If someone asks you who Martin Luther King Jr. was, do you usually say that he was a man who fought against racism, discrimination, segregation, oppression and injustice? Or do you say he was a man who fought for civil rights? How about the Revolutionary War. Would you say that it was a fight against unreasonable control and high taxes imposed by Britain, or simply that it was a fight for independence?
These days we all seem to know what we’re against, but there might be more value in knowing what we’re for. Here are three reasons to consider shifting your focus from against to for:
1. For is more inclusive. When we care about a cause (be it racial equality, financial equality, freedom of expression or religion, and so on) we want other people to care about it, too. One of the easiest ways to get people invested in your mission is to relate it to their own. If you’re focused on fighting against racism, you have to convince people of the importance of your cause, the existence of racism, how it effects them, etc. Whereas if you’re fighting for equality, anyone who is disadvantaged in some way will feel a kinship with your cause. Once you have the connection of a shared a goal, you are more likely to care about each other’s specific cause. At the very least, by helping each other you can help yourselves.
2. For is less specific… and less ambiguous. When we’re fighting against something, we have to be specific about what that thing is. Unfortunately, specificity leaves a lot of room for bad actors to get around the rules because they didn’t specifically do that thing. The things that we’re for can often be applied much more broadly. For instance, if you implement a rule of “no hitting” with children, that rule may need to be followed up with a list of addendums: “no kicking, no pushing, no pinching, no hair pulling.” Even after making an exhaustive list, kids may still find ways to taunt each other, such as getting up in each other’s faces or flipping each other off. Whereas if you make the rule “be kind with your body,” it becomes clear that any action that hurts someone else is inappropriate. When we’re fighting for instead of against, we don’t have to get so weighed down by petty semantics.
3. For offers more opportunity. We fight against something that we see taking place and disagree with. We fight for things we have a vision for. If you successfully fight against something, you eradicate it (best case scenario.) If you successfully fight for something, you change the present to set the stage for a better future. If Martin Luther King Jr. had simply fought against segregation, the things he said and did wouldn’t feel particularly applicable to the present day fight against police brutality. The reason he is still relevant, however, is that the dream for equality is still alive.
When you think about the causes you’re passionate about, don’t just think about what you want to see end. Think about what new beginning you hope to see, and a world of new options and new allies might just open up.
