Speaking truth to power
Non-violent political tactic employed by dissidents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non-violent political tactic employed by dissidents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speaking truth to power is a non-violent political tactic, employed by dissidents against the received wisdom or propaganda of governments they regard as oppressive, authoritarian or an ideocracy. The phrase originated with a pamphlet, Speak Truth to Power: a Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence, published by the American Friends Service Committee in 1955. Speak Truth To Power is also the title of a global human rights initiative under the auspices of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.
Practitioners who have campaigned for a more just and truthful world have included The Hebrew Prophets, Apollonius of Tyana, Vaclav Havel,[1] Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi, Bacha Khan, and the Dalai Lama.[2]
In classical Greece, "speaking truth to power" was known as parrhesia. The tactic is similar to satyagraha (literally, "truth-force") which Mahatma Gandhi used in the Indian independence movement to bring an end to the British colonial regime in India.[3]
Historian Clayborne Carson attributes the popularizing of the phrase in America to civil rights organizer and peace activist Bayard Rustin, and said that he adapted it in the early 1940s from a saying of Muhammad.[4][5] Rustin adapted and condensed this concept as part of co-writing the pamphlet Speak Truth to Power: a Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence which was published in 1955.[6][7]
In 1970, Albert O. Hirschman wrote that subordinates have three options: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.[8][9] However, according to Michel Foucault, only the courageous may pursue the truth-to-power course, as they risk losing their friends (as Winston Churchill did in the 1930s[10]), their liberty, even their lives (as Liu Xiaobo did[11]).[12]
The concept of "speaking truth to power" often requires those who pursue it to confront personal and social risks. Michel Foucault highlights the courage needed to speak out against dominant systems, as doing so can lead to consequences like social isolation, loss of freedom, or even death. Figures like Winston Churchill and Liu Xiaobo illustrate this, as they faced serious repercussions for their outspokenness. This framing of truth-telling underlines it as a form of ethical resistance, emphasizing a commitment not only to personal integrity but also to societal welfare.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn[13] and Andrei Sakharov[14] are among those who suffered for speaking out against the USSR.
In 1936, Japanese finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo was assassinated after suggesting that Japan could not afford its planned military buildup.[15]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, and Martin Luther King Jr. in the US, were people who lost their lives for speaking truth to power.[16]
During the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963, president John F. Kennedy met with civil rights leaders to discuss necessary changes in legislation. In full, these leaders were Mathew Ahmann of the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (SCLC); John Lewis of the SNCC; Rabbi Joachim Prinz of the American Jewish Congress; Reverend Eugene Carson Blake of the United Presbyterian Church; A. Philip Randolph; labor leader Walter Reuther; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; and (not visible in the image to the right) Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz and Floyd McKissick of CORE.[17] This march led to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[18][19]
Ex-GCHQ employee Katharine Gun was charged under the UK Official Secrets Act 1989 with leaking a request by the United States for compromising intelligence on United Nations delegates prior to the Iraq invasion of 2003. Together with Daniel Ellsberg, Coleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, Gun set up the Truth-Telling Coalition. In her own words, this was "a group of 'whistle-blowers' from several countries set up to offer support and advice to people like [herself]." This support group encourages those who are aware of unethical information to 'tell truth to power' and expose the truth to the public.[20][21]
In Power in Movement, Sidney Tarrow examines how the U.S. Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s serves as a quintessential example of "speaking truth to power." By leading peaceful protests, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders demonstrated the effectiveness of nonviolent civil disobedience in exposing and challenging systemic racism embedded within U.S. laws and society. This strategy of public defiance highlighted injustices in a manner that mobilized support across diverse communities, emphasizing the moral power of nonviolent action against institutional oppression. The Civil Rights Movement’s direct approach to contesting segregation and discrimination reflected how grassroots efforts can pressure political systems to reconsider longstanding inequities. Public actions like the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the March on Washington showcased how organized dissent, even against powerful institutions, can shift societal norms and inspire legislative change. Through these collective actions, the Civil Rights Movement demonstrated that speaking truth to power involves both ethical commitment and strategic, visible resistance, underscoring the potential for social movements to drive profound transformation.[22]
Gene Sharp’s introduces three core mechanisms through which nonviolent action operates: conversion, accommodation, and coercion, each relevant to the concept of speaking truth to power. Conversion involves altering the attitudes of those in authority by exposing injustices, allowing marginalized groups to influence public opinion or decision-makers. Through this mechanism, speaking truth becomes a tool for moral persuasion, creating empathy or ethical reconsideration in those with power. Accommodation happens when authorities recognize that the cost of repression outweighs the benefits, leading to concessions or reforms without complete ideological agreement. In this way, nonviolent protest can sway those in power by highlighting the economic, social, or political costs of continued oppression. Coercion, despite the nonviolent nature of the actions, applies persistent pressure that can destabilize power structures, forcing authorities to alter their behaviors or policies to avoid escalating dissent. Sharp’s framework emphasizes that speaking truth to power can compel transformative responses from authorities, even without physical confrontation.[23]
The reverend Nick Mercer, an assistant chaplain at Sherborne School, believes that human rights and morality should be taught in all schools. Mercer, who gave evidence on mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, once served as a military lawyer.[24]
According to Vaclav Havel, politics should not be ignored because it attracts bad people. It follows that politics requires people of exceptional purity, higher sensitivity, taste, tact and responsibility. "Those who say that politics is disreputable help make it so... Those who claim that politics is a dirty business are lying to us."[25]
Michel Foucault spoke and wrote about power[26] and oppression[27] by examining how "technologies of power and knowledge have, since antiquity, intertwined and developed in concrete and historical frameworks".[28]
Paulo Freire in his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed explains how "oppression has been justified and how it is reproduced through a mutual process between the "oppressor" and the "oppressed" (oppressors–oppressed distinction). Freire admits that the powerless in society can be frightened of freedom. He writes, "Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion". According to Freire, freedom will be the result of praxis—informed action—when a balance between theory and practice is achieved".[29]
The phrase "Speak Truth to Power" originated with the Quaker community, a religious group deeply committed to peace and nonviolent action. In Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence, Henry Sawyer explains that for Quakers, this practice transcends strategy; it represents a moral duty tied to justice and ethical integrity. The Quaker approach emphasizes that nonviolent truth-telling can be a powerful tool for marginalized groups to peacefully challenge injustice. By addressing oppression directly yet peacefully, the Quakers demonstrate how nonviolent resistance aligns with a principled commitment to fairness and societal transformation. Incorporating the Quaker philosophy into discussions of nonviolent action adds depth to the concept, showing that speaking truth to power is not merely a political tactic but a principled stance that seeks justice without hostility. This perspective underscores the power of moral conviction in advocating for change, providing an important counterpoint to violent approaches in social movements. Through their peaceful resistance, Quakers exemplify how persistent truth-telling can uphold dignity and influence public consciousness, inspiring broader societal change.[30]
In Why We Lost the ERA, Jane Mansbridge explores the ERA campaign’s use of truth-telling as a method to combat gender inequality and inspire legislative reform. Activists worked to publicly address discrimination, with the goal of shaping public perception and influencing lawmakers. However, Mansbridge notes that despite making the issue visible, activists faced intense opposition from political and social forces resistant to gender equality. This illustrates that while truth-telling can highlight injustice and rally support, it may not be enough to shift entrenched beliefs or overcome well-organized opposition. Expanding on this example in the article demonstrates both the strengths and limits of truth-telling. Mansbridge’s analysis of the ERA movement shows how public advocacy campaigns can drive social awareness but also reveals how difficult it is to change deep-seated attitudes and institutional resistance. Her insights add nuance to the idea of speaking truth to power, illustrating that truth-telling is a powerful, though sometimes insufficient, tool in the pursuit of equality. This nuanced view emphasizes that systemic change often requires truth-telling alongside other strategies, particularly in the face of opposition backed by strong social or political traditions.[31]
Anita Hill's book Speaking Truth to Power (1998), is a candid autobiography in which Hill reflects on her experience of testifying at the 1991 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings, gives details on her earlier professional relationship with Clarence Thomas, and explains her motivation for going public with her sexual harassment accusations against Thomas.[32]
Kerry Kennedy's book Speak Truth To Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World (1st edition 2000), with photographs by Eddie Adams, features interviews with dedicated human rights campaigners including: José Ramos-Horta from East Timor, Dianna Ortiz of Guatemala, Baltasar Garzón of Spain and Desmond Tutu of South Africa.[33]
The story of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose non-violent, intellectual resistance group in the Third Reich has been filmed four times, including Die Weiße Rose (1982),[34] and Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005).[35]
Richard Attenborough's film Gandhi (1982) was a worldwide success, despite one Hollywood mogul's opinion that the central character was a "little brown man in a sheet whom nobody wants to see."[36]
More recent films exemplifying speaking truth to power include the biopic Snowden (2016), about the whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Official Secrets (2019), about the story of Katharine Gun.
The phrase "truth to power" is often used in the HBO series The Wire.[37] For example, for a reality check, politician Tommy Carcetti frequently asks his trusted advisor Norman Wilson to speak "truth to power"[38] (e.g., in season 5, episode 1).[39]
Since at least 2006, American activist Noam Chomsky has been dismissive of "speaking truth to power". He asserts: "power knows the truth already, and is busy concealing it". He argues it is those who are oppressed who need to hear the truth, not the oppressors.[40] Chomsky's belief that we must speak 'truth to the powerless' inspired a six-part docuseries on Canadian foreign policy of the same name, released in 2022, in which he also took part.[41]
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's seminal essay, Can the Subaltern Speak?, provides a critical perspective on the concept of "speaking truth to power" by examining how marginalized voices are often structurally silenced. Spivak argues that colonial and patriarchal systems create barriers that prevent marginalized groups—whom she refers to as the "subaltern"—from effectively communicating their realities to those in power. When the subaltern do attempt to speak, their voices are frequently distorted, appropriated, or dismissed in ways that prevent genuine understanding or empathy. This concept adds a crucial layer to the discussion, underscoring that truth-telling in power-laden structures is often filtered or dismissed, thus limiting its impact. Spivak’s analysis points out that marginalized groups often lack access to the platforms needed to be heard by those in power. This lack of agency means that the process of "speaking truth" is deeply unequal; while dominant groups can readily express and disseminate their perspectives, the subaltern often find their voices mediated through lenses of power that do not reflect their lived experiences. Even when marginalized people do find a platform, their narratives are often constrained by the dominant culture's frameworks, which reshapes their truths into something more palatable or less challenging to the existing hierarchy. Additionally, Spivak critiques the tendency of privileged intellectuals to speak for the subaltern, rather than allowing marginalized individuals to speak for themselves. This well-meaning but problematic approach often reinforces power imbalances by silencing the voices it claims to amplify, making true empowerment difficult to achieve. Spivak thus challenges the notion that simply "speaking truth" will lead to liberation or change; she suggests that without structural changes to how voices are valued and interpreted, the act of truth-telling itself may reinforce existing power dynamics rather than dismantling them. Incorporating Spivak's perspective into the concept of speaking truth to power enriches the discussion by highlighting that, for many marginalized groups, truth-telling is not always straightforward or empowering. It reveals that the efficacy of truth-telling depends on who controls the narrative and which voices are deemed credible within power structures. This underscores the need for intentional listening and systemic change to make speaking truth to power a viable path for all voices, particularly those historically suppressed by colonialism, patriarchy, and other systems of oppression.[42]
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
