Barbara Ransby - the Blacklivesmatter Movement

Barbara Ransby classifies the BlackLivesMatter movement as one that is leaderless. She comes to this conclusion through a lens developed and adjusted by Ella Baker. Before analyzing Ransby’s argument and its context, I disagreed with Ransby. In fact, I thought that calling this movement leaderless diminished the value and worth of black activism. This movement is full of leaders such as Deray Mckennson and Johnetta “Netta” Elzie, Alicia Garza and many others. But after my analysis of Ransby’s work, I too believe that this is a leaderless movement. In order for a movement to be successful and achieve its goals and objectives it has to be leaderless. Along with embracing the idea of a leaderless movement, it must also have objectives that go beyond reform. The characteristics of a successful leaderless movement include fighting for access and or developing it as well as elevating consciousness to achieve liberation.

Just a few months ago, Barbara Ransby wrote the piece Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement. In this analysis, Ransby begins with calling out all of those that have mistakenly understood the role of social media in the movement. The power and significance of social media has been labeled as revolutionary. But, social media does not have magical powers. (Ransby, Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement.) Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are tools like any other invention. These platforms have the ability to spread information at a fast rate, produce dialogue and make it easier for people to exchange ideas with others. All of which organizations within the movement are responsible for. But despite the fact that social media platforms can do those things, it cannot take the place of an organization. Much achievements of the BlackLivesMatter movement have been credited with social media and various activists that have large platforms. But, this undercuts the work done by organizations that have had massive impacts on the success of achieving varying objectives.

The issue is that social media in this movement has been categorized as revolutionary when in fact it is no different from any other invention. Social Media does not have magical powers. (Ransby, Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement.) It needs to be included that social media it self isn’t revolutionary but it has been revolutionized because of the BlackLivesMatter movement and the power of the hash tag. Internet is one of the most accessible commodities out today. With the accessibility of internet, comes the accessibility to social media. When I log on to social media, there is not session spent without reading BlackLivesMatter in a post. There are few who have not heard or even seen the use of the phrase. Not just in the U.S but across the world. Social media has not only broadcasted the message and stories of those affected by police brutality and other forms of state sanction violence but it has also increased the amount of those involved. But, the rapid growth of the movement can not be assumed as progress. The rapid increase of people involved, has led to more people fighting against oppression and working to achieve the goal of ending police violence.

BlackLivesMatter is not the only movement tackling the attitudes the state has reflected towards a particular group of people. We Charge Genocide and Dreamers are both movements that have been built in response to such attitudes that disproportionately impact people of color. We Charge Genocide is movement focused on centering the voices and experiences of young people targeted by police violence in Chicago. It’s objective is to increase the participation of youth in movement building by amplifying their voices and encouraging them to strategize solutions to solve the issues of police violence. The Dreamers movement is about establishing policies at the local, state and federal level to secure equality for the immigrant community without discrimination based on immigration status or national origin. It is the objective of the Dreamers movement to hold government officials and policy makers accountable to meeting the needs of all people including the immigrant population. But besides advocating for needs of their people, all three movements develop spaces for people to share their stories and raise consciousness about the factors that play into the issues they face. Raising consciousness is also used to liberate those who became used to the system that has oppressed them and have accepted it as life. This practice is not new. The veterans from the 1960s and '70s (SNCC and the Black Panther Party as two of the best-known examples), held meetings, workshops, debates, strategy sessions and reading groups to forge the consensus that enabled thousands of people to work under the same rubric and, more or less, operate out of the same playbook (Ransby, Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement.) Another important aspect of these three movements is that they do not have any hierarchal structure and that they identify as leaderless movements. Ella Baker called for people to disinvest from the notion of the messianic, charismatic leader who promises political salvation in exchange for deference (Ransby, Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement.) Along with this, she opposed predominately male leadership and was among the first to call out organizations that had such forms of leadership.

In the BlackLivesMatter movement in particular, men are not at the forefront. Instead, women take up the majority of those at the forefront. Unlike previous movements, no particular gender is silencing the voice and authority of another. It just so happens that women have become apart of the majority standing at the line. Another important characteristic of a successful social movement has what sociologist Charles Payne has called “group-centered leadership.” Rather than someone with a fancy title standing at a podium speaking for or to the people, group-
centered leaders are at the center of many concentric circles. They strengthen the group, forge consensus and negotiate a way forward. That kind of leadership is impactful, democratic, and, I would argue, more radical and sustainable, than the alternatives (Ransby, Ella Taught Me: Shattering the Myth of the Leaderless Movement). The recognition of a single leader within a movement is problematic because it discourages efforts to be made by individuals within the movement. Many of the movements taking place today focus on having this kind of leadership which was developed in the movements that came before it.

The success of one movement cannot be talked about without talking about the foundation that was developed by movements that came before to make that success possible. Liberation movements such as the Civil Rights Movement had a major impact on

...