Linda Petrusi holds a BA in International Studies, a Minor in Black Studies, a certificate in mediation and will shortly complete her Masters in Conflict Resolution. Feedback to: linda@caribbeannetnews.com

If a black was attacked by whites, the experience would act as a constant reminder of the power that the color white and privilege has over his life.  While the moral wrong may be equal, the “… Emotional category configurations each will experience,” will perceive their pain in very different ways. (Thomas: 1992*)  In other words, the white who was attacked can not be called upon to bear witness for blacks who have been attacked.  It is simply not the same.  The only way a white can achieve moral deference is if through his own personal experiences, he has suffered racism in the exact manner that blacks have.  If and only if that is the case; then and only then does the white have the right to be heard with moral deference.  Otherwise, for a white to speak out against racism will be viewed by those who are perceived as second class citizens, as a bias point of view.

The same can be said for rape.  While it is true that both women and heterosexual men have been raped, the pain and ability to heal from this type of violent act is not equal.  A heterosexual man who has been raped cannot speak about rape without having a biased point of view.  The man (who is traumatized by the event) will in time heal.  And his ability to heal will take less time than a woman’s ability to heal.  This is because part of the healing process does not include having sexual relations with another man.  However, for a woman, that is not the case.  If she wants her life to have any sense of normality, part of that life includes sexual relations with another man, and as studies indicate, it could take years before a woman is able to have sexual relations with a man without it bringing up the past experience of the rape.  The ability to trust is shattered.

Politicians who claim they understand what “their people” are experiencing are lying, unless they have experienced oppression first hand.  Moreover, in order for politicians to bear witness to that pain; it must first be granted to them by the people they claim to represent.  “Moral deference is meant to reflect the insight that it is wrong to discount the feelings and experiences of persons in diminished social category groups simply because their articulation of matters does not resonate with one’s imaginative take on their experiences.”  (Thomas: 1992*)  Moral deference knows that there is a big difference between what one might consider the ideal moral world and the reality of the “real world” that exists.

To bear witness against moral and social harms against another can only be done with that person’s approval.  It means that the person who has not experienced moral and social harms has won the trust and confidence in the person who has.  It means telling the story of pain and oppression using the voice of the oppressed and not one’s own voice.
 
Unless and until such trust, confidence and approval have been granted to politicians, they cannot and should not speak.  The act of voting a particular person into office does not mean they achieved moral deference and the ability to bear witness.  The only thing a politician can do is either speak the truth through another’s voice or shut up.

[*Laurence Thomas is a contemporary African-American professor of philosophy who teaches at Syracuse University.  “Moral Deference,” Philosophical Forum 24 (Fall-Spring   1992-1993): 233-250.]