What does it take to create change? Is a disrespect necessary in order to draw attention to important topics? How far is too far? HeatherN breaks it down.
Last night, while Michelle Obama was giving a speech at a fundraising event, a lesbian activist, Ellen Sturtz, interrupted to vocally demand that the President sign an executive order to extend employment non-discrimination so it includes LGBT individuals. Today my Twitter feed has been alight with all sorts of people commenting on whether they agree with Sturtz’s actions. The thing is, though, this is kind of a complicated issue. I feel like Twitter really isn’t the best place to sort this out. So instead of adding my own Tweets, I’m going to try to break it down a bit here.
Disruptive Protesting
AP Photo
A lot of people are talking about how, while they agree with the policy (passing something to protect LGBT employees from discrimination), they disagree with Sturtz’s protest method. Interrupting the speech of a high profile person is a type of activism that is all about gaining media attention—though hopefully not just about the disruption, but also about the issue being protested.
Many people assert that they disagree with heckling as a form of protest, full stop. The problem with that, though, is that demanding that a group only protest in ways that the powers-that-be find acceptable is highly problematic. Activism and protest are not going to be polite or follow social rules. A lot of the times that’s part of the point: that an issue is important enough to warrant disrupting the everyday workings of government, or a speech, or whatever.
The group ACT UP utilized disruptive activism throughout the late 1980s and 1990s when trying to bring attention to the AIDS epidemic, for example. One tweet I saw even referenced ACT UP, pointing out that unlike back in the 80s, progress in LGBT rights is being made quickly today. Thus, the tweet argued, it was unnecessary for such disruptive activist tactics.
The problem, however, is that so much focus is being made on same-sex marriage a lot of LGBT activists are worried that other fights are being forgotten. So I think that it’s actually even more important to bring attention to the LGBT rights that aren’t getting the same press as same-sex marriage. I definitely think the issue of discrimination in the workplace is worth utilizing disruptive activist tactics.
The thing about disruptive activism, though, is that it’s tricky to use. In order for it to be effective, it has to be well thought-out and very precisely targeted. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than a rude heckler being…well…rude. Michelle Obama was not the proper target for this type of protest. She has absolutely no decision making power at all in the U.S. government. Arguably targeting the President himself to make these demands would make more sense. However, it’s also worth noting that it’s really the legislature that has the most power when it comes to changing employment discrimination laws.
What’s more, a small fundraising event was not the proper setting for a disruption, particularly since that event was in a private home. I’m no expert in protest strategy, but it seems to me that the White House’s Pride event would have been a more effective space to bring up the issue of employment discrimination. After all, at least then the setting and the protest would have been connected to each other in some way. But a fundraising speech made by a person who has no actual power within the government definitely wasn’t the place to stage this piece of activism.
Oh God, the Power Dynamics
Michelle Obama is a straight woman of colour and the First Lady of the United States. Barack Obama is a straight man of colour and the President of the United States. Ellen Sturtz is a queer* white woman and an LGBT activist. What we have here is a recipe for intersectionality in action. The power and privilege dynamics in this situation are another thing which I’ve been seeing a lot of comments on and, goodness, they are complicated. On the one hand, the Obamas have the biggest platform from which to voice their opinions. They could be talking about their favourite M&M colour and it’d at least make it into a couple of blog stories. People listen to what they say.
On the other hand, the Obamas are two people of colour in positions previously only ever held by white people. They’ve faced some of the harshest and most ridiculous criticism because of this. Questions about Barack Obama’s place of birth, their religion and their national pride have all been raised and made popular in ways that would have never happened had they been white. What’s more, they’ve both faced a heck of a lot of heckling and disrespect throughout Obama presidency. This is also, I think, due to the fact that they are people of colour. I mean, could you even imagine someone shouting, “Liar,” during a State of the Union address if the President were white? It’s possible, but I doubt it would have happened.
So with Sturtz, we have another white person heckling the Obamas in a particularly disrespectful way. However, while that context cannot be ignored, we also have to remember that Sturtz is a queer woman trying to bring attention to LGBT issues she believes have been ignored. I’ve seen a lot of tweets suggesting that Sturtz’s protest was an act of social privilege, and that is troubling to me. She was not approaching this as a privileged white person. She is an unprivileged LGBT person trying to bring attention to LGBT issues by voicing them to someone who actually benefits from straight privilege (Michelle Obama). Sturtz’s actions were not those of privilege; or rather they were actions of both privilege and oppression. She is a white person whose voice is heard and a queer person whose voice is marginalised, all at the same time.
TL;DR
In conclusion, Sturtz shouldn’t have targeted Michelle Obama for her protest and she really shouldn’t have tried disruptive activist tactics at someone’s private home. Her message that employment discrimination needs to stop being shoved under the rug, however, is a good one and worth more effectively targeted disruptive protests. Also, intersectionality, power and social privilege are complicated topics, particularly in this instance, and are worth a lot more discussion than Twitter can provide.
* I don’t know how Sturtz identifies, so I chose to use the term “queer.” Deal with it.
Update May 05, 2013: Right so all the people saying that the First Lady should have reacted to Sturtz’s heckling differently need to hush up. Seriously, folks.