REFLEXIVE PRAXIS AND BEING AN ALLY BY Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

                                                 REFLEXIVE PRAXIS AND BEING AN ALLY:

A CRITICAL INTERACTIONIST AUTOETHNOGRAPHIC SKETCH

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D. 

Abstract

This essay explores the concept of reflexive praxis as a critical tool for dismantling systems of oppression, particularly in the context of everyday interactions. Drawing from Critical Interactionism (Mellinger, 2024), Stuart Hall’s notion of "societies structured in dominance" (Hall, 1980), and theories of praxis from Paulo Freire (1970) and bell hooks (1994), I argue that the unexamined reproduction of social norms maintains hierarchies, while intentional, justice-oriented interventions can disrupt them. Using autoethnographic reflections, I analyze moments of both engagement and silence in the face of oppressive language, highlighting the difficulties of sustaining allyship in daily life. Reflexive praxis, I contend, requires more than moral conviction; it demands the development of conversational strategies, the navigation of social constraints, and an ongoing commitment to self-examination. The essay integrates insights from performativity theory (Butler, 1997), conversation analysis (Goffman, 1967), and liberatory pedagogy (Freire, 1970) to deepen its exploration of how power is enacted and resisted. Ultimately, I argue that allyship is not an identity but a continual practice—one requiring discomfort, vigilance, and humility.

Introduction

Throughout my work, I have advocated for a Critical Interactionist approach to understanding everyday life, emphasizing how individuals actively create and reshape the social world through historically specific practices (Mellinger, 2024). My focus has often been on uncovering the mechanisms by which "societies structured in dominance" (Hall, 1980) are produced, reproduced, and transformed. I have explored the practices that underpin inequality, the discursive formations that sustain ideologies, and the ways individuals become subjects of power. This essay extends those concerns by examining reflexive praxis—the self-aware, intentional engagement in social change—contrasting it with unreflexive behaviors that perpetuate oppression. I connect these insights to the difficult, ongoing work of unlearning oppression and being an ally (Mellinger, 2020).

Situating Reflexive Praxis in Theory

The concept of reflexivity has long been central to social theory. Anthony Giddens argues that modernity demands reflexive self-monitoring, as individuals constantly adjust to shifting social structures. Yet reflexivity, on its own, does not guarantee liberation. Bourdieu warns that reflexivity must account for habitus—the deep-seated social dispositions that condition behavior. Without such awareness, reflexivity risks becoming mere intellectual self-awareness rather than a practice of material transformation.

Paulo Freire offers a radical corrective. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he defines praxis as "reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it." Reflexive praxis, then, is not simply self-awareness but a commitment to action. bell hooks expands on this in Teaching to Transgress, emphasizing the embodied nature of praxis—how we move, speak, and exist within oppressive structures. From these perspectives, reflexive praxis is not just about knowledge but about how knowledge is enacted. It is a material intervention in the flow of daily life.

In my own work on Critical Interactionism, which I define as the microsociology of domination, I argue that power is enacted and resisted in mundane interactions—small moments where hierarchies are reinforced or challenged. Reflexive praxis, then, must attend to these moments, identifying which conversational practices sustain oppression and which disrupt it.

Autoethnographic Reflections: Allyship and the Maintenance of Oppression

Autoethnography allows us to examine the self in relation to broader social structures, illuminating how oppression and resistance unfold in daily life. Many of my reflections begin as ethnographic notes—observations from my lived experience that expose the micro-mechanics of power. Today’s reflection stems from a conversation at the Santa Barbara Roasting Company, where I found myself in a familiar tension between oppressive language and the imperative to respond. Among my acquaintances—working-class men in recovery from addiction and evangelical Christians—a culture of casual discrimination often permeates. Terms like “bitches,” “fags,” and “beaners” surface with alarming regularity. As an anti-oppression educator, navigating this environment often leaves me feeling profoundly alienated.

In earlier work, I argued that becoming an ally in struggles against injustice requires critical self-awareness of our roles in systems of oppression. Everyday oppression frequently operates through inaction rather than overt actions. As I previously wrote in Unlearning Oppression:

"The passivity of well-meaning people, fueled by ignorance and indifference, is critical to the operation of dominator culture. We often live in denial, refusing to acknowledge the consequences of our behavior."

By failing to challenge oppressive comments, jokes, or behaviors, we contribute to the maintenance of hierarchical systems. This inaction constitutes unreflexive behavior—the unconscious perpetuation of ideologies that uphold inequality. Silence, even when accompanied by internal disapproval, is complicity.

Conversational Strategies for Reflexive Praxis: A Transcript

Being an ally requires more than isolated acts of intervention; it involves a sustained commitment to confronting oppression in all its forms. This entails mastering conversational strategies, including the ability to navigate disagreements and initiate challenging dialogues. Below is a transcript of a moment I analyzed:

 

Transcript of the First Incident

_________________________________________________________________________________

Joe: Man, it’d be so weird to look at another guy and think he’s attractive. 

[Pause: 4 seconds]

Me: So you must think I’m weird, Joe. 

[Pause: 3 seconds]

Joe: Nah, nah, you know what I mean.

[Pause: 2 seconds]

Me: Actually, I don’t. What do you mean? 

Joe: I just mean, like, it’s not normal. 

Me: Not normal for who? I know a lot of people who think differently.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis of the First Incident

This exchange demonstrates how conversational turn-taking structures power. A conversation analyst would note that Joe’s initial statement functions as an assessment, which typically elicits a second assessment agreeing with it. However, my response does not align with this normative preference for agreement but instead challenges the assertion. The long pauses indicate conversational trouble—Joe hesitates before repairing his statement, signaling that my response disrupted the expected trajectory.

By engaging in pursuit (asking for clarification) and counter-assessment, I further rupture the normative assumption embedded in his comment. The conversation illustrates how silence and response delays can serve as signals of discomfort and ideological conflict. The interaction does not resolve neatly, showing how deeply ingrained heteronormative assumptions resist disruption.

Transcript of the Second Incident

__________________________________________________________________________________

Patron: Look at those dykes over there. What a waste.

[Pause: 2 seconds]

Other patron: Yeah, man.

[Pause: 3 seconds]

Me: (remains silent, averts gaze, shifts in chair) 

[Pause: 4 seconds]

Barista: Can I get anyone a refill? 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis of the Second Incident

This moment illustrates the power of silence in reinforcing normative expectations. A conversation analyst would note the preference for agreement in assessment sequences. The initial derogatory remark is met with a second assessment that aligns with the first, reinforcing the prejudicial stance. My silence functions as a dispreferred response, which, in the absence of an explicit disagreement, fails to disrupt the conversational structure. The barista’s topic shift operates as a repair mechanism, moving the interaction away from potential tension. This highlights the structural constraints of allyship—the emotional labor, potential conflict, and ingrained social norms that discourage intervention.

Conclusion

Ultimately, reflexive praxis and allyship demand a willingness to act, even when it is uncomfortable or inconvenient. These practices compel us to confront the everyday manifestations of oppression and to use our voices, privileges, and actions as instruments of change. Reflexivity must be sustained through engagement and dialogue rather than retreating into guilt or passive recognition of injustice. True allyship is not about self-congratulatory performativity but about transformative practice.

  

Recognizing our failures to be an ally is itself a part of reflexive praxis. This is not about self-flagellation but about deepening our awareness and commitment. The fact that I did not intervene in the second incident demonstrates the emotional and social constraints that limit action. Understanding these limitations is crucial for designing better interventions and expanding our capacity for resistance. Reflexive praxis, then, is not a fixed state but a process that requires ongoing adjustment, humility, and resilience.

 

Bibliography

Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge.

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Bloomsbury Academic.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Polity Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Pantheon Books.

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding in the Television Discourse. Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

Mellinger, W. M. (2020). Unlearning Oppression: A Critical Interactionist Approach. Independent Publishing.

Mellinger, W. M. (2024). The Microsociology of Domination: Critical Interactionism and Reflexive Praxis. Independent Publishing.

This essay was written in 2008  and originally published in my blog “Doing Modernity: Using Critical Interactionism to Study Everyday Life” and re-worked in 2025.