"Normalizing" activism & "Challenging" activism, a non-educated person's (me) view of the dynamics of making a better world.
After a lot of interaction with politics throughout my life, I've come to notice two distinct "types" of ways people try to reduce harm. One is, simply put, Normalizing. Fight in the zeitgeist for the view that your group is able to fit neatly into the current social power structure without upsetting it. This is the source of arguments for gay marriage, in that "gay people experience all the same feelings as straight people, what reason is there to treat us any differently?" It is the *taught* version of MLK's ideology. I know ofc that what people are taught is far different from what his actual ideology is, but its important to establish that this is the *ideal* activism for those in power. It reduces harm, certainly, but it also reinforces the structures that oppress other groups in society to do so. It reinforces the idea that you must defend your rights by "being normal". by carving yourself into the box that society has for you and not trying to express yourself beyond it. Challenging activism is the opposite. it is kink at pride. it is gender abolishment. it is, essentially, taking a look at the structure of society that oppresses us, and rather than ask "how do we fit ourselves into this structure?" we ask "why does this structure need to exist?" That form of activism is far less popular, but also is the thing we need to actually solve the problems we face on a larger scale. it *will* lead to more harm, for a while. because there is a gap we need to cross between "these people are weird" and "weirdness isn't an issue". I can't say whether one is better than the other in any given circumstance, but I think it's important to think, am I trying to stitch the wound? or am I trying to fix the infection? because both are essential to survival, but can conflict with eachother if not careful.
