A Different Definition of Diversity

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona

Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 00:39


Diversity is fundamentally about voices. That's why Paul's program that I wrote about last week was called "Chicago Voices." The point of the program was not to bring more people of color bloggers and women and people from different socioeconomic backgrounds so that they could be checked off of a diversity list. "Oh good, there are 30 African Americans here instead of 10 in a crowd of 1,500." That's not the point. The point of diversity is to hear different voices. Voice comes from experience, and power helps project and include voices.

The experience of a 2nd Generation Mexican-American man living in a small town is very fundamentally different than the one of a working class-white mother living in a metropolitan city, and both are very different from an African American woman working as a professional progressive political consultant in the South. Many of the Chicago Voices project participants were also using whatever platform they have -- whether it's a small local blog or partnerships with larger blogs -- to project the values and the ideas that come directly from their experience. Nezua is a perfect example of someone who is using the Internet and blogs as a platform for elevating the issues of his people, who are being oppressed in the current immigration battle. The way that experience helps different political activists see the world, including the problems but also the solutions, is valuable. Without them, we can't see the full picture of our progressive movement.

And it's not even about them being at the convention, though that was critical. What would have been much better, would have been if more people like them, who come from fundamentally diverse backgrounds and experiences, were actively sought out to be in the leadership grouping that put on YearlyKos. Gina introduced the committee members on Saturday night, and the group didn't look very diverse to me. I am not at all in any way diminishing the contribution these people made, and I am not placing any blame here. I just want to point out that leadership matters. A cross-racial, cross-gender, cross-class, cross-regional coalition planning that event would have made it an event that was more relevant to all of those people, and those people are the winning progressive coalition. The folks who are active on the DailyKos blog do not represent the long-term progressive coalition, because our coalition is not 92% white. That's the Republicans.

I am completely exhausted and must sleep, but I wanted to get this out there, and I want to say that I do have a vision for how I think we can address this issue that we've been grappling with, which I will begin laying out this week. I'm thankful for the opportunity to have gone to the conference, because it took me working really, really hard through those four days (and of course, playing hard, too - thanks Living Liberally), to get there, but I do know where I think things should go. So I want people to know I'm not just talking about problems, I am talking about solutions, as well, and really hoping to open up a good and productive dialogue.

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona :: A Different Definition of Diversity

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yes, leadership matters (0.00 / 0)
Amen. The folks who are active on the DailyKos blog do not represent the long-term progressive coalition, because our coalition is not 92% white. That's the Republicans.

Who can make up a progressive coalition? Here is  one set of smart people's answer: "the core of a progressive resurgence." This is not rocket science. And it also doesn't take genius to know that people will get involved IF they trust that doing so will do them some good and they won't get dissed. If they can't trust, they'll let "progressives" go off and piddle with each other.

It does have to start at the working committee level. And it may require some of us who are white and empowered simply to shut up and listen some of the time.

Can it happen here?


One thing I will point out (0.00 / 0)
"Amen. The folks who are active on the DailyKos blog do not represent the long-term progressive coalition, because our coalition is not 92% white. That's the Republicans.

Who can make up a progressive coalition? Here is  one set of smart people's answer: "the core of a progressive resurgence."


In addition to what I wrote below, I also want to note, as I have discussed repeatedly in the "non white and / or non Christian" demographic stuff, that the people who read progressive blogs are actually from very Democratic demographics, not Republican ones. Yes, most blog readers are white, but Jews, white seculars, whites with other non-Christain religions and the GLBT community are all a huge percentage of the online activist world. Combined, these groups make up like 60-65% of the blogosphere, and also vote 70-75% Democratic of late (or, at about the same rate at which non-whites vote Democratic). The blogosphere may be white, but that does not necessarily mean it represents Republican identity demographics. Republicans tend to be straight white Christians, not just white, and only about one-quarter of the progressive blog world is straight white Christian. The blogosphere is also far less straight white Chistain than the Democratic Party as whole (about 40% of Democratic voters are straight white Christians).

The key, I think is finding ways to have different cultural groups who are all part of the progressive base work more effectively with one another. This is not an example of outlying progressivism within typically Republican demographic groups--this is an example of different groups, all of which come from typically progressive and Democratic demographics, existing in somewhat separate progressive "silos" from one another. Both groups are huge percentages of the Democratic base, as well. Non-whites are about 35% of the Democratic vote, and the typical blog reader groups I listed above make up about 25%. Combined, they form a clear majority--one that would potentially be large enough to win virtually any election in America before long.

If nothing else, I think that noting that the blogosphere and the netrotos do in fact represent growing progressive demographics should be taken as a sign of hope for the future. We have all rejected conservatism and Republicanism for a reason. That, certainly, is a good way to start making a connection.

I think I will blog about this when I wake up, too. Good discussion.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
The only thing that has worked in my experience is creating contexts where people in the different silos have the experience of working together. When we do have those experiences, the more positive aspects should be amplified. There will be less positive aspects, but we can't let those drown out the positives.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Sorry for the confusion (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean to say I was comparing Daily Kos readers with Republicans or trying to lump all white people together and say they are Republicans. There is a strong percentage of progressive whites, as you identify Chris, that are critical to the winning progressive coalition. And you are right that the blogosphere is a critical component to strengthening that part of the coalition.

What I mean by this is stepping away from the blogosphere and looking at the world of national electoral politics, Democrats will not win if their coalition is 92% white, where as Republicans can. As Jesse Jackson said, the ONLY time Democrats win nationally is when white people and people of color vote together.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.


[ Parent ]
Oh, I agree absolutely (0.00 / 0)
And this discussion is helping me see it much more clearly now. I have been talking for a long time about a "non-white and / or non-Christian coalition," and I am starting to see better where the different pieces fall into place. The blogosphere is definitely way heavy on the "non-Christian" side of this coalition. However, in order for the coalition to work, the two "groups" (both are actually diverse collections of many groups) need to be effectively integrated into a strong, broad coalition. The importance and effectiveness of the blogosphere, is limited until that takes place. Indeed, the modern progressive movement, as you have noted in the past, will not really have been born until that coalition is formed.



[ Parent ]
Dailouge on this can sometimes be surprisngly difficult... (0.00 / 0)
even in a realm like the blogosphere and the internet, that are often cited as more communicative and two-way forms of media. It just isn't a topic that many people like to talk about--which is a problem--even among progressives. The progressive blogosphere was, at its outset--and, large events like Yearly Kos not withstanding, even still largely is now--an ad hoc operation carried by people with nothing but progressive intentions. As such, some people's first reaction has been to recoil at the notion that they are not doing enough to be inclusive. I think the mentality of the upstart, the outsider, and the start up still prevails in the minds of many bloggers, if for no other reason than I know it does for me on many occassions.

But there comes a time when, after start ups go viral and begin to at least partially institutionalize into real political forces, that the mentality of the start up needs to be left behind. I don't think many people expected a great new wave of online activism to form back in 2002, but now that it has formed it is vital that we take steps to help further transform that activism into a full-fledged, broader progressive movement. And that means taking on issues like diversity in leadership, diversity in participation, and connection with other emerging forms of progressive activism, including the enormous immigrants' rights movement.

At Yearly Kos, I sensed an increasing desire at Yearly Kos to work much further on these issues. Ironically, it happened several times after a period at the conference when I had been resistant to such conversations, but then several people came up to me on the final day and wanted to talk more about how these issues had been raised in the Blog Theory panel.

Even beyond talking about it, more things need to start being done about it, like kid oakland's program for Yearly Kos. Even though I am completely exhausted, I just remembered that I raised these issues at last year's Yearly Kos, but did not really do much about outside of bringing on more diverse guest posters at the blogs (the BlogPac local blogger program might be an example as well--I'm sure)  I have written at during those times. to be still be saying  that more discussion is needed 14 months later is not particularly adequate.

Anyway, with bigger infrastructure things planned for the very near future both here and at BlogPac, I just wanted to say that I think it is time to go beyond talk and move into more action. It is vital to the future expansion and increasing effectiveness of the progressive movement in order for this to happen. In fact, I think it could be easily argued that the reason blogosphere traffic is not growing precisely because it has not done enough to address these issues. In other words, the lack of diversity has become internally damaging.

I'll have more on this tomorrow, as I follow up on the diversity questions and the blog theory questions (which are actually closely related). To Jen, Neuza, kid oakland and other, thanks for continuing to help push this dialogue, and this action, forward.

Thanks and a thought (0.00 / 0)
I'm Asian American and I've been to both Yearlykos.  The number of Asian Americans seemed to go up this year regarding the panelists, but in terms of attendees, it seemed to be about the same.  It would be nice to have more diversity and I appreciate you bringing this up.

As for my thought, I wonder if Clinton and Obama's poll numbers on the Dailykos strawpoll are deflated because of this lack of diversity.


[ Parent ]
Question to writestuff (0.00 / 0)
If you are willing: does it help to have the panelists be more diverse? It seems to me that in practical terms, that is where broader leadership can start because it is variable they control -- and better representation at the base may follow.

Always assuming of course that the panelists don't just become pets and tokens for the existing white base. :-) But this doesn't have to happen.

Can it happen here?


[ Parent ]
Re straw poll: Yes and no (0.00 / 0)
As far as the straw poll goes, Clinton's numbers are deflated (see my current post). However, Obama does very, very well among white non-Christians, who are a huge proportion of the progressive blogosphere. So, while the lack of ethnic diversity might hold down Obama's numbers, the massive number of white seculars online push them back up.

[ Parent ]
not just in audience but in leadership (4.00 / 3)
you make some good points here, jenifer. thanks for all your work and for paying attention to what is being said and felt and going on outside of your immediate area. i look forward to hearing the rest of your thoughts on these things, will watch the site.

delusions of un mundo mejor

It starts with the leadership (4.00 / 1)
"What would have been much better, would have been if more people like them, who come from fundamentally diverse backgrounds and experiences, were actively sought out to be in the leadership grouping"

I agree completely.  If you don't start with a diverse leadership group -- if you don't start by sharing power -- you are highly unlikely to promote or obtain diversity. 


My diversity tipping point came (0.00 / 0)
during the Netroots Nation candidate celebration.  I talked to almost all the candidates and really liked them on a personal level. But, when they stood on the stage together and the entire dais was White, with the exception of two African Americans, I was thoroughly disappointed and disheartened.  The fact that the only candidate chosen from the South was a sitting incumbent also left me dispirited.

Choosing Southern candidates to endorse is quite different than in any other geographic area. If there is no one in leadership from this region then it is hard to understand that you will not always find a 100% progressive candidate. There are not that many John Lewis candidates coming up through the ranks. 

As a northern born person, it has taken some time to realize that we have to accept 80% Democrats. This means that you have to decide what 20% of true progressiveness are you willing to give up in supporting a Southern Democratic candidate. For me, I will never give up Choice or LGTB, but I can accept a pro-gun candidate.

What made the Chicago Voices so wonderful was the cross-section of age, race, gender, and most importantly geography.

Setting a diversity goal regarding geography should be the easiest task in the blogosphere.

I was not privileged to know how the Netroots Nation candidates were selected, but if leaders continue to look for 100% progressiveness in every candidate in every geographic region then the South will continue to be overlooked. 


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox