What is the root of oppression?
We decided to do something a little different this month and approached this question from 3 different perspectives. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, but instead demonstrate various ideological inflections that inform our approach to social work. This question and the way we answer may seem overly theoretical. Why have a conceptual argument over the root of oppression rather than put our energy toward analyzing concrete systems and how to fix them? The Disruptor contributors contend that no matter how we do the work, it is inevitably informed by ideology. We may all agree that we are fighting for social justice, but how the concept is defined and the methods we employ to achieve it are not always straightforward. It is worth considering the underlying conceptual frameworks that inform our work and foster in-depth interrogation of the systems in which we operate.
The following piece was reworked from an assignment completed for the 610 structural oppression course:
Although answering the question of ‘what is the root of oppression’ is extremely difficult without comprehending and discussing the intersectionality of racism, sexism, and many other ‘isms’ that play a role in forming one massive puzzle, which as a society, we keep trying to piece together even today; my focus in this piece is to shine some light on the economic gap factor and to suggest that if we bridge this gap first, perhaps we can have a trickle-down effect on all other areas.
Using W.B. Michaels’ book, The Trouble with Diversity, I would point out his assertion that race is a social construct based on the fact that scientists understand race to be nonexistent from a genetic standpoint. Michaels states that race gives birth to further subsets of identities (i.e. cultural, religious, sexual, etc) and "commitment to diversity [has become] deeply associated with the struggle against racism" (pg 4). Essentially, Michaels believes that the allocation of resources towards celebrating diversity diverts from closing economic disparities—that as a society we treat socioeconomic class as simply another form of identity, like race or culture, which serves as a “strategy for managing inequality rather than minimizing or eliminating it" (pg 10).
Michaels makes a good point in that society tends to treat "economic differences as cultural differences" and that we are collectively interested in "issues that have nothing to do with economic inequality" (pg 19).
This author's perspective comes across blunt in some areas but is valid. If we focus on bridging the gap between the wealthy and poor then social justice will follow. In the process, as more people get access to resources and find economic stability, the more they will look to the next step of self-actualization (using Maslow's theory) to balance out the scales of hegemony and power.
With economic stability and access to resources, you have the luxury of deciding to pursue higher education, to purchase and own a home in a neighborhood of your choice, to practice rest and relaxation through travelling with friends and family, to take on hobbies without the worry of affordability, to eat healthy and nutritious foods and all that comes with a capitalistic society. The marginalized people in the minority still may be faced with challenges, but with capital and economic power they will have their voices heard and have the choice to strategically allocate their resources towards self-betterment. If we can balance out the scales where those in the oppressed group are no longer pushed to the lower ranks of the economic hierarchy, then perhaps we can bridge the gap in all other areas.
Just imagine, with economic power you get a seat at the table and become part of the solution-oriented and decision-making process (whether some people want you to or not). So, bridging the economic inequality gap first will help in lessening the gaps in all the other areas and in time will balance out the scales.
References:
Michaels, W.B. (2006). Introduction (pp. 1-20) in The trouble with diversity: How we learned to love identify and ignore inequality. New York: Holt.
Comentários