In
reading Privilege, Power, and Difference by Allan Johnson, the over-arching theme for me has been that there
exist subtle yet pervasive exercises of power that exploit the sense
of weakness that comes from being a minority. In the final chapter of
Johnson's book, he proposes a series of choices that people can make
to frame society in such a way that difference does not create an
inherent relationship of power. Changing the patterns of exclusion,
rejection, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence is
only possible through the gradual acceptance of an entire culture. He
provides solutions to help better create this world first by framing
two myths so that we may observe and discount them in real life.
The
first myth, “it's always been this way, and it always will,”
makes the point that white privilege is a somewhat recent phenomenon.
From a historical prospective, over hundreds of thousands of years,
the white male dominated system is still young, and could even be in
its dying days. In order for us to come to what we recognize as
equality for black and white men in this country, we first had to go
through four hundred years of slavery, more than a decade of social
turmoil, and three amendments to the Constitution. We can pick and
choose moments in time, but in order to see society change, we must
have a higher level of scrutiny, and view the progress that is made
between the points in time. Social systems are fluid, and while they
may seem rigid and inflexible, this could be largely the effect of
oppression limiting collective memory. Gay men and women today view
their struggle as a fool's errand in some places because recent
memory serves to support one definition of marriage. This struggle
surely went through the minds of black men returning from Europe,
riddled with the memories of lost friends and close scrapes during
the war, only to have their voting rights held from them. To imagine
a world where heteronormativity is considered a faux pas is
difficult, because we have not been exposed to that world. The world
is big, and changing it will take time, so how do we value our time
when we know that we may not live to see change?
The
second myth is “Ghandi's paradox,” or the “myth of no effect.”
From an individual's point of view, the enormity of changing the
entire world, or even a single person is enough to draw a feeling of
powerlessness. The system can change, and we must let go the feeling
of entitlement that comes from seeing the fruits of your labors. The
individual must understand that they may be just a leaf on the tree,
but every leaf is needed to produce the sweetest fruit. You must be
able to grow, and wilt, knowing that you may never see the product
that you have worked so hard for. The myth of no effect blurs the
effect that we can have on the world by placing into our minds that
we do not have power because we may belong to such a small group.
Change can come from small minorities simply by challenging what the
many think is right. Johnson uses the example of a racist or sexist
joke. The “seamless response to the joke affirms the normalcy and
unproblematic nature” of its content (Johnson 313). By joining into
the laughter, tacit approval is given. Silence should not be taken as
a lack of power exertion, but a move to not lend power to the racist
or sexist normalcy.
So
what should we do? There is no simple answer, we must not assume
there is. At the very least, as Johnson suggests, we can pay
attention. We can be surveyors of our own social justice by knowing
when a relationship of power is being created to subordinate a
minority, and we can question why, and most importantly, we can stand
against it. It takes work to know what you are talking about, but it
is another stage to social justice to have the ability to speak with
conviction and with reason. Johnson also suggests that we learn to
listen. Learn to be curious before critical, and to take yourself
seriously. The reaction to deflect and deny any sense of privilege
is something that takes time to shake off. The author himself states
in the final pages of the book that he fights it at times. The most
difficult of his suggested means of doing something to combat the
oppression of difference is to take small risks. It is not necessary
to picket a corporation as the only means of getting something done.
Since the world exists both as a group of individuals and as a
complex social system, you can tackle both by “stepping off the
path of least resistance” and calling attention to how the world is
organized, and why power is divided the way it is (143). You must
find ways to interrupt the tacit approval of oppressive behaviors.
An
individual's actions may not seem like much, but when you seek
change, it is necessary to stir the pot however you can. The gay and
lesbian rights movement parallels the civil rights era. The ability
to argue that man can only be born in one fashion harkens back to the
black man being considered anything other than completely equal to
the white man. When we think about all man being created equal, we
must also consider that their sexual proclivity and lifestyle should
bear no burden to the right to equal protection and equal rights.
Advocating for women's suffrage did not make you a woman, but in some
youth circles, advocating for gay rights makes you “gay.” The
first reaction of a teenage boy to different lifestyles does not
necessarily measure how he feels about it, but it can measure the
difference between his, and his parent's generations. In an
educational setting, the classroom is used to dispense what can be
considered the correct and incorrect way to view the world. Personal
belief does play a major role, but educating about various peoples as
if they stand among you as equals does not promote their lifestyle.
To acknowledge that there are differences is the first step to
discussing the differences in power.
Discussion
questions:
- What are some things that are taught in the classroom today that were not taught when you attended school?
- How do some curricula promote oppressive thought?
0 comments:
Post a Comment