Mapping and Ceding Power
Relationship-based reparations practices for white people
By Claire Haas
For anti-racist white people, paying reparations needs to be an important core practice. Until our governments create the policies to undo the generations of structural harm, we must find ways to voluntarily pay a share of what we hold from generations of structural harm to Black and indigenous people of color.
In organizing, we talk about there being two kinds of power: organized people and organized money. I believe that our reparations need to address ceding both of these kinds of power.
(Note, this piece does not talk about the why of reparations, as others have written about that much more eloquently than I ever could. As a starting place, I recommend this article. This is just some ideas about how to do it).
Reparations in Money
There is no perfect way to voluntarily pay reparations in these times, but we should do our best to pay money without expectation of control, recognition, or other forms of benefits.
I make a strong distinction that reparations are a payment, and not a donation. Donations to are in alignment with generations of white people’s “gifts” to charitable causes, where white folks with money give it to organizations that serve people of color (that have often been white led, too). This structure has perpetuated harm. While making donations to causes we believe in is important, reparations are not donations.
We should cede our control of the money we pay, which includes deciding where it goes and whether that cause is worthy enough or not. My practice is to pay money to whatever people of color in my life ask for – whether that’s a Go Fund Me for a Black or indigenous individual, for an aide effort (like supporting Black midwives), or for a Black or indigenous led organization doing justice work. I have a standard amount I pay every single time I am asked. I notice ways I think about it, and I’m working hard to just pay it without trying to deem it worthy or not.
I pay anonymously when possible. I do not need my name on a list to be recognized. I’m paying it not so I can feel good, but because I owe it. We don’t get credit when we pay our library fines and I feel this should be like that. Similarly, I have to also watch my language – I’m always tempted to use “give”, where I believe the correct verb to be “pay.”
And, I do not try to deduct this money from my taxes. I do not care if I’m paying to an individual or a non-profit – I am attempting to take money gained in white wealth accumulation and redistribute it to where Black and indigenous people think it should go. So, I do not track it for tax purposes or ask for receipts. (I do track it for my own accountability to pay as much as I am committed to pay. My white caucus holds me accountable to this.)
Paying reparations in money is an important practice, and we cannot stop there. While we hold power in money, we hold even more power in relationships and we must engage in ceding relational power.
Power in Relationships
Just as generations of structural harm have created a difference in wealth and access to wealth, this same harm of white supremacy has created unequal access to power through relationships. White people, who grow up in white communities, go to white schools and universities, and get jobs hired by white people are more likely to have access to other white people who hold power in institutions of all kinds. These relationships can then be leveraged, as both organized people and organized money.
White people thus have more access to people with money for fundraising efforts. White people have more access to government representatives to influence policies. White people have more access to corporate leaders who are shaping our economy. White people have more access to religious and academic leadership. Etc.
We hold power in these relationships, and this is power that we must cede.
Power Mapping
(This power mapping tool was developed by SCOPE, and spread across coalitions of organizations in California, where I learned it and used it in many campaigns. Go pay them for creating this tool here. I’ve adapted this tool for talking about reparations).
This tool works best on a particular issue and does not work very well when we try to think about multiple issues at once (because someone may be powerful and aligned with us on one issue, but not another). So, first step is to define what the issue is, and for our example, we’ll use Black Lives Matter and defunding the police (as an abolitionist demand with incremental compromises as possible).
On the X-axis, we map how well aligned with our view on the issue any particular player is, with the most aligned being at the far left. So, in our example, abolition of the police is all the way to the left, cutting police funding is left of center, no change to police budgets is in the center, increasing police budgets is right of center, and giving all of the local budget solely to the police is the far right. And, there’s plenty of gradients in between.
On the Y-axis, we map how powerful the players are. The Mayor is probably at the top, and city council representatives make a weird cluster under that, and someplace above center is the police chief and police who have substantial influence. Below center we have groups fighting for police reform, protestors, and others who might be taken into account, but do not get to decide. Those at the top make the decisions, and those at the bottom are completely ignored. And, again there’s plenty of gradients in between.
My recommendation is to chart the axes up on a dry erase board, and put all the players on colored coded sticky notes. You may want to color code them, such as all city council members in blue, potential allies in red, corporate targets in yellow, etc.
This tool maps players in relationship to one another – and there really isn’t a perfect answer. The wisdom comes from the process and it is helpful to do in groups, so that we can think about if X city council person is more influential that Y city council person, and which potential allies are most aligned and not. We always map ourselves, too, which is a humbling experience at understanding how much power we have on a particular issue.
In organizing, we talk about there being two kinds of power: organized people and organized money. I believe that our reparations need to address ceding both of these kinds of power.
(Note, this piece does not talk about the why of reparations, as others have written about that much more eloquently than I ever could. As a starting place, I recommend this article. This is just some ideas about how to do it).
Reparations in Money
There is no perfect way to voluntarily pay reparations in these times, but we should do our best to pay money without expectation of control, recognition, or other forms of benefits.
I make a strong distinction that reparations are a payment, and not a donation. Donations to are in alignment with generations of white people’s “gifts” to charitable causes, where white folks with money give it to organizations that serve people of color (that have often been white led, too). This structure has perpetuated harm. While making donations to causes we believe in is important, reparations are not donations.
We should cede our control of the money we pay, which includes deciding where it goes and whether that cause is worthy enough or not. My practice is to pay money to whatever people of color in my life ask for – whether that’s a Go Fund Me for a Black or indigenous individual, for an aide effort (like supporting Black midwives), or for a Black or indigenous led organization doing justice work. I have a standard amount I pay every single time I am asked. I notice ways I think about it, and I’m working hard to just pay it without trying to deem it worthy or not.
I pay anonymously when possible. I do not need my name on a list to be recognized. I’m paying it not so I can feel good, but because I owe it. We don’t get credit when we pay our library fines and I feel this should be like that. Similarly, I have to also watch my language – I’m always tempted to use “give”, where I believe the correct verb to be “pay.”
And, I do not try to deduct this money from my taxes. I do not care if I’m paying to an individual or a non-profit – I am attempting to take money gained in white wealth accumulation and redistribute it to where Black and indigenous people think it should go. So, I do not track it for tax purposes or ask for receipts. (I do track it for my own accountability to pay as much as I am committed to pay. My white caucus holds me accountable to this.)
Paying reparations in money is an important practice, and we cannot stop there. While we hold power in money, we hold even more power in relationships and we must engage in ceding relational power.
Power in Relationships
Just as generations of structural harm have created a difference in wealth and access to wealth, this same harm of white supremacy has created unequal access to power through relationships. White people, who grow up in white communities, go to white schools and universities, and get jobs hired by white people are more likely to have access to other white people who hold power in institutions of all kinds. These relationships can then be leveraged, as both organized people and organized money.
White people thus have more access to people with money for fundraising efforts. White people have more access to government representatives to influence policies. White people have more access to corporate leaders who are shaping our economy. White people have more access to religious and academic leadership. Etc.
We hold power in these relationships, and this is power that we must cede.
Power Mapping
(This power mapping tool was developed by SCOPE, and spread across coalitions of organizations in California, where I learned it and used it in many campaigns. Go pay them for creating this tool here. I’ve adapted this tool for talking about reparations).
This tool works best on a particular issue and does not work very well when we try to think about multiple issues at once (because someone may be powerful and aligned with us on one issue, but not another). So, first step is to define what the issue is, and for our example, we’ll use Black Lives Matter and defunding the police (as an abolitionist demand with incremental compromises as possible).
On the X-axis, we map how well aligned with our view on the issue any particular player is, with the most aligned being at the far left. So, in our example, abolition of the police is all the way to the left, cutting police funding is left of center, no change to police budgets is in the center, increasing police budgets is right of center, and giving all of the local budget solely to the police is the far right. And, there’s plenty of gradients in between.
On the Y-axis, we map how powerful the players are. The Mayor is probably at the top, and city council representatives make a weird cluster under that, and someplace above center is the police chief and police who have substantial influence. Below center we have groups fighting for police reform, protestors, and others who might be taken into account, but do not get to decide. Those at the top make the decisions, and those at the bottom are completely ignored. And, again there’s plenty of gradients in between.
My recommendation is to chart the axes up on a dry erase board, and put all the players on colored coded sticky notes. You may want to color code them, such as all city council members in blue, potential allies in red, corporate targets in yellow, etc.
This tool maps players in relationship to one another – and there really isn’t a perfect answer. The wisdom comes from the process and it is helpful to do in groups, so that we can think about if X city council person is more influential that Y city council person, and which potential allies are most aligned and not. We always map ourselves, too, which is a humbling experience at understanding how much power we have on a particular issue.
|
|
This video is an example of this process using the characters from the popular show, Parks and Rec. In this video, you can watch me map the characters in an example, and hear my reasoning for where I put them. You can also hear my thoughts on where to focus energy once the mapping is done. This is not a perfect map or example, but hopefully is helpful to understand this process better.
Here's the final map from the example.
|
Power Mapping to Cede Relationship Power
So, continuing to use the defunding the police example, but now thinking about you as an individual with relationships to leverage, think about who you might map that you have access to. Are there politicians that you have relationships with? Are there potential donors? Are there corporate leaders? Are there institutional leaders of any kind? Try mapping them, noting how well you think they might be aligned (it’s ok if this is just a hypothesis) and how much power they have – on this issue in particular. Spend a few minutes mapping, and think through all the different spheres of your life. If you think you don’t know anyone, pull up your facebook friends list – what about friends/peers from highschool or college?
As your map develops, identify what three relationships would be most important to this issue right now. Maybe there is someone who is really well aligned and could give a sizeable donation. Maybe there is someone who is highly powerful but not aligned at all, but could be neutralized. What would it mean for you to use your relationship power to cede power to Black leaders in the Movement for Black Lives?
The map is important because it helps us understand where to focus our work. We can focus on moving potential allies into active allyship and focus on neutralizing potential impediments that will cause a problem. It helps us to know who we should spend our time on based on power, and where to not waste time because of little influence gained. If we are to cede relational power, it is important we work on the relationships that hold useful power.
We should continue to exercise creativity on how to undo generations of structural harm with our relational power – but I’m going to look at two ways we might do this in detail: ceding a relationship with an ally, and risking our relationship to break white solidarity.
Ceding Ally Relationships
Often, in the case of potential allies, ceding a relationship is the best way to cede power. This is especially true for potential funders and decisionmakers.
The first step on this is the easy one: we can make the introduction and talk up the importance of the Black leader we are introducing to really get this person’s attention. This is no different from other ways we introduce our friends and colleagues to each other.
But, because of how white supremacy works, we cannot stop there. We know that Black people receive less funding from foundations for their organizations. Black people are listened to less in all areas, and especially by white people. But, as a white person, we are more likely to be listened to. We need to follow up.
After making the intro, we should ask the person we are ceding the relationship to for permission to follow up with them. Follow up – did they get the meeting? At the meeting, did they get money or other needs? If not, ask for permission to follow up with that person yourself. What are the ways we can really cede the full power of our relationships and give access to them to the Black and Indigenous leaders who have been structurally harmed for generations?
Risking Our Relationships to Break White Solidarity
Sometimes, we need to neutralize someone who holds power and is preventing change from happening. When this is the case, it might be that our need is to give up our own relationship in order to block the negative influence of this player.
For example, say you have a white racist uncle who is on the city council. As the demands for defunding the police come before the council, he is speaking against it and not listening to the BLM protestors speaking at public comment. You could have gentle conversation with him in private to try to neutralize him, knowing you might want his influence in other ways. Or, you could decide to risk your relationship with him, potentially calling him out publicly or interrupting him by name during the meeting. “Uncle Jessie, you know your mom, and my grandma didn’t raise you like that!” You could shout him down, making clear your relationship to him, and making him so uncomfortable that he might back down. Obviously you need to think about what would strategically work… but the invitation is that ceding power might be ceding good relationships in order to break with white solidarity and fight for an end to white supremacy.
This is a scary thing for many white people to think about – we have been taught to uphold white solidarity, to value relationships over difference, etc. But, what happens if we commit to break from white solidarity and be willing to risk our own relationships with powerful people in order to cede our power?
The importance of Accountability and Anti-racist relationships
We need to have high accountability with other white people and with people of color in order for these types of ceding of power to be impactful.
My recommendation is that white folks all have some kind of caucus space with peers to be able to talk through our reparations commitments, get feedback, and work to make our actions in alignment with our intentions. That way, we aren’t relying on people of color to do emotional labor for us to process what we are thinking through.
But, we also need to be in relationship with people of color. If we do not have people of color to cede to, we can’t cede very well. We need to be clear in these relationships that we are not trying to control, take credit, or benefit – but that we are paying what is owed. We need to allow the people of color we are in relationship to lead, and not try to influence their tactics or strategy based on what we want to offer. We can make the offer – and if they are not interested, we need not push it. We should think through ways we can make the offer accountably and in authentic relationship, including ways to follow up, report back, and how we agree to engage in the interactions.
Not perfect, but good
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” was a refrain from organizing mentors of mine, and it is a good medicine for the perfectionism of white supremacy culture. We will mess up. We will cause harm. We will need to make repair. There is no perfect, but we need not be held in inaction seeking to only act in mistake-free, harmless ways. We cause even more harm with our inaction.
We must do the best we can, with the humility that when we mess up, we will be ready to receive feedback and improve for next time.
So, this is my best next step in how to implement this for myself and in my communities. I invite you to try it with me. Let’s cede power as a form of reparations, as a debt we owe, and let’s try to do it the best that we can. Let’s learn together on what works well, and what doesn’t work well, and continue to improve upon this framework. May all of these words be outdated and replaced by better ideas next year.
Claire Haas is a coach, community organizer, and musician. She coaches white people about white supremacy, supporting her clients to address their white fragility reactions and how they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their workplaces, their families, and communities. She spent a dozen years working with community organizations in many capacities - from community organizer to director of operations and finance. She carries with her the experiences – both painful and resiliently joyful – of organizations dying, birthing, and growing, and is dedicated to supporting organizations to create internal structures that reflect our values in the world. She brings with her a breadth of organizing and campaign experience, and a strong commitment to engage in creative, joyful, and transformative organizing. Learn more at www.clairehaas.com.
So, continuing to use the defunding the police example, but now thinking about you as an individual with relationships to leverage, think about who you might map that you have access to. Are there politicians that you have relationships with? Are there potential donors? Are there corporate leaders? Are there institutional leaders of any kind? Try mapping them, noting how well you think they might be aligned (it’s ok if this is just a hypothesis) and how much power they have – on this issue in particular. Spend a few minutes mapping, and think through all the different spheres of your life. If you think you don’t know anyone, pull up your facebook friends list – what about friends/peers from highschool or college?
As your map develops, identify what three relationships would be most important to this issue right now. Maybe there is someone who is really well aligned and could give a sizeable donation. Maybe there is someone who is highly powerful but not aligned at all, but could be neutralized. What would it mean for you to use your relationship power to cede power to Black leaders in the Movement for Black Lives?
The map is important because it helps us understand where to focus our work. We can focus on moving potential allies into active allyship and focus on neutralizing potential impediments that will cause a problem. It helps us to know who we should spend our time on based on power, and where to not waste time because of little influence gained. If we are to cede relational power, it is important we work on the relationships that hold useful power.
We should continue to exercise creativity on how to undo generations of structural harm with our relational power – but I’m going to look at two ways we might do this in detail: ceding a relationship with an ally, and risking our relationship to break white solidarity.
Ceding Ally Relationships
Often, in the case of potential allies, ceding a relationship is the best way to cede power. This is especially true for potential funders and decisionmakers.
The first step on this is the easy one: we can make the introduction and talk up the importance of the Black leader we are introducing to really get this person’s attention. This is no different from other ways we introduce our friends and colleagues to each other.
But, because of how white supremacy works, we cannot stop there. We know that Black people receive less funding from foundations for their organizations. Black people are listened to less in all areas, and especially by white people. But, as a white person, we are more likely to be listened to. We need to follow up.
After making the intro, we should ask the person we are ceding the relationship to for permission to follow up with them. Follow up – did they get the meeting? At the meeting, did they get money or other needs? If not, ask for permission to follow up with that person yourself. What are the ways we can really cede the full power of our relationships and give access to them to the Black and Indigenous leaders who have been structurally harmed for generations?
Risking Our Relationships to Break White Solidarity
Sometimes, we need to neutralize someone who holds power and is preventing change from happening. When this is the case, it might be that our need is to give up our own relationship in order to block the negative influence of this player.
For example, say you have a white racist uncle who is on the city council. As the demands for defunding the police come before the council, he is speaking against it and not listening to the BLM protestors speaking at public comment. You could have gentle conversation with him in private to try to neutralize him, knowing you might want his influence in other ways. Or, you could decide to risk your relationship with him, potentially calling him out publicly or interrupting him by name during the meeting. “Uncle Jessie, you know your mom, and my grandma didn’t raise you like that!” You could shout him down, making clear your relationship to him, and making him so uncomfortable that he might back down. Obviously you need to think about what would strategically work… but the invitation is that ceding power might be ceding good relationships in order to break with white solidarity and fight for an end to white supremacy.
This is a scary thing for many white people to think about – we have been taught to uphold white solidarity, to value relationships over difference, etc. But, what happens if we commit to break from white solidarity and be willing to risk our own relationships with powerful people in order to cede our power?
The importance of Accountability and Anti-racist relationships
We need to have high accountability with other white people and with people of color in order for these types of ceding of power to be impactful.
My recommendation is that white folks all have some kind of caucus space with peers to be able to talk through our reparations commitments, get feedback, and work to make our actions in alignment with our intentions. That way, we aren’t relying on people of color to do emotional labor for us to process what we are thinking through.
But, we also need to be in relationship with people of color. If we do not have people of color to cede to, we can’t cede very well. We need to be clear in these relationships that we are not trying to control, take credit, or benefit – but that we are paying what is owed. We need to allow the people of color we are in relationship to lead, and not try to influence their tactics or strategy based on what we want to offer. We can make the offer – and if they are not interested, we need not push it. We should think through ways we can make the offer accountably and in authentic relationship, including ways to follow up, report back, and how we agree to engage in the interactions.
Not perfect, but good
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” was a refrain from organizing mentors of mine, and it is a good medicine for the perfectionism of white supremacy culture. We will mess up. We will cause harm. We will need to make repair. There is no perfect, but we need not be held in inaction seeking to only act in mistake-free, harmless ways. We cause even more harm with our inaction.
We must do the best we can, with the humility that when we mess up, we will be ready to receive feedback and improve for next time.
So, this is my best next step in how to implement this for myself and in my communities. I invite you to try it with me. Let’s cede power as a form of reparations, as a debt we owe, and let’s try to do it the best that we can. Let’s learn together on what works well, and what doesn’t work well, and continue to improve upon this framework. May all of these words be outdated and replaced by better ideas next year.
Claire Haas is a coach, community organizer, and musician. She coaches white people about white supremacy, supporting her clients to address their white fragility reactions and how they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their workplaces, their families, and communities. She spent a dozen years working with community organizations in many capacities - from community organizer to director of operations and finance. She carries with her the experiences – both painful and resiliently joyful – of organizations dying, birthing, and growing, and is dedicated to supporting organizations to create internal structures that reflect our values in the world. She brings with her a breadth of organizing and campaign experience, and a strong commitment to engage in creative, joyful, and transformative organizing. Learn more at www.clairehaas.com.