I have something to say that I'm sure everyone is going to consider controversial. I've been meaning to say it for some time, and I realize that it's going to get some annoyance from all sides of this debate. Conservancy may lose Supporters over this, even though this is my personal blog and my personal opinion, and views expressed here aren't necessarily Conservancy's views. I've actually been meaning to write this publicly for a year. I just have to say it now, because there's yet another event on this issue caused yet another a war of words in our community.
If you follow the types of Free Software politics and issues that I do (which you probably do if you read my blog) you have heard the phrase — which has become globally common in general politics — “Social Justice Warrior”, often abbreviated SJW. As anyone who reads my blog probably already knows, SJW is used as a derogatory catch-all phrase referring to anyone who speaks up to on any cause, but particularly on racial or gender inequality. While the derogatory part seems superficially to refer to tactics rather than strategic positions, nevertheless many critics who use the phrase conflate (either purposely or not) some specific, poorly-chosen tactic (perhaps from long ago) of the few with the strategic goals of an entire movement.
Anyway, my argument in this post, which is why I expect it to annoy everyone equally, is not about some specific issue in any cause, but on a meta-issue. The meta-issue is the term “SJW” itself. The first time I heard the phrase (which, given my age, feels recent, even though it was probably four years ago), I actually thought it was something good; I first thought that SJW was a compliment. In fact, I've more-or-less spent my entire adult life wanting to be a social justice warrior, although I typically called it being a “social justice activist”.
First of all, I believe deeply in social justice causes. I care about equality, fairness, and justice for everyone. I believe software freedom is a social justice cause, and I personally have proudly called software freedom a social justice cause for more than a decade.
Second, I also believe in the zealous pursuit of causes that matter. I've believed fully and completely in non-violence since the mid-1980s, but I nevertheless believe there is a constant war of words in the politics surrounding any cause or issue, including software freedom. I am, therefore — for lack of a better word — a warrior, in those politics.
So, when I look at the three words on their face: Social. Justice. Warrior. Well, denotively, it describes my lifelong work exactly.
Connotatively, a warped and twisted manipulation of words has occurred. Those who want to discredit the validity that various social justice causes have bestowed a negative connotation on the phrase to create a social environment that makes anyone who wants to speak out about a cause automatically wrong and easily branded.
I've suggested to various colleagues privately over the last two years that we should coopt the phrase back to mean something good. Most have said that's a waste of time and beside the point. I still wonder whether they're right.
By communicating an idea that these social justice people are fighting against me and oppressing me, the messenger accusing a so-called SJW has a politically powerful, well-coopted message, carefully constructed for concision and confirmation bias. While I don't believe all that cooptive and manipulative power is wielded solely in the one three-word phrase, I do believe that the rhetorical trick that allows “SJW” to have a negative connotation is the same rhetorical power that has for centuries allowed the incumbent power structures to keep their control of those many social institutions that are governed chiefly by rhetoric.
And this is precisely why I just had to finally post something about this. I won a cultural power jackpot, merely by being born a middle-class Caucasian boy in the USA. Having faced some adversity in my life despite that luck, and then seeing how easy I had it compared to the adversity that others have faced, I become furious at how the existing power structures can brand people with — let's call it what is — a sophisticated form of name-calling that coopts a phrase like “social justice”, which until that time had a history of describing some of the greatest, most selfless, and most important acts of human history.
Yes, I know there are bigger issues at stake than just the words people use. But words matter. No matter how many people use the phrase negatively, I continue to strive to be a social justice warrior. I believe that's a good thing, in the tradition of all those who have fought for a cause they believed was right, even when it wasn't popular.
Bård Aase, Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Dionisio Martínez Soler, Elena ``of Valhalla'' and 14 others likes this.
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠), mnd, Sarah Elkins and 6 others shared this.
@mray, I supposed I'd like it if everybody was, in fact, Kuhn-fu-fighting, but I admit I'm biased. Also, that would be a little bit frightening, wouldn't it?
I'm actually glad some of you haven't heard of SJW; it means that the politics of internet troll attacks are not as widespread as they seem.
And, to @Dylan, it shows the example that mentioning the phrase brings trolls from the woodwork. For the record, I'm happily accepted by others who have been "accused" of SJW-ness. :)
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.
It had not occurred to me before, but the pejorative aspect of 'SJW' might be somewhat amplified by the (most likely unintentional) reference to the 'Warrior of the Light' stuff from Paulo Coelho (which I've only ever read excerpts of but, having tried to go through The Alchemist once, they were enough).
More to the point, my guess is that its effectiveness mainly stems from the use of 'warrior' as the defining feature of an individual (almost elevated to a profession). I.e. implying the person is someone who fights because... it's what they do.
Simultaneously, to some it may evoke the image of the romantic (here refering to the chivalric ideals) knight and the associated naivety world view and crudeness of method. Possibly further reinforced by the ineffectiveness of action at the knight-level to further causes of social justice.
All in all it seems a subtle and well-thought out invention. With hindsight, I can see why it would catch on and I'm not sure I'd want to reclaim it. Though if it becomes dominant, then it /has/ to be reclaimed one way or the other. Hopefully we're not there yet and some better term can be pushed in its place :)
Bob Jonkman likes this.
Charles Stanhope shared this.
It's not about phone theft. It's about control of information. Imagine the ability to kill switch all protesters phones at the next G20 or occupy before sending in the police. Remember it's not the user who will have control of the switch.
Bob Jonkman likes this.