In the past one hundred years two models have defined the extreme opposite poles for the oppressed to actively resist their oppressors. One pole is framed by a Gandhian non-violent resistance and the other by Frantz Fanon, the Algerian psychotherapist and theorist of violent resistance. Fanon saw resistance as a zero-sum game. If my existence is diminished by my oppressor, I can affirm my existence only by diminishing my oppressor. If my humanity is denied by my oppressor, then I assert my humanity in denying him is by by killing him.
For Gandhi–and for James Lawson and MLK, who adapted Gandhi’s approach to resist the endocolonialism of the segregated south–the oppressor was always a human being worthy of respect. Through King’s and Lawson’s Gandhian/Christian existentialist lens, the oppressor was a decent person who didn't know it yet. The act of nonviolent resistance was meant to awaken the oppressor to the humanity of the oppressed but also to his own suppressed humanity. Resistance, when successful, isn't zero sum; it's win win. Both parties have transformed their reality.
I understand the necessity of disruptive direct action tactics–it's at the center of the Gandhian approach, but I'd argue the short and long-term effects of such tactics are directly linked to the spirit in which the disruptions are conducted. I think Black Lives Matter is poised somewhere between the Gandhian and Fanonian poles right now. Its style and rhetoric feel Fanonian, though, and I think this in part explains why some people sympathetic to their cause are put off by their tactics, particularly as they have been directed toward Bernie Sanders.
The problem with the way BLM activists have treated Bernie Sanders lies in their refusal to show him any respect when clearly he deserves it. He is not the oppressor. People can argue that BLM won because their tactics “forced” Sanders to expand his platform to embrace the concerns of BLM activists in a way he had not done before. But there is a difference between winning and winning over. Does anybody believe that Sanders would have resisted doing the same if someone from BLM had sat down and had a conversation with him about those concerns? Maybe he needed a little push, but is there any evidence that he had to be publicly humiliated? Twice?
There's a way of disrupting that awakens consciences, and there's a way of doing it that comes across as moralistic guilt tripping that accomplishes little. Which category do you think applies to BLM? There are some people you need to smack upside the head to awaken their consciences, and there are others who have already very lively consciences with whom you just need to sit down and have a conversation. Which category do you think applies to Bernie Sanders?
The activists in BLM are applying the slap upside the head indiscriminately. So far there's no significant harm done, but I hope that they learn how to build bridges with those who would be their willing allies, and I hope they realize that these otherwise willing allies will find it extremely difficult to build the bridge if there is some unilaterally imposed test of ideological purity that they must pass for it to be built. There's a place for pressure politics, but to build lasting alliances you have to know who your real enemies are and how to create bonds of trust and respect with potential allies. Building durable alliances is not accomplished in a zero-sum game.
It's counterproductive to force someone to do something that they would otherwise be persuaded to do willingly. With force always comes an element of humiliation, and with humiliation anger and resentment. It's human nature for any spirited person to resist being forced to do anything, and when he is forced, unless he is a saint, he might comply, but he does it with an undertone of resentment and just to meet the minimum requirement. When one is won over, she complies with enthusiasm and full engagement. Do BLM activists understand this? So far it doesn’t look like it.
Leave a Reply