It's Complicated
t is no surprise that it is difficult to get oppressors to take up a counterstory, that is, to replace a picture of the world in which the social organization that generates their privilege is natural and justified with one that recognizes its injustice. While the motivations for those in privileged positions to hold on to an oppressive master narrative may be obvious, the mechanisms by which these narratives are maintained are less so. It is this timely and important matter that Hilde Lindemann explores with characteristic force and clarity in "Countering the Counterstory," which considers in detail how master narratives keep the counterstories that challenge them from getting traction.1 Lindemann begins by laying out some of the reasons it is difficult for counterstories to emerge as challenges to master narratives in the first place the fact that master narratives are organic ensembles, that they constitute a worldview, and that they are epistemically rigged, naturalized, and/or privatized. The bulk of her paper, however, is devoted to explaining why it is that even when a counterstory is able to emerge as a challenge to a master narrative, it is likely to flounder on the master narrative's ability to "assimilate opposition," and so faces an uphill battle in finding uptake.2 Lindemann discusses several tools of assimilation: making the language pretty, playing devil's advocate, playing "What about Me?" requiring victims to be blameless, and changing the subject. In each case she supplies a compelling account of how the mechanism works and convincing examples of what it looks like in action. Despite the formidable obstacles for those trying to launch a counterstory, however, Lindemann ends with a ray of hope. Counterstories can and do get taken up, and change does occur. The #MeToo movement is her example of this possibility. While the battle is by