Beyond Allyship: Embracing the Challenger Model to Generate Safety and Accountability

Continue to page 2 ➡︎

The Challenger Model: A Framework for Confronting Harm and Injustice

Limitations of Allyship

The Bystander-Ally Framework has long been viewed as a means of challenging injustice. However, it has its limitations, as it centers on the agency and perspective of the ally rather than the person experiencing harm or injustice. The centered perspective always shapes what we deem possible and reasonable. I have attended more bystander-ally training than I care to remember. As someone who is Black, Queer, Non-binary, and Neurodivergent, I always felt that these trainings centered on some imaginary ordinary Joe, namely, a cisgender, heterosexual, Neurotypical white man who is just waiting to “become an ally.” All he needs is the right skills, and he’ll jump into action.

Paternalism and Performance

I always found allyship somewhat paternalistic and sorely lacking in social analysis. We’re not meant to question why an ally is necessary or who the target of injustice is. In my experience, most bystander trainings don’t even give a title to agents who actively perpetuate harm. And not least of all, the bystander-ally framework erases most of the nuance of how harm is experienced and focuses on a hyper-individualistic understanding of preventing and countering harm. It’s giving “only you can prevent wildfires.”

What ends up happening is that a lot of people go on to identify as “an ally”, as if it’s a tattoo or quircky nose ring. They’ve been conditoned over time to view harm as individual acts of public harm that are observable and targeted explicitly toward a visible other. We end up spinning our wheels trying to convert people to allies, while the reality is that individual allyship does nothing to prevent harm and makes people less able to spot the conditions that tacitly allow and encourage harm. I call this “Individualizing the Institutional”. We transfer institutional responsibility to ensure safety for all to individuals who now have to be on call for acts of harm.

In my experience, allyship has become a merit badge most often brandished by progressive white women who want you to know how much they adore Amanda Gorman. “She’s so moving, you know!” These allies relish in their goodness and hope. Allies are the same people who unironically turned their Instagram pictures black for a day and still proudly display their “Love is Love/No Human is Illegal/Black Lives Matter/We Believe in Science” signs in their yard. You’ll forgive my venting; this is incredibly annoying to me because I live in a neighborhood that has more of those signs than actual Black people, but I digress.

Besides being a bad joke, adhering to the outdated paradigm of bystander-ally feeds into the myth of the “Good samaritan.” The myth of the “good guy, the white ally, or straight ally” diverts our collective efforts from challenging the beliefs, behaviors, and ways of being that uphold racism, sexism, and cis-heteronormativity in our workplaces, schools, etc, and centers those with unearned advantages who choose performative marginal acts that functionally leave inequitable infrastructures in place.

Bucket Allyship

One of my Neurodivergent traits (that I chesish) is my tendency to think of unique analogies and tying unlike concepts together; the following is one example.

In my mind, allies are people who, at one point or another, decided it was their sole responsibility to prevent wildfires. Stay with me! So, these allies chose to pick up a bucket and fill it with water. Makes sense. They’re now the wildfire patrol.

The only trouble is they underestimated the task. They’re patrolling a scorched savannah thousands of miles long, and they’ve got a bucket. Before long they get resentful at others for not carrying buckets, for not doing their part. Over time, the bucket gets cumbersome to carry. They’re tired and internalize the unrealistic belief that it’s up to them to be at the right place when lightning strikes so that they can put their bucket to good use. How else will they know they’re a good person? How else will they avoid being like the bad guys, the racists, sexists, and homophobes? Better cling to that bucket!

Let’s say an ally is in the right place at the right time. How likely is one bucket of water to put out a burgeoning wildfire? It didn’t work. As expected. Instead of reflecting and organizing, the ally, unable to grapple with the futility of their act, now demands that you, the one disproportionately impacted by the fire, praise them for carrying the bucket of water. Again, you’re the one impacted. But you have to credit them for their failed attempt to protect you. If you don’t, they’ve threatened to stop carrying the water.

This is a tongue-in-cheek example, but it’s not far from the reality of modern movement politics and the “Allyship Arc.” There are many issues with the “bucket” approach to allyship, most notably the lack of systemic analysis and reliance on the charity of those in power rather than their solidarity and respect for the dignity of those experiencing harm.

In my view, we can all put our buckets down if we come together to strategically plan a systematic approach to irrigating and nurturing the land to be lush green pasture. That way, lightning strikes won’t necessarily lead to wildfires. To articulate this ethos in an accessible way, I developed The Challenger Model. We can do away with hyper-individualistic, paternalistic, and inequitable approaches to countering harm and refocus our attention on collectively cultivating the conditions that promote positive justice and generate safety.

Roles in the Challenger Model

The Challenger Model is a framework that highlights the importance of centering those experiencing harm or injustice in our efforts to challenge it. This model acknowledges that our relationship to power in a particular context, worldview, and heritage significantly impacts our ability and willingness to challenge harmful conditions.

The model breaks down the roles required to challenge harm, including:

CATALYSTS: Those who harm others or leverage inequity, often to gain or secure power

CHEERLEADERS: Individuals who encourage harm and injustice through their behavior and speech

CONDONERS: Individuals who witness injustice and harm but feel no obligation to intervene

CONCERNED: Individuals who decide not to interrupt harm or injustice due to fear or other factors

COUNTERACTS: People who intervene to prevent harm in the present moment

COACHES: Individuals who help others accept the impact of their harmful behavior, reflect, and find ways to repair it

CHALLENGERS: Individuals who initiate organized efforts to change conditions that allow harm

Context and Culture

The key to understanding and addressing harm is to consider the context in which it occurs. People with more power and a greater sense of belonging in a particular context are in a better position to challenge harm and are more likely to be rewarded for doing so. However, it's important to remember that someone experiencing harm in one context may be causing harm in another. The contexts of our lives are dynamic.

Fostering a world where we all enjoy freedom and experience positive justice requires us to stand up to harmful beliefs, behaviors, and ways of being wherever we may find them. The Challenger Model is an alternative method to help us widen our scope and apply a collective social analysis and ethics to our justice practice.

Rather than relying on individual commitment or martyrdom, this model encourages us to take a more long-term and collective approach. Educating ourselves, organizing, resisting outdated paradigms, and envisioning new possibilities are essential to justice. The Challenger Model offers one vision of what is possible.