As social justice activists, we rarely speak of love. Oh,
sure, it comes up with close friends and, yes, with loved ones, but
rarely in the workplace and rarer still in the context of our activism.
is good reason. We tend to think of love as an emotion, which of course
it is. Emotional love feels good, almost blissful. But it is also
fleeting and fickle and, even at its best, somewhat resistant to
reason. We love (emotionally) despite whatever logic might exist, not
because of it. There is a reason we say that we love with our hearts.
Love is a choice. Which one will you make? by Elyce Feliz
Emotional love is wonderful -- I recommend it highly -- but it
seems a bit out of place in racial justice work where we seem much more
at home with outrage and righteous anger about the injustice in the
world, as well as the sadness and grief of our own pain. Racial justice
work requires commitment and stability. It requires a different kind of
love: Love that is a choice, not an emotion.
The notion of choosing love may seem paradoxical, but it
isn't. As anyone who has been in a long-term committed romantic
relationship knows, emotional love eventually fades. When it does, love
becomes a choice, a choice to be with someone not because our organism
demands it so strongly that we cannot resist but because we recognize our common humanity1. Martin Luther King elaborated on this kind of love in his Pilgrimage to Nonviolence essay (see full text here ):
We speak of love which is expressed in the Greek word Agape. Agape means understanding,
redeeming good will for all men. It is an overflowing love which is
purely spontaneous, unmotivated, groundless, and creative. It is not set
in motion by any quality or function of its object. It is the love of
God operating in the human heart....
basic point about agape is that it springs from the need of the other
person - his need for belonging to the best of the human family....Agape
is not a weak, passive love. It is love in action. Agape is love
seeking to preserve and create community. It is insistence on community
even when one seeks to break it. Agape is a willingness to sacrifice in
the interest of mutuality. Agape is a willingness to go to any length to
restore community. It doesn't stop at the first mile, but goes the
second mile to restore community....He who works against community is
working against the whole of creation. Therefore, if I respond to hate
with a reciprocal hate I do nothing but intensify the cleavage in broken
community. I can only close the gap in broken community by meeting hate
In the final analysis,
agape means recognition of the fact that all life is interrelated. All
humanity is involved in a single process, and all men are brothers. To
the degree that I harm my brother, no matter what he is doing to me, to
that extent I am harming myself.
just this way, we can CHOOSE to love friends and other non-romantic
acquaintances. In just this way, we can choose to love each other, even
if we have not yet met, or even if we have and the meeting went poorly.
Does this sound fantastic? Far-fetched? Unrealistic?
but only because we have been socialized to believe that there is not
enough love to go around, that if we choose to love people we don't
know, we will wind up having less love for our family and friends. But
is this true?
Choose love. It's superior to hate by Alfred Hermida
What if we turned it upside down? How many people can we
hate? Two? A dozen? History suggests that an entire racial or ethnic
group is well within human capacity. With hate, it seems like there is
no limit, so why is there a limit with love?
But, as Elie Wiesel so aptly articulated, love is not the opposite of hate.
opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is
not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy,
it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's
Gandhi similarly said, "where there is
love, there is life," and also reminded us that "when the power of love
overrules the love of power, the world will know peace."
.Hate cannot drive out hate,. but we sure seem to think it does. by Leland Francisco
This love that Wiesel, Gandhi, and King refer to is not soft. It is
not irrational. It is a powerful (and necessary) force for peace and
justice. In this context, how can anyone who claims to stand for
justice possibly not choose love?
But, in the context
of racial injustice, simply choosing love is not enough. The 400 years
of racial injustice requires that we attend to a few more details.
Doing racial justice work requires that we choose the kind of love that
connects us at eye-level. No matter the specifics of our work, I
believe we have to engage with each other, to help each other, and to
love each other, as equals --like friends -- rather than
paternalistically, like we love a child, or with idealization, like we
love God, though certainly I believe we ought to strive to see the
divine in each other.
True love can only happen at eye-level by Elraffa
This kind of "equal" love requires us to see, to really
see each other's full humanity -- the vulnerabilities as well as the
strengths, the pain as well as the beauty, the things that make us
different and unique, as well as those that we have in common. It
requires such seeing because if we are unable or unwilling to see each
other in this kind of depth and fullness, then we might feel sympathy or
admiration but not love.
Love requires wholeness. We can love
only the whole person, not some fragmented part that we happen to be
willing to both recognize and embrace.
As well, we have to find
ways to love our whole selves, because if we are unwilling to
acknowledge our own dark sides and recognize and embrace all aspects of
our own being, how can we possibly hope to do so with our allies"or with
those who don't yet recognize us as allies?
Love is not all that we need for peace, but we do need it. by Farrukh Swamibu
As I imagine doing this work with love, I feel more
energized and more whole. It feels entirely in integrity with the kind
of person I want to be. It seems an embodiment of Gandhi's call to "be
the change we want to see."
It seems, as well, a way to connect the mind and the heart.
of this is a criticism of other emotions or other sources of
motivation. There is room in this work for anger and outrage, for
sadness and grief, for any authentic response, including fear and
distrust. To the degree that these emotional responses are authentic,
they are all essential in our ability to honestly identify the problems
and find constructive ways to move toward solutions.
is, I think, a special case for love. Criticism is a way of naming the
problem and outrage a way to mobilize a response. Both are necessary but
neither actually supports us in moving forward. Love points us in a
particular direction. It orients us toward connection and
relationship-building, toward healing and wholeness, toward beauty and
goodness, toward the discovery of a shared humanity. It doesn't
necessarily tell us how to get there -- and certainly there is a long
road that needs to be traveled -- but it helps to know which direction to
Next Page 1 | 2
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., is a teaching associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where he teaches Psychology of Race and Ethnicity, Theories of Psychotherapy, and a graduate-level courses on restorative justice. An autobiographical essay of Mikhail's interests in race relations and basketball is available here.
Since 2009, Mikhail has been studying and working with conflict, particularly via Restorative Circles (a restorative practice developed in Brazil by Dominic Barter and associates) and other restorative responses to conflict. Together with Elaine Shpungin, he now supports schools, organizations, and workplaces in developing restorative strategies for engaging conflict, building conflict facilitation skills and evaluating the (more...)