#oppressed groups

[anti-capitalistlesbianwitch]

koalacorn-blog replied to your post Okay, here’s the problem with the idea that oppressed groups...:

If someone bullies you then you should still be there friend. Same logic

It’s really not. The post has nothing to do with being “friends,” but supporting actual human rights of marginalized groups even if your precious feelings get hurt by some individuals.

[gravitascivics]

JUDGING CRITICAL THEORY, VI

[Note:  This posting is subject to further editing.]

 An advocate of critical theory continues his/her presentation[1] …

After reviewing this blog’s postings of late, this blogger has decided to insert a short posting that might clarify previously shared information.  In an attempt to further shed light on what critical theory considers discourses the following is offered.  To help in this effort, this posting looks back to the time frame previous postings have cited and utilizes an article from 1995 which was published in Theory and Research in Social Education.[2]

         Its authors, Valerie Pang, Geneva Gay, and William B. Stanley, share with their readers examples of language usage that actually affect non-advantaged people.  They describe and explain how this takes place as unjust policies are developed and implemented with the aim of maintaining subjugating relationships with those who are disadvantaged or oppressed.  

Specifically, they offer a list of ways critical theorists have identified in how these subjugating uses of language oppress the disadvantaged:

 1.     The discourses provide the reasoning and rationale for restrictive community formation.  Here the advantaged groups implement exclusionary policies so as to insure “those people” don’t live nearby.  Grounds for such exclusion have been based on ethnic, racial, social, and/or cultural grounds.  One need only observe the ever-increasing number of gated communities to illustrate how prevalent this strategy is.

2.     Lack of any motivation – mostly from unawareness – by the privileged groups in understanding or even knowing how relatively better off they, the dominant group, lives.  That group is mostly populated by Anglo men, and, to a lesser degree, Anglo women who are cognitively or emotionally blind to the systematic disadvantages that the oppressed are forced to sustain.

3.     The advantaged groups – what some in the critical theory camp call the oppressors – opt to speak in terms of myths.  One such myth is the “bootstrap” myth which maintains that anyone can secure suitable income levels if that person puts in the sufficient amount of effort and hard work.  In turn, such views count on significant levels of individualism.  It ignores how important community supports function in bolstering any chances of success one might have.  This includes appropriate encouragement, assets, exemplary cases of success to emulate, etc.

This sort of targeted perception gives rise to views of reality that are skewed toward messaging of these myths.  And this whole biased view is further enhanced with oversimplified beliefs one attains from reductionist studies of reality. For example, what meaning does the term “American Dream” suggest?  

Does that meaning even touch the complex world one encounters – often fights – in attempting to advance one’s interests or in lodging demands when one either has or does not have the necessary resources for success. Are success stories more a product of good fortune than planned out strategies?  Detailed accounts of success stories, to this blogger, seem to be riddled with lucky turns.

4.     It is often the case with these rationalizations, i.e., those found in the discourses of the advantaged, that psychologically predisposes members of that group to be unable to acknowledge their own levels of prejudicial thinking and acting.  That is, they are disposed to see any economic misfortunes befalling the oppressed as being due to non-factors such as the prevalence of a culture of poverty.

A prime strategy that such thinking employs to justify resultant policies is to destroy the cultures of the oppressed people and encourage other policies aimed to assimilate them to mainstream norms and ethos. These sought after social states are further glorified with mythological language.

5.     Further use of language by the advantaged is noted for supporting such practices as segregating the disadvantaged from liberating opportunities. For example, one sees encouraging minority students, in ordinate numbers, to take up vocational courses or programs even when individual students demonstrate talent and intelligence in their academic efforts.  

In addition, with reductionist thinking, advantaged policy makers are continuously seeking “magic bullet” solutions to educational challenges – e.g., whole language vs. the phoenix explosion – which experience has shown to accrue little in the way of payoffs.  The problems of public schools are complex and demand nuanced study and policies.  Instead, the dominant language based on reductionist, positivist studies do little to improve their efforts at addressing the challenges posed by the conditions of the disadvantaged.

 And finally, let this posting add one more word on what the term, discourse, means.  It is language used by the advantaged which has become politized.  That is, as the privileged not only strive to maintain their relative advantages, they also have to be cognizant of what arrangements, social, political, economic, allow for these advantages to remain secure.  In such efforts, they need to devise and implement strategies that in effect rationalize their valued positions as being rational and natural.    

The tools for such strategies are myths that describe not only what it claims reality to be, but what it should be.  And central to critical theory is for its advocates to stridently point out and attack oppressive language.  That is to challenge the extended or evolving language of the oppressor – which seeks to maintain the status quo.  

That language often demeans the efforts of critical theorists by using such phrases as “political correctness” in a way that seeks to delegitimize critical critiques of the dominant groups.  One can view such dismissal language as discourses of the privileged. Yet, to the extent that critical theorists have advanced their messaging, one can consider those cases as genuine successes in their discourse efforts.  

As such, these verbal attacks and responses can be considered a meaningful front in striving to establish a liberated reality among those currently oppressed.  The more critical efforts find further platforms to communicate and distribute their messages, the more they can challenge the prevailing misinformed mental representations of the advantaged groups – that being the messages of “the haves.”

[1] These postings that convey the basic information regarding critical theory heavily depends on the overview provided by William Outhwaite.  See William Outhwaite, “Critical Theory,” in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, edited by David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, and Alan Ryan (Cambridge, MA:  Blackwell Publishers, Ltd), 106-109.

[2] Valerie Pang, Geneva Gay, & William B. Stanley, “Expanding Conceptions of Community and Civic Competence for a Multicultural Society, Theory and Research in Social Education, 23, 4 (Fall 1995), 302-331.

[andalus88]

All these oppressed groups. 😞 I get this was a funny scene and comedy does relay life truths but it slightly saddened me that THIS is the state of the country.

[narkolatorre]

The Velvet Cave Gallery, moments before it was full of incredible forward-thinking people. Till We Have Faces was a curatorial project for my friend Naomi Frank’s masters program studies, and the opening reception was a huge hit. I’m really happy I got to be in this art show. She called me a “graphic novelist” in her curatorial overview geeeeee :D

I haven’t posted the actual comic yet because time is bought and sold as commodity, though who owns it and benefits from this I do not know. Watch this space.

[thebisexualblogger-blog1]

People who complain about the world being too "politically correct" basically just admit to wishing they could go back to blatantly hating minorities without any backlash

[chicanabi]

When forgetting is a tool of the oppressors, remembering is a political act.

Latino Rebels

[sinnabons]

I've said this once, and I'm going to say it again. When any marginalized/oppressed group says something along the lines of "all white/straight/cis/etc", of course there is an implication that our allies are not a part of that group. But we should not have to say "except our allies" because our allies should know we mean it, but most importantly any issues we face is focused on the community not allies' feelings. If you only care about us if you're recognized or if you are an ally and your reaction is "Not all (oppressive group) people are bad, I'm not bad" to a statement of "all (oppressive group)", then you are not an ally, and you should feel bad because you only care about your self-image rather than the issues the oppressed group faces. It is okay to think that at first because you have been programmed that way, but you should recognize that and try to change it.

[hellokitty-says-unionize]

One of the most important types of education is listening (see #1), but there are endless resources (books, blogs, media outlets, speakers, YouTube videos, etc.) to help you learn. What you should not do, though, is expect those with whom you want to ally yourself to teach you. That is not their responsibility.

So You Call Yourself an Ally: 10 Things All 'Allies' Need to Know — Everyday Feminism