Introduction
The way in which humanity functions is based largely off of personal experience. People assume truths about life and the world dependent upon the situations they have encountered. What is taken away from a person’s experience becomes their version of reality, which most assume is universal and applicable to everyone. In this vein, our little versions of the truth are what we see to be the whole truth; humanity, as a whole, has trouble validating the contradictory experiences that others have. This becomes majorly evident when people in privileged groups discuss oppression, often saying things such as “racism does not exist!” or “I don’t need feminism because I’ve never faced discrimination.” By not validating people’s individual experiences and beliefs, we invalidate humans and validate systems of privilege, losing any advances toward equality. In this paper, I will explore the ways in which power systems operate and how validating other’s experiences and therefore their reality is a crucial step toward achieving equality.
Definitions and Background
Before we can discuss how privilege works, we have to set a base of definitions to build upon. Since privilege is something that those who have it benefit from, people often become defensive when they hear that they belong to a privileged group. It is a loaded term, and thus it is the first step in the ability to facilitate a more equitable society. Privilege exists in areas where one group has something of value that is denied to other groups simply because of their membership to that group (Johnson, 2006, 23). This entails that privilege is not based on merit, work ethic, or any kind of action or lack of action. Instead, privilege is based on the dominant, powerful group.
Within American society, we see privilege exist as it most often relates to race, gender, class, and sexual orientation. Kim Case, Jonathan Iuzzini, and Morgan Hopkins, authors of Systems of Privilege: Intersections, Awareness, and Applications assert that privilege is always defined in social contexts, where it can and does vary according to “culture, social norms, and potentially localized institutional oppression” (Case, Iuzzini, & Hopkins, 2012). Consequently, the definition of privilege is about the same in any society but the groups that are privileged may differ. In America, we see that the people that hold privilege belong to white, male, upper class, heterosexual, and nondisabled groups. The norms of the lifestyles of the privileged or hegemonic groups “become the generalized normative expectations for marginalized groups, providing dominant group member the option of remaining ignorant and avoidant of awareness of both privilege and oppression” (Case, Iuzzini, & Hopkins, 2012). These normalized functions lead to what we refer to as “power systems.” Power systems are a function of the hegemonic group, which refer to where social power is being held and the classifications of privilege, such as racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism. For example, one could say that the power system in place promotes the perpetuation of the oppression of people of color since it favors whites. We will unpack how systems of privilege work later on.
Fundamentally, when one group is privileged it means that there is a lack of privilege (or a presence of oppression) that other group’s experience. The concept of a group getting an unfair benefit implies that they’re being given something that the other groups lack. When this happens, we have a privileged group that gains something while the oppressed group is refused access to it. This is typically regarded by others in respect to “extra” resources and opportunities – giving the privileged group power over the other oppressed group. This type of privilege is called “conferred dominance.” Conferred dominance is seen through many things that may seem nuanced but carry with it power that keeps the non-dominant group oppressed. An easy and classic example of conferred dominance is the use of language and the connotation behind certain phrases. The saying “mama’s boy” in relation to a son that defers to his mother often is a derogatory term that many kids use to chastise others; likewise, when a husband appears subordinate in any way to his wife, he is “whipped” or “henpecked,” both of which have negative connotations. On the other side, when a female is referred to as a “daddy’s girl” it is not considered to be an insult, nor is there a derogatory term for a woman who is under the control of her husband (Johnson, 2006, 26). This is an example of conferred dominance and it’s relation to sexism. Another way that we often see conferred dominance manifested is through race. The book The Race of a Privileged Class tells a first person account of an African American lawyer who, a partner at his firm, goes into his office building on the weekend to catch up on some work. He is confronted once inside the building by a newly hired white attorney, who asks him “Can I help you?” and following a “no” steps in front of the African American man and demands “Can I help you?” (Johnson, 2006, 26). This is an example of conferred dominance, because without his cultural assumptions of white racial dominance, he had to reason to act as though he had control.
The other type of privilege as identified by Peggy McIntosh, who headed up the premiere work on privilege and oppression, is labeled “unearned entitlements.” These are things that all people should have, but is restricted to certain groups, which becomes an “unearned advantage” (Johnson, 2006, 27). Examples of unearned entitlements include feeling safe in public spaces or working where you are valued. In most cases, this is not something that is solved but rather gives dominant groups a competitive edge that they do not want to give up or even, sometimes, acknowledge. In some cases, acknowledging the unearned advantages leads to giving them up – for example, many white males gain unearned advantages if they are a member of lower or working classes. Their “whiteness” or “maleness” gives them a competitive edge against women or people of color of the same class, and the oppression that they have faced due to their class clouds their vision. Because they have faced discrimination, they may feel as though they are not receiving any privilege; however, they are blinded because of their lack of class privilege to seeing that they are valued over females or people of color in some situations. In some cases, it is possible to eliminate unearned advantages without anyone losing out. For example, if everyone was valued for what they could contribute in a work place rather than just the dominate group, that privilege of the dominant group would wane without the dominant group giving up their sense of value (Johnson, 2006, 25). If this were to happen, unearned entitlement would be available to everyone and would no longer be unearned advantage. Because unearned entitlements are, by definition, something everyone should experience, we must raise others up to the level that those with unearned entitlements have. This way, no one is experiencing exclusion or oppression.
The Way Privilege Works
Privilege is not a symptom of individuals, but rather it is always attached to social categories. Regardless of this, people are the ones that perpetuate privilege through their actions or lack of actions. Usually, this occurs through discrimination, or the unequal treatment of others simply because they belong to a certain social category (Merriam-Webster). Whether or not this is done consciously, discriminatory acts maintain systems of privilege as it favors a particular group over another. Behind any kind of action are feelings and thoughts. Feelings and thoughts about others come out when people behave in discriminatory ways. These attitudes and behaviors inform one’s prejudices. Prejudice is more complicated than discrimination, because it involves ideas and feelings, and often acts as a fuel for discriminatory acts and provides the justification for these acts (Johnson, 2006, 58). So, then, privilege is a function of society that integrates itself into a person’s regular functioning and reality; it happens through what people think and do. Living With Racism, written by sociologists, Joe Feagin and Melvin Sikes, points out that the consequences of privilege have to be understood in terms of a live experience that affects people in the moment and also accumulates over time, which then affects their behavior and also their understanding of themselves and life (Feagin and Sikes, 1994, 19). Through these ways that privilege is implemented, it affects everyone and everyone’s differing views on life and reality. For instance, in an interview that I had with a white heterosexual male, Mike Johnson, I asked him if he believed privilege to exist and he admitted that yes, it does; however, I further asked him if marginalized groups face oppression as an adverse effect of privilege and he was quick to tell me “no, racism and sexism don’t exist anymore. People just talk about it because our generation complains about everything” (personal communication, November 18, 2015). Mike’s complete dismissal of oppression as it exists in the realities of others is distinctly due to his lack of exposure, or his lack of willingness to listen to those that experience oppression. His reality has never included facing the realities of those that are oppressed, and thus he denies that it is a legitimate reality for some.
In order to further explore how systems of privilege work through social systems and how individuals participate in them, we need to look at the way that systems are structured. Allan Johnson has found that systems organized around privilege have three basic characteristics – they are dominated by privileged groups, identified with privileged groups, and centered on privileged groups (Johnson, 2006, 96). All of these support the idea that the hegemonic groups deserve their privilege in a way that has made them superior to the groups underneath them. Let’s take a look at how these three things interact.
Dominance refers to positions of power being operated by members of the hegemonic group. Power seems, in these cases, to be an attribute that is identified with members of the hegemonic group, therefore making it seem normal and natural for them to be the ones to hold power. An example of this is within patriarchal societies, power is culturally gendered – that is, it is associated primarily with men. Men holding power looks natural, whereas women in power may appear to be unusual and even problematic (Johnson, 2006, 97). The way that we can see dominance being implemented structurally is relatively obvious when we look at the make up of the ranking of power within the most basic organization. Usually, the further down you go, the more women you see; the further up you go, the fewer women you see. Those that do not resemble the dominant group are practically invisible, as they do not hold positions of power and therefore their interests are rarely represented within the organization; the way in which dominance interacts with privilege is cyclical.
The identification with privilege that influences social institutions is rooted in the norms that the hegemonic group represents. Groups that hold privilege and set the norm are taken to be the standard by which everything else is measured, representing the “best” that society has to offer and should strive for (Johnson, 2006, 102). In a white-identified system, for example, means that the assumed race of people is white. The term “nonwhite” is used commonly to lump together any race that does not identify with the white standard into a simple “other” category. We can see through this that the privileged group is the assumed “we” and anyone that does not fit into that falls into a “them” category. Another example of the manifestation of this is seen when anyone is identified (whether for something impressive, like winning a Nobel prize, to being arrested) their whiteness is not mentioned, since it is assumed, whereas everyone else is identified as an “African American attorney” or an “Asian writer”, etc. The identification with privilege keeps those that do not identify with the hegemonic group in a subordinate position, ensuring that the group in power is the standard by which others are measured.
The identification of privileged groups in systems of power makes it simple to keep these hegemonic values at the center. They are able to focus attention on them, and thus ensure that they are setting what is normative. Dr. David Miyahara refers to this ability to dictate the reality of others as the “ultimate sign of privilege” (Miyara, personal communication, November 24, 2015). An example of dominant-group centeredness can be seen easily in movies – in movies, it appears as though everything of significance happens to white, straight men. Films featuring this kind of person are the norm – they are just films. However, movies that focus on a woman, an African American, a gay person, etc., are considered a “chick flick” or a “black movie” or a “gay film.” When people are not a member of the dominant group, it is akin to being invisible and socially unimportant, which Johnson argues “makes invisibility a key part of the devaluing that lies at the heart of privilege and oppression” (Johnson, 2006, 111).
Language and Privilege
The most important factor within addressing privilege is the language that is used in order to describe it, define it, and discuss it. Words like racism, sexism, classism, and privilege are types of words that put some people off to discussing these issues. Most people, when faced with this discomfort, settle for simply not using these terms. They refuse to use language like “racism” or “white privilege” due to the their comfort levels. However, in the denial of language, it becomes impossible to discuss what is really happening and what it has to do with us. If we cannot use this language and identify with systemic oppression or with our part in it, we cannot see with the problems are – and, most importantly, we cannot see our part in the solution to the problems (Johnson, 2006, 2).
The difficulty of power systems is that is pervades everything that we come into contact with – it forms the very fabric that we perceive society to be made of. Power systems of privilege and oppression make the human race prisoners to something that we have ourselves created, and a lack of recognition of this fact removes any kind of responsibility that one may feel to change or influence this. Power systems divide people into two categories – the privileged and the oppressed. You cannot have one without the other; privilege comes at the expense of others and it cannot be separated with the way it takes away from a group to give to another. This creates a divide in reality for members of the same society in things such as income, wealth, safety, health, and general quality of life (Johnson, 2006, 9). By using the proper language in discussing issues such as classism, racism, and sexism, addressing the issues becomes something that is attainable.
Some of the difficulty of language and recognizing one’s privilege is that for those that are born with access to power and resources, it is almost impossible to recognize. Conversely, for those that were not granted privilege, it is blaringly obvious. It oftentimes becomes difficult to discuss privilege with those that identify with privileged groups because they may not feel as though they have access to more things than others or like they are powerful. This is because their experience just is; it is normal for them. Frances Kendell, author of Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race relates asking someone to notice their privilege to asking fish to notice water or birds to discuss air (Kendell, 2006, 22). This continued ignorance of those contained within the dominant groups perpetuates systematized oppression; the privilege that most gain from being white or being male is systematized. It is not something that they are consciously aware of, but something that has been promoted in their lives and is simply their reality of the functioning of societal institutions. Once we open ourselves to the idea that other people have different perspectives, Dr. Miyahara says that “people start to understand we’re different, and it’s okay. It’s really key in being able to combat systems of privilege without being threatened. Then, I think a lot of the defensiveness and fear won’t be eliminated but it’s reduced” (personal communication, November 24, 2015). In this vein, being able to ignore your own privilege due to your discomfort is itself a form of privilege, which is called “the luxury of obliviousness.” It is easy for people to buy into and follow the lack of consciousness that is bred through the luxury of obliviousness because it is comfortable and those with privilege have grown accustomed to it (Johnson, 2006, 128).
Some people that have been made aware of their privilege may still be hesitant to discuss it. This happens for many reasons. A main motive is that discussing uncomfortable things such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., violates our standard of polite speech. Our society sets a standard that uncomfortable or potentially offensive topics should be avoided or ignored, or spoken about in a casual and light manner. Topics that may cause disharmony among those involved is socially discouraged. Additionally, this kind of talk is not encouraged within academia because it generally invokes and includes emotions and subjectivity. These things are both seen to be not legitimate academic work or advancement. Lastly, when we discuss racism we violate the standard of color-blindness that we, as a society, have adopted. Many white people feel as though if they are to acknowledge race in any way they are at risk of being accused of racism. Speaking of race violates this standard (Sue, 2015, 24-27). Our society has made it so that not only are those who have privilege hesitant to acknowledge it, but they also hesitate to speak about it for fear of upsetting the tranquility of ignorance.
Once we can establish a base in which people understand these terms and do not feel afraid to use them, dialogue becomes possible. Discussion centered around oppression becomes difficult because people experience a clashing of realities. They are confronted with a person’s experience that does not fit their own, and so often they determine it to be incorrect. Instead of listening to the experiences of those that are different, many people (especially those that hold privilege) discard the truth because they believe it to be objective. However, we have clearly seen that the realities in which people live are subjective and based off of their experiences. An aspect of this is the way that we utilize language. Language is an essential aspect of the ability to aptly discuss injustices caused by privilege and power systems and, in turn, the ability to change anything about it.
What To Do About Privilege and Injustice
Combating systems of privilege and oppression in the real world becomes tricky. It’s one thing to be able to discuss it and to understand it (which is very important!) but to practice a life in which you do not partake in these systems is nearly impossible, as we all participate in social institutions and have even conformed to hegemonic ideals or schools of thought. As a Christian taking a perspective on injustice produced by power systems, it is apparent to me that social justice is something that the church should be striving towards.
Mae Elise Cannon, the executive pastor of a church in California and author of Social Justice Handbook: Small Steps for a Better World, defines social justice as being manifested when “all people have equal access to resources and opportunities” (Cannon, 2009, 31). As we have now seen, access and opportunity are key components to the way privilege contributes to the lives of those that identify with the dominant groups. Cannon quickly relays to her readers why social justice should be of importance to Christians by reminding them that justice is what she considers to be the illustration of God’s righteousness through just action. As God commanded all people to be stewards of the earth, social justice becomes an issue that should widely impact Christians because it hinders His desire for all people to have access to the earth’s resources. Typically, the church attempts to use compassion and charitable giving to rectify the inequality that persists within our society. While not downplaying the importance of compassion based ministries and their usefulness, these things respond to the immediate needs of others only. If we seek to change the systems that are in place, our focus needs to shift away from compassion ministries. Pastor Dan Schmitz, located in Oakland, California, highlights the difference between compassion and justice in this way: “Compassion is about effects. Justice is about causes” (Cannon, 2009, 33). Addressing injustice and attempting to rectify it, then, is an issue that not only belongs to the world but specifically to Christians as well.
In taking steps to move from compassionate service to rectifying injustice, Cannon outlines three steps that should initially be taken. First, direct relief is to be provided to those who are hurting – this is what compassion ministry is based upon. Second, injustice must be fought by teaching those in need some other skills in order to reach what was given to them in the first step. By distributing skills, people learn how to be able to help themselves. Lastly, the system itself needs to be dealt with directly. Through this last step, we can identify and rectify the source of the problem.
Most American Christians live lifestyles that are well-intentioned, yet still lack the action required in order to promote social justice. Many of us live lives of privilege, and may be unaware of the oppression that always comes alongside of it. Unfortunately, we also have lifestyles that keep us separated from suffering and we may become apathetic toward injustice. We care about those around us that we come into contact with, we give money to the poor and to our churches, but there is a separation from our reality and the realities of those who are poor. While social justice may be something that we, as Christians, are called to take steps towards, we seem to have an issue doing just that.
Johnson lays out some steps that anyone could take after their awareness of systemic oppression increases and they desire to take action in combatting these issues. First, he urges his readers to make noise and be seen. As all oppressive systems rely on its members remaining quiet as a display of solidarity with the dominant group, speaking out is a necessary part of challenging the system that is in place. The second step that Johnson outlines is to find small ways to withdraw one’s support from oppressive cycles, such as not laughing at a racist joke, writing a letter to a state representative, etc. Third, you have to be brave enough to make people (and yourself) uncomfortable. Drawing attention to privilege, particularly systemic privilege, is uncomfortable because it draws one’s attention away from the agreed upon realities. Confronting this is difficult, but it opens up discussion and encourages others to become more aware of what is happening around them. Next, he calls his readers to openly choose and practice alternative paths in order to make these choices more visible to others, and to “actively promote change in how systems are organized around privilege” (Johnson, 2006, 162). Lastly, some important steps to make changes to systems of power and their effects is through spreading word of the issues and not letting others set the standard for you. These ways of taking responsibility are risky and difficult, but only require extra attention and thought. Few deeply challenge the way that we live our day-to-day lives, and yet they provide a means through which social change can be seen (Johnson, 2006, 158-167). While these ideas are not focused on a specifically Christian response to systemic oppression, they still encompass many aspects that are necessary in fighting back against the effects of the system.
Cannon’s views are a welcome accompaniment to Johnson’s, adding a Christian aspect to the importance of social change. She emphasizes the importance of a Christian perspective on change and how change occurs – through a transformation of the soul and the pursuit of true community. When people who hold power go through this kind of transformation, they no longer “threaten, steal, and oppress their neighbors” (Cannon, 2009, 106). And while there are ways in which the world has deeply helped others through social workers, private nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), nonprofits, etc., the presence and participation of the church is lacking. This larger contribution of the church is what Cannon argues to be the most important factor to the change of social institutions, saying that “when Christians respond to who we are called to be, bearing witness to the kingdom of God and the return of our Savior, the world will be changed” (Cannon, 2009, 106). Dr. Miyahara sees the applicability of the necessary action of Christians, and stating that “the first thing Christians could say is to take responsibility for the things Christianity has done that has gotten in the way of proper stewardship and the proper treatment of other people.” He further acknowledges that Christianity cannot ignore past persecution, and must take responsibility for the furthering of oppression that it has previously promoted. Then, change can begin to take place (personal communication, November 24, 2015). This change can be demonstrated through both individuals and the larger contribution of the church.
As individuals who feel called by God to participate in rectifying the unjustness in the world live into this calling, Cannon reminds the reader that it is important to remember that they are not working alone; rather, God’s greatest purpose would be for people to unite with one another and work with the aid of their community. The role of the church within facilitating social change is an important one that cannot be ignored nor denied. Christians can be very passionate when they feel so moved with a vision of change, as they are motivated through conviction; as Christians, we should be responding to social injustice with this type of passion. Being motivated through the love of Christ, this should be seen “bursting through the walls of the church so that every neighborhood is transformed by Christ’s followers. This type of change shoots a burning arrow into the heart of injustice” (Cannon, 2009, 109).
The effects that the Christian community can have on social injustice are great. An example that we have seen of this on a major scale of the involvement of Nobel Peace Prize winner and South African Bishop, Desmond Tutu. Tutu was the archbishop of Cape Town, who has worked for church reform and the fight against injustice his whole life. He counseled states and corporations to separate from their relations with South Africa and also staged many peaceful protests throughout apartheid, which have both been credited with assisting in bringing down the regime. The church’s power in action should not be underestimated. Bishop Tutu spoke on behalf of the church, saying,
When we look squarely at injustice and get involved, we actually feel less pain, not more, because we overcome the gnawing guilt and despair that festers under our numbness. We clean the wound – our own and others’ – and it can finally heal. (Cannon, 2009, 221).
Not only are we called upon to confront social justice as Christians, but we are able to feel through the numbness that so many of us have due to our privilege.
One of the best ways to acknowledge the oppression of others and to promote reconciliation is simply to listen. On the surface, this appears to be self-explanatory and basic. Unfortunately, this is not something that is actually common. We have a habit of having conversations to hear ourselves speak more than to hear what others have to say, and this seems to be especially true when we are confronted with people that have a different reality than we do. In these conversations, if the person that has experienced oppression is not listened to, they are not validated. For example, women often invalidate the experiences of other women who identify as feminist and claim to have experienced discrimination by saying things such as “I’ve never felt that way, so feminism does not need to exist” while in conversation with a feminist. This invalidates the experience and therefore the reality of the other person.
David Miyahara, who received his Masters and his Ph.D in sociology from Stanford University, emphasized this fact in an interview I held with him. He expressed within our communication that the first step toward change and reconciliation is apology; then, and only then, can we complete the next step: which is simply to listen. When we think about relationships and validating others, “no one gets upset for listening too much. We forget that, I think, when we want to build our relationships with people and when we want to improve our relationships with people. We’ve gotta stop talking” (personal communication, November 24, 2015). Dr. Miyahara is easily able to identify the essence of reconciliation as a relationship and is quick to give the reminder of what helps relationships grow – listening and more listening. This is true of the attempt of reconciliation, as it is a relationship between groups and the promotion of clearer and kinder communication. When the hegemonic group is able to identify that they need to stop talking and start listening, there is a paradigm shift that will “begin a dialogue, a real dialogue where people are actually sharing ideas and actually listening to each other. We have to come from the perspective where we have a lot to learn by sitting down and listening” (personal communication, November 24, 2015). Listening is powerful, it is simple, and it is the basis in which relationships grow.
Listening to the experiences of others promotes relational growth. It validates what they have gone through, especially in cases where a member of the hegemonic group recognizes the adverse affects of their privilege. If we do not listen to others, the words of the marginalized become minimized and the existence and impact of oppression is denied (Sue, 2015, 8). Towards the end of Sue’s book which is focused on language and the importance of dialogue, he outlines ineffective and effective strategies for conversation aimed at reconciliation. It is important to understand the things not to do in order to avoid them more actively. First, it is ineffective to do nothing; we cannot simply leave injustice and inequality the way that it is if reconciliation is to happen. Second, we cannot sidetrack the conversation. This happens often when uncomfortable subjects such as racism or sexism comes up in an academic or formal setting, and the person that is facilitating the environment becomes uncomfortable. After they begin to feel uncomfortable, they change the subject and with the support of a few audience members, everyone is pushed along into the next topic and the importance of the uncomfortable topic is ignored. Third, you cannot appease participants in allowing the conversation to be sidetracked, in avoiding confrontation with points being made by a participant, or in ignoring deeper issues and focusing on the superficial. Fourth, it is ineffective to end the discussion. The subject of inequality can often heighten the emotions of the participants involved in the conversation, which can lead to some feeling uncomfortable and desiring to end the conversation altogether. However, if change is our end goal, this is not an effective solution to feeling uncomfortable. Lastly, we cannot promote change if we are to become defensive in conversation (Sue, 2015, 230-234). If we keep these things in mind, we are more likely to have a productive dialogue with others while listening to their experiences with being a part of a marginalized group.
Next, Sue identifies his nine strategies for a productive and successful conversation revolving around injustice. First, one must understand his or her own cultural identity and worldview. This insight into one’s life is necessary in order to recognize the role that privilege and/or oppression has played out in their experiences. We must recognize these interactions so that we can avoid responding defensively and support a more empathetic understanding of others’ experiences. Second, we must admit our own biases and prejudices, as it is an acknowledgement of the impact of power systems in our own lives. Third, in order to facilitate successful conversation you must be open and comfortable with highly emotive topics. We have explored throughout this paper the ways in which being confronted with oppression makes those that hold privilege uncomfortable, and it is essential to dismiss these feelings. Fourth, it is important to understand the meaning behind emotions that are caused by the conversation. For example, it can signify defensiveness if one were to say “I do enough for others already and I am not responsible for the way things are.” Fifth, we must validate the discussion of feelings. Studies have shown that this is an important step for both marginalized groups and privileged groups to feel heard and to wrestle with and process the particular ways that they are feeling. Sixth, the process of the conversation must be controlled, not the content. Constructive conversations can rarely be had if the content is being censored – instead, the process should be monitored so that it does not include any ineffective means of communication. Next, difficult dialogue cannot be allowed to sit in silence. If any difficult or awkward moments are reached, it may be easiest to not confront this; however, if there is a disagreement or an impasse, discussing the matter is seen to be more effective than letting it go. Eighth, participants within the conversation need have the ability to understand differences in their communication styles. If we understand differences in the ways that we communicate, we can avoid potential miscommunications in regards to things that are said which have been influenced by his or her social location, gender, race, etc. Lastly, Sue emphasizes the importance of being able to “validate, encourage, and express admiration and appreciation to participants who speak when it is unsafe to do so” (Sue, 2015, 243). It is important to recognize that for some people, participating in conversations regarding their marginalization can be threatening. Encouraging those that do this and validating their experiences through listening and providing appreciative feedback in an essential aspect to creating a safe space for conversation. These nine things help promote a more harmonious (yet not unrealistically so) and effective conversation which must be take place in order for oppressed groups to experience any sort or reconciliation.
There are many things that we can do and many things that we should do in order to minimalize the influence and effect of power groups in one another’s lives. This starts with something that seems incredibly simple but is often difficult to practice: listening. When we listen to others, we validate what they have to say. When we listen to those that are experiencing oppression, we are more prepared to take the steps required to eradicate social injustice. We tend to avoid these topics, but ignorance cannot be an excuse any longer for the perpetuation of inequality. We need courage and risk and vulnerability to be able to combat these issues, which we, as Christians have the obligation to do.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have explored the ways that power systems and privileged, hegemonic groups pervade every social institution and every person within our society. The functioning of this is reliant on a few key components – particularly the way that the dominant groups manage to hold their power and the focus that they keep on themselves – and is perpetuated through a lack of awareness and discussion. When we are made aware of the forms of privilege and the way that the flipside of it affects others, it cannot be ignored. Simply by discussing this with those that have experienced oppression helps validate what they have experienced and contributes to an effort made by those that identify with the privileged groups to rectify the injustices that they have seen.
Being made aware of oppression begins with listening to others and understanding the language that is involved. If there is a fear of the language or a lack of understanding, people generally react in defense of themselves, and therefore tend to say or think things like “racism is not real because I’m white and I have Hispanic friends, and I would never discriminate.” When people react in this way, dialogue is lost and so is the opportunity to combat injustice. There are many ways, big and small, that we can work on fixing systems of privilege – there are small risks that can be taken, such as making yourself uncomfortable by speaking out, and larger advancements that can take place when people set out to change the systemic issues. We must be able to listen to one another, hear each other’s experiences, and take them to be the genuine reality for some people in order to facilitate any advancement towards equality.
Musings of an ENFP 