I’m having a lovely car ride in Sydney peak hour traffic, listening to ABC’s Triple J, when I hear the news group “Hack” announce they will host a segment over whether or not we should change the date of Australia Day. Two thoughts immediately occured - firstly, “duh we should change the date, or just cancel it”, and secondly, “Triple J, we know you’re politically alligned with the progressive left wing, why are you even bothering to give equal airtime to the right wing? Why are you giving conservatives a space to promote their regressive ideas?’”
Obviously, this argument comes with the precedent that conservative ideas are counterproductive for social equality and progression, but hey, this blog would be an empty shell without that paradigm.
Very often, progressive organisations or movements provide open panels and discussions on leftist issues, and invite conservative interlocutors to create a two sided conversation. Although this sounds lovely and fair and democratic, I actually see many problems with this model of publicly discussing feminist ideas.
When the Australian government provided equal funding to the “yes” and “no” campaign for the (thankfully cancelled) marriage equality plebescite, when SBS and every other left-wing news company under the sun continually invites Trump supporters for interviews, when white Australian patriots have a centre seat on a change-the-date-panel, I do not see an even, open minded platform of discussion. I see conservative opinions given space in places they do not need to be, with the inevitable impact of progression being held back as panelists have to spend expensive commercial TV airtime politely explaining that Indegenous Australians are systematically disadvantaged by a lingering colonialist and racist Australian culture, rather than addressing the actual issue of January 26th.
Ultimately, these discussions hosted by progressive institutions go absolutely nowhere while the right wing somehow manages to publicly endorse only their own views in their topical debates - Fox News rarely features a leading left wing thinker to provide an alternative view on the issue at hand.
Why this disparity? The first thing that comes to mind is some convoluted form of respectability politics. Which is basically just a buzzword for “the Left and the oppressed are expected to pander to what a power majority decrees as ‘respectable’”.
We live in a world where the right wing has always been the archetype of what is polite, respectable and acceptable, especially when discussing politics. Martin Luther King addressed the problem of the “White moderate”; the White person who denounces racism in the quiet privacy of their home, but criticises any radical, violent or loud protests as “unneccessary” and “impolite”. The fact that successful, empowering conversations about implicit biases in police brutality, or the responsibility of all cisgender people to be accountable for transphobia, are constantly shut down because they threaten and challenge the privilege of social majorities causes the Left to strive for acceptance within a conservative world. This inevitably means sacrificing the impact of Radical, important ideas for a more politically central, “respectable” discussion in the hope that it will draw in a conservative audience. There is definitely credit in reaching out to a wide demographic, but I see a problem when every Leftist forum feels it necessary to trade off their values for public respect.
Firstly as stated before - I view these discussions as extremely stagnant. Hack’s January 26th discussion came to the conclusion: “maybe it’s bad. Maybe it’s good.” Perhaps if the panel held a variety of opinions from across the broad and diverse spectrum of “the Left”, the conversation would have quickly established the issues with celebrating a day of invasion and oppression and begun to constructively discuss possible alternatives or critique the general Australian attitude towards Indigenous issues. Secondly I find it extremely disempowering that progressive values are deemed less worthy of airtime and respect than their right wing counterparts. When feminist ideas are denied a popular space to exist in society, it sends a message that feminism is not as legitimate as conservatism, despite the former actively empowering and bettering many people’s lives.
Ultimately, space in a public forum is the most important way for minorities to express their experiences and opinions, and attempt to enact change within their societies. But when these spaces are infringed upon by a pressure to conform to conservative standards of “respectability”, our conversations are prevented from achieving their goals.
Why this disparity? The first thing that comes to mind is some convoluted form of respectability politics. Which is basically just a buzzword for “the Left and the oppressed are expected to pander to what a power majority decrees as ‘respectable’”.
We live in a world where the right wing has always been the archetype of what is polite, respectable and acceptable, especially when discussing politics. Martin Luther King addressed the problem of the “White moderate”; the White person who denounces racism in the quiet privacy of their home, but criticises any radical, violent or loud protests as “unneccessary” and “impolite”. The fact that successful, empowering conversations about implicit biases in police brutality, or the responsibility of all cisgender people to be accountable for transphobia, are constantly shut down because they threaten and challenge the privilege of social majorities causes the Left to strive for acceptance within a conservative world. This inevitably means sacrificing the impact of Radical, important ideas for a more politically central, “respectable” discussion in the hope that it will draw in a conservative audience. There is definitely credit in reaching out to a wide demographic, but I see a problem when every Leftist forum feels it necessary to trade off their values for public respect.
Firstly as stated before - I view these discussions as extremely stagnant. Hack’s January 26th discussion came to the conclusion: “maybe it’s bad. Maybe it’s good.” Perhaps if the panel held a variety of opinions from across the broad and diverse spectrum of “the Left”, the conversation would have quickly established the issues with celebrating a day of invasion and oppression and begun to constructively discuss possible alternatives or critique the general Australian attitude towards Indigenous issues. Secondly I find it extremely disempowering that progressive values are deemed less worthy of airtime and respect than their right wing counterparts. When feminist ideas are denied a popular space to exist in society, it sends a message that feminism is not as legitimate as conservatism, despite the former actively empowering and bettering many people’s lives.
Ultimately, space in a public forum is the most important way for minorities to express their experiences and opinions, and attempt to enact change within their societies. But when these spaces are infringed upon by a pressure to conform to conservative standards of “respectability”, our conversations are prevented from achieving their goals.
Hannah
No comments:
Post a Comment
No hate or harmful comments