Post Views: 8,050

We’ve all heard it. For some of us it may prompt curiosity; others feel a familiar sense of dread, or even trauma set in when they hear it. I’m talking about the infamous, “Okay, but let’s play ‘devil’s advocate’ for a moment….” 

When people utter this phrase, they typically believe (and often boast) that they are “thinking outside the box.” Yet as advocates for equity and justice are well aware, many who claim to “play devil’s advocate” use this phrase in a way that situates arguments firmly back in the box. 

Here’s the thing: we desperately need people to play devil’s advocate. “Provocateur.” By all means, step into this role; think outside the box; push the boundaries! Just please, hear me out when I say, you’re likely doing it wrong. 

Here's the thing: we desperately need people to play devil's advocate. Just please, hear me out when I say, you're likely doing it wrong. Share on X

Consider a few examples: 

Each of these arguments rely not on “pushing the envelope,” but rather protecting and upholding harmful dominant narratives that have historically been, and continue to be, centered within “the box” these folks claim to be thinking outside of — at the expense of other people’s humanity and safety. 

In the case of the first argument, someone arguing this case is philosophically placing freedom of speech — a right that has decidedly not been equally available to everyone — over the rights, lives and safety of transgender people. This is a community in which between 30 and 50% of youth attempt suicide, often because they experience stigma, bullying and attempts from others to force them into being someone they are not. Using people’s pronouns is critical not only to fostering inclusion, but more broadly to validating self-worth and prioritizing respect and safety for this consistently marginalized and stigmatized community. 

In the case of the second: both candidates for presidency in the U.S. have problematic policies galore, not to mention serious allegations against them that cannot be ignored. Yet, to offer just one example: one candidate has promised a task force to reunite 545 immigrant families separated from one another — and the other is poised to continue holding these children and families in separate militarized detention centers where people are being forcibly sterilized. To suggest that failings on both their parts render them “the same” is an utterly false equivalence that casually tosses aside the horrors these families and many others are living — every minute of every day. 

Similarly, the third argument equates the value of personal property with human lives — demonizing the activists who continue to fight tirelessly for racial justice, rights others take for granted that have been promised and never delivered, and Black lives.  

Far from “introducing new information,” these devil’s advocate arguments uphold transphobia, dangerous false equivalences and white supremacy, respectively — some of the oldest information out there! They prevent progress toward equity, inclusion and justice by derailing narratives that have the power to bring about positive change. They forcibly push the conversation back into a box many are just starting to see beyond. In essence, these arguments serve those in power rather than those who lack it — a norm that is all too common in conversations about critical issues we face.  

I have good news for those who enjoy the role of provocateur: you have plenty of much-needed work before you! There are many narratives and lived experiences that haven’t been part of these conversations on a cultural level. These narratives and perspectives have not just been ignored, but actively silenced… and they desperately need to be heard and amplified, in service of the greater goal of liberty and justice for all.  

Here are some questions to ask yourself when stepping into the role of “devil’s advocate”: 

Here are some questions to ask yourself when stepping into the role of 'devil’s advocate'... Share on X
  • Who is primarily forwarding the narrative I am arguing? Are these people who occupy positions or identities that give them power? Why am I arguing on behalf of those who already enjoy power and platforms? 
  • Whose perspective on this issue has not been historically amplified? What might we be missing as a result, and what are those people saying? (If you don’t know, find out!!) 
  • Does my “devil’s advocate” argument philosophize abstractly, or amplify marginalized voices and experiences? 

Indeed, many concepts adjacent to devil’s advocacy have been identified as critical to representative democracy and progress toward equity and justice: protest and civil disobedience, John Lewis’ “Good Trouble,” and even my colleague Travis Jones’ concept of “Bad white people.” Resistance and critical thought are essential in this moment. Let’s not make the mistake of falsely labeling narratives that represent the opposite as having a place in dialogues that will make a difference. 

Resistance and critical thought are essential in this moment. Let’s not make the mistake of falsely labeling narratives that represent the opposite as having a place in dialogues that will make a difference. Share on X