Since Tuesday’s conversation, I have been thinking about what it means to be an n effective change agent and ways to challenge the system/dominant social structures. It just dawned on me after class on Tuesday how linear and ineffective my approach has been for my desired objective. Before class and for the last four years, I believed that in order to disassemble the system you must first situate yourself in a position of power within the system. And then, only then, can real change occur through top down processes. But that’s such a contradiction. Following the rules and guidelines of dominant discourse to mobilize upward and move into power only validates the system I would try to disrupt. If I use the system to mobilize into position of power, I am only reinforcing the idea that this very elitist and exclusive pathway is the only way to create change. I have disregarded my agency. Going into interviews I can wear whatever I want or talk however I want to demonstrate I am still qualified for the position regardless if I conform to standard conventions- superficial conventions used to divide and exclude. They are not real indicators of the skillset, intelligence, work ethic etc. I encourage others think of ways in which they can resist the system, without completely sacrificing their ethics or objective to advocate for change.
Comments
linearity, reinforcement, and change [1]
Dear Brittney, Can you remind me/us which conversation from last Tuesday brought these thoughts to mind? I would like to situate them. I am struck by your sense that the process of change/ing is part of the desired outcome -- that means/ends thinking may be limiting here. To me, this connects with your key word, access. How can we access dominant systems without giving into them, along the way, not only once dominance is tapped/assured?