Paste your essay in here…Consider the following historical example of Juliette Hampton Morgan, an upper class white woman who stood up for the civil rights movement and those who were oppressed by speaking for them. Morgan had a great influence on the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. In Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. book, “Strive Towards Freedom: The Montgomery Story”, he states “Morgan was the first to draw connections between the civil rights movement and Gandhi in her letters to the editor.” Although speaking “for” others has been criticized as being problematic in regards to speakers location and the meaning and truth that comes from the location. Some understanding should be obtained, as philosopher Linda Alcoff stated, “To say that location bears on meaning and truth is not the same as saying that location determines meaning and truth.” This leads to a philosophical examination of the difference between speaking for others and speaking for others who cannot speak for themselves. Through self-reflexivity and using intersectional lens the dissonance between “speaking for” others and “speaking for” those who are marginalized and oppressed by hegemony can be reduced.
To understand the difference of “speaking for” those who are oppressed and marginalized verses “speaking for” others it may be necessary for an examination of “as”, “for” and “with”. To begin with a common implicit assumption is that “speaking as” is a prerequisite for “speaking for” someone. It is also assumed that “speaking as” versus “speaking for” minimizes the dissonance between the intracultural meanings. This is based off of yet another implicit assumption that when one is “speaking as” they are speaking from a position of similar interest.(Stanovsky.1997) Therefore, they have more theory of mind into the truth of the whole group. This however, creates a situation of coopting and exclusivity.
If “speaking as” and the assumed rules that follow with “speaking as” are a prerequisite for “speaking for” then it can be assumed there are some shared interest and values. Through these shared interest or commonalities any member of the group may articulate or represent the group and it’s other members. In other words any woman can speak for other women’s rights, even if the other women are of a different race or sexual preference or religion. Another example might be a man who is a breast cancer survivor, because of this common experience this supposedly means he can speak for all breast cancer survivors. The differences within the group of women or breast cancer survivors is not taken into account, thus some voices are not being properly represented. The idea however, that one cannot speak for another unless there is membership is also very limiting. According to Alcoff the issue remains that “We cannot neatly separate off our mediating praxis that interprets and constructs our experiences from the praxis of other.”
Not speaking for others, however, even if based on the idea that oppressed peoples should be able to represent their own interest enables diffusion of responsibility. Not speaking for others could also have the consequences of leading to a culture of silence. Alcoff goes on to also say, “The claim that I can only speak for myself assumes the autonomous conception of self in Classical Liberal theory-that I am unconnected to others given certain conditions.” On the same matter she also states that “a retreat from speaking for will not increase in receptive listening in ALL cases; it may result merely in a retreat into a narcissistic yuppie life style in which a privileged person takes no responsibility for her society whatsoever.” Not speaking for others also keeps the power with the privileged and perpetuates hegemonic oppression. In addition to power it also releases the privileged from adequately educating, understanding and enlightening themselves to the circumstances of those who are oppressed or marginalized by hegemony. If “speaking for” only entails those with shared interest and commonalities this may also necessitate the obscuring of differences with in the intracultural group.
If, however, we instead consider “speaking with” as a prerequisite for “speaking for” then “speaking for” can be a powerful tool against the hierarchal forces that perpetuate oppression. The act of “speaking with” allows a diversity of voices with in the group to be heard. By gathering shared authentic experiences (lived experiences) among those within the group it helps create a language of identity and difference for powerful resistance. Also “Speaking with” does not have to be accompanied by “speaking as” or “speaking for.” The conflation of “speaking with” and “speaking for”, however, still is at a dissonance with how to choose whom to speak with which, influences who gets to speak “as” and who gets to speak “for.” Although speaking with can be convoluted, it is still something to strive for. According to Alcoff “ If the dangers of speaking for others result from the possibility of misrepresentation, expanding one’s own authority and privilege, and a generally imperialist speaking ritual, then speaking with and to can lessen these dangers.”
Although there are dangers it may be necessary to “speak for” others who are facing control by a hegemonic epistemology and ontology that determine standards in which individuals are measured. This should be done through critical research, historical narratives, self-reflexivity and “speaking with” those who need empowerment. The location of a speaker can be perceived as a benefit to those to whom the speaker is representing. Using the speaker’s location, as a platform to disseminate the shared authentic experiences and ideas from can benefit the oppressed and marginalized group, depending on the listener’s subjective perception. For example if you are part of a privileged, powerful group then what you have to say is assumed important, using this premise to speak for the oppressed and marginalized can be beneficial. Therefore, someone who has a solid location to speak from should not try to distance themselves from their location by claiming neutrality. (Stanovsky, 1997) Some of the other dangers, however, of “speaking for” other who are oppressed or marginalized are that the objective could be seen as to increase political and moral capital. There are always risks that must be considered when “speaking for” others. If there were no dangers or risks then it might not be a worth “speaking for.”
One cannot help the location one was born into or has achieved, however, what one DOES with the privileges that they are associated with matters more than the privileges themselves. Understanding the multiple social locations that define identity such as; race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability with in the social justice network are imperative. This understanding is achieved through awareness of reflexivity; the working toward critical awareness of social location and assumptions with respect to privilege and oppression. As Alcoff says the question that should be asked when “speaking for” others is “will it enable the empowerment of oppressed peoples?” The importance of “speak for “others who cannot speak for themselves is one that can not be ignored. Empowering and enlightening the oppressed and marginalized to overcome the systematic oppression and avoiding intersectionality is a responsibility of being human.