![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on the meaning of oppression
Jan. 30th, 2006 12:20 pmThe term "oppression" has a specific meaning in feminist/critical/radical usage, and i want to write about it at length because i want to be sure that anyone who discusses society and culture in my journal is aware that this is the perspective that i hold.
Technically, the word refers to subjugation by cruelty. The most obvious image of oppression is that perpetrated by an army of invaders who take over a nation and who impose their laws, their culture, and their wishes by force or threat of force. The oppressed are exploited -- they are enslaved, or are forced to work under conditions in which their remuneration is unfair, or they are denied access to employment. They are discriminated against, harassed, insulted, singled out for abuse simply for being of the subjugated nationality. Some of the oppressed are singled out as 'examples,' beaten and humiliated in ways that send a signal across the entire oppressed community that they could be next. Institutions and legal codes are created which give the conquerors preference in social, cultural, and economic affairs; the conquerors thus have documents, procudures, and institutions which 'legitimize' the discrimination, abuse, and exploitation of the subjected people.
The subjected people are told that they are immoral, inferior, less than human, disgusting, unclean. Their history and culture is erased -- their books burned, their statues smashed, their temples pillaged. They are forcibly isolated from one another, and are not allowed to talk about the ways in which they are oppressed. Their land is taken, and subjugated people are frequently forced to live on less desirable land set aside for their use. The subjugated people are not allowed to use their language, but must speak instead the language of the conquerers.
The feminist/critical perspective argues that there are kinds of oppression that did not involve an invasion, but they are no less than a subjugation of one group of people by another. This kind of oppression is harder to see because cultural norms and definitions of legitimacy and normality which presume oppression have been accepted for generations if not millenia. It is hidden behind a veil of language, stereotypical presumptions, and ideology which make oppression seem 'normal' and 'legitimate'; but behind the veil is a pervasive pattern of exploitation, discrimination, and abuse involving every single element that i described above.
As expressed by Marx and Engels, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." Modern critical theory takes the idea of class struggle beyond economics to include cultural struggle, recognizing that these forms of social stratification and dominance are intertwined.
When oppression has been successful, the subjected people have been robbed even of awareness of who they are and why the way they are treated in society is unfair. They have no forum for speaking to one another, comparing notes, raising awareness of the big picture. They are trained to play a part in the machine of oppression and are rewarded when they do so. They are so unaware of the larger patterns that they do not even have words or concepts that will help them to see why the status quo is wrong. Whatever awareness they do have comes with the awareness also that if they object or rebel they will be on their own as they are bitterly insulted, abused, slandered, 'made an example of'. Also, many different layers of oppression are interwoven in society, so most of us have some degrees of entitlement and some degrees of oppression.
I have to distinguish here between oppression, which is a ubiquitous pattern, and discrimination, abuse, and exploitation, which refer to individual or interpersonal events. If a person excludes someone else because of the color of their skin, or because of their religion, and so on, that is an act of discrimination. If a person charges someone a higher interest rate than normal because of the zip code where they live, that is an act of exploitation.
Discrimination, abuse, and exploitation can occur in ways counter to the ubiquitous pattern of oppression. For example, i, as a queer person, might make a discriminatory comment about straight people. (I try to avoid doing so, but i'm far from perfect.) But here's the important point, and it is where i seem to encounter the most resistance in discussions here on this matter: there is no "reverse oppression." My comments in that case would not constitute "reverse oppression" of heterosexuals. At the end of the day, a heterosexual has rights, privileges, and entitlements in this society that i do not have; the discussion between us does not take place on even ground.
My discriminatory comment might be wrong, but it is not the ethical equal of oppression against me. I am frequently told that my remarks put me at risk of being just as much a monster as the people who oppress me. But, see, this comment implies the non-existence of oppression.
Oppression, as described above, means that ideological and institutional codes have been stacked against you. You are defined by law, by religion, by common sense, by business practice, as someone who is odd, inferior, outside the norm, immoral, medically disordered.
Technically, the word refers to subjugation by cruelty. The most obvious image of oppression is that perpetrated by an army of invaders who take over a nation and who impose their laws, their culture, and their wishes by force or threat of force. The oppressed are exploited -- they are enslaved, or are forced to work under conditions in which their remuneration is unfair, or they are denied access to employment. They are discriminated against, harassed, insulted, singled out for abuse simply for being of the subjugated nationality. Some of the oppressed are singled out as 'examples,' beaten and humiliated in ways that send a signal across the entire oppressed community that they could be next. Institutions and legal codes are created which give the conquerors preference in social, cultural, and economic affairs; the conquerors thus have documents, procudures, and institutions which 'legitimize' the discrimination, abuse, and exploitation of the subjected people.
The subjected people are told that they are immoral, inferior, less than human, disgusting, unclean. Their history and culture is erased -- their books burned, their statues smashed, their temples pillaged. They are forcibly isolated from one another, and are not allowed to talk about the ways in which they are oppressed. Their land is taken, and subjugated people are frequently forced to live on less desirable land set aside for their use. The subjugated people are not allowed to use their language, but must speak instead the language of the conquerers.
The feminist/critical perspective argues that there are kinds of oppression that did not involve an invasion, but they are no less than a subjugation of one group of people by another. This kind of oppression is harder to see because cultural norms and definitions of legitimacy and normality which presume oppression have been accepted for generations if not millenia. It is hidden behind a veil of language, stereotypical presumptions, and ideology which make oppression seem 'normal' and 'legitimate'; but behind the veil is a pervasive pattern of exploitation, discrimination, and abuse involving every single element that i described above.
As expressed by Marx and Engels, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." Modern critical theory takes the idea of class struggle beyond economics to include cultural struggle, recognizing that these forms of social stratification and dominance are intertwined.
When oppression has been successful, the subjected people have been robbed even of awareness of who they are and why the way they are treated in society is unfair. They have no forum for speaking to one another, comparing notes, raising awareness of the big picture. They are trained to play a part in the machine of oppression and are rewarded when they do so. They are so unaware of the larger patterns that they do not even have words or concepts that will help them to see why the status quo is wrong. Whatever awareness they do have comes with the awareness also that if they object or rebel they will be on their own as they are bitterly insulted, abused, slandered, 'made an example of'. Also, many different layers of oppression are interwoven in society, so most of us have some degrees of entitlement and some degrees of oppression.
I have to distinguish here between oppression, which is a ubiquitous pattern, and discrimination, abuse, and exploitation, which refer to individual or interpersonal events. If a person excludes someone else because of the color of their skin, or because of their religion, and so on, that is an act of discrimination. If a person charges someone a higher interest rate than normal because of the zip code where they live, that is an act of exploitation.
Discrimination, abuse, and exploitation can occur in ways counter to the ubiquitous pattern of oppression. For example, i, as a queer person, might make a discriminatory comment about straight people. (I try to avoid doing so, but i'm far from perfect.) But here's the important point, and it is where i seem to encounter the most resistance in discussions here on this matter: there is no "reverse oppression." My comments in that case would not constitute "reverse oppression" of heterosexuals. At the end of the day, a heterosexual has rights, privileges, and entitlements in this society that i do not have; the discussion between us does not take place on even ground.
My discriminatory comment might be wrong, but it is not the ethical equal of oppression against me. I am frequently told that my remarks put me at risk of being just as much a monster as the people who oppress me. But, see, this comment implies the non-existence of oppression.
Oppression, as described above, means that ideological and institutional codes have been stacked against you. You are defined by law, by religion, by common sense, by business practice, as someone who is odd, inferior, outside the norm, immoral, medically disordered.
