| Conflict resolution |
|---|
| Principles |
| Law |
| Management |
| International relations |
| Models and theories |
"Speaking truth to power" is anon-violent political tactic, employed bydissidents against thereceived wisdom orpropaganda of governments they regard asoppressive,authoritarian or anideocracy. The phrase originated with a pamphlet,Speak Truth to Power: a Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence, published by theAmerican Friends Service Committee in 1955.
Practitioners have includedthe Hebrew Prophets,Apollonius of Tyana,Vaclav Havel,[1]Nelson Mandela,Archbishop Desmond Tutu,Mahatma Gandhi,Bacha Khan, and theDalai Lama.[2]
Inclassical Greece, "speaking truth to power" was known asparrhesia. The tactic is similar tosatyagraha (literally, "truth-force") whichMahatma Gandhi used in theIndian independence movement to bring an end to the Britishcolonial regime inIndia.[3]
HistorianClayborne Carson attributes the popularizing of the phrase in America to civil rights organizer and peace activistBayard 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 pamphletSpeak 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 toMichel Foucault, only the courageous may pursue the truth-to-power course, as they risk losing their friends (asWinston Churchill did in the 1930s[10]), their liberty, even their lives (asLiu 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 likeWinston Churchill andLiu 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.
Jan Hus was burned at the stake for his reforms against theCatholic Church.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn[13] andAndrei Sakharov[14] were exiled for speaking out against theUSSR.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Nazi Germany, andMartin Luther King Jr. in the US were martyred for speaking truth to power.[15]
During theMarch 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 wereMathew Ahmann of the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice;Whitney Young of theNational Urban League; Rev. Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr. (SCLC);John Lewis of theSNCC; RabbiJoachim Prinz of theAmerican Jewish Congress; ReverendEugene Carson Blake of the United Presbyterian Church;A. Philip Randolph; labor leaderWalter Reuther;Roy Wilkins of theNAACP; and (not visible in the image to the right) Secretary of LaborWillard Wirtz andFloyd McKissick ofCORE.[16] This march led to the passing of theCivil Rights Act of 1964.[17][18]
Ex-GCHQ employeeKatharine Gun was charged under the UKOfficial Secrets Act 1989 with leaking a request by the United States for compromising intelligence onUnited Nations delegates prior to theIraq invasion of 2003. Together withDaniel Ellsberg,Coleen Rowley andSibel 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]." Thissupport group encourages those who are aware of unethical information to 'tell truth to power' and expose the truth to the public.[19][20]
InPower 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. TheCivil 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 theMontgomery Bus Boycott and theMarch 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.[21]
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.[22]
The reverendNick Mercer, an assistant chaplain atSherborne School, believes thathuman rights and morality should be taught in all schools.
According toVaclav 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."[23]
Michel Foucault spoke and wrote about power[24] and oppression[25] by examining how "technologies of power and knowledge have, since antiquity, intertwined and developed in concrete and historical frameworks".[26]
Paulo Freire in his seminal workPedagogy 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".[27]
The phrase "Speak Truth to Power" originated with theQuaker community, a religious group deeply committed to peace and nonviolent action. InSpeak 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.[28]
In Why We Lost the ERA,Jane Mansbridge explores theERA 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.[29]
Anita Hill's bookSpeaking Truth to Power (1998), is a candid autobiography in which Hill reflects on her experience of testifying at the 1991Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings, gives details on her earlier professional relationship withClarence Thomas, and explains her motivation for going public with hersexual harassment accusations against Thomas.[30]
Kerry Kennedy's bookSpeak Truth To Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World (1st edition 2000), with photographs byEddie Adams, features interviews with dedicated human rights campaigners including:José Ramos-Horta from East Timor,Dianna Ortiz of Guatemala,Baltasar Garzón of Spain andDesmond Tutu of South Africa.[31]
The story ofSophie Scholl and theWhite Rose non-violent, intellectual resistance group in the Third Reich has been filmed four times, includingDie Weiße Rose (1982),[32] andSophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005).[33]
Richard Attenborough's filmGandhi (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."[34]
More recent films exemplifying speaking truth to power include the biopicSnowden (2016), about thewhistleblowerEdward Snowden, andOfficial Secrets (2019), about the story ofKatharine Gun.
The phrase "truth to power" is often used in theHBO seriesThe Wire.[35] For example, for a reality check, politicianTommy Carcetti frequently asks his trusted advisorNorman Wilson to speak "truth to power"[36] (e.g., inseason 5, episode 1).[37]
Since at least 2006, American activistNoam 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.[38]
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 speakfor 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.[39]
Media related toSpeaking truth to power at Wikimedia Commons