Why do I want to go, though? Well, where to start. Maybe it is because, in my heart of hearts, I am a romantic idealist. I believe in social change and justice, and I believed that I could make a career and save the world all at once. When you offered me the job, you unwittingly offered me a chance to do research and make a difference: you told me, with one acceptance letter sent on a sunny Saturday morning, that I could become a save-the-worldologist! Such glorious news! And so I gladly believed you; I took the weight of all my hopes and dreams that this fucked up racist, classist, sexist world can change and placed them in this job, my first forray into the realm of the real (read 'my first real job outside of university', or 'my first job that I wasn't doing just to make quick change'). It's possible that that's the heart of the matter. I put too much at stake when I arrived at your doorstep five months ago, pencils sharpened, save-the-world senses tingling. You had me at "It gives us great pleasure to inform you", but you never quite stood a chance against my blind idealism.
No matter, my eyes were quickly opened. I remember thinking in my first few weeks here how, as a group, the people I worked with were not entirely welcoming. At first I put it down to my self-consciousness and my incredible neediness. But I started to realise that maybe the reason I perceived this place as unfriendly was because it rejected me as a black woman. I am black, but I complicate your closely-held and defended assumptions about what that means. I can write eloquently, I can speak for myself, I can decide for myself how best to address racism when I encounter it. I allow you into my life, but on entirely different terms than you are used to: I see you as a fellow save-the-worldologist, not as my personal saviour. Therefore you have trouble recognising my blackness. You also seem unable to recognise my identity as a woman. I am a feminist, which means I subscribe to the idea that I am no less a human being than a man (in fact, I may be more so, but that's womanism), and I will not try to approximate masculinity in order to get ahead in life. So, when the only women who are able to 'get ahead' or have their views heard are those who approximate masculinity (and its attendant patriarchy) that sends a clear message about what you think of me as a feminist woman. This place that you created didn't like the things that make me, from the word go. I don't foresee a future in which it will.
On a related note, my save-the-worldology aspirations, idealistic as they may be, are fully informed by all of those things about me. I am black, I am a woman, and I want to see social change. This means (for me) that I want to empower people, in the same way that I have been empowered, to create their own sustainable change. I know to impose my own ideas would be tantamount to reinscribing oppression that I have experienced in my own life. For me, sustainable change means financial independence, job security (though, so much for that for now), freedom from racial and sexual harassment, and a world in which I can engage with fellow citizens and state structures alike about the best way forward for this world. I have the good sense to know that my sustainable change is another woman's privilege, and that I cannot impose my definition on another human being. I realise - and I know you do as well - that the power to define sustainable change is in itself a function of my privilege. Unlike you, I choose to grapple with the complexities of promoting social change by empowering people with the tools to define their own change. You see the complexities and the grey, and you choose to ignore it in favour of simple black and white solutions. I understand you do it not because it is the easier option but because it is the popular option: one quick survey of news stories and you'll see just how black and white (literally and figuratively) the global political discourse can be. But that's just the thing: you don't claim to be just another voice in the current discourse, you claim to be the voice. Of an entire generation? Really, guys? Isn't it dangerous to claim omnipotence when you are only representing a particular viewpoint? Especially when that representation doesn't carry any of the nuance or complexities you know it should?
Ultimately, that's why I am leaving. I have been party to a dangerous game that has veered me off my righteous save-the-worldology path. In all seriousness, I know I have been using that as a joke, but I am dead serious about changing this world. It is not nearly what it should and could be, and it is a cruel and unjust place for too many of its citizens. I need to devote my life to changing that. But in the last five months, I have been a part of something that looks like that's what it is, but that will ultimately do more harm than good. You can't save the world if you are in the business of black and white, and if you cannot see it for the complex, mutli-narrative place it is.
And, so, as much as I deeply regret it, as much as I wish I weren't too chicken-shit to tell you the truth about what I see in you, I will leave without much of a fuss. As sad as I am about this experience, I will take from it a deeper knowledge of just how deep the damage to our world runs, and a renewed commitment to save-the-worldology. I wish you every success in your endeavours, as I am sure you wish me in mine.
Do your worst.
Did you hand this in?? Any hope of them internalizing what you wrote?
ReplyDeleteYour explanation of what sustainable change is about was really insightful.. and yet you offer no fixed solution. I think that you are correct not to provide the answer - internalizing the fact that there is no fixed single answer. But you see, to the wide world that may be a problem, people can't handle not being given an answer, a solution. Also you worked for an organization - even as a non-profit- an organization needs to sell its product. To sell its product to the wide audience - including the government - it needs to provide a fixed slogan, a fixed solution (there is just too much information and intricacies for our dumb mind to internalize). And from this slogan, this marketed message, things start to get warped and hyped, until the organization itself believes in the message it created...
So, yes, as usual the answer is in ground-roots form - but it needs to be in movement in natural formation, in organic (and not organized)form. That is the shape the world is slowly taking.
As you noted "..I believe that the impetus for change lies not in big government, but in groups of individuals who form communities who form movements".
I think the emphasis here is on multiplicity - on many grounded movements - there is no fixed answer, but multiple answers for each context. There is not One Black South African plight. There are many.
I think all we can do is wait for this change to happen. Or rather I will sit and wait for South Africa (living far away). Any thoughts on how you plan to help this change happen?
Yes, idealist (doomed to perpetual disappointment) I think. Because when acting through the institution of society, and viewing these acts through the lens(es) of intangible pasts, infinite presents, and over-bearing futures, all things are tainted. Not because people cannot act with the humanity necessary to be at once commensurate with the enormous acknowledgement that as much as we yearn for the meaningfulness of commonalities, we are, in history, all different, and at the same time disavowing that there need be distinction between us. But because, any act, when viewed in a system, with a history, ceases to be humane. To 'save the world' (and replace it with a better one) implies the same corrupt systematicity. Yet to champion multiplicity is to demand that no act either is or is not a thing, or, even if it had been caste as any particular thing, that the clay remains eternally wet.
ReplyDeleteAnd so, what is your act (of resignation)? And why do you use a forum to explain that act as justified, nay, right? Is it because you as 'sbf' feel called to account more than say a 'pwm'? Does justifying your choice undermine your right to make it in the first place? Does my asking you these questions make you feel indignant? If I say that I (as a pwm) am bemused by your need to explain all this offend you with its pomposity? Does my comment objectify you as an object of interest for contemplation by greater (pwm) mind? Can I say that I wish you the peace of not letting a stunning propensity for uncovering how acts perpetrate the system impact on your life? Or is my saying that condescending, racist, sexist, evidence?
@SDH thank you for your insightful feedback. At the moment, I'm stumped. I honestly thought my role would be in a civil society organisation working for change. But from what I've experienced I am not so sure. I will continue to live and write for change. But I know that I need to be part of something bigger one day... I will keep you posted when I join it :)
ReplyDelete@Graeme, the letter is less a justification and more of a 'letting-it-out'. I felt hypocritical leaving and not saying anything about the real reason behind my leaving. I felt the need to say something because ultimately that place is doing harm, and someone needs to say something (anonymously, in a blog post, naturally).
ReplyDelete