Oppression of vs. oppression by
Jun. 23rd, 2005 01:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaMy sound-bite understanding of oppression is that you have a class of people somehow distinguished as "different from the norm" in some clear way, who have in general less access to social, economic, and political institutions and resources (IOW they are exploited), and who have in general a greater likelihood of being abused in some way (IOW they are discriminated against).
The contentious part of talking about oppression is not describing the effects of oppression on those who are oppressed (though there are some who will debate this for any given oppressed class), it is talking about who is doing the oppression. This gets contentious because it is a complex question that implicates every person in society in some way.
Basically, you have those who cause the oppression through their deliberate acts of abuse and exploitation, along with those who perpetuate it by encoding it into ideologies and institutions. Then you have "unwitting participants": those who follow oppression-contributing ideologies without questioning them, and those who take advantage of privilege without realizing it.
Among the many effects of oppression on the oppressed class, there are two in specific that I want to address at this point. The first is that someone who is oppressed does not have the liberty of moving away from the oppression; that is, it is a part of her or his economic, social, and political reality that colors every interaction. Secondly, oppression carries an emotional odor that lingers always, even when someone is in so-called "safe space." Oppression is traumatic, and trauma installs "emotional triggers" in the brain that can be tripped intentionally or unintentionally.
Typically, people object to the assertion that they participate in oppression because this is not the way they experience certain things. For one thing, they have the privilege of overlooking the oppression because it does not affect them. Or, they might see the effects of abuse and exploitation on people close to them and either not see the pattern, or approve because of ideology.
Another factor at work here is entitlement: people who are not oppressed perceive the right to take advantage of any social, economic, or political opportunity available to them without any thought for what went into creating that opportunity -- or again, they might see it but approve for ideological reasons. A man for example might accept a job entirely unaware of the woman who was not given it because of her gender; or he might know of her rejection but approve because he feels she belongs "in the home" anyway. Either way, the effect on her (economically and emotionally) is the same, but from his perspective in either case there are different thoughts to correspond with the same entitlement and privilege.
A while ago I explored the idea that the conscious mind exists in part to create a filter that allows us to pretend that certain things don't exist -- like the privilege that comes with not being oppressed. Much of the "oppression code" is communicated non-verbally, which allows abusers to play innocent because they never "told" their victim what to think or how to react -- or they may even have said something that plainly contradicts the underlying message of abuse ("I'm doing this because I love you," and similar BS).
So there are many forces making it difficult to see what one is gaining from oppression. But another contributing factor I mentioned Tuesday, in describing the traumatic effect of oppression.
Many ideologies look favorably upon certain kinds of oppression. It is not uncommon for abusers to cite these as justification for their abuse. Ideology thus becomes the "soundtrack" for oppression and becomes associated with the effects of oppression trauma. Thus if someone who has been abused hears or reads the ideology, the person citing it appears to be a conspirator in the abuse, even if he or she is not. From the perspective of the oppressed this distinction does not matter, because the person citing a popular ideology obtains benefits therefrom which were acquired in part at the expense of the oppressed.
Note that it is not my intention to let anyone off the hook -- especially if they are directly abusive, but also if they look favorably upon oppression-justifying ideology. Anyone who knowingly commits a wrong is answerable for that wrong, period.
But what I'm wondering is, is everyone who accepts benefits from someone else's oppression an "oppressor"? Are they (we) the ones who oppression is by? In some cases there is clearly "oppression by," but there are also cases where I think it is too unclear to speak of "oppression by."
"Political correctness" is an attempt to mitigate or reduce the level of triggering in oppressed people caused by certain use of language. As such it is an imperfect mechanism, but most of the objection to "political correctness" comes from those who do not experience certain oppressions and who feel therefore set upon to change their language and thus to be always conscious of the oppression. Any restriction caused by PC is miniscule compared to the restrictions of oppression itself, but this point is lost on those with privilege who are accustomed to overlooking the oppression itself.
A similar point can be made about hate crimes laws, which are also aimed at targeting crimes that are intended to trigger fear and despair throughout an oppressed community. Again this is not a perfect mechanism, but I think a good case can be made that it is in the interest of a democracy to do what can be done towards a political "level playing field." As with PC, they are mostly criticized for hampering to one's ability to ignore oppression.
Other entries leading up to this can be found here and here.
The contentious part of talking about oppression is not describing the effects of oppression on those who are oppressed (though there are some who will debate this for any given oppressed class), it is talking about who is doing the oppression. This gets contentious because it is a complex question that implicates every person in society in some way.
Basically, you have those who cause the oppression through their deliberate acts of abuse and exploitation, along with those who perpetuate it by encoding it into ideologies and institutions. Then you have "unwitting participants": those who follow oppression-contributing ideologies without questioning them, and those who take advantage of privilege without realizing it.
Among the many effects of oppression on the oppressed class, there are two in specific that I want to address at this point. The first is that someone who is oppressed does not have the liberty of moving away from the oppression; that is, it is a part of her or his economic, social, and political reality that colors every interaction. Secondly, oppression carries an emotional odor that lingers always, even when someone is in so-called "safe space." Oppression is traumatic, and trauma installs "emotional triggers" in the brain that can be tripped intentionally or unintentionally.
Typically, people object to the assertion that they participate in oppression because this is not the way they experience certain things. For one thing, they have the privilege of overlooking the oppression because it does not affect them. Or, they might see the effects of abuse and exploitation on people close to them and either not see the pattern, or approve because of ideology.
Another factor at work here is entitlement: people who are not oppressed perceive the right to take advantage of any social, economic, or political opportunity available to them without any thought for what went into creating that opportunity -- or again, they might see it but approve for ideological reasons. A man for example might accept a job entirely unaware of the woman who was not given it because of her gender; or he might know of her rejection but approve because he feels she belongs "in the home" anyway. Either way, the effect on her (economically and emotionally) is the same, but from his perspective in either case there are different thoughts to correspond with the same entitlement and privilege.
A while ago I explored the idea that the conscious mind exists in part to create a filter that allows us to pretend that certain things don't exist -- like the privilege that comes with not being oppressed. Much of the "oppression code" is communicated non-verbally, which allows abusers to play innocent because they never "told" their victim what to think or how to react -- or they may even have said something that plainly contradicts the underlying message of abuse ("I'm doing this because I love you," and similar BS).
So there are many forces making it difficult to see what one is gaining from oppression. But another contributing factor I mentioned Tuesday, in describing the traumatic effect of oppression.
Many ideologies look favorably upon certain kinds of oppression. It is not uncommon for abusers to cite these as justification for their abuse. Ideology thus becomes the "soundtrack" for oppression and becomes associated with the effects of oppression trauma. Thus if someone who has been abused hears or reads the ideology, the person citing it appears to be a conspirator in the abuse, even if he or she is not. From the perspective of the oppressed this distinction does not matter, because the person citing a popular ideology obtains benefits therefrom which were acquired in part at the expense of the oppressed.
Note that it is not my intention to let anyone off the hook -- especially if they are directly abusive, but also if they look favorably upon oppression-justifying ideology. Anyone who knowingly commits a wrong is answerable for that wrong, period.
But what I'm wondering is, is everyone who accepts benefits from someone else's oppression an "oppressor"? Are they (we) the ones who oppression is by? In some cases there is clearly "oppression by," but there are also cases where I think it is too unclear to speak of "oppression by."
"Political correctness" is an attempt to mitigate or reduce the level of triggering in oppressed people caused by certain use of language. As such it is an imperfect mechanism, but most of the objection to "political correctness" comes from those who do not experience certain oppressions and who feel therefore set upon to change their language and thus to be always conscious of the oppression. Any restriction caused by PC is miniscule compared to the restrictions of oppression itself, but this point is lost on those with privilege who are accustomed to overlooking the oppression itself.
A similar point can be made about hate crimes laws, which are also aimed at targeting crimes that are intended to trigger fear and despair throughout an oppressed community. Again this is not a perfect mechanism, but I think a good case can be made that it is in the interest of a democracy to do what can be done towards a political "level playing field." As with PC, they are mostly criticized for hampering to one's ability to ignore oppression.
Other entries leading up to this can be found here and here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:03 pm (UTC)Oppression, to me, is any ACTIVE support of a system which creates a division between two groups for the purposes of placing one group (usually the one to which they belong) of people above another. The behavior doesn't have to be of the nastiest sort, such as murder or rape of anyone in the group being oppressed, but it can certainly include any statement of approval of such behavior or approval of the rationale behind it. It is just a matter of degree.
But those who merely unconsciously benefit without acting to further or lessen the oppression - I don't know what you say about that. Is there a word for "apathetically allowing oppression to go on without saying a word because you are too comfortable to be bothered to say or do the slightest thing about it since it isn't hurting you?" Anyway, while I wouldn't call those "as bad" as those actively working to keep an oppressed group "in their place", neither do I have the slightest respect for them. I do not tolerate such behavior in myself and I do not approve of it in others.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:10 pm (UTC)I think that is the sense in which the word "privileged" is used in discourse on oppression.
But, yeah... is it overstating the case to call them "oppressors" -- or under-stating the case to avoid calling them "oppressors"?
It gets even more complicated because even people with every good intention to avoid participating in oppression can find themselves doing so. I am continually amazed the more I realize my participation in racial oppression, for example.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:20 pm (UTC)I find unconscious assumptions within myself all the time. It aggravates me no end - all you can do is fight it.
I would also note it is certainly not impossible for someone to play an active part in supporting oppression of a certain group EVEN IF THEY THEMSELVES ARE MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP. There are benefits to this for the, er - brown nosing traitor - usually that of being treated as an exception to the usual standard of behavior. For instance, women who deny that they should have equal rights are treated very warmly by men who wish to maintain the status quo (classic example - Phyllis Schlafly.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 06:18 am (UTC)http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050623/bushs_empathy_squeeze.php
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:09 pm (UTC)And I think that is an important distinction to make. People who are complicit, or part of oppression - especially unknowingly so - cannot really be called the oppressors. Oppression is active. However, these others can become a tool of oppression. And in effect, I would say that that reality, becoming a tool of oppression, is in some ways even more dehumanizing than being the oppressed.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:20 pm (UTC)Another example might be minority activists cajoling one another to be more "mainstream" -- which is part of the message those people became activists to protest against in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-23 11:23 pm (UTC)Ayup: fundamental is something to make explicit an "us/them" attitude.
"The contentious part of talking about oppression is [...] talking about who is doing the oppression."
"Tyrrany of the majority" is one of our time-tested concepts; we can't lose that sort of plank!
"Then you have "unwitting participants": those who follow oppression-contributing ideologies without questioning them, and those who take advantage of privilege without realizing it."
"Willful ignorance" is a basic concept in ''engaged buddhism''.
"Oppression is traumatic, and trauma installs "emotional triggers" in the brain that can be tripped intentionally or unintentionally."
Uhhhhh ... I'd suggest caution here; you're speculating concerning mechanism and that can get self-validating real quick when the subject matter is hot. The more recent cog- and social-psych on "in-group / out-group dynamics" is heart-warmingly thorough. Stuff like how the out group may take onto itself as aspects of identity slanderous characterisations by the in-group.
""the conscious mind exists in part to create a filter that allows us to pretend that certain things don't exist""
see "schema theory" ... we're cognitive misers; when we can cobble together a heuristic that allows us to make snap decisions (i.e. the plumbing used by dogma and ideology) then we can deal with fight/flight situations with more agility. It's adaptive, yuh know?
"Many ideologies look favorably upon certain kinds of oppression. It is not uncommon for abusers to cite these as justification for their abuse."
I strongly suggest Erich Neumann's "Depth Psychology and a New Ethic" ... written in the late '40s, the book is his effort to make some sense of how Germany was taken over by nazi anti-semitism. What I value most in the book is how he describes the way scape-goat dynamics require individuals to deny / ignore their complicity, their shared guilt ... their "dark side".
I have to leave off now ... but thanks for this.
p.s. you might want to wrap <lj-cut> around the body of long posts like this.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 10:36 am (UTC)Hmm, I'd like to learn more about that. I suspect that any Buddhist viewpoint would be amenable to my view that the ego is only pretending to be in control of the mind when in actuality it exerts very weak influence.
Uhhhhh ... I'd suggest caution here; you're speculating concerning mechanism and that can get self-validating real quick when the subject matter is hot.
A good caveat. I'm just fleshing this out... I should indeed look at the in-group/out-group research you've mentioned. I'll take a look at Neumann's book.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 08:36 pm (UTC)Oh, gee ... I suppose that, like any concept, it can be merely another aspect of the human experience or it can be all-controlling ... but I don't think anything is ever determined by any one entity or aspect.
Yes, do hunt that down ... the copy I have is Shambhala / CG Jung Foundation (150 pages). And most any decent cog-psych or social-psych text will at least touch on those dynamics.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 06:00 am (UTC)The barred statements may be true or not, but banning the expression of those ideas diminishes the public discourse, and thus diminishes us all.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 10:32 am (UTC)But IMO it is not "oppression by a different group." To request non-sexist language in academia, for example, or to ask that racist jokes be barred from a workplace, is not even analogously similar to the combined effects of exploitation, discrimination, violence, self-loathing, and so on.
It might feel 'oppressive' because it means that the speaker or writer is imposed upon to take into account someone else's point of view.
But that reaction overlooks the fact that targets of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., are already imposed upon in that way, because they have to cope with the way their lives are altered by the views of others. Requests like the two kinds I described above place a very small imposition compared to the intrusive imposition of sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. on one's life.
IOW, being barred from telling racist jokes at work is a very small intrusion compared to the barriers faced by minority people every day in every sector of life.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 01:46 pm (UTC)