In some ways, it has been a good couple of weeks for calling attention to the ways in which single people are disadvantaged. For example, in his opinion piece in the New York Times, Charles M. Blow said:
“As a society, we have to start asking ourselves whether it is fair and right to continue to reward and encourage marriage through taxation and policy when fewer people — disproportionately Black ones — are choosing marriage or finding acceptable partnerships.”
He ended with this:
“Marriage as the prevailing ideal is losing its grip. And the stigma of being unmarried is also losing its grip, as it should. Now government policy that rewards the married while punishing the single must also loosen up.”
Over at the Atlantic, in the article, “The hidden costs of living alone,” Joe Pinsker described a wide variety of ways in which people who live alone are disadvantaged. He did so without in any way stigmatizing single people. The article was among the most popular at the site for about a week.
These high-profile examples, though, are the exceptions. We single people do not often enjoy the kind of support for our cause that other disadvantaged groups have attracted. In their quest to legalize same-sex marriage, for example, people who are not heterosexual had significant support from heterosexuals. For example, some heterosexuals in committed romantic relationships vowed not to marry until gays and lesbians could legally marry their partners, too.
There are lots of reasons why other people do not take up the cause of equality for unmarried Americans. I reviewed some of them in “Why do some devalued groups get more legal protections than others?”. In this article, I want to share the work of five social scientists who took a close look at motivations for helping.
In “Beyond Allyship,” University of Edinburgh lecturer Helena R. M. Radke and four colleagues described four different kinds of motivations for members of advantaged groups to try to help disadvantaged groups. They are not trying to sort people into four corresponding groups, because people can have more than one motivation, or different motivations at different times or in different contexts. As is typical of just about all academic writings (and most nonacademic ones, too), none of the examples involve people who are not married.
Genuine Helping, Focused on What Is Best for the Disadvantaged Group
People in advantaged groups who have an “outgroup-focused motivation” are motivated by “a genuine interest in improving the status of the disadvantaged group.” This is the sort of person we usually have in mind when we call someone an ally. They typically disavow the negative stereotypes of the disadvantaged group, and they are angered by the unfair disadvantages those groups endure. They also tend to be aware of their own privilege and they do not identify very strongly with their own in-group.
People motivated to engage in genuine helping tend to pay attention to what the members of the disadvantaged group really do want, rather than presuming to know or to speak for them. They are not trying to be the helper heroes who will continue to be needed; they want the disadvantaged group members to get the resources they need to be their own problem solvers.
They don’t limit their willingness to help to the easy things, such as signing petitions. They will also take actions that require more effort. They will put themselves out there in public, such as by attending demonstrations, if they think that action has the best chance of resulting in genuine change. They will do things that could be risky for them, such as boycotting or picketing or participating in sit-ins, if they think those tactics will be most effective, rather than just doing the safer things such as writing letters or protesting peacefully.
Morally Motivated Helping
Sometimes helpers have a special interest in a particular disadvantaged group, maybe in part because of their identification (or lack of identification) with their own advantaged group. Other times, the particular identity of the helper or the members of the disadvantaged group is not what matters most. Instead, higher-order moral principles motivate helping. As Radke and her colleagues note, “if the treatment of disadvantaged group members is perceived by some advantaged group members as a violation of a basic moral principle, it may make participating in action for the disadvantaged group a moral imperative.”
Morally motivated helpers are likely to be active in many causes, rather than focusing on just one. Whether they help in private or public ways, whether they are willing to take risky actions, and whether their help puts the needs of the disadvantaged group ahead of the needs of their own advantaged group depends on the particular moral beliefs that are motivating their helping.
Morally motivated helping is not aligned with any one political ideology. The authors offer this example:
“Men might be motivated to take action for women against violent pornography which demeans women because this violates their moral belief in social equality (leading them to demand social change for the rights of women) or because this violates their moral beliefs that women should be protected (leading them to demand that we revert back to a time when men protected rather than exploited women).”
Helping That Benefits or Protects the Helper’s Own In-Group
When people identify strongly with their own advantaged group, they might still want to help a disadvantaged group, but only “on the condition that the status of their own group is maintained.” For example:
“Men might be willing to participate in a Reclaim the Night protest against the violence that women experience, but may not be willing to advocate for equal pay for women in the workplace.”
Helpers with this “ingroup-focused motivation” may be helping disadvantaged groups because that will bolster the reputation of their own advantaged group, perhaps making the members seem warmer and more moral.
Sometimes the people who are motivated to protect their own group are experiencing guilt, and they will look for the quickest and easiest way to alleviate that guilt, rather than engaging in the kind of help most likely to be useful to the disadvantaged group. They are more likely to feel sorry for the members of the disadvantaged group than to empathize with them.
People with this motivation often like hierarchical relationships better than equal ones. They are driven by zero-sum beliefs, meaning that they think that if one person gains something, then another person loses.
They may hold paternalistic beliefs “which are associated with support for the disadvantaged group as long as the advantaged group takes care of and provides for them.” That kind of help “maintains the lower status of the disadvantaged group by making them dependent on the help provided by the advantaged group.”
Helping That Is Self-Centered, and Maybe Even Narcissistic
Sometimes helping isn’t about the group that needs the help or even the advantaged group to which the potential helper belongs. Instead, it is personal. People in advantaged groups can help people in disadvantaged groups “to improve their reputation, increase opportunities to make money, or, in the case of politicians, increase the likelihood of being elected.”
When a member of an advantaged group steps into a disadvantaged group’s protest and grabs the bullhorn, they may be engaging in the kind of grandiose exhibitionism characteristic of narcissists.
Respectful and Disrespectful Help
Radke and her colleagues do not use the terms “respectful help” and “disrespectful help,” but I think they apply. Morally motivated helpers and genuine helpers (motivated by what is best for the disadvantaged group) are more likely to committed to:
- “listening to and amplifying the voices of the disadvantaged group,
- Seeking advice from and following requests made by the disadvantaged group (including stepping back when necessary).
- Accepting criticism and
- Taking on the role of an ‘accomplice’ or ‘side-kick’ rather than seeking one as a ‘hero’ or ‘champion’ of a movement.”
When people are motivated to protect the interests of their own advantaged group, or when they are motivated by self-centered concerns, they are more likely to help in disrespectful ways. For example:
- They don’t ask for guidance from members of the disadvantaged group
- They don’t consider how their actions affect that group
- They waiver in their support depending on how much trouble it is to help
- They might try to “take over the work, co-opt the movement and in doing so obfuscate or trivialize the movement’s message, actively seek to be a leader in the movement, and offer unwanted and/or unneeded advice with the expectation that the disadvantaged group will listen to them.”
Implications for Unmarried Americans Seeking Unmarried Equality
We unmarried Americans get very little support from potential allies. We can’t even boast of all that much activism from within our own ranks. Coupled people grabbing the bullhorn from us at rallies sounds like an enviable problem to have. We don’t have any rallies.
Maybe that will change. When I was interviewed on a radio show about the Atlantic article on the hidden costs of living alone, the last question I was asked was whether there was any organized action to try to address those issues. There isn’t, but putting the question out there at least raises some awareness.
[Notes: (1) The opinions expressed here do not represent the official positions of Unmarried Equality. (2) I’ll post all these blog posts at the UE Facebook page; please join our discussions there. (3) For links to previous columns, click here.]
About Bella DePaulo
