This month we explore the rush to respond and the ramifications of wanting a “quick fix” to complex issues, instead of pausing to listen and acknowledge.
MA: Following up from our conversation last time about the perceived scarcity of attention and the temptation to use the dehumanization around us on each other instead of seeing ourselves in each other,[1] I’ve been thinking about how we see each other and honour each other’s experiences without feeling the need to limit or compare. I’m thinking about how maybe we have to separate the listening from the response first. Like, we have to create that opportunity to hear everybody and have everybody be seen for who they are and what this experience is for them. In this context, whatever the moment is, to just be in it without needing to jump to what does the response need to be. Sometimes we rush ahead to how do we prioritise responses or resources- which itself is part of capitalistic grind culture. So, I’ve been conditioned to think that if I hear a problem, I have to fix it, as opposed to just sitting with it first. I think a good starting point for us could be beyond thinking about consensual solidarity, pragmatically and principle wise, what does it mean for us? How do we try to be in solidarity? My current thinking is this step of listen first, don’t rush past the experience and emotions of it to try to solve the problem or allocate resources. Just listen and be with it first.
DD: Well, yeah, because you know that “let me act right away, let me fix it” is a response that we certainly heard a lot after the murder of Mr. Floyd. It was: “Give me the toolkit. Give me the one hour workshop.” I was like “Are you forgetting that we’ve been here for several centuries. Even if this was something you didn’t know until now, so it isn’t a quick or a simple fix.” This is an opportunity for you to learn more.
And why is it that that’s the initial reaction- let’s fix what I didn’t know- as opposed to OK, I didn’t know. So, what does it tell me that I didn’t know? What are the conditions under which I’ve come to know? So, let me just take a beat. Because there are all these things that we don’t know. I mean, isn’t that the whole point of education and learning? So why that reaction?
To me that speaks very much to the psychology of domination and the structure of inequality, that knee jerk reaction. It does a disservice to the historical past and the historical present, you know, because it suggests that this is happening in a vacuum. It’s really not respectful of context and of the impact on the targets of racial violence. It can seem like you’re imposing your idea of what a solution is by saying give me a toolkit, give me that seminar. It can seem that it’s about making you feel better. Who does that serve?
MA: The rushing past, is like rushing past human to human connection and empathy. It’s kind of itself dehumanising, almost a refusal to witness. And usually the rush is a to a technical solution that likely isn’t gonna work anyway. But it just hits me as you’re talking, how that rushing past is itself dehumanising -in not being willing to be humans together in a moment.
It makes me think of like something else, like really basic, but important to articulate. Before you start the conversation, it’s good to know what the other person wants or needs from you. Like if it is about anti-Black racism, then let’s talk about how anti-Black racism manifests on the university campus. We don’t need to bring anything else into it. And further- do you want me to listen and bear witness, offer emotional or other supports, talk about complaint processes or education needs? But really, how important it is in consensual solidarity to center the wants and needs of the person who is speaking to their hurt in that moment.
[1] See February 2025 blog.