I asked the other day if we could start talking about solidarity; what it means, how you practice it, and what erodes solidarity. Thank you to those who joined that conversation. It felt like a good beginning to an exploration.
One of the topics which popped up a couple of times was the misunderstanding of what I meant by "defer" to someone else, in a given situation. A couple of times, this was directly translated as "obeisance." I'd like to discuss the difference between deference and obeisance, today. They are fundamentally different to me. Internalizing the difference is part of internalizing the value of solidarity.
As this is a post about parsing how words are used, please read the "Author's Note" before plunging in. Thank you.
Author's note on communication and vocabulary
Language can be an imperfect tool of communication. People use words differently. Communication is about sharing information and ideas. Words are building blocks for the shared result. Concepts are more important than vocabulary. If we need to build a shelter together and you come from a place where bricks are used for building, while I come from a place where adobe is used, we aren't going to get a shelter any time soon if we sit around arguing over which material is superior. Building together means letting each other use the materials they are familiar with. Our resulting building will be a combination of brick and adobe. Likely, some fusion or entirely new material will emerge from a shared development in the process of building together. The key is that, in the beginning, I respect that brick makes walls which are serviceable and you accept that adobe does. I watch you build a wall and I see it as a wall even though it's not adobe.
Words are like that. If we want to foster communication, it is important to acknowledge that someone else might use words differently than you do. Respect that they can still impart ideas and that what you are listening for are the ideas. Refusing to hear what the person is actually saying, because you are translating their words into your usage is a barrier to communication. A barrier you are choosing. What do you choose?
Communication relies on trying to receive the concepts or information being imparted. It can be helpful to ask how someone else is using words, if you find yourself struggling to make sense of their concepts. Once communication is flowing, it may make sense for the participants to agree on vocabulary as a sort of shorthand for ongoing exchange. This is, basically, how languages are formed. This communication circle may then use similar vocabulary amongst themselves, but must realize that someone outside their communication circle may use words differently. When communications begin with someone from outside the circle, the process begins again.
What I am writing here is a beginning of a process. I am explaining how I speak about solidarity, consent, autonomy, liberation, etc. If a dialogue continues here, we may find ourselves building a shared vocabulary for ongoing communication.
I see two fundamental differences between deference and obeisance. The first is a matter of something one offers out of free will vs something which is exacted from someone against their will. The second is a matter of impermanence vs permanence.
Deference is something I willingly give to someone, in a given situation or context, out of my own sense of mission and values. It is wholly a matter of self-determination. No one is extracting it from me. When a friend determines who he will marry, I defer to his judgement in that matter, even if I see it as a very problematic choice. I do that because I value autonomy, which means letting people make their own mistakes and living with the results. I do that because, frankly, I don't want the burden of being responsible for someone else' life. I do that because I can't possibly know what it's like to live in his skin, with his life experiences, with the rubric of his character and emotional landscape and with his perspective on life. It is not may place to determine what experiences are his calling in this life. If he asks my opinion on the matter, I will speak my truth. Otherwise, I will simply support him through thick and thin. I may not invite his spouse to my house, if I find the spouse that objectionable, but I would still support my friend. That is deferring to him.
Obeisance is something another person demands of me, against my free will. Obeisance is garnered via force, threat of force, manipulation (emotional or by blocking fully informed consent), coercion or extortion. Parents demand obeisance from children by threatening to punish them physically or abandon them emotionally. I often hear people refer to this as demanding respect. When I hear that, I realize that we use the word 'respect' differently. 'Respect', in my world, is a way I behave toward you because I truly see you as a deserving person. I respect your right to eat. That is something I truly feel everyone deserves. A respect inherently due. I would never do anything to prevent you from getting the food necessary for your health. That is, I would only engage in behavior which respects your right to eat. Other respect may be earned. But, obeisance is not an act of respect. It is an act of anxiety. "If I don't do as he says, he will make bad things happen." That is obeisance. Threatening to keep from you eating unless you do what I want is me extracting obeisance from you. If you do what I want, there is no respect involved in that choice. Out of self-preservation, you might choose obeisance.
When I suggested, in the previous discussion about solidarity, that there are situations in which solidarity means giving deference, I was not at all suggesting obeisance. I was saying that, if you truly want to assist in fighting a form of oppression, solidarity would mean deferring to those who are being oppressed. That's because the end of oppression is the beginning of liberation or autonomy. If you are imposing your will on the oppressed person, you are simply replacing one oppression with another, as you are denying them autonomy.
I also wasn't suggesting that anyone would have to do anything they find diminishes themselves in the name of deference. A few years back, I took part in an action which involved wearing a hijab. I have some very strong opinions about the hijab and it's place in the oppression of women. Still, in an act of solidarity, I donned one. I didn't feel at all diminished in doing so. I wasn't being obeisant to anyone else. I made an autonomous choice to respond to a request and support an anti-oppression action that Muslim women had come up with. I did not debate with them the merits of the action or the hijab. I deferred to their judgment regarding what they needed to do for themselves and willingly agreed to help.
Then there is the question of permanence vs impermanence. Obeisance is something extracted and it is, most often, expected that this obeisance will be ongoing, in every way. One never has autonomy again, unless the master deigns to release you. One is subjugated and has relinquished personal authority and responsibility. Deference is something offered moment by moment.
In the case of the hijab, I deferred and wore a hijab for that action. Had I been asked to wear a hijab for the rest of my life, or even at any time they deemed, that could start to look like a demand for obeisance. I say "could" because it would depend on how the request was made and whether I kept the autonomy to choose and to change my choice at any point.
If a request for lifelong wearing of a hijab came with any threats, it would no longer be a matter of deference. If I were bullied into it via berating or emotional manipulation, it would no longer be deference. If I were denied access to all I needed to make a fully informed decision - or if I was fed misinformation - if would no longer be deference. If I was denied the right to change my mind, at any given moment, it would no longer be deference. Anything which impedes my absolute autonomy walks us into the territory of obeisance.
In the case we have here on DailyKos about deferring to Markos' judgement regarding what he does personally and with his business in relation resisting the oppression of Latinos in AZ, I suggested that solidarity would mean deferring to him. This is not a matter of obeisance because:
- he is not demanding your deference. he is simply making an announcement about what he personally is doing;
- you are not being asked to do anything, at all;
- you are not being asked to defer all judgement you ever have regarding any topic at all;
- to demand that he doing anything other than what serves his conscience is to impose your will on another. that's a form of oppression;
- to berate someone is an act of bullying, another tool of oppression;
- you are not being asked to compromise your principles, if your principles include respect of autonomy
This part of the exploration can naturally lead to looking at the complexities of determining who to defer to when. As I noted in the other diary, we have multi-layered social networks. Friends, family, acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers, hobby groups, churches, issue-oriented activist groups, etc. How do you determine which solidarity stance to take when its a matter of oppression affecting a demographic group which is distributed throughout your networks and there are differences of stance within that demographic?
Let's talk about that next time. For now, let's stick to discussing how we come to terms with putting aside our own opinions and letting others make their own judgement calls on oppression which relates to them: deference.
Some other paths of exploration we might pursue in the near future:
- solidarity within a defined group vs generic solidarity on an issue vs solidarity with random individuals;
- power over someone vs power with someone;
- a culture of consent;
- respect and autonomy;