As the world darkens and shadows fall, it is difficult to find a clear path forward to see the light. In my previous reflection, I explored the challenges of this moment, and insisted on three key principles: two limits that should not be transgressed, and one that must be. The first is to heed the principle of Gandhian non-violence. We must engage in these activities and advocate and protect each other in a non-violent way. And, the other admonition is to avoid breaking, even if we decide not to bridge – either out of fear or impossibility. We must avoid the tendency or impulse to push others away and deepen the chasms between peoples, even defensively or protectively. 

But the limit that we should transgress is the belief in our own lack of agency. All over the world right now, there is a feeling of disempowerment. Traditionally favored groups feel disempowered by equity initiatives and inclusion, and their rage has boiled into populist reactionary fervor. Traditionally marginalized peoples feel inadequate empowerment, in elected officials, representative bodies, critical institutions, and in the market. Even elites feel disempowered by other elites, other institutions, or even other nations. 

Tech leaders claim that they can’t slow down the development of powerful AI technologies because to do so would be to cede their market position to other firms, and national leaders have pushed for deregulation of these technologies for fear of ceding national advantage to China or other countries. Thus, they claim, their hands are tied, no matter the risks.  

This is the same argument they made about regulating social media. They claimed, even as their products harmed young people and caused addiction, that there was no alternative. To regulate it would be to stifle freedom of speech or cede ground to other firms or overseas competitors. 

The truth is that every person, no matter how powerful, is somehow constrained. Even the president of the United States can be checked by the actions of other nations or blocs of nations, the courts and the judiciary, and, often, public sentiment and the voting public. 

No person has unlimited power. 

And every person, no matter how disempowered, has some degree of agency, even if the spheres in which that agency exists are narrow or limited. Think of labor organizers fighting for the right to organize, or campaigning for the minimum wage, against child labor, or safer working conditions. These organizers had to fight and organize to achieve their aims, often against powerful interests. But they were not powerless, even when the law was against them, or used against them. 

Being constrained, even deeply disadvantaged, is not an excuse or justification for inaction. 

In my book Belonging Without Othering, I identify “agency” as one of the four essential elements of Belonging. Agency is the sense that our actions matter, that our choices shape outcomes, even if we don’t fully get our way. Having agency is the sense of being empowered. Lacking it is the sense of being disempowered. 

But having agency is not a faith in ourselves. There is much that institutions and communities can do to empower their people. Democracy itself is a system of government in which people have a say, either directly, or indirectly through their representatives. Corporations can empower their staff by creating more opportunities for professional development or feedback mechanisms to managers. 

The point is that agency matters, and although not everyone has the same degree of it, we cannot allow a feeling of disempowerment to deny our agency and push us into apathy and inaction. Instead, we must find ways to maximize our agency, even under constraint. And, we must push institutions to empower the people who populate and work within them. 

We should ask ourselves: What can we do? What are our options? And given those options, what are the risks and what are the potential benefits? 

Here’s the secret: our power is not in the individual, but in the collective. 

We saw this in Minnesota: it wasn’t a single hero standing up. It wasn’t a single charismatic orator or visionary. It was everyday people doing simple, but effective actions: whistling when ICE agents were nearby, “neighborism,” taking other people’s children to school, bringing food, and providing shelter. Our true power lies in collective action. When we work together, we empower each other. This is the secret of unions as well, not just democracy. 

Unions have long been not just an institution for empowerment of people, but also a source of belonging across lines of difference. I grew up in Detroit, and I recall the union barbecues in which people of different races came together to support each other and build the middle class in that region. Unions not only fought for themselves, but to improve wages and working conditions for everyone. 

It has long been assumed that organized money will defeat organized people. Maybe and maybe not. But what is very clear is that organized money will triumph over disorganized people. And a small but organized group can triumph over a larger group of disorganized people. Of course it is not simple or merely about individuals and collective action.

As noted, institutions and government can establish rules or norms or even laws that can amplify or modify the power that different groups have. Laws that allow unions to form can empower labor. Similarly, laws can make it harder to organize. One only has to think about the ability to use money to influence if not buy access to those making the rules. All of this makes it more than a little understandable why some groups may feel disempowered.

But what I have so far presented raises a number of questions like, why do the elites, literally billionaires, feel powerless or threatened? A second question is, what is to be done about the disempowerment of everyday people who are not billionaires? In a well functioning democracy, there is a tacit and sometimes an explicit understanding that money is not supposed to be able to buy elections and one could even suggest that there must be some constraint on the power of money to buy voice despite complicated free speech claims to the contrary. If we cannot figure out how to answer some of these questions, there is little hope that our democracy or the people will thrive.

It seems to me that at least three negative emotions are tearing at our democracy and our lives: resentment, envy and belittlement. We experience these feelings both individually and collectively. Indeed one of the reasons authoritarians leaders are so effective is that they exaggerate the problems in society and claim to be the solution, at least for some.

While these feelings and perspectives may be close to human nature, they are carefully curated, often stoked, and exploited by powerful conflict entrepreneurs. We should never forget this, and resist the lure of these poisonous feelings, even in our efforts to build a better world. When we ingest or touch the poison, we poison ourselves as well. The answer to polarization can’t be repolarization along a different dimension. It has to be the difficult and labor-intensive work of bridging.

--