaching social justice to people from privileged groups. I thought it would be really useful for my next three years at Rollins.

Confession: I never read it. I maybe read like the first couple of pages before forgetting about it. It was like reading a 200 page lit review and quite frankly not something I wanted to read in my spare time.

For years I never read it, until a couple of months ago. The incoming freshmen at Rollins read Ta-Nehisi Coates's book, Between the World and Me, and I was invited to come back and lead a discussion based on the book, my experiences at Rollins, and the work I've been involved in since graduation. Coates was on tour for his new book, and couldn't fit it in his schedule and apparently I was their second choice, probably a lot cheaper too. While I definitely appreciated the opportunity, I don't think I've ever been more nervous to speak in my life. College freshmen, specifically from Rollins, wasn't exactly my number one ideal audience to speak with about social justice. I worried about getting too much resistance and not responding effectively to that resistance. At last, I had finally found the motivation to read the book by Dr. Goodman.

From Promoting Diversity and Social Justice, I learned some tactics to make sure I was well-received and effective. I made a joke at Berkeley's expense to let students know this was a safe place, established goals and tied them in to the school's mission, and taught them some rhetorical and style tricks that would help them in writing and speaking in academia. In retrospect, I wish I had been more proactive in making the discussion more interactive and involving the students, since it was supposed to be a discussion. Overall though, I'd give myself a solid B/C+ and I owe that in part to Dr. Goodman's book.

One idea I gleaned from the book useful in social justice training and applicable to political organizing is that of social identity development. This theory advanced by Rita Hardiman and Bailey W. Jackson in their chapter in Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook, posits that social identities develop through five stages.

In the first stage, people are naive or have no social consciousness in regards to identity, privilege and oppression. Hardiman and Jackson reserve this stage largely for children, and as they grow more aware of the world they move into the acceptance stage, which can be sub-classified as either passive or active. In passive acceptance, people may simply accept the world for what it is without giving it much thought, whereas people in active acceptance might attempt to rationalize and justify people's oppression. Beyond the acceptance stage is resistance, which can also be passive or active. As the name suggests, "the resistance stage is one of increased awareness of the existence of oppression and its impact on agents and targets," and is characterized by increased hostility towards norms, behaviors, and beliefs that uphold systems of oppression. For some, resistance might appear as the logical final stage of social identity theory. However, people move from the resistance stage into redefinition when they focus "on creating an identity that is independent of an oppressive system based on hierarchical superiority and inferiority." Still not done, people move into the internalization stage where "the main task is to incorporate the identity developed in the redefinition stage into all aspects of everyday life."

It is important to note that while these stages can be neatly defined on paper, in real life, people are much messier. People may be in different stages for different identities, and their behavior may differ if they are part of a privileged or underprivileged group. For example, a white feminist may be in resistance or redefinition in regards to gender oppression, but may be in either passive or active acceptance of racial or class oppression. Also, a person may exhibit signs of multiple stages at the same time.

Hardiman and Jackson go into greater detail than what I've summarized, and their work is worth the read for those interested in social justice training. I want to focus on Dr. Goodman's observation on social justice educators and social identity development theory. Goodman makes some paradoxical points regarding educators in the resistance stage:

"At this stage people often want to help others "see the truth" and to rally support for social change. Thus, they are motivated to be educators. Resistance is probably the most common stage of social identity development of social justice educators and is the most challenging one from which to do work. Someone from a dominant group who is in resistance may glorify people in the oppressed group and excuse their inappropriate behavior, yet have little compassion for people from their own group. They may feel particularly punitive toward those who are in acceptance and lack an understanding of the oppression or a commitment to address it.They may project their own feelings about themselves as a privileged-group member onto others from their group. Because most would prefer to be with people from the oppressed group, they may not want to deal with people from their dominant group, especially if those people are not at a similar stage of consciousness.
"These feelings are likely to be even greater for educators from a subordinate group. They tend to be highly invested in having people 'get it' and may become overly emotionally involved in class discussions or in student outcomes. Such educators will often be perceived as having their own agenda or a chip on their shoulder. They may find it hard not to stereotype or dehumanize people from the privileged group ([e.g.], "those White men") or to value any aspects of the dominant group's culture. It is particularly difficult for educators in active resistance to have patience with the educational process and to maintain respect and empathy for people from the privileged group."

As you can see, Goodman has some harsh criticisms for social justice educators from both privileged and underprivileged groups who are still in the resistance stage. Likewise, she offers caution for people still in the acceptance who she feels are not yet up to the challenge of social justice education.

"Educators who are primarily in acceptance are not ready to be teaching about social justice. They have not yet developed a critical consciousness about power relationships and institutional oppression or the ability to offer more equitable alternatives. People in active acceptance are firmly committed to our present social relations. People in passive acceptance are less aware of how they perpetuate systems of oppression and maintain the supremacy of the privileged group. 'Good liberals' are generally in passive acceptance and might teach about diversity with good intentions. Nevertheless, they will tend to point to individual reasons for inequities and imply that people from the oppressed group should be more like those in the dominant group. Even if this is not the educators' predominate perspective, they may still hold beliefs indicative of this stage. They need to continue to deepen their awareness of this form of oppression and make conscious efforts to check their assumptions about the privileged and oppressed groups. Students in acceptance may feel very comfortable with an instructor who is also at this stage. However, the educator is unable to offer sufficient challenge or contradiction to facilitate the participants' growth and may instead reinforce the status quo. She or he may lose credibility with and frustrate the people who are in resistance or redefinition." (emphasis added)

I don't share Goodman's criticisms to disillusion people from social justice education. Rather, I want to remind people that being woke is a process, and many people are not as woke as they think they are, or at least still have further to go. I also don't want to make it seem like I am writing from some enlightened or elevated state. As a black person, I'm concerned with living my best life and not defining myself through neither a racist nor anti-racist lens. However, in other areas, especially where I have privilege, I still need to get better. Although I co-sponsored legislation to attempt to have some gender-neutral bathroom options on campus and I call trans people by the names and pronouns they wish to be called, I still swipe left on trans women and immediately un-match them when we do accidentally match. This would put me somewhere between resistance and acceptance on trans issues.

In order to move forward in the process, people from dominant groups who are still in acceptance need to develop more empathy for those who are less fortunate, and it would serve them well to examine more carefully why the world is the way it is vis-a-vis systems of oppression. People from marginalized groups still in acceptance need to develop a hope that the-world-as-it-is is not the same as the-world-as-it-should-be and a self-confidence that they can be part of the catalyst to move from the former to the latter.

When people in the resistance stage get frustrated with the pace of "the movement" or others' inability to "get it," they need to remember they were once not as woke as they are now. Perhaps more importantly, they should also realize that whatever worked on them to go from acceptance to resistance might not work as well for another person. While people in resistance have tons of empathy for marginalized people, and some for their allies, they often have little to no empathy for people from advantaged groups. Developing empathy for others, regardless of their status, and even when those people do not share that same empathy for others, will help them move from resistance to a worldview that is not defined by conflict.

In a way, this process reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In The Republic, Socrates describes to Glaucon a group of people living underground in a cave, in order to juxtapose Socrates and Glaucon's disposition in regards to education to the disposition of those who are not educated. In the cave, these people are prisoners, shackled in place and can only look forward. Behind them is a fire which casts shadows on the wall in front of them. The prisoners erroneously think that these shadows are things themselves as opposed to mere shadows of things, because how could they know anything else? Eventually a prisoner is freed and Socrates explains the discomfort he experiences as he realizes his world was not what it seems. He cannot even bear to look at the fire because he only known the darkness of the shadow it cast.

Eventually, the freed prisoner exits the cave and experiences the almighty power of the sun, to which the fire in the cave pales in comparison. As he adjusts to daylight, he develops a better understanding of the relation between light, objects and shadows. He even develops knowledge of day and night; seasons; and years, things that would mean nothing and be completely unknowable in the cave.


via GIPHY

Preferring his literal enlightenment, and feeling sorry for what counts for knowledge and wisdom in the cave, he returns there to share with the others that which he has learned. Immediately, he finds that he cannot see in the darkness of the cave because he has become adjusted to daylight. Nevertheless, he proceeds to find the other prisoners, before readjusting to the darkness and tell them of what he has seen and learned. Instead of agreeing with him on what is objectively true, he is met with debate, mockery and ridicule. And, because he once could see in the cave and no longer can, the prisoners determine that it is better to remain in the cave and see than to leave the cave and not see. In conclusion of the allegory, Socrates asks Glaucon, "And if they can get hold of this person who takes it in hand to free them from their chains and to lead them up, and if they could kill him, will they not actually kill him?" To which Glaucon, perhaps prophetically, responds, "They certainly will."

If social justice warriors want to experience more success than Socrates, instead of learning more statistics about how oppressive the world is, which helps further their disdain for those who benefit from and maintain systems of oppression, they would be better served by learning more about the art of rhetoric and pedagogy. I realize that rhetoric is largely the study of old white men talking to other old white men. However, it is my experience that tonality, rhetoric and diction matter when one wants to effectively convey a message, as opposed to merely express one's self. In an interview for a sales position, I was asked if I thought I was persuasive. I replied yes, and said that the adviser for the debate team wanted me on it, and I got good grades on papers, and gave speeches, and blah blah blah. I didn't get the job. It wasn't until I actually got some sales experience that I began to understand the difference between argument and persuasion. I was really good at making ironclad logical arguments, and pointing out the errors in other people's arguments. This persuaded people to get pissed off and not want to talk to me.

In conclusion, the story of el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz best ties together social identity development and Plato's cave. Most people probably recognize him by the name "Malcolm X." However, I sometimes think it is as disingenuous to refer to him by that name as it is to call him by his birth name, "Malcolm Little," or "Red," as he was commonly referred to during his street hustler days. He changed his name to Malik when after he was excommunicated from the Nation of Islam, he converted to traditional Sunni Islam, and made his pilgrimage, or Hajj, to the holy city of Mecca. In Mecca, he congregated with Muslims from all over the world and developed a new understanding of race and ethnicity. He returned to America, more open to the idea of integration and began exposing the lies of the Nation of Islam, before he was assassinated by those who were not yet ready for what he had to share. We can think of the boy Malcolm Little as being in the naive stage or of having no consciousness. Red, the criminal, was in the acceptance stage. Malcolm X and most of what he is known for exhibits the resistance stage. Lastly, Malik el-Shabazz was somewhere between redefinition and internalization, before he was tragically taken from us.

Of his criminal past, Malcolm X once said, "To have once been a criminal is no disgrace. To remain a criminal is the disgrace." Likewise, there is no shame in being in whatever stage of social identity development we are in, but we must trust the process and continue to grow. And, we must not shame others for being in whatever stage they are in. Instead, we must continue to be patience and empathic, and continue to exemplify the change we want to see in the world.

If you agree or disagree feel free to leave a comment. Also, be sure to follow so you can get an update whenever I sporadically post a blog. And feel free to share to all your friends and family.

*Picture it: Winter Park, 2010. I'm in a class called "School and Society." It's a sociology course, can count for a gen ed requirement at the time, and is a required course for the education minor I was then, but eventually stopped, seeking. So, people are taking the course for a variety of reasons. In a class of maybe 15 students, there's two other black women, so at Rollins, we're actually over-represented in this classroom. One of the assigned books was Tim Wise's Affirmative Action. As we're going over the book in class, most of, if not all, of the white students proceed to go on about reverse discrimination and affirmative action on campus. Mind you, Rollins explicitly had no affirmative action, and even if it was not explicated on the application, it was self-evident, because there was no fucking black students there. This book is one of the most well-cited books I have ever read and lays bare empirical evidence showing racial discrimination in this country. One kid who was considered a douche by most regardless of the topic, proceeds to tell us that's not how this country is; my father does such and such and says blah blah blah. To which I responded, and I'm paraphrasing a little but not as much as you may think, "Fuck what your father says. Your father pays tens of thousands of dollars for you to go here. The least you could learn is that empirical evidence is greater than your anecdotal experience." He never quite came around, but I was really good at persuading him to shut the fuck up. Nonetheless, because of this experience, I thought for sure the author of Affirmative Action had to be black.