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.
My peers’ arguments that the source of oppression and inequality can be traced to economics and race both have merit because they invoke a deeper interrogation of human nature.
The processes of human evolution over millions of years have largely prepared us to live and thrive in small, cooperative groups. The advent of larger societies, in contrast, represent a minute portion of human history—roughly 10,000 years. Survival in the time of scattered hunter-gatherer groups was highly dependent on a clear distinction between “Us” and “Them”; constrained resources demand for a highly selective distribution process where groups only had the capacity to care for in-group members. It was crucial during this time to conserve resources and not only were non-members “Other,” but there were also very high rates of inter-group violence further reinforcing the “Us-Them” divide.
I would argue that all manifestations of oppression and inequality can be traced back to this inherent human instinct to establish an “Us,” which almost invariably establishes a “Them” that is in some way different from or in opposition to the former. Economic disparities operate within the framework of those deserving of resources, “Us,” and those who are deemed unworthy of the same resources for some reason that inevitably deems “Them” as “Other.” Similarly, the social construct of race and resultant inequalities are rooted in human perceptions of physical difference that exist only on the surface, as there is no biological basis for race.
The “Us-Them” dichotomy evolved out of necessity for humans to protect themselves and to survive a paleolithic hellscape. The instinct to invest heavily in our own group and to be cautious and critical of other groups served the human species well initially, ensuring its continuation through the violence and suffering that permeate the Earth. Nature is also imbued with a sense of solidarity that is highly concentrated in the human condition; a deep devotion and reverence for “Us” opens the door for altruism, loyalty, and love. As humans continue to evolve an ever-expanding capacity for “Us,” the perceived threat of “Them” can be significantly diminished.
The instincts that we have about other people are no accident; they are highly specialized responses to environmental conditions Homo sapiens and our ancestors and distant cousins before us were able to survive. There are many iterations of human-like hominins littering the strata of the Earth that allow us glimpses into our evolutionary process, some so alien-looking and genetically different from us that we are able to infer at one time or another there were several different species evolved from apes walking the earth at the same time, our extinct cousins who prove the trial-by-error nature of our evolutionary past.
Humans’ highly specialized nature made our survival possible, but it also creates obstacles between us. Whether it is human nature to divide ourselves into groups and seek separation and opposition, it is also in our nature to overcome the “Us-Them” divide, not only to see beyond differences but to value them, to seek them out and to collaborate toward a better future.
References:
Angeloni, E. (Ed.). (2017). Annual editions: Physical anthropology 2012/2013 (26th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harari, Y. N., Casanave, D., & Vandermeulen, D. (2020). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. London: Jonathan Cape.
Hammer, M. F. (2013). Human hybrids. Scientific American, 308(5), 66-71. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0513-66
Mukhopadhyay, C. C., Henze, R. C., & Moses, Y. T. (2014). Using Anthropology to Make Sense of Human Diversity. In How real is race?: A sourcebook on race, culture, and biology (26th ed., Annual Editions: Physical Anthropology, pp. 187-194). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, a division of Rowman & Littlefield.
Comments