Teachable Moments in #CivicMedia | MIT Center for Civic Media
A panel at the MIT-Knight Civic Media conference was about the Open Web's Second Chance, and the problems we are facing with growing the open web movement. The panelists were Mark Surman, Executive Director of the Mozilla Foundation and Seamus Kraft, Executive Director of The OpenGov Foundation. Mark kicked things off with the story of the open web, how Mozilla was born in 1997 and where he sees the movement today. Then the conversation turned to Seamus, who was first logging online 17 years ago when Mozilla was founded.
Seamus first went on the Internet in the late '90's for two main reasons. Not as an activist, or as a software developer, but as a young teenage boy both hoping to trade live Grateful Dead and Phish concert recordings...and looking to meet and chat up his preferred gender on AOL Instant Messenger. Fast forward to today: Seamus became a fighter for the open web in 2011 when he, as a conservative Congressional staffer, saw the impending SOPA and PIPA laws threatening the everyday Internet he had grown to love over the intervening years. He is someone who dearly loves what the Internet has enabled him to do, exchanging music and knowledge, and connecting with others...and he has dedicated his life to protecting it. A beautiful story - we need more activists generally, and the more diverse we are in our origins the more vectors we can understand these issues along. So it was pretty rad that he showed up to a conference that is diverse in some ways but not in others to talk about this shared ideal. I love this - it gives us more dimensionality to our ideas when they hold up under different objectives and sources as well as the ones we're more used to.
But Seamus' story of discovering the web wasn't told that way. The phrase "going online to get girls" kept cropping up during the panel discussion. Indignation bubbled up on the back channel, and then turned into outrage. When Seamus left the stage, he saw the Twitter Storm, was shocked and aghast at the interpretation, and spent the rest of the day owning up to his mistake and personally apologizing on Twitter...all far away from the conference. I would have done the same. I am amazed and honored that he returned the next day, and even more so that he's willing to write this with me.
"As I sat outside the conference, reading every single Tweet and comment, and soaking in how my non-inclusive language made people feel, it was like getting punched in the stomach...by myself. It was brutal, searing and embarrassing, all at once. How could I be so blind with my language? Had I actually become the Idiot Tech Guy? I should have known better, and used the language we celebrate as open web activists, instead of what you'll too often find in the darker corners of the Internet. Reading the civic media hashtag and all the tweets directed at me, I felt like I had irreparably insulted everyone in the room, everyone watching the webcast and everyone fighting for the open Internet."
"In telling the story of how I logged on as a young teenage boy, I had allowed myself to use the language of a young teenage boy. And in trying to share my passion for growing the open web movement, I had accomplished precisely the opposite. Showing up the next day was one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I am so thankful for the kind and amazing people who put aside their justifiable anger, sat down with me on the conference sidelines, and literally helped me become a stronger, more aware and - I pray - more linguistically inclusive person moving forward. You gave me another chance, a lesson in humility, and some sorely needed hugs that I will never, ever forget."
Now Willow here, with an exercise in empathy:
I'm reminded of being in New Orleans, and trying to make a point about NOT being an expert - the people who live in the area are experts in their own experience. I said “I’m clearly not from around here, look at me.” As in look at how sunburned I am, I don’t spend time outside or know how to take care of myself when I do. But guess how it was perceived, and how I immediately knew it must have been perceived. I was mortified. The best I could think to do in that moment was turn even redder and say "well, that came out wrong."
But no one called me out. There was no discussion. And that, I think, sucks even more. What we have in this moment from the Civic Media conference is a chance to learn and teach.
I was more upset about how my community reacted to this than I am at Seamus' comments. The comments were unwitting, and bumbling, yes. It's good (I would argue necessary) to call those things out. I honestly feel that if he'd been speaking directly to the audience (not on a panel) he would have seen that immediate feedback from the audience. I'm upset the other panelist and the moderator didn't call him out on it, gracefully, in the moment. In fact, they may have cued, or at least amplified, it. And I am upset that a community that considers itself open worked itself into a frenzy over such comments -- and that I was a part of that.
Uhhh. Someone working on open gov to "get girls." TOTALLY sounds like something I'd be comfortable participating in. #civicmedia
— Willow Brugh (@willowbl00) June 23, 2014
This is an amazing moment to learn - and certainly not just for Seamus. Here's the question: If someone well-meaning uses language that triggers response from a community whose norms are not yet widespread, how can we inform them in a way that assumes their good faith and alliance? I don't know of any discipline or approach (including feminism) where I think "don't come back until you can meet us at our level" is an appropriate response to people who are trying but might stumble. Especially given intersectionality, and that as feminist values start showing up in new arenas (yay!) the people already there don't understand those nuances yet. How could they?
I'm reminded of how I trained ballet and gymnastics for the better part of a decade and yet had terrible balance. I had no stabilizing muscles because if a movement wasn’t perfect, I was supposed to bail. With parkour, I practiced to fight to stay on a ledge, by whatever wiggling and arm-waving necessary. The imperfections of maintaining footing trumped perfection of form. The thing was, in doing this, I gained enough minor muscle control to start landing things near-perfectly.
Being an ally is HARD. To me, the important thing is not never messing...which I see as impossible. Even the most linguistically precise shift contexts (intentionally or through context collapse). The important thing is returning to a conversation after a misstep. And it’s on me, as the one being allied with, to make it safe to have those post messup-talks when I think they'll be useful (and I have the bandwidth, and etc etc). I'm not remotely suggesting not to get mad about something that is horrible, as anger is of course merited a human emotion etc etc. But after anger... then what?
If the point is the understanding, and the respect and equality that comes of that understanding, that means learning. And while there are some great resources out there on feminism, equality, behavior, etc, I assume we all know that there's a difference between reading a book on how to do something and doing it. While it's not necessarily on us (women) to teach men what's going on, people are going to have to learn somewhere. If it's up to men to learn, and we're (feminine types) not the ones teaching, it's probably going to be other men. Which is awesome, but I want to be open to questions and check-ins - "are we doing this right?" because we know the vacuum chamber hasn't exactly worked out well so far. And this sort of exchange means there will be faux-pas. And we need to know how to handle those in a way that encourages the growth of the other person in the process. That is what learning is, after all. It is my prerogative if I want to be a part of those conversations, but I am advocating here that it is worth it and a responsibility, but not an obligation.
So how do we do this? How do we call out information in a way that it cannot be ignored which can be quickly addressed or shown that it won't be? How do you like to have your social faux-pas pointed out? For me, I'd like people to say "HEY! Seriously?" in the moment, assuming good faith, and I'll either drop everything for that conversation, or sidebar it for later, depending on level of urgency and transgression.
"Looking back, I would have loved to have had the panel's language called out while we were still on stage; and as a result, the opportunity to engage in a meaningful conversation and adjust was was being said in real time. An 'Excuse me, but could you elaborate on that last comment? It comes across as rather sexist.' would have instantly set me straight, as would the ability to have seen the action on the conference hashtag while we were in front of the room.
"I'm not sure exactly how we can translate into real life the instant linguistic feedback loops made possible by the open web and social media. But I do believe it's possible. To me, the definition of 'ally' should include having the confidence within our community to call out non-inclusive language from the audience, ensure those on stage truly listen and understand, and help the person who stepped in it - like I did - right their wrong words and grow stronger from what can be a positively painful experience for everyone involved."
link to an amazing, similar article from a different space. Thanks, Sasha!