1) Leadership and hierarchy partly cause this
Some activists naturally start to assume an unofficial, but factual and observable position of leadership, being “followed” by hundred or thousand of people online as well as people which ideas and actions can have a varying degrees of influence over users. It appears that shaming and silencing attitudes in online discussions mostly emanates from such people toward others assuming a lesser position of influence in certain groups.
In itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since some people are just better at organizing actions, massively spreading information and ideas and connecting with other people to create projects. But it can have downsides when such people will seek out to obtain power and create factions inside of groups perceived as social structures. Even if we’re sure that most activists don’t realize this fact and don’t fundamentally hold bad intentions, since they are persuaded that such “war of factions” or violent attitudes are for “the good of dolphins and whales”, it in fact holds negative consequences by preventing going forward in our objectives of protection and change, as well as preventing any discussion about certain polemical topics most users consciously realize are a problem : otherwise, they wouldn’t be so reactive and aggressive against the one questioning them !
This also shows the fact that such violent attitudes concern everybody. While I did experience that personally as an activist opposed to sanctuaries and “sea pen” based “rehabs”, such an attitude is a problem which can and does concern any activist with any idea, including one perceived as more controversial or progressive. As a victim one can be tempted to replicate such violence towards others and fall for a vain “war of factions” against certain “leaders” inside of one’s activism, instead of a broader politics of discussion and expansion of ideas whichever the side. Even if one disagrees with others views, everybody should be listened to and their ideas should be discussed reasonably without being downright dismissed as invalid. I personally know people with staunch “pro-captivity” or “pro-whaling” views or who disagree with the notion of cetacean sapiency or personhood who chose to discuss these topics reasonably with different minded activists such as myself instead of ridiculing or violently dismissing them.
To go forward, we recommend this excellent article by the writer Jo Freeman called “the tyranny of structurelessness”, which addresses the subject of “unofficial” leadership and dominative structures in activisms in the context of feminism in the seventies, while foreshadowing a lot of what is currently happening to us in our "pro-cetacean" activism.
2) Expertise shouldn’t be a sledgehammer argument against disagreement
It is often argued that if one isn’t an “expert” on the cetacean topic, then it is of no use discussing these subjects. We as activists strongly disagree with this premise which is often used to avoid addressing certain topics (my views were as such often dismissed by being asked if I was a “marine biologist”). A lot of key matters, for instance topics on cetacean psychology or ethics, are extremely complex and difficult to address with certitude, and as such need to be broadly discussed : it makes poorly sense that somebody, simply because of one’s title or experience, can have an absolute authority on these specific matters, more so because these have strong ethical implications such as legitimating or not inside of our societies such practices as captivity or hunting.
Such an argument is what is commonly called an “authority argument” : one is right because of its purported importance as an individual in our society over a certain topic. Instead, we believe that ideas and knowledge should be discussed in details by activists. This means that if somebody makes a claim, even if this person is a “30 years dolphin expert”, they need to detail it, source it, back it up with facts or theories and be able, and willing, to discuss it with others. Remember this, as this is an issue of prime importance to understand why a lot of commonly heard claims to “silence” or “shame” others for their views are in fact invalid.
This doesn’t mean that “expertise” has to be totally dismissed by activists. Factually certain people do hold a certain experience or extensive knowledge on some matters they studied for years - and it tends to be the case in most users holding a form of influence online, as much of them are activists who campaigned for several years or decades and accumulated a certain amount of knowledge on the topic, or people with a scientific background. But as such everybody should be able to share this knowledge and explain, in detail, why they hold an opinion over another : expertise should be a perk to go forward in ones objectives rather than a portcullis against the questioning or discussion of certain views and practices. One doesn’t have to forget that while science has a certain rigor, it is also subject to constant change and challenging by its practicioners.
3) Activist circles are like microsocieties
It is important to realize that such “leadership” and “shaming attitudes” emerging in circles that are supposed to be havens of peace, love and betterment of one’s ideas isn’t nonsensical. Even if one doesn’t spontaneously realize this, such online groups and network of people naturally work as societies on a lesser scale, with their own implicit rules and structures of domination. All activists naturally fill a working role (mostly signing petitions, sharing articles, participating to "tweetstorms" or events) on a massive scale, while a few, more rare and knowledgeable, write the articles and petitions and generally organize campaigns and groups with other activists of such “importance”. Even if some of us (such as myself) seeks to avoid domination and abuse stemming from it, this stratification is unavoidable. But we can make such a “mass” speak up and more generally go beyond the fear of being “silenced” by activists perceived as more knowledgeable or “important” on cetacean matters.
This problem doesn’t just concern massive “hub” like groups (such as Dolphin way, Taiji Dolphin Action Group or Freedom for Lolita, amongst others) or massively followed activists personal pages, but also tinier groups with more alternative views such as the one I founded, Freedom for all cetians, which creation was prompted by my criticism of “sanctuaries”. In my case, I realized over time that most of the people following my page never speaked up and that at least some of them had reticence joining or commenting on much of the conversations I held with some others regular posters because they felt that they weren’t knowledgeable or bright enough to discuss certain topics. Such a realization prompted me to question most of my methods and views on how to be an activist and to find ways to encourage people to freely speak up and show their disagreement while maintaining an atmosphere of self-respect and not falling for the trap of demagogy. It shows the danger of sectarianism and exclusion when certain people see themselves as the victims of shunning or as the holders of marginalized views and that change should be a matter of expansion rather than a matter of “who is in my faction or not in the activism”. In other words, in such a context, nothing could have really impeached me to “shun” or “shame” people I consider as being in my “faction” inside of my “group” if they were to contest some of my own views, as if we talked of treason of a leader deciding which positions are official : such an attitude, while tempting (because we see ourselves as the victims of a wider ideology seen as dominant, or in the case of most “leaders” as threatened by the spread of opposed views, while aiming for a bigger ethical objective), is to be overcame and questioned.
4) Activists violence tends to be seen as normal
While circles dedicated to the protection of whales and dolphins could be seen as a places promoting peace, facts tells otherwise. Beyond the views of most people linked to ecology or animal welfare themes generally preaching non violence, verbal and symbolical violence as a general rule are not only widespread within those circles, but widely encouraged and seen as the norm. More broadly, an activist is by definition encouraged to be violent, and this violence is perceived as legitimate or noble if the activist somehow appears as a victim. It’s in the etymology of the word itself : an activist has to “act” before thinking, and is expected to shout, talk loud, “wave fists” and be insistent and provocative. This also has the consequence of dismissing any intellectual talk or the questioning of certain actions as an activist is expected to act rather than think : more generally a certain anti-intellectual discourse tends to be the norm inside of our circles, and people are encouraged to let their emotions take over as if it was a form of emancipation (“No ! Don’t listen to them, shout as loud as you can !” as if it was something noble that had to do with freedom of speech). Thinking for oneself and more generally making the choice of thinking about a problem rather than acting up is ill perceived.
Such expectation of “what an activist should look like”, is unfortunately not just something proper to activists themselves but of nearly everyone, as most people expect activists to look like this and to fill such a role : as such, even well-minded activists seeking dialogue could find themselves confronted to the hostility of people outside of these circles who are regularly confronted with our activism violence and hatred (for instance Faroese natives daily called murderers or bloodthirsty savages or receiving murder threats by activists). An activist with a more temperate or intellectual take on a problem is barely seen as an activist. Of course, this marginalization of people seeking to think and ponder before acting is a form of shaming which is part of the issues we seek to emphasize here.
Keep also in mind that appearing as aggressive tends to legitimate one as a victim. Hatred sells. But shouldn’t we start understanding it as something we should be ashamed of, which only show us as immature and childish rather than “important” or “noble”, and which we’re ought to modify for the sake of the ones we have sworn to protect ?
5) Conclusion ? Don’t fall for violence.
Is is easy to fall for hatred and dogmatism and violently dismiss others views or positions in the name of ones ideas and objectives. It is far more difficult to recognize one can be wrong in one’s attitudes and that going forward in one’s objectives also means to listen and to give the others a possibility to express themselves. I recognize (as a particularly passionate and bad tempered activist) that this is a very hard task to do and that people tend to mix that up with personal issues and experiences. It took me years to fully realize these issues as well as to recognize my wrongs and it is still an ongoing process. Nonetheless, we believe everybody, especially people assuming a position of leadership in these circles, should be aware of these issues and find ways to actively fight them and create another type of activism, more open, peaceful and self-aware.
When I advise you not to fall for violence, I mean it in two ways. One, don’t fall for the other violence, whether mine, this 30 years old expert or that charismatic leaders with a big mouth that writes in cap locks. If you feel you are being silenced or dismissed for your views, if you feel they want to shame you because you disagree with them, speak up. Talk about it. But also find ways to get around the obstacle ! If they want to “shut you up”, insist, continue to ask and talk. Question the dismissive answer. I personally enjoy diverting responses with humor : when I get shamed for the tenth time for my views on sanctuaries by being asked if I “want to dump dolphins in the ocean” I answer with a plain “yes” : this way the user, which expected me to shut up or to give an angry or frustrated answer, will just be so flabbergasted that it will mirror the absurdity of its attitude.
Two, and obviously : don’t fall for your own violence. One can be tempted to replicate the structures of oppression on others, to “shame the shamers” : the bullied doesn’t have to turn into the bullies. This is precisely where one doesn’t have to fall. We have to go beyond the “them” : while there are factually leaders and lurkers, mainstream and marginal views, this problem concerns everybody. When one debates or talks about certain topics or with people seen as the “shamers”, one doesn’t have to replicate the angry attitude : we have to go beyond it, using the diplomacy and reason much of us still lack in their conversations. And of course, all these writings and advice aren’t just for the victims of such attitudes, but also for the people following more "mainstream positions and which are used to angrily dismiss the others, so they can realize their own errors and think about their own responsibility as users. Such a campaign is here to unite rather than divide. All of us are activists which need to think and go beyond our weaknesses and failures for a greater good.
(Updates and corrected 30/10/2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment