GCD Reflection 2.19.09

The Allan Johnson readings from his book Privilege, Power, and Difference were very effective for me in terms of thinking of new ways to explore social justice and the role I play in this work. The language that he used I found to be useful in that they articulated many ideas that I have tried to communicate to myself and to other people, but have been unable to find the words to express the intent. Throughout the course of the four chapters we read, I noticed feeling gratitude at having been provided a way to say what I want to be able to say.
I recognize the fact that Allan Johnson is situated in a role of having unearned advantages to his various overlapping social statuses (white, male, heterosexual, nondisabled, middle class), and that it may be as a result of my own internalized socialization to allow the viewpoints of the dominant groups to be received as the “right” way to say things. I did not find Barbara Love’s article to be inarticulate or in any way “inferior” to Johnson’s writing style, quite the opposite actually. However, I feel that the language used in Privilege, Power, and Difference was more accessible and graspable, and even if this is only because of the fact that Johnson has been able to benefit from the resources of academic training and development of language use and writing ability because of unearned advantages. This is something I would like to remain observant of throughout further research and readings.
I found a few quotes of his particularly resonant and useful to clarify my own ideas and opinions. “Privilege is always a problem for people who don’t have it and for people who do, because privilege is always in relation to others… Everything that’s done to receive or maintain it – however passive and unconscious – results in suffering or deprivation for someone.” I found that statements such as this and others were particularly useful to me in discovering a way to speak about social justice to those who benefit from unearned advantages due to social characteristics. I know from personal experience that I have been afraid to discuss sexism with men because of being accused of being a feminist. This reaction stops conversations before they can even begin. I feel somewhat more prepared to address the idea of the word “feminist” being an accusation or insult, however I do not believe I have the language set needed to be able to help guide those who have learned to become uncomfortable by words such as “sexism” or “privilege” to open their eyes to the idea that their discomfort is caused by social construction.
One of the very important concepts that I took away from the Johnson article was the idea of reclaiming the words used to address oppression. “We have to reclaim these lost and discredited words so that we can use them to name and make sense of the truth of what’s going on.” This point reminded me of the Inga Muscio book, Cunt, in which she is adamant to help the reader understand that fearing words gives words power, and that if women want to in anyway deconstruct the patriarchy, then they need to discover how to use the language of oppression constructively.
This is the beginning of developing a liberatory consciousness. I am beginning to understand that although I have been enmeshed in trying to make social change happen and deconstruct oppressive hierarchies, I have been falling short in addressing where I have been failing. Love’s guidelines to enabling a liberatory consciousness I have found useful in that I was able to read the Johnson article with awareness of the privilege he has in that he is able to write such a work, and analyze the usefulness of his language in that it will benefit me to use it to communicate with those who benefit from unearned advantages. Hopefully, I will be able to proceed with the action and accountability aspects of her guidelines by actually attempting to use the language he is presenting to engage in discussions with people whom I otherwise would be afraid of being accused as being an upstart feminist/activist.

***

I believe that it is essential for any method of grassroots organizing to address privilege and class, and especially how these are interconnected. As we learned in Bridging the Class Divide, a peace organization could not have been successful if it did not address privilege and class. I believe that the future of activism and social change is in bridging the divide between “isms” and movements. An interdisciplinary approach to organizing and activism is the only way that change will be made.
Barbara Love provides a useful toolset for anyone hoping to work at something related to social justice or organizing. I think that even if the goal of the organization is not specifically geared towards moving the dominant culture towards embracing social justice (such as environmentalist organizations or peace work), it is still crucial that if the group is hoping to work together and to be effective on a larger scale, the individuals of the group need to attempt to work towards developing a liberatory consciousness. This is because the current world state is in interdisciplinary trouble, and it will therefore require an interdisciplinary solution. If we as a people do not even grasp the idea of interdisciplinary work, then it is going to be significantly more difficult for the human species to come together to solve the multiplicity of troubles that plague the Earth.
Of course, certain issues can be embraced by the dominant culture and they can attempt to create solutions that are designed with only the dominant culture in mind. The “Go Green” movement is a good example of a serious problem (climate change and environmental degradation) that affects interconnected people who are separated by social construction and is caused by interconnected sources that are also separated by structures of oppression already in place. Although there are a lot of grassroots efforts going on that tackle environmental justice and the connections between social justice and sustainability, there is also a lot of manipulation of this issue by people with unearned advantages. Such as expensive products marketed to the white liberal middle-to-upper class bracket that allow this demographic to feel as if they are doing something to create a “solution”, and that other people, who are unable to perhaps afford such products or have access to resources that would help them make choices that favor sustainability, are part of the “problem”.
This is why a lot of the time movements and organizing efforts can have a one step forward, two steps backward effect. Awareness is raised about a particular issue, and if enough people seem to be interested about this issue, rest assured that the dominant culture will be able to use this issue as a way to benefit dominant culture whether it be through profitability of “hot topics”, production of “justifiable” methods of consumption, or the further pulling of the veil over the eyes of those who belong to dominant culture. “Privilege increases the odds of having things your own way, of being able to set the agenda in a social situation and determine the rules and standards and how they’re applied… It allows people to define reality and to have prevailing definitions of reality fit their experience.” So it is that those with privilege are able to decide what the issues are and are therefore the ones who decide what the solution will be. This is what is keeping a lot of people from waking up to the reality of what is hurting this world, and from developing their own liberatory consciousness and being able to create real change.
Grassroots organizing is the venue in which interdisciplinary approaches to gigantic interconnected problems can be understood and the individuals who participate in grassroots movements are able to free themselves from internalized oppression and learn to face their own privileges and unearned advantages and begin to understand the history and reality of privilege and oppression. Because interdisciplinary models of grassroots organizing, such as the Piedmont Peace Project, integrate the issues of class and privilege into their main goals (peace work) they are able to function as a unit and help each other understand the concept of interconnectedness and the relationship between problems (environmental degradation, unfair treatment, military spending) and privilege.