To be clear, this is about those difficult conversations about correcting white privilege and the systemic oppression that routinely places persons of color into situations of existential gravity. The word “systemic” is not hyperbole or overwrought in this case—it’s merely accurate. We need to talk about it.
In order to do talk about it successfully, the humanity of every participant in the conversation must be not only acknowledged, but empowered for participation. Without this presence of each person’s humanity, the conversation is only between shadows—and is worth about as much. I shall start with a short survey of human conversations in different contexts, for the purpose of then cycling back to the subject at hand so as to address it more effectively.
It’s likely that everyone has been in a situation where you are not an equal partner in a conversation. Ready examples are parent and child, teacher and student, adult and youth, and supervisor and subordinate. If the subject is something about which you’re at fault and your position is the subordinate one, your protestations of inaccuracy or extenuating circumstances face an uphill climb—the unequal power distribution affects your ability to handle the situation in a way that is favorable to you.
A reference from Proverbs could be instructive here: No one who conceals transgressions will prosper, but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy (Proverbs 28:13). This is indispensable to a relationship of mutual respect, especially where differing points of view (or at least divergent perceptions) are involved. The things that could make a conversation difficult might come from one or more of several sources (non-exhaustive list):
- A situation that is not easily solved, such as not enough money for competing must-pay debts.
- Confronting someone about problems with their behavior or performance.
- Someone confronting you about a wrong you have done (or can remedy) that they wish to discuss with you.
When someone has wronged you, whether deliberately or in ignorance (willful or not), it is natural to feel resentful and angry at the obvious injustice. Examples of this might be a traffic accident or a deceitful sale, or even malicious gossip to deprive the victim of a position or other honor they otherwise would have received or attained. Kindergarten rules may go a long way in facilitating mutually acceptable solutions in these cases.
It could be much more difficult to engage in conversations between persons of an oppressed population and those from the privileged population—that as a group did the oppressing over multiple hundreds of years—about remedies for that oppression past and present. In this case Kindergarten rules, although still indispensable, are insufficient in and of themselves to address the unconscionable wrongs done by one people to another. Although there are documented cases of racist oppression in places such as Myanmar, India, South Africa, and Japan, the dominant occurrence of this is from white exploitation of slaves originally from Africa and their descendants. It’s a verified case of oppression that continues today in subtle and increasingly creative forms.
Persons in the oppressed group (black), may have little faith (from their own life experiences) in the sincerity or willingness of the oppressor group to recognize and take responsibility for their role in the current situation—add to this the very real emotional burden from reliving traumatizing events when recounting them for what seems to be an endless line of learners. For persons in the oppressor group (white), their personal experiences of privilege may have impaired their ability to recognized the daily difficulties experienced by their black fellow humans as a direct result of their race. The different existential realities experienced by blacks and whites present a chasm that must be bridged for any meaningful conversation to take place.
Although the specifics of how to proceed with theses critical conversations are discussed elsewhere, the essential point here is that personal agency is indispensable for meaningful conversations in any context—especially for difficult conversations. If you take away people’s sense of personal dignity, there is no one left with which to have a conversation at all. Rob anyone of their agency, and you cease to have a conversation (the participants are then reduced to just blathering mechanically past each other). The folklore about the navy petty officer who could make a wayward sailor feel one inch tall without using a single curse word—although perhaps if used properly together with other techniques, might be a positive disciplinary tool—is not the model for effective conversation among persons declaring each other to be equal humans.
One might object that respecting the humanity of a conversation partner then requires not addressing the actual issues that caused the need for the conversation in the first place. Hardly! That would be a lost opportunity for candor. There are things that need to be said by black persons, as much as there are white persons who need to hear them—and are ready and willing to hear them.
Who are these white people, who (suddenly, it seems) are interested in alleviating black suffering that has been hiding in plain sight for hundreds of years? They’ve actually been there all along, blinded in the fog of racist gaslighting in which they grew up and now live in as adults. Arguably the street videos and multiple incidents of police wantonly murdering black people, and exercising unjustified aggression elsewhere, generated light that has finally pierced through that fog—and these white people are appalled at what their culture has done to people of color.
One of the things that makes a conversation difficult is a disagreement about the underlying facts. With the new awareness (I think the term “woke” is mostly unhelpful) that white persons now have attained, the gap between the different fact sets informing blacks and whites is significantly narrowed. Conversation can narrow it even further. Arguably anyone could experience a change in perspective from a conversation that is blessed with both candor and mutual acceptance. Although it is necessary to allow all those who join the conversation in good faith room to speak their truth, it is also fair to point out where any such personal truths are grounded in falsehoods, whether objective or spiritual. It is also fair to point out micro-aggressions that originate from those same falsehoods. This is why difficult conversations are essential for the well being of society and all of the persons in it—and personal agency is an indispensable foundational element for these conversations.
The personal agency of each individual involved in the conversation is therefore essential for the exchange of observations and genuine emotions. This in turn is essential to effectively grow relationships that are mutually respectful and supporting. The group with the position of privilege—specifically whites as the ones with both historical and contemporary privilege—must make an internal effort to counter the gaslighting they’ve grown up with. Whites countering their internal gaslighting is essential in leaving room for black personal agency. I think that most whites likely will find this a personally liberating experience, as racist gaslighting is separate from one’s own personal agency.
Whites also will need to be granted room for personal agency in their repentance—this is not an option to be forgone if these difficult conversations are to be successful. Granting personal agency does not license anyone to use that as a ruse for derailing or otherwise sabotaging a difficult conversation. Exercising personal agency is not constructive if it’s used to blow the same old fog from documented gaslighting, instead of retaining one’s sense of self worth while freeing one’s self from that same fog. In a relationship of true mutual support, this is where friends don’t let friends blow racist gaslighting fog—and still remain friends!
Is this a steep climb? Maybe. However mutual support of each other’s personal agency is possible—and essential. Now, let the conversations proceed.
—