Week 1 - What I've learnt so far.
Online discourse, and accountability
We are a week into 2021 and we’ve had Bean Dad, unusual demands for ‘reparations’, the announcement of a third UK lockdown and a live-streamed insurrection of the US Capitol.
Living through historic events has felt thrillingly terrifying and frustratingly mundane, in strangely equal measure.
For my first newsletter, I thought rather than a hot take on the current events, I would share what has been on my mind for some time now: the way online discourse on social media platforms has been shifting. We’re all now quite familiar with how context collapses, situations escalate and truth is forgone for drama on our timelines. But the nature of life in 2020/21 has meant that for many of us, online spaces have become so much more than mere windows into the world. They are now the only way in which we interact with those outside our homes. Everything feels more urgent, more intense. And that pressure feels important to interrogate.
‘We Will Not Cancel Us, and other dreams of transformative justice’ by adrienne maree brown, has offered me clarity here, as well as ‘The Purpose of Power’, by Alicia Garza (you can watch my interview with Alicia here). Both text contain reminders as to focus on why we do what we do, and how power operates in our communities, movements and societies. Two conclusions jump out to me:
Firstly, there is a difference between being empowered and having power. One is an individual’s sense of who they are, their place and value in the world, and their self confidence, sense of self. The other is about structures, systems and institutions, and the ability to make things happen. In her own words:
For me, power means getting to make decisions over your own life. Power means being able to determine where resources go, who they go to, where they don’t go, and who they don’t go to.
For me, power is about the ability to shape the narrative of what is right, what is wrong, what is just, what is unjust. But most importantly for me, power is about making sure that there are consequences when you’re disappointed.
I have a sense that in our digital conversations, the concepts of power and empowerment are often collapsed, confused and used interchangeably. This is to our detriment. Yes, empowerment is valuable. But you can have a group of empowered folks who have no power over their immigration status, their healthcare, their livelihoods (i.e. for example, a Black hijabi migrant on a zero hour contract in the United States). She does not need ‘empowerment’, she needs power. And building power is a different project to her believing in herself.
Secondly, we need to think about how we practice what we preach. What does it look like to strive towards an abolitionist world and yet consider ourselves digital judge, jury and executioner? In her book, maree brown suggests some questions to ask ourselves before we get involved in a digital call out. I’ve included a selection below:
Has there been any private efforts for accountability or conflict resolution?
Are the survivors being adequately supported?
Has the accused acknowledged what they’ve done, are they saying something different happened?
Has the accused begun the process of taking accountability, or are they still causing harm?
Does the accused have significantly more power than the accuser, and are they using that power to avoid accountability?
Is the call out precise? Is the demand for accountability related to the alleged harm?
Does it feel like we can ask questions?
Are we being asked to rush to action? Is there enough ime to make sure what’s going on and what’s possible?
Is the only acceptable consequence to those making the call out for the accused to cease to exist?
Does this feel performative?
I find asking questions like this useful, because after years of grassroots community work, one thing I can say for certain is that it is almost always useful to pause and take stock. Unless of course, there is abuse and/or harm being meted out at that very moment, there is value in slowing the pace and creating the conditions required for conflict resolution. Naturally, this is a case by case situation, some situations require urgency in order to ensure safety. And of course, not every single conflict can be resolved by beginning with dialogue. But there is a reason even wartime negotiations begin with a ceasefire and talks.
I am not interested in a world where misunderstandings, critiques and mistakes are collapsed in the same bucket as institutional and systemic injustice. We - and I start with myself - must consider, design and practice better ways of holding each other to account, and learn to tailor the methods of accountability for who we are dealing with.
So, if you don’t see me participate in an online call out, it’s perhaps because I am trying to get on the phone with someone, seeing if I can play a part in clearing up a misunderstanding, relaying the merits of a critique, or helping the accused party come to terms with and own up to their mistake. If I am joining the fray, I would hope that I have asked myself the above questions and arrived at the conclusion that this last resort option is the only viable avenue left.
And, when I’m on the receiving end of another call out, I hope that you may do the same to me. Get on the phone, send me a message, help me through - so that I can continue to grow and contribute to the project of transforming the world for the better, with the rest of you, Inshallah.
***
What I’m reading this week: the fantastic Laurie Penny on the ‘long con of Britishness’, a brilliant essay that I highly recommend.
What I’m watching this week: a series of videos on tech ethics and this exciting French heist series.
What I’m listening to this week: revisiting a podcast on the history of the white power movement (hint: the siege of the Capitol has been brewing for a while)
What I’m paying attention to this week: did you notice that the commitment to ‘vaccinate 13 million people’ in the UK has subtly changed? The Prime Minister now says they are committed offering the vaccine to 13 million people… which is quite a stark difference indeed. An ‘offer’ can simply be a text message that is never read, after all. The reporting on the vaccination effort doesn’t always make that distinction though, and is an example of how slippery language hides incompetence, broken promises, and often, injustice.
***
Thanks for subscribing and reading this inaugural edition of Diasporan Diaries. Please, comment with thoughts, questions, critiques…and share if it resonated.
Much love and strength to you all,
Yassmin
Thank you for this piece. It did resonate beautifully and encouragingly.