You are criticizing the utility of a tool for a thought practice that you don’t appear to practice yourself. You seem to think you know more about that tool than those who make a practice of using it. You are entitled to an opinion, but it doesn’t seem to be one based in experience.
The only requirement for oppression is that you’re weak and powerless. But sometimes you’re weak and powerless because you have bad ideas that don’t work well. Other times, it’s just a matter of circumstance.
I’m not criticizing anyone’s use of it for psychotherapy or other personal purposes. Or even when used in limited ways to allocate resources. I just don’t think it should serve as a core idea of a political ideology. It isn’t universal enough.
Cite please?
I’ll trust the (skilled) people who have experience with it. Your criticism of it seems more based on ideological distaste than anything else.
Orlando Florida
All of them, really. Public resources are basically zero sum. Allocate more to one group on the basis of them being at the intersection of multiple minority axes, and less goes to others. I’m not even claiming this is wrong in a public policy sense, but we should be honest about it.
I find that part rather difficult, actually. If you’re prone to rumination and you’re not particularly competitive, individualism can be a poor fit. I think there are trade-offs, but one reason I’m attracted to Zen is because it sheds the accumulated bullshit of being a self, and I find my sense of self very burdensome at times. I’ve fallen off the meditation wagon in the last couple months, but my favorite part of Sangha is when I go in and sit down and suddenly remember none of this shit actually matters.
I think it’s the nature of Westerners to take everything they think very seriously. It’s certainly true of me. Letting go of that, even for a little bit - that’s very peaceful.
I’m not saying I wish I was born in Japan or anything. I’m just saying it’s all a trade-off, and a little more balance can be helpful.
“Oppression” carries very strong connotations of unjust dominance. There really isn’t any mainstream concept of oppression that isn’t fundamentally enmeshed with notions of good/bad, right/wrong, etc.
Can’t argue with that!
But really, I can’t say I’m choosing Western Civilization over anything else, I just have lived in it my whole life, and don’t have any experience with alternatives. I’m happy to rule out some alternatives, but I don’t feel like I have the knowledge to rule out all of them. I don’t even know what all of them are!
Eh, to a certain degree it only requires the desire to not be a hypocrite; very few people approve of oppression when they are the ones being oppressed. It’s a common pattern that supposedly deeply held and important principles used to justify ruthless and selfish behavior are abandoned the instant someone ends up on the wrong side of them.
Very few people believe might makes right once they lose their might.
It’s an opinion; I don’t need a cite. Kimstu can present their opposing opinion if they like.
I could give some examples of course, like that the homeless are considered oppressed because their very situation means that applying the same laws to them as the rest of the public affects them more (Anatole France understood this well). The only quality affecting their situation is their powerlessness, and thus is the only factor in their membership in the oppressed class.
That’s Kant’s categorical imperative, essentially.
In response to the OP, some common examples would be 1) Islam in Western nations and 2) racism by minorities against each other and 3) a double standard between how the West is supposed to treat immigration and how non-Western nations treat immigration.
-
Progressives often champion the plight of Muslim immigrants in the USA and Europe - and, to be sure, Muslims can face discrimination. But they often take it to the point where they cut Islam far more slack for its sexism, homophobia, bigotry and whatnot than they ever would cut the ‘dominant’ religion, Christianity. It’s like progressives see Muslims as so oppressed that they forget that Islam itself is plenty oppressive. If a Christian sect forced women to cover their bodies head to toe, there’d be an outcry, but if Muslims require burqas, “Well, that’s just their culture. We need to be openminded.”
-
Black people and Asians can be very racist to each other; black Americans can even be bigoted against African immigrants.
-
If the West opposes immigration, then it’s racist, but if a nation like Japan refuses to take refugees or immigrants, “Well, that’s just them doing their thing; they have a right to run their nation the way they want to.”
I thought you were referencing a common definition, but if not, OK then.
But again, all of those attitudes require associating the concept of oppression with injustice, badness, wrongness; whether or not you apply that critique in a morally consistent fashion.
The concept of oppression, as generally understood, requires a moral framework to be meaningful. So Dr_S is off base when he claims it’s being used as some kind of postmodern remnant independent of moral frameworks.
But in which direction does this flow? If most of the time, unjust action led to oppression, then oppression will pick up that connotation. But then it will be falsely applied in the opposite direction, where actions are considered unjust solely because they could be considered oppression.
Lots of people seem to think prisoners are oppressed, even when they’ve committed clear-cut crimes. The state has taken away their freedoms and thus they are powerless. The fact that they committed crimes seems to play a weak role.
I agree. It’s an inherently moral idea.
Again, I don’t know any serious person who thinks good and bad don’t exist. I think some progressives just don’t find the same things morally repugnant.
I wrote a novel that includes a character who is a sex worker, without commentary on its goodness or badness.
Does this mean I operate from some post-modem ethical framework? No. It means I view sex work as morally neutral, at least to the point I don’t feel like moralizing about it in my book. It’s pretty clear from reading my book there’s a lot of other stuff I have a problem with. Including a lot of different kinds of oppression!
It’s a simple fact, backed up in multiple studies, that a core value of progressives is justice. We really don’t like when things are unfair. It’s not really more complicated than that.
People’s view of that will depend on what they see the purpose of prisons being. Are they for punishment, separation from society, or rehabilitation? If you believe prisons exist to punish people for crimes, you will have more tolerance for conditions that cause suffering. (Up to a point.)
I wouldn’t. If the purpose of prisons were to punish people, I’d support very comfortable conditions (because I think punishment for the sake of punishment is reprehensible). If on the other hand I thought the purpose was to be a disincentive to crime, I’d support at least moderately uncomfortable conditions.