Meeting the moment?
Originally distributed via newsletter on September 12, 2022
Hi friends,
Thank you for opening another edition of this newsletter. As I mentioned when we first started, I’d only be sending this when I was certain that the words and energy were right and felt worthwhile to me. This newsletter comes after a ‘pretty intense few months’, a phrase that seems to be constantly and more regularly repeating itself. Today I wanted to share some of my insights for how organizations can step up in these moments of pain and continued attacks on social welfare, safety, and norms of care. Most talked about in recent months is the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. I’ll do my best to share what I think organizations should be talking through and how they should step up, show up or if they should take a backseat in moments like these.
Thank you for your continued support, I hope you feel excited to reach out and ask questions or share your thoughts. How are you and your institutions showing up in these moments?
TW: white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalist violence
Feminist writer bell hooks made it clear that her critique and much of the focus of her writing was directed at dismantling “Imperialist White Supremacist Heteropatriarchy”. It is these intersecting foundational mechanisms of oppression that all harms we see in the world could very simply be traced back to. It could be argued that it is the upholding of all of these oppressive systems that work together to trounce the more just, equitable, and safe world rooted in care and community that many of us are fighting for. While I believe in and want more intersectional approaches to organizing for justice. I think this valuable approach used by individuals pushing institutions to do better and as movements of people committed to and aligned with justice focused on the oppressive systems that drive and create injustices is also worrying when too many organizations make hollow declarations of how they are woke enough to meet the moment with none of the work, accountability, and/or alignment that is necessary to be involved in a substantive way.
In short, who’s really ready to do the damn thing?
Let’s set the scene as we delve into how this issue arises. Likely you are in a non-profit organization as either a leadership role or someone who is part of a decision-making body at the organization. Something horrible or catastrophic happens, it’s a clear example of racial injustice and/or violence, a transgression against bodily autonomy (similar to Roe v. Wade or unjustifiable arrest), the establishment of policies or the execution of legal instruments machinated to target minority identities like LGBTQ+/immigrant status/religious/etc. It is being raised as a concern by staff and/or organizational partners and you’re tasked with figuring out how, as an organization, to respond. Rather than trying to force a fit or make a big statement, you can’t live up to, it’s important to align yourself around a few questions.
What is your mission?
In what ways does this issue align with your organization’s mission?
How does it not align with your mission?
Do we have capacity?
What may drop if we take this on?
What does commitment to fighting this issue look like? Is it for 6 months/12months/2 years/longer?
Are any partners asking us to do something? Are those partners leading work that we could support?
Do we have to lead this?
Are we in a position of resource abundance? What does resource redistribution look like in this moment?
What are the ways we can contribute to this work and what levels of commitment would each require?
Answering these questions can help slow down the decision-making process to take stock of what is in front of you without potentially harming more appropriate responses to the moment. Too many times people follow the trends. That might work well for some organizations or institutions but who remembers the black square moment on Instagram? Or the overposting during emergencies that can stop critical care from reaching people harmed or impacted? Or the moments where folks have had to respond because they misspoke or distributed misinformation or contributed to the spread of disinformation? There are some of us who have to move fast to meet the moment because of the work we do, it’s almost a requirement. But for others of us, slowing down, taking stock, and better understanding where we fit can limit the unintended consequences of the moments outlined above.
When Roe v. Wade dropped, many took to social media to add their two cents. Individuals and institutions included. That wasn’t the issue, the issue was the takes that often, without even realizing it, were exclusionary. There were takes that erased important context and history, like the experiences of Black women, long maligned by the entire medical community and institutions of white supremacy and patriarchy across centuries. Some takes forgot that abortion access would harm people with uteruses, forgetting the varied expressions of gender identity and fluidity. Woke subscribers to second-wave feminist teachings wanted to girl boss their way to the top forgetting the many girl bosses that had worked to uphold institutions of white supremacy and patriarchy in a suit all the same as their male counterparts. Some takes I wondered if they would have been better to serve as amplifiers at that moment with their massive platforms rather than many of the milquetoast, often low-stakes and unhelpful advocacy they peddled.
Would all of these folks benefit from stopping to listen? Maybe being in better alignment with more radical and progressive experts would have helped guide their thinking or at the very least gave them something worthwhile to share in a moment of national outcry. To meet the moment, I think we all must have a more handy utilization of the longer arc of context of that moment. And I think proximity to the issue spotlighted grants you more leniency in being able to go out front and center with your take. The further away you are you should reflect on how you leverage your power and resources (no matter how privileged or not you might be) to better center the experiences of those most closely impacted and with the proximity to advocacy and solutions.
I believe we must be intersectional in our approaches especially the programs, initiatives, and organizing we are leading or initiating. But when we are not in the driver’s seat, I think it best we are intersectional in our other senses of listening, reflecting, and learning from those most closely at the intersection, because it also means the crosshairs are more squarely pinned on them. It would be best for us to amplify to shroud and provide movement/political cover for them to best do what they know how to – fight injustice.
As an organization, the recommendation is to better utilize what tools you have available to you and based on your proximity deploy them with increasing institutional commitment, involvement, and responsibility.
You have the ability to serve as an amplifier – communications. You have the ability to help power organizing – advocacy/organizing/campaigns/etc. You have the ability to boon with financial support — development/budget.
Thoughtfully reflect and spend time preparing for the next moment using the questions and suggestions outlined to be well positioned to meet it.
Thanks again for reading along. Please, send along any questions, share them with your networks, and feel free to share any of your thoughts and critiques.
Visit my website to learn more about me, my consulting work, and my past newsletters.
(Sign up for the newsletter if you haven’t already, these will be sent straight to your inbox and you won’t have to wait for the many days delay that it takes for me to post to my website archive)
Until we achieve justice,
Michél
