Breaking the Oppressive Cycle [Justice and the Politics of Difference, Chapter One]

[Katherine]

During class today, just as time reached 2:45, we began talking about the idea of oppression and domination. The conversation was geared towards the fact that the concept of oppression and domination is a system; they function in a cyclical way. On page 38 of the text, in the last paragraph, oppression is defined loosely. It reads "oppression usually includes or entails domination, that i,s constraints upon oppressed people to follow rules set by others...not everyone subject to domination is also oppressed." If oppression is so systematic and routine, how do you suppose Iris Marion Young would suggest breaking that cycle, and who is involved [who is oppressed versus dominated]? 

[henshawb]

One thing that interests me about this post is that there is clearly a distinction between oppression and domination, and domination appears to not have the same negative connotation as oppression.  We are all dominated, ie, the government sets rules for us to live by, but we are not all oppressed.  I guess it would be possible to argue that the average white male is dominated by the government, while someone in a minority group who is discriminated against by the rules set in place would be oppressed.

[marchellos]

Young says that oppression and domination can overlap in some areas, but can also be distinguished. In class we used the example with atoms.  A single atom can have power over the other atoms, so some people have power while others don't.  Domination is similar to privilege in the way that most Caucasian males have privilege therefore they are the atoms who power over the other atoms.  What helped me understand domination and oppression was the alternative to distribution model which is oppression and domination. 

[aropa]

Beyond that, I think if and when we begin to view the relationship between domination and oppression in an individuals and systems as being connected to each other through a dynamic correlation.  If we use it as a replica for thinking about the world and ourselves, it will become easier to bring social issues like racism, sexism, and ableism out into the open and talk about them more often.  Furthermore, it will become easier for us to see these problems in relation to us, and more importantly to see ourselves in relation to the problems themselves.   

[iversonm]

Interestingly enough, one of the things I really haven't been clear on in our readings thus far happens to be what Young would propose as a solution to the issues of injustice she examines. I suppose it's something that she'll address more directly in later chapters, but as for now the best I can do is infer her approach. In terms of eliminating oppression, I feel that a complete overhaul of the structures that perpetuate oppression would be necessary. We've looked at oppression in the work force specifically, and that in and of itself isn't an easy issue to tackle. To restructure the work world would be no simple task. The hierarchy of employment we deal with today comes as a result of living in a capitalist society, and though unjust in many ways, it's largely functional. To eliminate injustice and oppression in the workplace, we'd somehow have to eliminate menial jobs. The unfortunate truth about this is that someone has to perform menial tasks to keep our society running smoothly. So the question still stands, "How do we address this issue?". The closest thing to a solution I could offer oddly enough falls in line with a distributive view of things, at least in a sense. We'd have to somehow dole out menial jobs in equal amounts to people from all social groups. Sadly, that's not really a solution at all; as Young would be quick to point out, such an approach disregards the metaphysical concerns of individuals. To be honest, I have no idea how we could realistically eliminate injustice and oppression. It's tough to make everyone happy, and it seems that what we're gunning for here is a utopian society. The kicker is that utopian societies usually just collapse in on themselves due to some underlying form of injustice that everyone turns a blind eye to. The way I see it, either we go on oppressing each other and being fairly miserable about it, or we start burning books and turning people into soylent green. That's grim and sarcastic, yes, but I'll gladly hear any plausible solutions from anyone else. Maybe I just need to think outside the box here. 

[johnsond]

I feel that this question is relevant and is really the tipping point to whether oppression can be eradicated. Are our preconceived prejudices, whether a group's or individual's, conditioned or are they innate? (What i mean by innate is that we naturally disregard people different than ourselves and naturally seek our own advancement.) Frankly, I believe them to be a little of both. If they are conditioned, then they can be unconditioned. If they are innate, then they cannot be changed. 

[xiey]

Instead of trying to find a way to break this systematic oppression, I think in Young’s opinion, the first thing we should do is correct our inertial thinking about the distributive paradigm. Only by doing that we can get a better understanding about the social structure and institutional context, also recognize the existence of domination and oppression in the most objective way. Finally, this procedure enables people to deal with the social hierarchy, and further, injustice directly.

[kinnahanc]

I think it is also our responsibility as members of society to make others who might not be aware of certain kind of oppression, aware of what's going on. Not only that, but create different ways for the oppressed to deal both individually and as groups with what is happening to them. Some people may not even understand that they are oppressed or oppressing someone until they are more educated about what forms oppression can fall under. Sometimes forms of oppression are so built into society that no one considers them important anymore, even though many people are negatively effected on a daily basis. 

[vegliam]

I agree that informing people in a society that oppression exists will help not only decrease the actual act of oppression but perhaps the division of social groups and classes in general. Although there will always be a division of social groups (and oppression on that note), I believe that in certain communities the gaps between social groups could become closer if the awareness of the negative effects of oppression are presented. Having closer social groups could intern help the idea of impartiality become more legit. Having people more closely related and under the same understanding they will be able to be understanding yet impartial.

[crooksk]

If social classes were to come closer, such as the middle class in the United States for example getting closer to the lower class, then it would just increase the 99% and 1% argument.  Right now we have several different social classes: the lower class, the lower middle class, upper middle class, and upper class.  Some proponents of the 99 vs. 1 theory believe that those groups do not exist, but right now they do.  If the middle class was to be pushed toward that lower class, it would turn into the upper class against the lower class and the 99 vs. 1 percentages would be true.  The 1% of the population in the upper class would hold most of the assets and the 99% lower-middle class would hold less.  This is why the middle class is important (in this example and in our society), because it balances out society.

[Aleasha Andrews]

In order to break this cycle we must consider everyone in the system as equal. We cannot allow ourselves to move forward into an ethical community unless we break this system done. In order to do this I believe Young would suggest that we recognize that we are the ones being oppressed or the ones dominating. If we find that we are in that group, we can break down the system within. In addition, those who are dominating are aware of this and they need to begin to understand that they are dominating and listen to the voice of the oppressed.