Transdisciplinary Design

Protest for Uncertainty

Posted by Kate M. on December 14, 2014

In his 2013 report, “Critiquing Social Innovation: What is it? Does it matter?” Nidhi Srinivas uses the story of Rashomon as a model to talk about social innovation from different vantage points.[1] Using specific projects he has studied, he lays out three versions of how one can look at social innovation work. He first describes for us positive changes being made in the name of social innovation – through resourceful, multi-lateral community activated and supported initiatives in areas of significant need. He then turns and doubts the ultimate effectiveness of these projects being able to cause real, lasting change. He highlights a neoliberal agenda “social innovation” pushes upon individuals and communities to take care of themselves. He next offers yet a third lens through which to look, which are moments that do not support either of the narratives, but moments of independent expression in which communities act in ways to deal with specific challenges on the ground. These different modes are neither particularly innovative or neoliberal, but still encompassed within the “social innovation” sphere. His use of Rashoman and this multivalence lens is not to simply tell us that there are many sides to every scenario that must be considered and then leave us with an open-endedness to sort out ourselves.  His work is encouraging one to take in the different perspectives and use them to hold a more complete understanding of the system and all its possible variations.

I want to take this same strategy and apply the premise to the social unrest lighting up the streets with protests in cities all across our country right now. Two grand juries choosing not to indict white police officers over the killing of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, and an additional killings of an unarmed black man in Phoenix, has galvanized the population to protest against an unjust legal system that targets and devalues black men’s lives. The images of thousands of protesters laying down in the street with signs that proclaim “Black Lives Matter” and thousands more marching for justice is inspiring. I am in awe of these courageous protestors and proud to see citizen activists taking to the streets and showing concern to change a very real and serious issue.

The American justice system and particularly the issue of how black men are experiencing a new form of slavery via mass incarceration and unwarranted murders is a definitive wicked problem. There is no magic bullet to what is causing this issue. There is no one guilty party nor is there an innocent party. There are a range of intelligent opinions and experiences that fall all along the spectrum of this issue. In the interest of brevity and full awareness of my ignorance to be complete on this issue, I am not able to highlight them all here. What I want to address though, is what I witness as an overwhelming “us vs. them” dichotomy in the movement.

The Marshall Project, an online news source, has been requesting interviews with police officers to get their opinion on the matter. One officer of 17 years describes the atmosphere of the last several months as, “a much more distinctive us-against-them attitude of both the public and the police.”[2] In a separate interview series speaking with black officers in the NYPD, one officer complains, “There are people getting shot on a daily basis, and we are out there trying to protect them. When a cop shoots one guy, 10,000 people show up to protest. When a regular person shoots another regular person, no one is out there to complain.”[3]

One side argues why their actions are right and necessary and the other side argues why the actions are violent and unjust. In order to come to compelling and fruitful solutions, how do we embrace the many different voices in this conflict? Regardless of how outraged we are by the action, it is important to empathize why a police officer has been led to feel they need to assert power in such a way. The system is not only failing by unfairly endangering black communities, it is also failing the people in uniform, and, in the end, the country as a whole. Similar to Srinivas, I am not hoping to simplify the issue by claiming there are two narratives and we must come up with a third narrative that encompasses both. I want to address the need to not only look at the two narratives, but also the spaces or “ruptures” in between.[4] I want to see protests that do not have a single, simple goal (“Indict him!”), but are protesting to be able to see the system and its issues as a whole. I want conversations and tools for change that are all-encompassing and not simply demonizing one side or another.

The systemic challenges related to this critical social issue are endless.The protests are possibly just exacerbating the us vs. them style that leads to two separate sides of an argument. Even if one side “wins,” there is no real solution. While many acknowledge how multifaceted this issue is, how does one act on that knowledge? How do you build a movement that is not about being against one side or another, but embracing the complexity of the issue? Can people march and lay down in the streets if the “answer” to the cause is uncertain? How can we make this kind of thinking tangible? How do we get people emotionally engaged when the emotion is being uncomfortable with uncertainty?

[1] Srinivas, Nidhi. 2013. ‘Critiquing Social Innovation: What Is It? Does It Matter? Cases From India And China’. The India China Institute, The New School.

[2] The Marshall Project,. 2014. ‘‘People Think We’re Out To Get Everyone.’’. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/12/people-think-we-re-out-to-get-everyone.

[3] The Marshall Project,. 2014. ‘The Garner Decision In Black And White’. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/04/the-garner-decision-in-black-and-white.

[4] Srinivas, Nidhi. 2013. ‘Critiquing Social Innovation: What Is It? Does It Matter? Cases From India And China’. The India China Institute, The New School. p. 35