Does respectability politics have a place in America’s value of harmony?

In the U.S., relying on “respectability politics” undermines the very foundation of the country’s stated reverence for diversity. Respectability politics espouses the philosophy that, to earn respect, the only route is to adopt the dominant culture’s value system and to speak in the value-language of that dominant culture. Where’s the diversity in that?

The long-standing challenge for those who are not part of the dominant culture is to balance respect for one’s “tribal” culture with respect for some forms of assimilation. President Obama, for example, tried to encourage more men in the African-American community (along with other “Black identity” individuals) to embrace the practice of keeping nuclear families intact— as an involved father and partner. Yet, he was quite vocal that one need not apologize for “being Black." Rather, one should celebrate positive cultural traditions and values (while remaining aware of the harshness of Black history).

No community or subculture should think of itself in terms of needing “self-policing” (another aspect of respectability politics). Every community should think of itself in terms of benefiting from self-improvement. There’s a huge difference here. One is oppressive and the other is empowering. Self-improvement suggests that we are in charge of our cultural and individual behavior and that we get to decide what constitutes an “improvement.”

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are all a whole lot more alike than we are different, but that does not mean that one community should spend its energy proving that it is happy to be totally aligned with the dominant culture. To be so is to, at best, stand in the shadow of that dominant culture—receiving none of the light. A social psychology in which one feels the metric is “to what degree the culture aligns with what the dominant culture says, does, and believes” sets up an unhealthy imbalance in terms of respect and appreciation. The challenge is that most (all?) dominant cultures insist on this imbalance and on using themselves as the metric for superiority.

However, any community/subculture that has an inadequate voice does well not to be outright oppositional. It’s my experience that it is not possible to find acceptance from anyone we are shouting at with a hostile epithet. Any community that wants acceptance and respect needs to embrace ways of commanding respect without alienating those who are most receptive to the right for that respect. There’s a difference between righteous indignation and in-your-face hostility. I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has lived within the dominant White American culture my whole life. However, I pay attention to what goes on around the world. No matter what regional culture I’ve observed (e.g., Nigerian, Indian, Brazilian, French), no one is “converted” by hostile attacks.

A mature individual knows how to command respect without demanding it. And if commanding respect without demanding it works best when dealing with those who are sympathetic, that is even truer when dealing with those who are not receptive, such as many people in a dominant culture.

Respectability politics reminds us that a culture is unlikely to be embraced if it loudly negates the values and behaviors of the dominant culture. That is just a practical observation of the way that societies and individual human psychology work. It is dangerous, though, if that realization is not balanced with insistence on retaining what is beautiful and cherished in the culture that commands respect.

In the U.S., the choir must sing in harmony, never in unison. Do not ask the baritone to sing the soprano's part.

Getting Passed a Fear of Confrontation

Someone recently asked me, "How do I get over my fear of confrontation?"

First of all, wise people know that there are some kinds of confrontation that they should avoid. When one person is aggressive in confronting another, that can be dangerous— physically, psychologically, or both.

My observation? Hostile people can be toxic. You don’t have to be afraid of them. Just be smart enough to walk away, figuratively or literally.

My advice? (1) Don’t step up to outright confrontations (hostile arguments). (2) Become more comfortable in discussing differences of opinion that are not expressed with hostility.

I think your fear of confrontation might benefit from “desensitization.” In this way, you can develop an ability to tolerate some forms of conflict without fear. Start with minor types of differences that don’t have much of a consequence if you continue to disagree. Start with people who are not hostile toward you when presenting their argument. Be patient with yourself. It takes a while to be comfortable with expressing disagreements, that is, with arguments.

The payoff is that desensitization produces a healthy change in one’s state of mind about verbal conflicts. The way this technique desensitizes you, of course, is that you learn, in your gut/amygdala, that not all verbal conflicts are psychologically “unsafe.” Arguments can be opportunities to learn more about an issue and to understand how people can differ in their opinions.

The complement to this desensitization is building up enough self-respect and righteous indignation about a person’s behavior when they forcefully confront rather than respectfully disagree. To be sure, hostile verbal language and hostile body language are no way to treat someone with whom one has a disagreement. Verbal and nonverbal aggressiveness are forms of bullying, even if the other person is not consciously aware that he’s gone that far. You don’t have to accept this kind of treatment. Because you’ll have been practicing desensitization, you’ll also have had experience recognizing when a difference of opinion trips over from a respectful disagreement to a bellicose argument. Keep that dividing line clear in your mind.

There is a difference between fear of confrontation and wanting to avoid conflicts. Many people just don’t like to argue. And there’s a lot of wisdom in that. When was the last time you watched two people argue and one convinced the other to change his opinion? Yeah. Doesn’t happen often—probably only when there is already deep respect on both sides and true listening happens. It almost never happens when one person aggressively attacks the other person’s beliefs.

However, many people who are conflict averse are so simply because they are uncomfortable in social situations that seem to demand that they mount a defensible argument on the spot. That’s a good time to say you’d like to talk later, after you’ve had a chance to think about the issue. Then stand your ground about that delay.

What is essential to overcoming conflict avoidance is to be unwilling to compromise your values and beliefs in order to “keep the peace.” Keep that dividing line between respectful argument and hostile, aggressive confrontation in mind. Learn how you can change your thinking about your options when someone approaches a discussion as a confrontation. There’s neither a requirement to argue… nor to acquiesce. Agree to disagree and move on.