Power of definition and entanglement of different discriminations
Yes, Anni, we are now sitting here together at the kitchen table and the topic of entanglements came up. That is, the entanglement of different power relations and discrimination relations. And then we came to the question: How does this work in awareness practice? How can this go together with power of definition and partiality?
For example, I just told you about this friend of mine who wrote her bachelor thesis on awareness. She dealt with the issue of how definitional power works when there is a situation in which two people are affected by discrimination and accuse each other of discriminatory or transgressive behaviour. She came to the conclusion that awareness or the concept of power of definition does not work in such a case. Even though I can understand her thoughts, I somehow did not want to be satisfied with that and at the same time it is still often an open question in my mind how to deal with such situations well and what that means for practice. Can you perhaps share a bit of your experience on this?
Ann:
First of all, I think it's always really important that awareness teams are diverse, and that's unfortunately still a big shortcoming, that they often are not. I think it is important that different people with different positions also find contact persons in awareness crews. I think that makes things a lot easier, because different levels of experience are available and therefore also different levels of understanding or the possibility of empathy and empathising. And then in the cases that I know of, where there were entanglements and several discrimination relationships were addressed, I always found it important that all persons were also given partisan persons to support them. Not that the awareness crew now thinks that they first talk to one person and then to the other. So, if it's possible in terms of resources or personnel, I think it's really important that every affected person has at least one person at their side and that this person is then only there for that particular affected person and is really emotionally partial at their side. But how different wishes, needs or injuries can be discussed is completely different, depending on the setting. But I can still remember that it worked. For example, on the anti-camp action tour, in the anti-racist movement. We had contact groups with a diversity of positions and that's how they met. The different people and their supporters met together and told each other what the problem was, what the violation was. They listened to each other, expressed their wishes and criticised each other. This was then negotiated and discussed with each other. Which does not necessarily mean that this is always the right setting. Sometimes it is not possible or desired that people actually physically come to a place and talk to each other. But in such cases, people can mediate, for example.
Anni:
I find that an exciting thought. I think that was about the point where I came out of my thinking. I thought: "Okay, then there must be support for both or all participants. It must not be possible for an awareness team or outsiders in general to presume to say that person X is now more affected than person Y, in other words to create a hierarchy that reproduces discrimination. But rather that both perspectives are recognised and both people get partisan support."
And that also led me to the point of thinking about the power of definition. Today I reread an old text I wrote about the power of definition. And then I added another sentence that is totally important to me from today's perspective, namely that the power to define does not mean to me that a person's definition is the only true, absolute truth, but that this definition is the truth of the person concerned and should be respected as such. And that would be totally important in the initial situation we are talking about, namely that two or more people have discriminated against each other on different levels. That there are two truths, two perspectives. Both are there and are allowed to be there.
Ann:
Yes, in any case. The injuries are both there, the not having been seen or not being able to have an effect is there on both sides. And of course it is difficult when people formulate something to another person, i.e. a criticism or a reproach or a wish, and the other person cannot hear it or cannot accept it. That is also a difficult point. Or you have the impression that the other person doesn't take any of my criticism, but the other way round I get involved and say: "Okay, I can somehow hear and understand this and that, or I also accept criticism. I didn't have that on my radar. Or I see now that I have acted in a hurtful way". It's about a sense of injustice, so I let myself be a bit involved in a criticism and I'm also open to reflecting on myself, but I have the impression that the other person does less or not at all, and then it feels somehow unjust.
Anni:
Yes, then basically the point of "I don't feel seen" comes up again.
Ann:
But of course there is still the desire for justice. And that is a justice that one wants to receive somehow, also from the outside. You want to be seen and heard and understood, and if that doesn't really happen, the desire for justice remains unfulfilled. Then you might get it from the supporter you have on your side, but you don't get it from the other person who triggered it.
Anni:
But you said you had positive experiences with this approach, didn't you?
Ann:
Yes, exactly. Once during an anti-camp action tour. We also had an awareness group that was very diverse and also specifically for interlocking concerns. And I think it worked quite well there. People criticised each other and listened to each other and shared their injuries, and quite good things happened. But I think it is also very important that there are people who stand by me, where it feels similarly powerful. I often find that a problem when the awareness teams are not so diverse, that one feels somehow more powerless vis-à-vis the awareness crew. So that all those who want to communicate something also have the feeling that they are similarly powerful in this exchange. And of course that's difficult when it often can't be established in this way.
Anni:
It probably also does a lot with accessibility. How much trust do I put into it that people will understand me or take me seriously?
