The fallacy of “changing the system from the inside”

I came across an interesting editorial from Andreas Hale, the former Executive Editor of Music at BET.com.

Hale had established his reputation via HipHopDX, a site that caters to a definition of hip-hop that is more independent and non-commercial than what is generally promoted in the mass media. It was a surprise to many when he left to join BET. It was less surprising to learn that his tenure there was short-lived and produced no real change.

Is it possible to use the master’s tools to demolish his home? This is the line given by progressives and self-described revolutionaries whenever they take positions with corporate conglomerates or mainstream political groups. They speak of “changing the system from the inside,” which is a term that needs to be retired. It only sets one up for disappointment and fails to reflect reality.

For one, it implies that one person is powerful enough to change the dynamics of a multi-million dollar operation through the force of her or his own intelligence and charisma. This neglects the fact that these institutions existed well before the arrival of the latest “Great Hope” and have withstood previous attempts at change. In the case of BET, years of criticism for promoting a limited, stereotypical and negative image of black culture have not caused them to change their programming or business model. So why did Hale think he was going to convince BET to change what is clearly a successful model?

The concept of “changing the system from the inside” also ignores the reality that once someone is in a position of influence, they tend to get comfortable and have less motivation to change the system.

While Hale may have had good intentions in taking his position at BET, I think people convince themselves they are playing the role of the spook who sat by the door because they don’t want to admit that their ideals can be compromised for the right price.