Responsibilize

Social Justice Usage

Source: Guthman, Julie. “Neoliberalism and the Constitution of Contemporary Bodies.” In Rothblum, Esther and Sondra Solovay (eds.), The Fat Studies Reader. New York University Press, 2009, p. 193.

At the same time, another rationale of neoliberal government is responsibilization. To exercise choice freely, one must be shaped, guided, and molded into one capable of exercising freedom. The neoliberal critique of too much intervention returns improvement to the individual, who is expected to exercise choice and become responsible for his or her risks. In that way, neoliberalism also produces a hyper-vigilance about control and self-discipline. The pursuit of an often unexamined social value of “health” is, in that way, the sine qua non of neoliberal responsibilization. Thinness, albeit a poor proxy for health, is thus viewed as a reflection of self-control and “personal responsibility” regardless of whether it is even consciously pursued.

New Discourses Commentary

“Responsibilization,” like many ideas, is a concept that features rather prominently in a horrifying way in the Theory and activism of Critical Social Justice, although it has a much more reasonable interpretation outside of it in the fields from which scholars in Critical Social Justice most likely stole it. In general, “responsibilization” occurs when someone is made responsible for something that they were not previously responsible for, particularly when the entity that held responsibility previously was the state. For example, if the state at one point provided a fire service and then at some point later disbanded the fire department, leaving the matter of fire prevention and management on one’s own property to private entities, then the citizens under that administration would be considered to have been responsibilized in that regard.

As one might expect, this rather reasonable concept is taken in quite a different direction under the Theory of Critical Social Justice. That view of the matter is much more expansive. Generally, Theory approaches this by making the claim that “neoliberalism” (roughly, a capitalist market-based economy, in Theory’s use) seeks to “responsibilize” people so that they might be rendered valuable to the market, which only values people of certain useful types. The argument is that under a “neoliberal” banner of freedom, one must take the (personal) responsibility to be successful in the market economy, and thus one must be the right kind of person to be “valuable” (note the double meaning). This is regarded as a form of constraining acceptable ways of being and thus oppressing people who do not fall within those market-valuable limits. The specter of Marxism lies heavily upon this line of thinking.

Theory takes this view further due to its reliance upon systemic thinking. It’s not just the government but also the system itself that should take care of people and provide for their needs and liberation. Within Theory, then, responsibilization—which is problematic, if not an outright injustice—occurs anytime a member of a marginalized or oppressed group is expected to be responsible for solving a problem that Theory sees as systemic, structural, cultural, or institutional, in addition to that which might come from the state or the system it helps uphold.

For example, expecting women to learn situational awareness or self-defense (or even recommending they should consider it) to reduce their chance of rape is viewed as an extremely unjust and problematic form of responsibilizing them in many lines of contemporary feminist thought (see also, rape culture, third-wave feminism, and fourth-wave feminism). The logic here is that there shouldn’t be rape, and if there were no rape culture, patriarchy, misogyny, or other systems of power that permit it, there would be no rape, in which case women would not need to take any steps to reduce its possibility. Asking women to responsibilize themselves against the possibility is therefore asking them to shoulder an additional burden not expected of men, which oppresses women and is therefore problematic.

Another common example, in this case from critical race Theory, is that it cannot be considered the responsibility of people of color who experience racism to stop racism or even educate others about the “realities” of racism (not to be confused with its reality). The latter would be to commit what is known as epistemic exploitation, in fact. Antiracism, as this form of practice, is a necessary practice for white people or other relationally privileged people of color (see also, BIPOC, colorism, and light-skin privilege), and is primarily intended for them, along with white-adjacent people of color, race traitors, those who act white, and others who uphold racist, white supremacist, anti-black, and other dominant discourses or the centrality of whiteness (see also, internalized racism and internalized oppression). Critically conscious people of color are, essentially by definition, already doing the hard work of antiracism (see also, woke and emotional labor). Expecting them to do more, especially given how much has already been done by previous scholars and activists (see also, black feminism, black liberationism, and critical race Theory) problematically responsibilizes them with the work of fighting racism that, in principle, shouldn’t exist.

This attitude about responsibilization is why we find critical whiteness educators like Robin DiAngelo (see also, good white) explaining in her books that it is never the responsibility of members of minoritized groups to explain their oppression but it is always the primary responsibility of members of dominant groups to use their privilege to problematize and disrupt systems of injustice wherever they can be found, including within themselves. One will notice the slight difficulties here that Theory also indicates that it is impossible to understand systemic oppression without having the direct lived experience of it (see also, ways of knowing) and that allyship is, itself, fraught with problematic power dynamics (see also, solidarity). Nevertheless, as unjust systems of power shouldn’t exist, it cannot be the responsibility of those who are subordinated by them to do anything about them, as that would responsibilize them, thus adding to their oppression (because they could be doing other things instead and because it costs emotional labor to engage with resistance to such instruction—see also, white fragility). It is up to those who are complicit in these systems of power to critically examine them themselves and dismantle them.

In other applications of the term, one will sometimes find requests or expectations for overweight people to lose weight, including as a matter of health as directed by a doctor (see also, medicalize, healthism, and Healthy at Every Size), to be “responsibilizing” them—usually to take the responsibility to be useful within a neoliberal market economy instead of merely cared for while unable to work. This is typical in fat studies. Similarly, expectations that disabled people will occasionally not be fully accommodated by society and thus must take on some of the burden of living with their disabilities is often seen as responsibilizing them within disability studies. Of course, there is some reasonable application of the idea in this case.

In critical race Theory and critical pedagogy, expectations that people and students of color might be expected to work harder to overcome any systemic, institutional, or cultural racism that may exist is considered responsibilizing them. Similar attitudes are held within feminism, gender studies, and women’s studies about expecting women to shoulder extra burdens, including over matters of biological reality like their menstrual cycles, pregnancy, and some features of motherhood. This set of attitudes about responsibility gives the distinct impression that some significant portion of what is meant by “Social Justice” is the denial of responsibility for one’s failures.

Related Terms

Acting white; Ally/Allyship; Anti-blackness; Antiracism; BIPOC; Black feminism; Black liberationism; Capitalism; Center; Colorism; Complicity; Critical; Critical consciousness; Critical pedagogy; Critical race Theory; Critical Theory; Cultural racism; Disability studies; Discourse; Dismantle; Disrupt; Dominant; Emotional labor; Engagement; Epistemic exploitation; Fat studies; Feminism; Fourth-wave feminism; Gender studies; Good white; Healthism; Healthy at Every Size; Injustice; Institutional racism; Internalized oppression; Internalized racism; Light-skinned privilege; Lived experience; Marginalization; Marxism; Medicalize; Minoritize; Misogyny; Neoliberal; Oppression; Patriarchy; People of color; Power (systemic); Privilege; Problematic; Problematize; Race traitor; Racism (systemic); Rape; Rape culture; Realities; Reality; Resistance; Social Justice; Solidarity; Structural; System, the; Theory; Third-wave feminism; Ways of knowing; White; White adjacent; White fragility; White supremacy; Whiteness; Woke/Wokeness; Woman; Women’s studies

Revision date: 8/11/20

⇐ Back to Translations from the Wokish

James Lindsay