A few nights ago, Ar and I went to see Sandra Day O'Connor speak. At one point in her presentation she advocated for her listeners (and for all people presumably) to learn how to "disagree agreeably." She explained that she felt that progress was not being made in Washington because people were too darn contentious.
O'Connor is not the first woman I have heard offer this advice. And, despite my respect for O'Connor and for the other wise women who have said this, I am torn as to whether or not to take it. I see that there are both costs and benefits. The benefits might be to work with the existing system, to honor others' perspectives, and to not "burn bridges." If keeping your job, getting your degree, and/or achieving financial success is your goal - this might very well be sage advice. However, it is my experience that being "agreeable," especially in situations where you have less socially sanctioned power, means stifling and doubting your own perspective and thus reinforcing the social/political power of the dominant group.
The question is, can you do more to change the system once you have attained "success"? Is it then worth it to be agreeable strategically until you have gained enough social/political capital to make wide sweeping change? I believe that without a doubt Sandra Day O'Connor never would have been the 1st female supreme court justice if she had been less agreeable. But when did it stop? When she made it, did she take the reins and change the direction of the runaway coach? Maybe. Maybe incrementally. Then again... maybe not.
Doesn't it seem a bit suspicious when those who benefit from a system suggest we not be too revolutionary, too passionate, too angry?
No comments:
Post a Comment