![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Something I realised I left out of Various axioms of my anti-(racism sexism etc) (this extended conversation is definitely making me express a bunch of interconnected ideas I hadn't properly articulated before :))
EDIT: This is not a self evident truth, it's an axiom of the way I think. This does not mean it's right, but you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me otherwise :) (But one of my other axioms is question everything)
As I said there, if there is a society wide inequality which puts one group in a position of less power with regards to another, then the group with more power cannot be trusted to judge how best to fix that inequality. No matter how good their intentions(*).
Feminism and the fight against sexism needs to be mostly run by women.
Anti-racism needs to be mostly run by POC.
The left needs significant input from the poor and lower class. (Unfortunately once you have the power to change things you generally aren't lower class any more so this gets a bit catch 22ish)
etc.
And if you're in the more powerful group then you cannot rely on the opinions of other people in the same group.
If you're white, and the only people who agree with your opinions on race are white, and most POC think differently? Then no matter how well educated and well meaning you are, and how many other educated well meaning white people agree, you are probably wrong. And the only way to be less wrong is to go out and listen to what actual POC are saying. If you don't know what POC think you should probably go find out.
Also elected or otherwise acknowledged spokespeople have more weight than some random person from the less powerful group who happens to agree with you.
This can get complicated of course since none of these groups is a monolith and there's always varying opinions. Feminism especially contains many radically different opinions, plus of course there's all the women who don't feel represented by any of them. So there's no way to get The Single Opinion of the less powerful group, but that doesn't mean you can't make a concerted effort to get the general idea, and be open to their POV.
EDIT: This post is a rather simplistic description of a complicated issue, read the comments for a more nuanced view. Most importantly, I didn't add that yes, the less privileged group also needs to listen to the more privileged group, and in the end the best approach is usually a strong dialogue and carefully worked out compromise. But power dynamics being what they are, the chances of any compromise being too far in the less privileged groups favour is pretty small...
(*)Come to think of it, I don't think there even needs to be an inequality: it is impossible for one group of people to fully understand the experience and needs of another different group, and so it is vitally important that there is as much consultation and equal representation as possible in the decision making process and avenues of power. (Thus, democracy) But when there is a power imbalance this effect is magnified.
EDIT: This is not a self evident truth, it's an axiom of the way I think. This does not mean it's right, but you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me otherwise :) (But one of my other axioms is question everything)
As I said there, if there is a society wide inequality which puts one group in a position of less power with regards to another, then the group with more power cannot be trusted to judge how best to fix that inequality. No matter how good their intentions(*).
Feminism and the fight against sexism needs to be mostly run by women.
Anti-racism needs to be mostly run by POC.
The left needs significant input from the poor and lower class. (Unfortunately once you have the power to change things you generally aren't lower class any more so this gets a bit catch 22ish)
etc.
And if you're in the more powerful group then you cannot rely on the opinions of other people in the same group.
If you're white, and the only people who agree with your opinions on race are white, and most POC think differently? Then no matter how well educated and well meaning you are, and how many other educated well meaning white people agree, you are probably wrong. And the only way to be less wrong is to go out and listen to what actual POC are saying. If you don't know what POC think you should probably go find out.
Also elected or otherwise acknowledged spokespeople have more weight than some random person from the less powerful group who happens to agree with you.
This can get complicated of course since none of these groups is a monolith and there's always varying opinions. Feminism especially contains many radically different opinions, plus of course there's all the women who don't feel represented by any of them. So there's no way to get The Single Opinion of the less powerful group, but that doesn't mean you can't make a concerted effort to get the general idea, and be open to their POV.
EDIT: This post is a rather simplistic description of a complicated issue, read the comments for a more nuanced view. Most importantly, I didn't add that yes, the less privileged group also needs to listen to the more privileged group, and in the end the best approach is usually a strong dialogue and carefully worked out compromise. But power dynamics being what they are, the chances of any compromise being too far in the less privileged groups favour is pretty small...
(*)Come to think of it, I don't think there even needs to be an inequality: it is impossible for one group of people to fully understand the experience and needs of another different group, and so it is vitally important that there is as much consultation and equal representation as possible in the decision making process and avenues of power. (Thus, democracy) But when there is a power imbalance this effect is magnified.
I'm still feeling this out in my head, but...
The other side-point is that I have real personal doubts about people's understanding of their own experiences. While it seems stange to have an "well, actually, that's not what you're feeling" attitude, I'm pretty certain that a lot of the time other people can and do have better ideas of my experiences and mental state than I do. So I'm at best ambivalent about the inability of other people to judge what is best for me, and this extends outwards into a general ambivalence about the capacity of one group to judge what is best for another.
The other aspect I'm uncomfortable with, I think, is the idea of blindspots, because I think I've argued this on your journal before, but I think that either privilege doesn't or can't work like that, and still retain it's function as in power discussions. A simple exemplar would be, for instance, formal education as a white privilege. I think that's a good example of what a privilege could be. And I also think that anyone who argues that education is something that intrinsically makes other people less comprehensible is horribly wrong.* In a looser sense, it becomes even stranger, because if you take privilege (as I think it's used, not defined) and the above axiom, I think you end up in a situation where the only people with understanding have no power to act (and so can't), and the only people with power to act have no understanding (and so can't). While it can be hedged to some degree, I think that the ideas ultimately compel the conclusion that nothing will ever change, except by historical accident.
*On a side-note to this one, I remember reading an article a while ago about how fantastic it is that rich people have currently stopped caring about the suffering of victims of various illnesses, and are instead starting to set up foundations that aim at getting value for money in treating diseases, and consequently are potentially improving the lives of vastly more people. I've always though of it as an interesting class thing where the standard complaint is that the rich don't understand value and how they live in a different world, whereas if it's actually quantified in some way apart from passionate moral indignation, it may actually turn out in some cases that the people who understand best how money works are the people who have the mentality given by 'privilege' of dealing with Really Large amounts of it.
Re: I'm still feeling this out in my head, but...
In a looser sense, it becomes even stranger, because if you take privilege (as I think it's used, not defined) and the above axiom, I think you end up in a situation where the only people with understanding have no power to act (and so can't), and the only people with power to act have no understanding (and so can't).
Yes, I wrote the post a bit too black-and-white, when the real situation is more complicated. See my discussion with
On the whole: My understanding of history and my own life has shown me multiple examples of the ways in which people in a position of power either deliberately or inadvertently use that power to support their own position and belittle or undermine the desires and experiences of those beneath them. Even when they/we are making an effort to fix the problem the decisions we make are oversimplified and flawed in a very particular way.
If your experience and reading etc has not given you that impression I'm not really placed to argue against you (though I'm sure you could find someone who could) and I think we are viewing the world in very different ways. It may be impossible for us to convince each other of much though we can still poke holes in each other arguments where they're inconsistent or disagree with those facts/interpretations we do agree on.
That said: as several commenters have pointed out, the fact that people in power make particular sorts of mistakes of judgement doesn't stop those with less power from making different sorts of mistakes in judgement, such as those made form a lack of education/experience with power etc. So dialogue/compromise may end up with a better (albeit still flawed) result than just giving power to the powerless in a simplistic way.
And I also think that anyone who argues that education is something that intrinsically makes other people less comprehensible is horribly wrong
I have actually noticed a tendency in well educated people (myself included) to have trouble relating to less educated people in certain ways. I certainly have trouble understanding how anyone can not understand ideas about racism which I found pretty incomprehensible a few years ago. Also there's the tendency to assume that everyone had the same opportunities of education and so that level of knowledge is directly correlated to level of intelligence.
Which is not to say that education is bad! And on the whole it can give a better understanding of other people on average. But like everything it has it's downsides and they need to be acknowledged and where possible adjusted for.
no subject
no subject
Really? I hadn't noticed that at ALL.
:D
But yes, I do the same thing with maths/science (well, not quite as much, I would say, but sometimes). Come to think of it, I also do it with the humanities, since I don't have any formal training but am moderately well educated in some areas (and quite ignorant in others) I'm still constantly surprised at how little Cam knows about Shakespeare and the Bible etc since he wasn't brought up on that stuff.