All lives matter. Let's remember everyone who died from violence. Everyone is on the spectrum.
These, and similar phrases, pander to the notion of commonality by glossing over material differences. When they succeed in drowning the voices of those who most need assistance and recognition, they obliterate the causes of those who have the least recourse. Still, the underlying sentiments seem noble. Most of us DO believe, for example, that all lives matter. Why then, are these so problematic?
In short, context. When someone responds that “All Lives Matter” in response to "Black Lives Matter" (or in response to Transgender Day of Remembrance for that matter), it is understood as a major invalidation delivered by those with unconscious privilege – it's as if, when a black (or trans) person is killed, the response is “yes, yes, of course you matter, but so do all these” – delivered with a sweeping gesture in the general direction of everyone else. That is, toward a crowd consisting mostly of those that are seldom at risk of actually being killed.
The pattern of the statements is to reduce the issues of marginalized groups to mere differences. There are a lot of reasons to embrace differences of all types. Diversity efforts, however, are better focused on the subset of differences that result in institutionalized discrimination that disadvantages people. Diluting or erasing the distinction shifts the focus from addressing the needs of those who cannot help themselves to a sort of vague values awareness and inclusion program, for lack of a better characterization.
I attended a recent diversity event at work. It was a panel discussion moderated by a local news anchor. It was excellent overall, and I really appreciated the broad and generous perspective offered by the panel. Unconscious privilege was a repeated theme, brought up several times by the panel members and acknowledged as pertaining to all of us in one way or another. Ironically, that hit home both in panel discussion and later one-on-one Q&A with a few of the panel members.
There was no LGBT representation on the panel. That’s perfectly fine, it doesn’t need to be explicitly included in every event. But there was a moderator question to the panel on the furtherance of LGBT acceptance and rights. The various panel responses mentioned only the L & G portions of the community and then one proceeded to some breezy comments along the lines of “continuing what we are already doing … That ‘we’ are the new majority. That homosexuality has always been with us.” The response hit a few off-notes in a variety of ways, not the least of which were the usual invisibility of a portion of the community, assumptions of affiliation (political or otherwise), that there is agreement on efforts and actions to-date, even language itself. The response was well-intended, but it unintentionally demonstrated the point the panel had made earlier on unconscious privilege. It also demonstrates the assumption of privilege by way of assuming representation – not just in the arrogation of the response, but in life. After all, “we” (transsexuals) aren’t actually represented in politics.
The invisibility and privilege points were further nailed in a later personal conversation with several panel members. In a short comment directed toward me in the middle of an otherwise non-personal response, one panel member said: “Of course, you have never had to deal with not living your identity.” It stunned me, especially considering the source. It was an attribution of identity and privilege that I can only assume was based on my appearance. The panelist couldn’t know of the personal nature of the invalidation, but she also appeared unaware that the casual dismissiveness completely undermined her earlier assumptions of community, majority, and representation!
I felt dismissed and I didn’t respond. Though out to a few that were in attendence, I remain invisible for a variety of reasons. But so are many others, with my issues or not, sometimes out of choice, sometimes necessity. The points made by the panel on how we err with privilege are important – and were on full display. I wonder if anyone else even saw it … even those who are the most-intended of all?
When communities are so exquisitely sensitive to their differences as to shield and guard them, it is because those differences are consequential and are not ready to be celebrated. They must not be reduced to mere difference, false common cause and false common identity. Treating them as such, particularly before they are understood for what they are, lends support to those who oppress. It’s such a loss, because their worth and beauty can likewise be exquisite. Don't mistake or substitute difference for focused diversity effort need.
