« Fake Speed Bumps

Home
Male and Female Privilege Lists »

“Oppression” and “Privilege” Defined As Direct Opposites

Posted by Ampersand | July 3rd, 2008

Here’s my current working definition of “oppression”:1

Oppression is a system whereby:

1) A group “A” is systematically mistreated in comparison to non-As in a given social context.

2) The distinctive traits of group “A” are viewed as exceptions to the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society.

3) Members of group “A” are effectively prevented from holding a significant number of high leadership positions in society’s controlling institutions.

Can we then define “privilege” as the direct opposite of “oppression”?2 So:

Privilege is a system whereby:

1) A group “B” is systematically, unfairly advantaged in comparison to non-Bs in a given social context.

2) The distinctive traits of group “B” are viewed as the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society.

3) Members of group “B” hold a near-monopoly on the high leadership positions of society’s controlling institutions.

Comments?

  1. This definition of oppression swipes quite a bit from Caroline New’s discussion; see previous “Alas” discussions here and here. (back)
  2. Credit where credit’s due: I think Daran of “feminist critics” may have suggested this to me at some point. (back)

| This entry was posted by Ampersand and is filed under Whatever. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

19 Responses to ““Oppression” and “Privilege” Defined As Direct Opposites”

  1. Stentor Writes:
    July 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    I would remove point 3 from both definitions — lack of leadership positions is a likely consequence (and a common reinforcing mechanism) of oppression as defined in points 1 and 2, but I don’t see why it needs to be elevated to definitional status. Also, it’s potentially distracting, since it implies that “number of As in leadership positions” is a simple measuring stick for level of oppression (and there are cases where I’d say oppression is still present despite things being fine on the number-in-leadership front — Christians being privileged over Jews comes to mind).

    This comment was written by Stentor.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  2. Daisy Bond Writes:
    July 4th, 2008 at 9:21 am

    I second Stentor’s comment. Access to high leadership positions is a typical (and important) consequence of oppression/privilege, but it’s not a definitional component. The example of Jews and Christians is a good one. Relatedly, raising the issue to definitional importance implies — to me, anyway — that the sex/race/etc of leaders is as or more important than their policies and actions, which it certainly isn’t. Mike Gravel would do far more, as a leader, to fight sexism, poverty, racism, and war than Michelle Malkin, despite his being a white man and her being a woman of color.

    It’s different at the individual than the large-scale level, of course. But I think it’s counterintuitive to raise one consequence to that level, even if it’s a consequence that helps perpetuate the system, because the nature of the system is that its consequences perpetuate it.

    This comment was written by Daisy Bond.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  3. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 6:07 am

    Credit where credit’s due: I think Daran of “feminist critics” may have suggested this to me at some point.

    I did. Also, credit where credit is due, it was my co-blogger, Hugh Ristik, who drew Caroline New’s work to your attention. I’m glad to see that we are having an influence on your thinking. Perhaps this will help to sway the doubters in our own camp about the wisdom of our strategy of trying to engage with feminists. But then again, maybe not.

    A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  4. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 6:21 am

    And to reply substantively to your proposal, I too would reject 3, for another reason: It limits the applicability to groups which together exhaust society. I.e., you can’t look at the relationship between two groups A and B neither of which has significant (or any) leadership representation in society’s controlling institution.

    So for example, imagine a world in which white upper class-women were excluded entirely from leadership positions, being confined, as it were, to the drawing rooms of the nation. Would you seriously claim that those women did not enjoy privilege over their black working-class sisters?

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  5. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 6:35 am

    Re: criterion 2 of ‘oppression. I think ‘erasure’ is a more extreme version of the anomalisation you describe here. Perhaps you should modify it to:

    2) The distinctive traits of group “A” are viewed as exceptions to the “unmarked” or “default” traits of a “normal” member of society, if not erased outright.

    Subject to the observation that one of the distinctive traits of group “A” is that it is group “A”. So treating its members as exceptions (or erasing them completely) falls under this criterion, even if no explicit trait is referenced.

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  6. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

    :rolleyes:

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  7. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 9:27 am

    Okay, I’m convinced by everyone that item #3 was a mistake.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  8. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    ….are having an influence on your thinking. Perhaps this will help to sway the doubters in our own camp about the wisdom of our strategy of trying to engage with feminists.

    Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  9. sailorman Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am

    I’m trying to figure out a different word than “social,” because it doesn’t seem quite right: shouldn’t there be some administrative/governmental/power-linked aspect? I haven’t been able to think of something better, so perhaps spcial is the right word after all.

    I also think you may be missing the “unalterable” aspect: there are groups of people (the “skin baby animals alive society”) who would meet your technical definition of being oppressed, but who are theoretically in control of it, so don’t beling in that category.

    Next: Oppression seems more… objective, I think, than privilege. Or, perhaps, less malleable. A given person can be privileged or underprivileged in a particular day, in a different way for almost each person they meet. But it doesn’t seem oppression works that way. Privilege can be individuals, while oppression isn’t really as much, is it? i don’t know if the “direct opposite” thing works.

    This comment was written by sailorman.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  10. ballgame Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am

    Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

    :rolleyes:

    This comment was written by ballgame.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  11. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    And so the snark escalation continues!

    [Rest of post deleted by Amp.]

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  12. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    To be honest, Amp, ballgame’s comment was hardly an escalation.

    I really regret writing “in our own camp”. I meant it in the sense of their having pitched a tent in our yard, i.e., present in the comments. In the same sense, I’m in your camp.

    I did not intend to imply philosophical affiliation.

    Until I start writing as if I believe that feminists are evil and caring about women is wrong — and I will never start writing that way — they will never be satisfied. And neither, in my opinion, will you be.

    I have not been arguing that feminists are evil or that caring about women is wrong, so this is (yet again) a strawman. Rather I believe that feminism is 1. deeply flawed in theory and execution, and, as a consequence, 2. harmful. This is not to claim that feminism hasn’t been beneficial in the past, or it isn’t beneficial in other ways now.

    I am under no illusions about my inability to persuade anyone mindlessly committed to their position, whatever that may be. I do not, however believe that you are mindless. To the contrary, you are, at heart, a rational person who is amenable to reason, despite the strength of your emotional investment in feminism, which is what causes you to react with such hostility when that investment is subject to a challenge that you can’t defend against rationally.

    Well, that’s the second half of Bulver’s edict fulfilled. I’ve explained why you are so persistently and stubbornly wrong. I will continue to fail to fulfill the first half, though.

    [Rest of post deleted by Amp.]

    I call your posted-then-deleted snark, and raise you a snarky comment I deleted before I even posted it. ;-)

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  13. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    A link in the post would have been nice, given the level of credit due, but perhaps two links in two consecutive posts is just too much.

    :rolleyes:

    What’s the objection to linking to us anyway? Are you worried about your precious bodily fluids? I suspect some of those “in your camp” would prefer it to go to us than to the alternative*.

    By the way, we get barely any incoming linkage at all (except for privilege checklists. We really must produce a few more.) That neither antifeminist nor MRA sites link to us much is an indicator perhaps, that we’re not really in their camp.

    *Links in comments do not transmit google juice, so don’t anyone have a go at me for that link.

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  14. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Sigh.

    I have no objection to linking to F.C. I’ve linked to it once this week, which is possibly as often as I’ve linked to anyplace this week. Possibly this month.

    I didn’t link to you on this post not because I maliciously withhold links, because I didn’t remember where you had suggested that (or if you had). (I could have linked to “Feminist Critics” generically, but I didn’t think of it at the time.)

    I’m sorry you imagine I sit around twirling my mustaches while chortling “I’ll link to Daran’s blog once today — but not twice! Because I must preserve my precious precious google juice! Yah-hah-hah!”

    But really, I don’t think that way. And I find it… bizarre… that you even imagine I could think that way.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  15. Daran Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    And I find it… bizarre… that you even imagine I could think that way.

    I should have thought my reference to “precious bodily fluids” was an obvious hint that my tongue was somewhat laterally displaced.

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  16. Ampersand Writes:
    July 6th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    I understood that you were using over-the-top language to make your point a bit humorous. I didn’t realize you were joking about your claim that I’ve got something against linking to your blog — especially since there was no such telltale language in comment #3, where you first made the claim.

    This comment was written by Ampersand.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  17. becca b Writes:
    July 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    #2 makes a lot of sense. #1 still seems a bit vague, since it’s easy to argue that members of opressed groups still have particular ‘advantages’ (and may invite ‘add up the points’ thinking?) I’m not sure what to add to really get to the heart of the matter though.

    This comment was written by becca b.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  18. Daran Writes:
    July 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    especially since there was no such telltale language in comment #3, where you first made the claim.

    There wasn’t. I still think Hugh deserves the credit if it was he who brought New to your attention.

    This comment was written by Daran.
    Report this comment to the moderators
  19. How Concerned are Women about Women’s Underrepresentation in Government? | Feminist Critics Writes:
    July 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    […] the distinctive traits of group “B” as the “default” traits of “women”, you are privileging group B and oppressing group A. Please stop doing […]

    This comment was written by How Concerned are Women about Women’s Underrepresentation in Government? | Feminist Critics.
    Report this comment to the moderators

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!