An Idea Is Only a Tiny Thing, but…
-Lucinda J. Garthwaite, ILI Director
An idea is just an idea, essentially a humble thing, just a “formulated thought,” as Webster’s dictionary says. Something that occurs to someone, that gets shared or not.
Of course an idea can spark bigger things, can open possibilities and invite change unimaginable until that idea gets out. But like the match that reaches to light a fire, if the idea fizzles or lands on something not ready to blaze, it’s really a humble thing. And also like the fire, if an idea sparks a blaze that burns too hot for too long, it can do great harm.
I think it’s important to keep that in mind, because ideas morph into ideologies, and ideologies, despite their origins in the humble idea, are stubborn, self-important things. Back to Webster, an ideology is a “manner of thinking... an integrated assertion that [can] constitute a sociopolitical program.” An assertive sociopolitical program is a big lift for the humble idea.
The paradox of the assertive and self-important ideology is that it often makes itself invisible, becoming like air. Or it establishes itself with such certainty that to question it seems ridiculous, over-reactive or, good heavens!, radical. Applied to organizations for example, managerialism is a reigning ideology: of course we need people who assign other people around to various tasks. Of course we need to pay those assignors more. Of course we need progressive discipline to respond when those tasks aren’t done well. Those are the best ways to ensure the work of the organization gets done, and that workers are treated fairly.
Wait, what? Go back a little - discipline? So it’s a good thing to pay adults to discipline other adults? So that’s the path to fairness?
Right there I began a critique. Writing in We Will Not Cancel Us (2020) mediator and activist adrienne maree brown lifts up critique, reminding the reader that critique can “transform what can be shaped.” Because my commitment to liberatory change includes a belief that transformation is inevitable, then it seems to me I’m also called to hone my vision to see and critique ideologies.
In We Will Not Cancel Us, brown offers a critique of cancel culture suggesting that the idea that people need to be punished (called out, cancelled, targeted, shamed) for interpersonal conflicts, mistakes, contradictions, and harms that fall short of abuse has morphed into an ideological stance that does not serve the cause of liberation. To be clear, brown is all for accountability, for fierce advocacy and a clear line drawn against abuse. And she makes a case for an abolitionist ideology to replace an ideology of punishment, an ideology which, I think inarguably, has established itself with certainty not only in prisons but in organizations and, as brown suggests, in many movements for change.
Certainty about an ideology is a dangerous thing even when the ideology was born of liberatory intent. Untended by critique, ideology -- remember, it can have a sociopolitical agenda -- becomes social supremacy. I mean by social supremacy any ideology that establishes “structural power that privileges, centralizes, and elevates [a particular] people as a group.” That definition is from Robin DiAngelo, who has written extensively about white supremacy (and with whom I have some respectful disagreements, but that for another time). In DiAngelo’s piece, the word in the brackets is “white.” I replaced it with “[a particular] group” because while I believe that white supremacy is particularly pernicious, ubiquitous and tragically consequential, I also believe that social supremacy comes in all sizes and shapes. Consider physically-abled-supremacy, cisgender-supremacy, religious-supremacy. I’m not talking about bigotry here, although of course bigotry thrives on social-supremacy, I’m talking about an ideology that has morphed into something systemic, a forest not seen for the trees.
Social supremacy can be as massive as white-supremacy or as small as a group inside an organization that latches onto an ideological position, and garners enough institutional or social power to “privilege, centralize and elevate” that group and their ideology over all others. In those cases, critique gets called a threat to the ideology, and because the ideology has made itself invaluable, it stubbornly resists transformation.
That’s always a threat to liberatory change, even if the ideology, and the powerful people who espouse it, are ostensibly about liberation,
To be clear, I’m only working out an idea here. I’m not at all certain of what I just finished writing. I’m grateful for the opportunity to think it out loud to hundreds of Intersections readers and folks on social media who I’m confident will meet my thoughts with questions, at the very least a tilt of the head and a “hmmm.” My little ideas are as vulnerable to morphing into ideologies as any. You who are reading this are the guards at that gate.
This is what the ILI is for. This is our contribution to liberatory change: to critique ideologies, to inquire, to research, to learn and then offer innovative strategies that derive from the different perspectives our learning has afforded us. As the ILI happily becomes its own self, much more than just me as its founder, I am more and more clear of the critical need for its work.
Thank you for being part of that today.