Although all three of these readings are presented in a different context, I think that they all have an underlying theme and some important aspects in common. I think that in some way all of them touched on the things that go unsaid or unnoticed in society and how these things can provide us with obstacles for change. The White Privilege article deals with "unpacking the invisible knapsack" that whites have in our society and discusses how privilege can be taken for granted and assumed until people are made aware of the unfair advantage that it gives them. The Transformation of Silence article explains how once the woman found out that she had a certain time period to live she changed her life; she was no longer silent or afraid of what might happen if she spoke up, or to take Johnson's phrase, or if she went against "the path of least resistance." On the Rag also talked about how the group's failure to take unspoken individual differences and motives into account eventually led to its demise. While all of these authors were making their arguments in different contexts, I think that this notion of things that go unnoticed and unchallenged can represent the things that are causing obstacles for people in society. These readings also show how race can intersect with gender and how both racial minorities and women experience similar battles in society but with individual differences.
While reading the White Privilege article I thought of the discussion that I had in my Power, Politics, and Social Change class today. We talked about this topic of white privilege in relation to affirmative action and how whites often view affirmative action as a policy that is advantaging blacks while simultaneously disadvantaging whites. However, another way of looking at this is that affirmative action does not put whites at a disadvantage, it simply no longer provides them with the unfair advantage that they have been provided with throughout history--it removes their "invisible knapsack." This can be related to the movement for women's rights because policies that are "putting women at an advantage and putting men at a disadvantage" are simply just attempting to take away the automatic power, privilege, and control that men have fallen into just because of their sex.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like David, I also found the White Privilege article to be extremely interesting and reminiscent of ideas from other class discussions. In reading through McIntosh's list of "privileges" I couldn't help but notice that many of her so-called white "privileges" did, indeed, seem to be just a mirror to the extreme disadvantages of alternative races. For example, McIntosh claims : 5) I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. To me, this was not a particular advantage or privilege, but rather, the alternate option, being harassed in public settings, seems to be far more of a disadvantage to me than the alternative to a privilege. In the women's movement, McIntosh might say that men should feel grateful to have the priviledge of not fearing rape or sexual harassment to the extent that females must anticipate or fear attacks, but I would choose to look at this the other way: I think it is, indeed, important to first consider the disadvantages faced by a minority or oppressed and work from there in order to reach justice.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do think that McIntosh makes several valid points in her list of "privileges" and it is interesting to consider the alternative view of social injustice.
I found her idea about "preserving the myth of meritocracy" particular important and thought provoking. We have been speaking about the debate surrounding the design of the American government and constitution at the time of our founding, and this notion of whether or not a meritocracy was feasible/realistic occurred even in 1776, as many realist founding fathers (Such as John Adams) were skeptical as to whether or not meritocracy's could exist in a world clouded by natural aristocracies. To me, whites and men have undoubtedly emerged as these natural aristocracies today, and it is interesting to think about this in relation to Adams' ideas--especially because I am certain that he did not have racial or gender related aristocracies in mind, but rather socioeconomic classes.
Lauren and Jordan--I accidentally read the other article by Lorde on blackboard instead of the one we were supposed to read since I didn't see the new one posted. The other two are correct and the one I accidentally read kind of fits in. Sorry about that!
ReplyDeleteHi Lauren and David,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, no worries about the article mix-up; for some reason, your Blackboard page readings were all scrambled and out of order. Nice posts, regardless of what reading you did. David, your point about affirmative action is a very interesting one; this is a hugely loaded issue, and it's important to think about the ways in which language/perception of who is gaining/losing plays into our perception and attitudes. Your thoughts about McIntosh's language go right along with that, Lauren: you're right when you note that some of her "privileges" seem to be the way that things should be. Any thoughts on why she might have chosen to call these privileges, rather than to write about disadvantages that others face? Might there be a reason for this rhetorical strategy?