We had a guest speaker come into one of my sociology classes. He is a former member of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and he was brought in to give his perspective and his thoughts about the “War on Drugs” and drug use in society. We were allowed to ask about anything we wanted based on what we’d come to learn this semester, and the next class we debriefed about what we learned. Although we’d been learning about the role of the DEA in upholding racist practices, only one person in our entire class decided to ask about it, and they were Black. When my professor asked why no one else thought to ask about something like that, everyone’s response was something along the lines of “Well I didn’t think to ask that” or “I didn’t know how to ask that or phrase it correctly” or “I didn’t feel like it was my place to ask.” My professor challenged us by telling us that we’d been learning about this topic all semester. Even if we didn’t have personal experience with it, we still were aware enough to have an open conversation. She wanted us to think critically and approach difficult subjects, not shy away from them.
This deflection away from certain topics is one thing I’ve noticed in a number of classes that I have taken. When things become “too serious” or “too real,” professors or students sometimes choose to close off. They think that by closing off and avoiding these conversations they’re able to remain neutral on the topic. They then won’t have to worry about saying wrong phrases or offending anyone. They won’t have to worry about unintentionally speaking for others. I understand where this feeling comes from.
Speaking for others and their experiences can sometimes be vain, arrogant or unethical. It can also change the meaning and truth of what is being said. When we speak for others we, in turn, can create images of who they are, sometimes real and sometimes not. How things are heard depends on who says it, and who says it will affect the style and language in which it is stated, which in turn can affect its perceived significance. It makes sense why people would want to avoid falling into a trap like this and unintentionally offending or oppressing a group of people. However, just because a speaker’s location can affect meaning and truth doesn’t mean that one’s location determines the meaning or truth.
Speaking for others can be incorrect, but not speaking at all can be dangerous. It’s illusionary to think that we can only ever speak for ourselves. We cannot live as completely neutral beings because our actions and our words will always have meaning. Even when we think we are being neutral by choosing not to say anything, this action in itself is loud and carries significance. On top of that, only speaking for oneself denies a responsibility to others or to the society at large. People in positions of authority have a responsibility to address and speak about hard topics. Choosing to live “neutrally” just exploits one’s own privilege by caring only for their own personal happiness at the expense of others.
So, instead of retreating away from hard conversations or topics, we need to create spaces for receptive listening. We do not need to speak for others, but instead, strive to speak about others as an advocate or as a messenger. We should encourage open conversation and the making of errors. We need to be open to being wrong but allowing ourselves to learn from it and reflect on it. Being “neutral” is just no longer an option anymore.