An Abrupt Call for Action: Questioning “We Are Not The Resistance”
By Irene C.
Trump’s presidency was full of controversy. With repeated white and affluent American-centric policies, ranging from implementing policies regarding anti-immigration against Muslims to reducing the allocation of funds for Medicaid, criticism prevailed against Trump’s policies. In response to his extremely Republican statements and actions, ‘resisters’, including liberals, initiated the #NotMyPresident movement to remove Trump from his presidency; ‘resistance’ gained surging participation from Americans, indicating public disapproval of Trump’s far-right policies. However, in her essay “We Are Not The Resistance,” Michelle Alexander instead raises concerns about defining a “leap towards American democracy” as “resistance”, due to the “inherently defensive” nature of resistance, as mentioned by Alexander in a conversation with Naomi Klein in 2017 (Alexander). By proposing the movement to be a “revolutionary river” instead of “resistance,” Alexander attempts to encourage readers to take additional proactive roles in advocating for change against Trump. Alexander, however, was unsuccessful in the attempt, as she overlooked the importance of resistance as a stepping stone for further actions and even “overcoming” based on outdated standards.
Alexander first claims that having the mindset to “resist” would be harmful as resistance is merely “a reactive state of mind” without any further action. With historical situations where people who were fighting against injustice called themselves abolitionists instead of resisters and sang “we shall overcome” instead of “we shall resist,” she claims her definition of resistance, being “slippery and dangerous,” to be true (Alexander). The value of resistance, however, should not be evaluated the same way in 2018 as it was historically, considering the wide range of people participating in the “resistance.” Movements for African American rights, for example, had a single, unified goal that participants of the movement could take collective action for – a call for race equality. However, due to the variety of Trump’s policies, regarding topics ranging from immigration to medical equity to international relations, people who joined the resistance movement also have varied reasons why they are opposing Trump’s presidency. Due to this difference in interest, if all “resisters” tried to take action simultaneously, it would not only have resulted in decreased unity within the group of resisters, but also would have diminished the impact of resistance due to a reduced scale of voice. Thus, the value of solely resisting, criticizing the government rather than taking immediate actions, should have been prized in 2018, more than how it was considered throughout history.
The outdated definition of resistance Alexander suggests resulted in devaluing the numerous efforts of people trying to bear the situation and live their lives amidst oppression and lack of protection in and out of the US, even after Trump’s presidency. For instance, there’s an ongoing protest of teachers in Korea against the government, triggered by the suicide of a teacher in a school, to ask for an increase in their teaching authority. This lack of authority has caused several students and parents to infringe on the rights of teachers, in ways such as contacting the teacher individually on their personal time to ask for the attention of their students. Thousands of teachers, in response, are now on the streets trying to get their voice heard, even when their job is at risk. For me, their courage to protest is more than a passive attempt to resist, although there hasn’t been a direct change in law or policy. As Alexander would have targeted the current ‘resisters’ as her primary audience, the evaluation, defying the value of resistance and advocating immediate action, could have further interfered with both the emotional and logical appeal of the argument, like it did to me.
Resistance alone, as claimed by Alexander, may not be enough to change prevalent systemic problems, from racism to gender inequality, as “what [we] resist [may] persist.” However, to begin taking action that results in immediate resolution, if any exists, collective resistance of Americans is necessary — and sometimes, individual resistance is all we can offer. “A new nation is struggling to be born, a multiracial, multiethnic, multifaith, egalitarian democracy in which every life and every voice truly matters,” cannot be achieved in an instant – and people are informed (Alexander). With the hope that the injustice will be resolved or at least be seen, people raise their voices and resist. As the government operates based on public demand, a unified voice, and urging for action, can influence the current government, or at least have an impact on future government policies. Thus, resistance should not be seen as ‘not enough’ because of lack of instant changes, as Alexander claims; rather, it should be seen as a crucial fundamental step towards achieving our common interests!
If you’d like to read the original essay that Irene responds to here, please click here.
