Recently, Justice Democrats’ leadership, in particular the Executive Director, Saikat Chakrabarti, and the Campaigns Director, Alexandra Rojas, ousted Cenk Ugyur from the organization. This reflects a pattern I find troubling among some who profess to advocate for social justice. Individuals who exhibit this pattern are sometimes described as “social justice warriors”. The pattern I am referring to is how these individuals sometimes respond to what they perceive to be infractions against social justice. More specifically, those instances in which the response is to launch into a sharp criticism of the offenders, censuring them and their actions, and then not allowing for any dialogue with the offender regarding the infraction. The purpose of such a dialogue is to give the offender the opportunity to acknowledge responsibility for the offense, to acknowledge the harmful impact of his/her actions, and to offer ways, where possible, to make amends. While the commitment of individuals who censure harmful behavior is commendable, the means by which they seek to live out that commitment can at times be counter-productive. While it is important for warriors to know what they are fighting against, they must balance this with a clear understanding of what they are also fighting for. Because of the potentially self-defeating consequences which this pattern can have for the progressive movement, we should examine it more carefully, and offer an alternative. In order to do so, consider the work of a person whom I regard as a truly important figure in the fight for justice, the Brazilian educator Paolo Friere as outlined in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Paolo Friere

The Dangers of Polarization

One of the central points made by Friere is that the vocation of all human beings is to engage in the process of becoming. We are all unfinished products who must exercise our freedom in order to more fully realize our potential. This process thrives under conditions of justice, but is thwarted by oppression. At its core, oppression is based on dehumanization. That is, depriving human beings of the ability to exercise their freedom and thus engage in the process of becoming. As a result, the oppressor transforms persons into things to be dominated, exploited and manipulated.

This point is critical to the problem being discussed. It underlines that being human means being fallible. Being free means that we will, of necessity, sometimes make mistakes. If people are not allowed to make mistakes and given the opportunity to learn from them, they are essentially being deprived of the vocation of becoming more human as described by Friere. That is not to say that everyone will take that opportunity. Likewise, there may be certain actions that are so egregious that they merit harsh consequences. However, to the extent that we can appreciate the sometime arduous nature of becoming, we can create an environment that allows for individuals to act in ways that are unjust. How those individuals subsequently understand and correct their actions is what matters. Not allowing for this, according to Friere, creates conditions conducive to oppression.

Friere goes on to observe that oppressors fundamentally do not have faith or trust in their fellow human beings. Oppressors tend to adopt a cynical view of others, generally expecting the worst from them. They see the failings of others as a validation of their cynical view, and as an opportunity to condemn them. However, they spare themselves of this same harsh treatment. Instead they adopt a façade of self-righteousness which disguises an exaggerated sense of self-importance and superiority. Though they are just as imperfect and fallible as those they condemn, to admit to this would be a threat to their inflated self-image. So it is easier to see it in others. There are certainly ample examples of this attitude that we can find in actions taken by Congress to deprive individuals of health care, to undermine the social safety net, and to divert wealth from the poor to the privileged. As progressives we thus want to be vigilant about not falling into the same pattern.

In light of this, Friere believes that it is imperative that those who work for justice possess the quality of humility. Such humility first enables them to accept their own humanity, and their own struggles to become more human. It also enables them to feel compassion for their fellow human beings despite their imperfection and transgressions. Compassion does not mean failing to hold people accountable for their actions. It does not mean turning a blind eye to the harm they cause others. What it does allow for is the ability to recognize that there are times when we have been guilty of similar actions, and that we are subject to the same frailties. Compassion is recognition of our shared humanity with the person who has committed some offense. What humility ultimately achieves is putting an end to the polarization that only perpetuates oppression and injustice. In a world of us vs. them, there is always the danger that the oppressed can become the oppressor. This is why Friere characterizes oppression as a form of antidialogical action. By this he means a way of relating to others characterized by a lack of mutual trust, and by the absence of faith in the possibility that through examining one’s mistakes one can become a better person.

No Justice Without Compassion

What the work of Friere makes clear is that anyone who is committed to justice must also recognize that there are times when conflict calls for compassion rather than censure. These are times when recognition of our shared humanity offers the possibility that the resolution of the conflict advances liberation for all involved. By recognizing this shared humanity, compassion enables us to recognize that in a sense we are all “sinners”. Those things that we dislike in others are never too far from what we particularly dislike in ourselves. Instead we can feel some degree of empathy with the person who has committed the offense. This has been a message that has run through many great religious and spiritual traditions. For example, Jesus observed, “Why do you seek to remove the sliver in your brother’s eye. Remove first the log in your own.”

The message is one of forgiveness. We can hate the sin, but still love the sinner. Before we rush to judgment, it would behoove us to consider whether there would be benefit to allowing for dialogue with the offender. And what would the purpose of such a dialogue be? First, to offer persons who have transgressed the space to respond to their transgression. Do they take complete ownership and responsibility for their words and actions? Next, to open the space for those who have experienced harm to express this and see how it is received by the offender. Then, to see if offenders accept that their actions have been harmful. And finally, to allow offenders to demonstrate that they are willing to redress the harms they have done, and redeem themselves in the eyes of the victim and in their own eyes. This is sometimes where the really hard work of justice-making is done. But it has no chance of even beginning if the option of forgiveness is not offered.

The Rush to Judgment and Impossibility of Forgiveness

Sometimes the unveiling of past transgression has become an excuse for exaggerating the magnitude of the offense in the name of “social justice”. So it was recently in the case of Cenk Uygur. Were his past statements offensive and insensitive? Did they merit censure? Yes — even he has admitted this. Were these actions one would expect of someone who professes to believe in social justice? No — but again, Cenk accepted this. But perhaps the truest thing that can be said about his actions is that they are a reflection that Cenk Uygur is human — just as human as we all are. And I believe that any of his critics, upon reflection, would realize that they have committed transgressions against justice themselves.

I believe, as did Friere, that one cannot fight for justice and to end oppression if he/she lacks humility. A humility that enables them to identify with human vulnerability and the agonizing work that goes into striving for perfection. The issue can never simply be that a transgression was committed, and automatically punishment must be administered without opportunity for dialogue.

Sadly, Cenk Uygur was not offered such an opportunity. There is no evidence that a productive dialogue occurred that could have opened the space for a collaborative resolution. Moreover, in the years that have followed since these posts were written, Cenk has demonstrated a willingness to take responsibility for past mistakes, to accept that his actions had hurtful consequences, and most importantly, to grow from his reflection upon these experiences. I believe his embracing his mistakes has deepened his compassion, and his understanding of what it means to fight for justice.

The tragedy is that this is not an isolated incident. The inability to offer forgiveness, subsequently precluding any opportunity for dialogue, has unfortunately occurred too often among those who profess to believe in social justice. We would do well to heed to advice of Paolo Friere. If we fail to do so, too much energy will be spend on infighting, and not directing anger toward the true enemies of justice and eliminating oppression.