Abstract
This study explores the lived experiences of people who act as allies in the interest of social justice. Interviews were conducted to investigate the meaning of the ally identity and the tactics allies use to interrupt stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination against others. Findings suggest that people who speak out on behalf of social justice from positions of relative power do so (a) out of identity concerns that emphasize moral obligations, (b) largely through authoritative and dialogic strategies that draw on their symbolic capital, and (c) in ways that reflect ideologies of culturally dominant groups. The study also describes tensions arising out of the contradictory nature of deploying social power against the system that confers it. Conventional definitions of “allies” that rely on static notions of power, finally, are challenged as too simplistic.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Belinda Petricek for her assistance in transcribing interview tapes.
Notes
To the extent that allies’ communication is both subversive and situated in positions of social or institutional power, it is difficult to characterize as strictly tactical or strategic. I use these terms here somewhat interchangeably, but have tried to use tactics to reflect relative emphasis either on the speakers’ objectives or situations requiring immediate responses, whereas I use strategies either to emphasize the speakers’ authority and in referring to more long-term approaches to social justice.
All names of interviewees are pseudonyms.
Two notes about the limitations of categories are important here. First, authoritative and dialogic communication are less distinct categories than opposite ends of a spectrum. Second, many communication behaviors fit in more than one category. Acting as a cultural liaison, for example, can simultaneously involve direct assistance to a disempowered individual and education of people in power.
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, or intersex.