#MeToo and the perfect social movement myth

Yesterday's hastily written blog was not a response, but more of a few thoughts on how to view the limitations of the #MeToo movement.

text:

China's #MeToo movement has spread to public welfare through the media as a carrier. After the media and academia, it has also raised various doubts. These questions—including big-character posters, moral trials, diversion, and justification for state suppression—are not new for a long time. They can be written as a template as standard action for conservative camps to attack any social movement in human history.

In response to these classic textbook-style criticisms, the supporters of metoo also issued a lot of rebuttals in a timely manner. Many commentators believe that the accidental injury caused by metoo is negligible compared to challenging the power structure, so the fears of big-character posters and moral judgment are not valid. The point of rebuttal to metoo's relationship to other public events is to either deny that the former diverts the attention of the latter, or that these events can converge into a larger movement.

Such rebuttals, while necessary, are often weak and ineffective. It is true that metoo will accidentally injure very few people, and this kind of accidental injury cannot be justified by the principle of "low probability" or utilitarianism. A tiny probability, for a specific individual, is a big thing. Even if we emphasize the macro trend again, an unfortunate counter-example in the future will undeniably have a huge negative impact on the moral core of the movement. The organized masses, as powerless, are far inferior to the tyranny of the state apparatus, but they are enough to cause spiritual harm to individuals—an example is the trolls on the Internet.

The anger at metoo's diversion is equally understandable. Just as the hot and cold wars between countries have turned the working classes of various countries from unity to opposition, just as the monopoly of the dominant ethnic group on resources makes the ethnic minorities fight against each other, the monopoly of the government and business on the discourse space also makes metoo and others. There are actual conflicts of interest between domains. No matter how morally the progressive camp emphasizes the justice of metoo, emphasizes the isomorphism of feminism and human rights, and emphasizes that this is a way to expand public space, it will indeed reduce the public exposure of other topics, and it may indeed hurt other movements mobilization. Or worse, it doesn't push anything, but angers the authorities and brings all-around crackdowns.

It is easy to attach perfect moral and practical assumptions to various social movements, such as: any movement must serve the ultimate goal of overthrowing the ruler (can metoo expose discrimination within the political elite?); movement is a last resort after the parties have exhausted legal avenues (will metoo lead to public opinion trials?); the movement must not hinder other civic movements of the same period (did metoo affect people's attention to xx issues?); the movement must not cause any negative impact in promoting the main agenda (metoo Will it lead to mutual false accusations?).

It seems that a movement is legitimate and should be launched only if it promotes mass unity rather than division, law-abiding without violence, rationality without emotion. Although people have gradually gotten out of the trap of thinking that "social movements are the work of a mob" (I will not talk about those who will never be able to get out), they still cannot view collective resistance outside the system with a normal mind. When dealing with each specific movement, there is a myth of a "perfect social movement" similar to a perfect victim, and there are always countless what if questions in my mind, hoping that activists can predict and prevent all adverse consequences. occur. This reflects a double standard for the legitimacy of the movement: social movements are only a supplementary existence relative to the institutionalized solution channel, and therefore higher “entry rules” must be applied.

Supporters of the #MeToo movement, albeit on two levels of opinion with opponents, seem to be adopting the same assumptions about the perfect social movement. Inheriting this logic to defend the movement and exclude the issues raised by the opponent will only add an unnecessary moral burden to the struggle. In the end, in order to avoid accusations, the movement could only be gentle, courteous, and thrifty. Rather than denying that metoo can cause unintended problems, let’s be generous with acknowledging that they exist—the dilemma faced by all social movements.

Every sport is lonely in the long trek, and it is the lucky sport that can appear in the public eye. Therefore, between different movements and between different issues, there is indeed a problem of attention substitution. Justice is scarce, the shadow of power covers the entire planet, the searchlight of the medium always reaches only those angles, and soon moves away with the gaze of public concern. The feminist movement in the United States in the 1970s was indeed launched half-stepping on the corpses of the New Left Civil Rights Movement. By the same token, China's metoo is destined to compete with other topics for limited social media resources. The family similarity between different topics, and the possibility of them working together, does not hide the existence of this level of competition: when everyone retweeted the victim’s self-report, Jasic employees who formed a union would indeed be ignored.

At the same time, the movement may indeed bring about consequences beyond the control of the promoters, and may also lead to counterattacks by external forces. The disclosure of gender discrimination and violence within the public welfare circle may indeed harm the civil movement and create an excuse for future state repression. Looking back at the history of progressive movements in Europe and the United States, conservatives have always tried to launch a counterattack where progressives have won. The "freedom of speech" advocated by the left wing of the campus back then is now an all-purpose reason for the right wing to launch rallies. If the gray future can discredit the meaning of the shining present, there will be no fully qualified progressive social movement in the world.

Finally, social movements initiated by a group of people often harm the interests of other ordinary people. Whether it is the assembly that disrupts daily traffic, or the radical demands that frighten the onlookers, they are all real contradictions, and it is also the ultimate goal of many movements. cause for failure. Indeed, for a movement to be successful, it needs to take into account the psychological expectations of the majority of society and act strategically to minimize potential opposition. But the movement doesn't need to apologize for not being able to accommodate, move, and unite everyone. A slogan of American social movements in the past two years sums it up well: Movement should be inclusive, but not all encompassing.

As a social movement in which specific groups continue to struggle against various power structures, Metoo must have an unflattering side. The open, cooperative, moderate, and reformed face of a movement can coexist with elements of isolation, conflict, violence, and radicalization, and the imperfections of the latter are often the uniqueness of social movements.