Decompiling Oppression #5
Sam McVeety
Building on our previous discussion of community control, I thought it would be appropriate to introduce the concept of looking to the bottom (proposed by Mari Matsuda in an essay of the same name). Briefly, this doctrine asks those who are examining a concept (such as school integration, climate policy, etc.) to prioritize and center the voices of those who are most affected by it. Perhaps the wisdom of this approach is more apparent for us now, but at the time, Matsuda was making the radical assertion (particularly in the legal profession) that lived experience matters, and that no amount of thought experimentation and study can fully replace the expertise corresponding to this actual experience. Her own (delightfully blunt) formulation says as much:
This article suggests that those who have experienced discrimination speak with a special voice to which we should listen.
The context for Matsuda's article is a fundamental question of law: "Who gets to determine what constitutes justice?". We see this conflict playing out far beyond the confines of legal discourse. The #MeToo movement exists as a rebuke of existing "fair" power structures, showing how they are broken in innumerable (often invisible) ways. Matsuda's analysis is very much in line with the the core tenets of this movement -- placing special priority on those voices that are informed by lived experience. The Movement for Black Lives similarly prioritizes the lived realities of its constituents, and many movements feature a similar rallying cry of "nothing about us, without us".
I've had my own journey in coming to terms with the implications of looking to the bottom. I tend to approach the world as a rational empiricist, and believed as an implicit consequence that all information was findable and learnable. This new way of seeing shakes that perspective to its core. Crucially, it refutes the implication that those in power can justly retain that power with sufficient study, rather than sharing power with others. In another sense, though, it is also liberatory. It means no individual has all the answers, and that we are all obligated, both intellectually and morally, to seek broad, representative coalitions of perspectives.
When we do prioritize voices from the bottom, the results can be transformative. The indigenous-led coalition for #NoDAPL has transformed the way that we look at questions of climate justice. In queer circles, the priorization of trans voices in shaping LGBTQ+ platforms has profound implications for ensuring that no one is left behind (e.g. trans-inclusive ENDA). Seattle's own Community Police Coalition has the makings of looking to the bottom, but must be afforded actual power in order to be a meaningful reflection of this approach. Matsuda herself brings up movements for reparations as examples of movements that originate from voices at the bottom, looking at two specific examples of responses to Japanese internment and Hawaiian annexation.
When movements don't do this analysis, they fail, or amplify existing oppression. One of the fatal flaws in Washington State's earlier attempt at a carbon tax is that it failed to build a coalition that included frontline communities in the fight against climate change, leaving it open to attack from the left (as well as the right). Soda taxes and similar public health initiatives have failed or met widespread resistance when they don’t include community voices in drafting policy. The environmental movement in general has a long history of challenges with this topic, and is still grappling with the implications. For one good example of what this looks like, see the Nature Conservancy's equity statement.
That's it for this week. There's a whole lot more content in Matsuda's article to explore, and much more to say about how looking to the bottom can counterbalance detours like white saviorism (#6), and we'll explore those topics and more in the future. Invitations for this week:
Personal: For causes that you are passionate about, spend some time reflecting on what communities they serve, and think about how you can elevate the voices of those communities in determining policy.
Communal: When asked to represent perspectives corresponding to lived experiences other than your own, work with the relevant organization to identify ways to explicitly include those folks in the conversation, and afford them some measure of power regarding outcomes.
Solidarity: La Resistencia is an immigrant justice coalition that specifically elevates the voices of immigrants who are currently in detention centers. Take a look at their work, and think about how you can support immigration justice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FAQ
Can I share this newsletter with non-Googlers? Yes! Feel free to forward this note externally; it does not contain confidential information.
Is this an official Google newsletter? Nope. The views expressed in this newsletter are not the official position of Google, and we are not affiliated with any particular ERG.
I am leaving Google or transferring to another bet. Can I still receive this newsletter? Yes! Send your personal email via this form to be added to our external subscriber list.