Righting the Allyship

In Spring 2016, gave a talk titled 'Dismantling the Rhetoric of Allyship' as part of a diversity lecture series at Murray State University. Since then, I have been working on a paper in hopes of publishing my views on allyship. While I'm still working on that piece, I want to share some of my thoughts here.

"I am an ally!" This, or some variation, is something I hear and read often across the field of student affairs. When I hear and read this statement, it typically comes from people who look like me: people who dominate discursive spaces. The ally thought process goes something like this: My identities are normative, but I aim to express a kinship by donning an ally mask. I possess compounding privileges through which I can choose when and how to express my ally-ness.

So, this has me wondering something: is allyship a trap? Have we made 'ally' the label du jour and squished it down to a buzzword?

There must be something about being able to self-label as 'ally' that's appealing. An ally is “a person who is a member of the dominant or majority group who works to end oppression in his or her personal and professional life through support of, and as an advocate for, the oppressed population” (Washington & Evans, 1991, p. 195). With this definition of ally, allyship represents a state of being (or labeling) that reflects membership as part of one or more dominant groups “who advocate[s] against oppression” (Munin & Speight, 2010, p. 249).

There has to be something that takes place for a member of one or more dominant identity categories to claim the ally label. Broido’s (2000) work on ally development represents one of the most widely cited works on the subject in the context of college students and college student development. In that work, she provided a nuanced perspective on ally identity through one’s recognition of one’s own privilege and the relationship between positions of privilege and power in socio-cultural contexts. Edwards (2006) offers another perspective on ally development. What I like about Edwards' piece is that he highlights that ally work is just that, work. It is on going, which he connotes with using the language of aspiring allies in labeling the stages:

1. Aspiring ally for self-interest
2. Aspiring ally for altruism
3. Aspiring ally for social justice

My view is that far too many members of dominant identity categories have set up camp in the first stage, focused on self-interest. This is what has caused the allyship to list. This idea isn't new. Derrick Bell introduced his theory of interest convergence in 1980, explaining that members of a dominant culture support racial justice when they perceive an ability to receive direct benefit. Allies don their buttons, or now their safety pins, and I worry the motivation is to be recognized as an ally, and that their allyship efforts end there.

We have to find ways to facilitate ally development beyond self-interest, to a space where allyship represents social justice action. Allyship has to jettison the flotsam of empty rhetoric, and advance to praxis reflecting the heart of being an ally. As Friere pointed out, actions and words must become one. Aspiring allies have to be OK with being uncomfortable. After all, the point of social justice is to dismantle the very systems that have created the comfortable privileged spaces that allies inhabit.