I have noticed in my online activism that if I call out problematic behaviour or comment on the cultural context of disability being mentioned in particular contexts either by an ally or by someone who is perceived as an ally, I will often be chastened for the nebulous offence of “alienating allies”.
When this happens, allies seem to stop being people who are devoted to the idea of meaningfully improving the lives of disabled people but are in fact thin-skinned individuals who will reject the rights of disabled people if they are not rewarded with copious amounts of praise regardless of the impact of their actions.
As Ginny Di puts it,
The thing is, the pushback that I experience has never been from the people I am directly commenting on but either other disabled people who are concerned that the criticism will lead to the loss of allies or simply from people who don’t like seeing someone they admire being criticized for any reason.
People ask me why I criticize people publicly instead of trying to address my concerns with them privately. The answer to that is that I am invariably responding to something that someone has done publicly. If they have done something potentially harmful publicly, it needs to be challenged publicly because in this case, the response is not necessarily about directly educating the individual but about mitigating the potential harm of their actions. In some (if not most) cases, it is unlikely that I have any real potential of reaching that person directly. An example of this is my twitter response to Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes speech.
People seemed very concerned that Meryl Streep would change her already purely sentimental stance that people shouldn’t bully disabled people to an active undermining of disability rights simply because I dared to point out that her speech didn’t actually achieve anything for disabled people and in fact effectively used the stereotype of the disabled victim to galvanize emotional support for a broader anti-Donald Trump message.
I was hardly the only disabled person who was concerned about the fact that a vague mention of “being nice to disabled people” was being treated like cutting edge disability rights activism. As Jay Ruckelshaus–who wrote not about Streep but political discussions of disability generally–pointed out in the New York Times,
That a statement on disability garnered sympathy from across the political spectrum was unsurprising, at least to me. I’ve grown used to my wheelchair trumping (forgive me) other political and moral concerns. Rarely, if ever, do people contest my claims that we must do more for those with disabilities: Greater access? Better employment training? More flexible school curriculums?…
Initially, this harmony would seem helpful. Free from partisan discord, advancements for the approximately 57 million Americans with disabilities should be easier to achieve, borne aloft by the wings of certain progress. Why, then, do rampant unemployment and educational disparities endure, and why does success remain the exception?
I think part of the reason is the insulation of our pro-disabled political consensus. Its logic is rooted not in any deep belief in the equal worth of citizens with disabilities, but rather in a general aversion to disability. This is related to the charity impulse that has always surrounded disability — and has constrained liberation efforts by assuming that inequities are unfortunate but natural realities to be mitigated through compassion, rather than politically structured injustices. There is also a profound lack of disabled people in the public sphere, meaning any substantive discussion that does occur is extremely rare.
Many have convinced themselves that positive sentiment is an effective stand-in for meaningful action. Unfortunately, that action has rarely if ever followed on the heels of a call for sentiment, that did not demand action for disabled people.
The irony is, I don’t even know if Meryl Streep is aware that disabled people criticized her speech. She hasn’t addressed it, and yet people were so very concerned that she would rescind her already rather ineffective support as a result of it.
I can just imagine the conversation that almost definitely didn’t actually happen (#alternativefacts)
Meryl Streep’s personal assistant: Excuse me, Meryl but it appears that a disabled person has criticized your speech on Twitter.
Meryl Streep: Well, fuck disabled people then.
I have no way of knowing if Meryl Streep is aware of the criticisms that disabled people made of her speech and if she is how she feels about it but I do know that my criticism had an impact on others. My tweets were widely shared with many people thanking me for the new perspective or simply saying that I’d given them something new to think about. Those people far outnumber Meryl Streep. They are allies gained. Allies who listened. Allies who will hopefully when it comes to taking action, will actually act for disabled people rather than falling back on the comfortable inaction of sentiment.
Now Sometimes, the person who is being criticized does become aware of the criticism but even this doesn’t worry me too much as long as the person being criticized is really an ally. Last month, I wrote a critique of a video on autism. The creator, Dylan Marron had good intentions but missed the mark. He not only listened to the criticism from myself and others, he redid the video and apologized.
Text of his full apology can be found here.
Allyship should not be judged by the initial intentions (or perceived intentions) but in whether the person is as concerned with the impact of the outcome. Simply expressing sentimental support for disabled people should not be sufficient to be considered an ally.
Placing to much concern on alienating allies is to tell marginalized people that they should be satisfied with whatever they can get regardless of whether it is ineffective or even harmful because intentions trump impact.
It’s essentially treating marginalized peoples who are fighting for their human rights like spoiled children who didn’t get what they wanted for their birthday.
If offering a critique of someone’s actions was sufficient to make them abandon disability rights, then chances are they weren’t really an ally in the first place. And if offering that critique gets other people to think more critically about their intersectional human rights activism then that’s a bigger gain. If it gets the person being critiqued to rethink and change tactics to be more effective then all the better.
So no, I’m not all that worried about alienating allies because critique actually helps recruit allies and helps make it clear who the real allies are and who is just using us for a sentimental talking point.
How to support my work
If you liked this post and want to support my continued writing please consider becoming a patron on patreon.
If you can’t commit to a monthly contribution consider buying me a metaphorical coffee (or two or more). Contributions help me keep this blog going and support my ongoing efforts to obtain a PhD.
If you want to support my work but are unable to do so financially, please share this post on your various social media accounts.
2 thoughts on “No, I don’t Worry about Alienating Allies”
Reblogged this on Rambling Justice and commented:
Post by Kim Sauder at her “Crippled Scholar” blog
Reblogged this on autisticagainstantivaxxers.