Unmasking Blind Allegiance to the Powerful: DEI Lessons from the Peasant and the Autocratic King
When a former peasant sits at the feet of the autocratic king his or her allegiance is to power and not the needs of the disenfranchised . I use this analogy to help us understand blind allegiance to those who disparage and hate “the other.” They see them as “vermin and as poisoning the blood” of their kingdoms. They push against diversity, equity and inclusion.
In our ever-evolving society, the analogy of a former peasant who pledges allegiance to an autocratic king offers a poignant lens through which we can examine the concept of blind allegiance to those who harbor prejudice or hatred towards certain groups. This analogy unveils a thought-provoking perspective, enabling us to explore how such blind allegiance can manifest and perpetuate injustice in society.
1. Power as a Magnet:
Within this analogy, the autocratic king symbolizes power and authority — a magnet that often attracts individuals seeking personal benefits and protection. People’s natural gravitation towards power can lead them to prioritize their own interests, inadvertently disregarding the needs of marginalized or disadvantaged groups.
2. Loyalty vs. Empathy:
The former peasant’s unwavering loyalty to the king spotlights a profound conflict — a choice between allegiance to a powerful figure and empathy for the disenfranchised. In some instances, individuals may opt for loyalty, even if it means ignoring or supporting actions that harm others. This internal struggle mirrors cognitive dissonance, where personal allegiance collides with empathy and morality.
3. Dehumanization of “The Other”:
Blind allegiance to those who harbor prejudice often hinges on the dehumanization of “The Other.” This dehumanization enables individuals to rationalize discrimination or hatred against certain groups, as they perceive these groups as lesser or undeserving. Such individuals may prioritize their allegiance to those who share their biases, regardless of the harm it inflicts.
4. Fear and Self-Preservation:
Fear significantly contributes to blind allegiance towards those who harbor prejudice against “The Other.” Individuals may dread facing reprisals or exclusion if they do not align with the powerful group. This fear of consequences can supersede their moral compass and empathy for marginalized groups.
5. Propaganda and Manipulation:
Leaders in positions of power often resort to propaganda and manipulation to perpetuate blind allegiance. They exploit vulnerabilities, cultivate fear, and propagate stereotypes to rally support. Such manipulative tactics further obscure individuals’ ability to see beyond their allegiance.
6. Breaking the Cycle:
Breaking the cycle of blind allegiance necessitates critical thinking and self-reflection. Individuals must scrutinize the narratives and prejudices propagated by those in power. They must contemplate the ramifications of their allegiance on marginalized communities, challenging their own beliefs.
7. Promoting Empathy and Inclusion:
Countering blind allegiance hinges on promoting empathy and inclusion. Encouraging open dialogue, fostering an understanding of diverse perspectives, and confronting prejudiced beliefs are crucial steps. These actions help individuals recognize the humanity in “The Other” and pave the path towards a more equitable and just society.
In conclusion, the analogy of a former peasant pledging allegiance to a powerful king shines a light on the intricate dynamics of blind allegiance to those who harbor prejudice or hatred. It underscores the imperative need for critical thinking, empathy, and unwavering commitment to moral principles. By resisting blind allegiance and striving for inclusivity, we can build a society that values the rights and needs of all individuals, irrespective of their identity or background.
Effenus Henderson
