In an ideal world, moral authority is unnecessary for a person to hold a position, to raise a point, to criticize it, to object to an action, to advocate it or anything similar. What is of value is the argument itself. It is most regrettable however that we live here down in the mud where the difference between ideal and reality is self-evident. That affects many things, including effort to address racial issues.
The sure way to avoid unnecessary disappointment in this jaded world is to assume that each person pursues his or her own interest. It is true that there are altruists even in this world but that is no reason to revise that assumption regarding self-interest. If one does meet an altruist, one should consider such meeting as a bonus, no matter how frequent such encounter is.
While self-interest has proven to be a driver of human progress, it does have its downside. It is because of self-interest that far too many individuals say and do far too many things not because they believe in it, but because it is convenient to say or do so. Honesty simply cannot be taken for granted. Skepticism is always a justifiable position.
With the recognition that we do not live in an ideal world and with the assumption that one needs to make in order to avoid disappointment, moral authority becomes a useful indicator in determining the worth of an argument to some extent. Here, moral authority refers to the appropriateness of a person’s action or position in a particular issue in the eyes of others or even one’s own in an earnest way. It provides context for us to assess the level of honesty of a particular argument.
In discussing racial discrimination or downright racism in Malaysia, perhaps it is sometimes useful to look at the issue through the prism of moral authority.
There are various ways to gain moral authority but with respect to racism, one significant way is by becoming a victim of racial discrimination, or simply hatred grounded on race. By becoming a victim, one experiences actual stress caused by racism. This may sound like a tautology but such experience requires stressing so that the point made here is clear.
For example, US senator and war veteran John McCain has the moral authority — or at least he has greater gravitas compared to other politicians — to speak on the issue of prisoners of war because he was a prisoner himself. Without being one, he would have little authority to speak on the matter. Others would not give his opinion the necessary weight otherwise, controlling for other factors such as consistency.
As much as his personal suffering gives McCain his moral authority on a particular subject, a victim of racism gets elevated above others untouched by racism. Victims speak from experience, unlike innocent others. Lacking personal experience, the innocent others may look at the victims for leadership or as heroes of the issue until the innocents become victims themselves, if ever. In the same line, since the victims speak from experience, the victims may see themselves as the logical opinion leaders or heroes among the innocent others.
As a result, any person that does not speak from experience, but only speaks from the position of knowledge, suffers some sort of dismissal by others in speaking against racism compared to those who speak from experience, even if the point is the same. Such is the curse of a world less than ideal.
As such, moral authority is a marvelous resource if utilized against all versions of racism.
The same moral authority unfortunately can be a resource to promote further racism in the reversed direction and in doing so, exacerbating the problem. The perceived moral authority may explain why there are individuals who respond to racism by espousing racism. With the moral authority as victims, they consider their racist actions as justified.
When a person sees his or her racism as justified, it becomes hard to convince them why such racism is wrong. This is especially so when such racism is justified in the person’s eyes as well as in the eyes of others too. What moral authority conferred by others reinforces the moral authority a person perceives that he or she has.
Despite so, when victims of racism use their moral authority to commit further racism, there are reasons to think how that negates their moral authority on the issue. From a third party perspective or the innocent others, if the victim commits the very same act he or she suffered from onto another person, the new victim will gain moral authority to speak out against racism, or to perpetuate it. When both victims have such moral authority following a game of tit-for-tat, a third person will not be able to decide who has greater moral authority in the case. As a result, the victim gains moral authority only to lose it.
What is the case in one’s own eyes? If a person thinks that his or her racism is justified because he or she has gone through victimhood, then one must necessarily find others’ act of racism against him or her as justified when others obtain their moral authority by the same way the person obtains his or hers. Here lies the danger. The original victims and subsequent victims trapped in a racist loophole may consider themselves as obtaining additional moral authority to commit racism, each time they become victims yet again.
When individuals find themselves trapped in the loop, the ones who may be able to break the cycle are a third party and the victims of racism who use their moral authority to speak out against all kind of racism instead of committing racism in the reversed direction.
The third party, who are the innocent others and presumably impartial parties, may highlight how racists lose their moral authority from a third person perspective. Unfortunately, because the third party is the innocent others, the racists’ perception — racists born out victimhood of racism — that the innocent others do not have the moral authority to speak out against racism may limit the influence of the innocent others.
This leaves victims of racism who do not perpetuate racism in return as a formidable force in effort to break the loop of racism from the point of view of moral authority. In their own eyes, they do not see any act of racism as justified — unlike the other victims — while having they moral authority intact. In the eyes of third parties as well, they certainly have moral authority intact unlike the other victims of racism who exacerbate the problem of racism.
Therefore, if effort to address racism is to be successful in terms of moral authority, then voices of these victims who use their moral authority to speak against all kind of racism have to be amplified. We have to give them space to speak out against racism. Not only that, we need to encourage them to speak out.
First published in The Malaysian Insider on January 9 2010.