by Kevin Dean, President & CEO, Tennessee Nonprofit Network
Several years ago, I was in a meeting with several other like-minded nonprofit leaders. A government leader had recently issued a profoundly damaging, biased, and dehumanizing statement about a community we all served, and we were strategizing about next steps to address the issue and mitigate damage to the community. Not only were his words damaging, the bill he was pushing would be dangerous and could cost people their livelihoods. I still feel a bit nauseous thinking about what he said and how he said it and the negative impact his words and actions caused so many human beings.
Unfortunately, the conversation was not as nuanced or thoughtful as I had expected, especially with the great minds sitting around the table. “How can we destroy him?” one person asked. “He’s an ignorant bigot with three brain cells and a bully pulpit!” another said. “Who do we know that can get him fired from his day job?” another asked. “I bet his wife and kids hate him!” “If I was that short, ugly, and fat, I’d be a jerk, too.” “I wonder if his wife knows about his affair!”
I was immediately uncomfortable with where this conversation was headed. Turns out, we weren’t so like-minded in all the ways I thought. Having had times in my life where people tried to destroy me, my career, my humanity, and my livelihood, I know how deleterious those efforts can be in finding some sort of middle ground or resolution. No one wins, and the two sides grow further apart than before.
There was no question that the man’s words were dehumanizing, biased, and dangerous, but weren’t we resorting to the same tactics of dehumanizing him? Accountability is one thing; dehumanization and cruelty are another. Were we taking on the same mindset of dehumanization as he was? I also knew this man personally, though we were not friends. He was a real – if not dangerously flawed – human being to me.
I never went to another meeting with that group. What I expected to be a thoughtful and nuanced conversation about the short- and long-term response to this man’s dangerous rhetoric became a mission to destroy him and his humanity. I wanted no part.
The Lack of Nuance and the Dehumanization of the Dehumanizers
In the nonprofit world, our mission is clear: to fight injustice, advocate for change, and empower marginalized communities. But as we navigate the complexities of social issues like DEI backlash, political polarization, and systemic inequities, it’s crucial to reflect on a fundamental question: Can we truly dismantle oppression without replicating the tactics of the oppressors?
Paulo Freire, the renowned educator and philosopher, explores this very paradox in his groundbreaking work, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” He reminds us that oppression robs individuals of their humanity, reducing them to mere objects in a system of exploitation. While we strive to restore that humanity, we must be vigilant not to become the mirror image of those we oppose. Without compassion and a recognition of every human’s humanity, the response of the oppressed is often to recreate the oppressive action they experienced.
The Dehumanization Trap
Freire argues that dehumanization lies at the heart of oppression. When individuals are objectified, their inherent worth is diminished, and they become targets for manipulation and control. The danger for those fighting against oppression is that, in our righteous anger and frustration, we may inadvertently adopt the very tactics that perpetuate dehumanization.
Think about the heated debates currently happening on the national stage during this election year. In partisan politics, we are seeing each side demonize the other with broad strokes. If you’re a member of the other party, you are fully and wholly corrupt, evil, and, in some cases, worthy of eternal damnation. You are fully and totally a monster. The whole conversation becomes intensely personal rather than focusing on the behaviors and words, which perpetuates the cycle of dehumanization, alienating potential allies, and stifling meaningful dialogue. As leaders of 501(c)3 nonprofits, we are not only legally required to remain nonpartisan, but we also have to avoid dehumanizing people to avoid being complete hypocrites.
Let me be very clear: I am in no way saying we, as nonprofits, should not fight with all of our strength to protect the marginalized, stigmatized, and voiceless communities we serve. I’m also not saying that a person should not be held accountable for their misdeeds, whether intentional or willfully ignorant. With the normalization of hate in our social media threads, the amped-up rhetoric of this election year, and, frankly, the loss of any nuance in discourse, we need to be fighting as hard as ever. What I would like to lift up is our tendency to dehumanize the dehumanizers and the use of the same oppressive tactics as oppressors in our responses. This blog post is about our tendency towards dehumanization of our enemies and our use of power to oppress the oppressors. This blog post is advocating for a compassionate but steadfast response to dehumanization by not following in the footsteps of those who seek to oppress us or the communities we serve.
Freire’s Vision of Liberation
Freire’s concept of liberation goes beyond simply reversing the roles of oppressor and oppressed. True liberation, he argues, requires a transformation of both individuals and society as a whole. It involves:
- Critical Consciousness: Developing an awareness of the systems of oppression that shape our lives and recognizing our own role in perpetuating or challenging those systems.
- Dialogue and Collaboration: Engaging in respectful conversations with others, even those who hold different views, in order to build understanding and find common ground.
- Praxis: Taking action to challenge injustice and create a more equitable society, informed by critical reflection and dialogue.
A Path to Liberation
According to Freire, we must be willing to listen to opposing viewpoints with empathy and respect, even when we fundamentally disagree. I have to admit this part is hard for me. Though I am a white male with all the privileges it affords, I also identify as a member of several other marginalized communities who have been recently under attack. I find it difficult to be in the presence of someone who disbelieves my humanity or my good-ness. What I have realized, though, is those conversations need to continue to happen. No, we don’t have to tolerate name-calling, threats, etc., but not all conversations that involve dehumanization are as extreme as the ones we may see on television. They may not change the mind of the oppressor, but they may sway those on the fence who could be future allies and help them understand the nuance that the rhetoric does not. By shutting down conversations, we lose those in the middle who only need more information and context to land on a position – which is hopefully your position on the subject!
Instead of viewing those who oppose us as less-than-human, we can strive to understand the root causes of their resistance. Are they fearful of change? Do they feel their voices are being marginalized? Are we missing critical aspects of the issues that are problematic but outside of our realm of understanding? By acknowledging their concerns, we can create opportunities for dialogue and collaboration, building bridges instead of walls…maybe not with them, but with those somewhere in the middle. We do not have to tolerate dogmatic hate, but we can take an alternate approach to how we respond to dehumanization. If we listen to the ways we or the people we serve are dehumanized, we can better respond with framing ourselves and the people we serve as human.
The goal is not simply to gain power or win arguments. What I have found is that several of the loudest voices on both sides of the conversation are often about winning the argument or gaining power. It’s dangerous to align with these people even if their beliefs seemingly align with yours because they are often the first to dehumanize. The ultimate aim is to create a world where everyone’s humanity is affirmed and celebrated while calling out, reframing, and rejecting dehumanizing behaviors. This requires us to engage in dialogue that is respectful, inclusive, and transformative.
Practical Steps for Nonprofits
Here are a few practical steps nonprofits can take to embody Freire’s vision:
- Foster a culture of dialogue: Create safe spaces where employees and stakeholders can openly discuss their perspectives on social issues, even when those perspectives diverge. Create boundaries around dehumanization, focusing on the issues/behaviors and not the people.
- Invest in training: Provide ongoing education on topics like unconscious bias, cultural competency, and conflict resolution.
- Practice active listening: When engaging with those who oppose your mission, listen to their concerns with an open mind and seek to understand their underlying motivations. The goal isn’t to be right (you probably are anyway!). The goal is to find a way forward. Shutting down the conversation will most likely lead to a dead end.
- Build coalitions: Partner with organizations that share your values, even if they don’t always agree with your specific tactics. However, avoid allies that may dehumanize the opposition or use the same oppressive tactics of the oppressors.
- Identify What Compromise Looks Like: Sometimes a “middle ground” isn’t possible when it rejects a person or community’s humanity. Other times, though, concessions can be made to find a middle ground, or at least identify the common ground as a way to move forward in a positive direction. Remember that Harvey Milk, the famous LGBTQ leader in San Francisco, won his election by meeting with intensely skeptical (and sometimes blatantly hateful) blue collar workers and finding middle ground. A person doesn’t have to agree with every aspect of your organization to become a donor or an advocate.
We can create a movement for social change that is not only powerful but also just and compassionate. Let’s commit ourselves to this ongoing journey of self-reflection and growth, recognizing that the fight for justice is not a destination but a continuous process of learning and unlearning. In doing so, we honor the legacy of Paulo Freire and ensure that our efforts to dismantle oppression truly reflect the values of liberation and humanization we hold dear. Only then can we create a world where everyone can flourish, free from the chains of dehumanization and injustice.