visibility, invisibility, and oppression

[sophiaserpentia]

This is a very difficult topic to grasp at, as both a writer and a reader, because our patterns of perception and conceptuality have been formed in ways that facilitate the kyriarchal status-quo.

Some forms of oppression are visible, and we can have awareness of them, because there have been somewhat successful movements to raise that awareness. Even so, one must undertake constant positive effort -- as if one were swimming upstream -- to avoid allowing sexist, racist, or classist presumptions to intrude into one's language. Consider the depth of effort and vigilance required -- and witness the consequent resentment many have against "political correctness" -- for an illustration of how deeply our brains have been colonized by oppression.

It sometimes seems like a fruitless undertaking to be conscious of sexist/racist language, because what we've witnessed in recent decades is a flowering of tacit forms of sexist or racist expression -- and the sense that "we all know what's really going on, so why candy coat it?" The best answer i can give involves the transmission of oppressive memes to our children. It is now well-known that the brain is exceedingly plastic when we are children, but not so when we are adults. Our brains were wired with racism and sexism when we were young, watching the way adults treated us and each other, in actions and words. In the brain there is no real distinction between hardware and software -- this is why the "software upgrade" of oppression awareness does not automatically fix our internalized sexism/racism. It may only seem like a faulty pretense, but there's a chance that the next generation will observe our struggles, and our attempts to address them, and will be better equipped to handle the struggle against institutional oppression.

Some forms of oppression are just now coming to public awareness, such as the oppression of queer people, transpeople and people with disabilities. Other struggles have yet to come to public awareness, such as the mistreatment of neuro-atypical or fat people. Modern oppression of these people includes marginalization by way of patterns like medicalization (the above are treated by modern society as medical disorders, as femininity was and still is in some ways), moralization (they are treated as moral failings or psychological errors fixable by therapy or religious intervention), fetishization (cultures of 'chasers' and 'admirers' have been established around these characteristics), and ridicule (much "humor" depends on the ridiculousness of being fat or transgendered or neuro-atypical). Light is made of our plight and then we are told, "What, can't you take a joke"?

Whole industries have been set up to make a profit off the plight of the oppressed. The beauty and diet industries are huge; politicians make political and financial capital by promoting homophobia; neuro-atypical people are medicated or unwillingly hospitalized.

These marginalizations are "common sense" -- we all know and understand them and they are the expected social attitude towards people with these attributes. Since they are common sense, the person who questions these attitudes or agitates for their reversal can be characterized as unreasonable (especially if, heaven help them, they have a bit of anger in their voice) -- and can then be told their errors in a "calm, reasonable" tone of voice. Other language tactics of avoidance are employed -- the accusation of having an agenda beyond the scope of one's actual comments, or the use of cavil to draw attention to the details of one's statement and away from the wider implications.

In all of these ways the deck is stacked against the targets of oppression, so that it is impossible for us to win; to turn our abuse in on ourselves, to make it our fault, to traumatize us, to deny the perception of the larger pattern, to isolate us, to desensitize us to the reality of what is going on, to break up our coalitions, to render us more helpless, to make it easier to exploit us economically, emotionally, sexually. And this cannibalism is the bottom line, why it is all done.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I agree that there have been some stumbles in that. I was just reading this morning in annoyance about the EU threating economic sanctions against Iran because their president is an anti-Semitic dipstick.

However, the scope of any discrimination (i object to the use of the word "oppression" unless we are talking about power stratification in society) caused by the quest for political correctness is a gnat compared to the elephant of that which it is intended to correct. In fact the disparity is so great i have come to think of this objection as one of the rationalizing-distractions which i mentioned in my original post.

It might feel "oppressive" to have to always watch one's tongue, but then, keep in mind that this is a very small amount of inconvenience asked of the privileged, compared to the large amount of inconvenience actually experienced by the oppressed. Someone might have to worry about watching their tongue so as not to offend me, while i am expected to entirely hide my identity, restructure my life, and submit to isolation and reduced consciousness, all sorts of blinkers and dampers on my life, to avoid offending them.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Indeed, what the anti-PC crowd calls "oppression" used to be called "politeness" or "civility".

[neosis.livejournal.com]

Politeness and political correctness are nothing alike.

In my experience, "Political Correctness" is rarely used by the oppressed to any advantage, it is far more likely to be used by one of the privileged to attack another one of the privileged for their own gain. The underlying issue gets no attention and instead the person who used the wrong word becomes a target.

Political correctness seems to be the liberal equivalent of the conservative religious appeal. It simply easier to motivate people against something trivial than it is to motivate them for something complex.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I think that's an excellent point .. and would tend to agree.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I am thinking more of the use of political correctness as a form of "thought policing." Watching my tongue does not feel at all oppressive to me, even if it is burdensome at times. But political correctness has also been used to force language on people that connects to ideologies that they do not hold, and I see this trend on the upswing. In effect, life you said, it is a reprogramming. But that reprogramming is sometimes just as unwelcome and baseless as the medicating that has been used in the past.

My intent is not to say that it is not a gnat compared to the elephant, but to poinnt out that the gnat still exists, and while the elephant shrinks - these days perhaps being a rino - the gnat is growing.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

But political correctness has also been used to force language on people that connects to ideologies that they do not hold, and I see this trend on the upswing.

Hmm, can you give me an example of what you mean?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

The constant shifting of acceptable terms - the one mentioned below, black v. African-American mentioned below is a good case - is one example, because it connects to a pandering ideology that I do not hold.

One that may be a hot-button issue, the social, and at times beaurocratic, pressure that is beginning to be applied to refer to same-sex couples as husband and husband or wife and wife is another. People have the right to define social institutions how they want, but not to force the language of those redefinitions on others.

Another example is using appeals to discrimination to prevent holding to qualifications. (This one is less language-focused.) When i still had a real job, we actually come up against the situation where "equal opportunity emplyment" guidelines required us to hire people who were not qualified for the work.

Another is the whole "Merry Christmas" claptrap. I don't care if people want to say "Happy Holidays" or whatever, but there are many institutions that, in the name of political correctness and "sensitivity" actually prohibit saying "Merry Christmas" or foster a culture that is highly hostile to it.

These things do not line up with the true intent of political correctness, but they march under the same banner. And that is the thing we need to be wary of.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

One that may be a hot-button issue, the social, and at times beaurocratic, pressure that is beginning to be applied to refer to same-sex couples as husband and husband or wife and wife is another.

Hmm. How is anyone actually oppressed by this, though? This pressure isn't causing anyone to have less access to economic, social, educational, political, housing, or employment opportunities, nor is it exposing anyone to abuse or exploitation. It doesn't threaten Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or any other theology -- except specifically those forms of theology that hold to strict scriptural literalism AND the impositon of the current literalistic interpretation on all of society. In short, the only thing being repressed is the "right" of religious conservatives to expect the continuation of privileges for heterosexuals.


there are many institutions that, in the name of political correctness and "sensitivity" actually prohibit saying "Merry Christmas"

I wasn't aware of that. I didn't think anyone could actually get away with imposing that sort of restriction.


or foster a culture that is highly hostile to it.

Well, it's not oppression yet, but i've studied enough history to know that it's worth being wary of replacing one oppression with another, as can sometimes happen. So i don't want to minimize that concern.

That said, the AFA has really poisoned the air, by bringing this issue up in a confrontational, accusative, and divisive way (rather than opening a dialogue), making it about money and profits. They're doing so in their fundraising letters of course. In their push to avoid any possibility of Christians being oppressed in the United States, they are promoting a return to a state of "presumed Christianity." Which is not, i'll wager, what Jesus had in mind at all.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

In short, the only thing being repressed is the "right" of religious conservatives to expect the continuation of privileges for heterosexuals.

No, when people are forced to use the terminology of an ideology that they do not accept, their freedom of thought is being repressed. I don't deny other people the right to express their own ideologies through their own language, and I expect the same.

Well, it's not oppression yet, but i've studied enough history to know that it's worth being wary of replacing one oppression with another, as can sometimes happen. So i don't want to minimize that concern.

And that is the whole concern that I am raising.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

What would you think of as a "live and let live" non-ideological terminology for same-sex partners who have a civil union or government-issued marriage license?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Of course, we have to bear in mind that having a civil union or government-issued marriage license, to me, has no bearing on whether or not people are married. As we have discussed before, I do not believe that the government has the right to define what marriage is and is not.

To me, it would be a live and let live approach rather than terminology. I know that the terminology that I could endorse would, for many same-sex couples, insufficiently express the significance that they feel in their relationship. So, although I may disagree with them ideologically, I would also not want to saddle them with some universal term that did not express their ideology sufficiently either.

So, I understand what a man means when he refers to his husband, and I would prefer that he have the right to use that term .. just not impose it on anyone else. For me, I would prefer that I be allowed to use another term as long as it is respectful. I find myself using "partner" or avoiding terminology altogether. Someone else might use something else. Perhaps this diversity of terminology is more confusing, but I find it superior.