Defining the Wires: Socoiopolitical Realities 101

Philosopher Marilyn Frye invites us to
[c]onsider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced. (Frye, 1983, The Politics of Reality).

 

In my journey as a sociopolitical ally and human becoming, I have found myself in many a heated debate about a) the existence of the birdcage above (aka oppression), as well as b) the sturdiness of each of its wires. When these debates have been with professional colleagues, I have found myself HORRIFIED, at times, by the unchecked biases and prejudices that informed some of my colleagues' personal and clinical worldviews. This horror does not arise from the belief that I am perfect, or that I have no biases or prejudices. I am not perfect, and I do have biases and prejudices that I have a professional, ethical, and moral obligation to debunk, reduce, and eradicate. Rather, the horror arises from the empirically-supported perspective that a large amount of the healing in mental health work arises from the relationship between the client and clinician--and that biases, prejudices, and microaggressions hurt that relationship--thereby hurting the overall efficacy of the clinical work. (Not to mention reifying systems of oppression, replaying past hurtful experiences when someone is most vulnerable, etc.)

Unfortunately, when these past debates have occurred, I hadn't yet fully grasped how unusually excellent my graduate program's cultural competence training was--nor was I versed in how to teach diversity. I'm still working on the latter...and now have a better grip on the former. ;)

This post, as well as the next several posts, will lay the groundwork to engage in a diversity-informed social justice dialogue. Their content could be brand new, old hat, or somewhere in between for you. Please read them before making claims such as the US being a "post-racial society," feminism being about "hating men," people with disabilities being "so courageous!" etc.

First up is the 

ADDRESSING Model:

• Which is a mnemonic framework identified by Pamela Hays that illuminates the many cultural influences that shape our identity, as well as these influences’ relationship with the social construct of power.
• ADDRESSING =
• Age
• Developmental and acquired 
• Disability
• Religion
• Ethnicity and race
• Socioeconomic status
• Sexual orientation
• Indigenous heritage
• National origin
• Gender 
• Many diversity-informed clinicians use this model to familiarize themselves with the numerous and intersecting identities of clients and others.

A cute and culinary interpretation of the ADDRESSING model. ;)

So what is this elusive, seemingly intuitive construct of power, that underpins a lot of social justice work?

Power:

• Definitions of power vary widely, with one of the main conceptual differences being “power to do” v. “power over.” 
• Power can be conceptualized as:
•  A resource, that can be possessed in greater or lesser amounts, that renders somebody capable of doing something. In interactional and interpersonal terms, power is the likelihood that an individual within a social relationship can carry out her/his will, in spite of external resistance. Moreover, "[t]otal power is unconditional access; total powerlessness is being unconditionally accessible." (Young, 1990; Pitkin, 1972; Weber, 1978; & Frye, 1983).
• Finally, power can be understood in terms of its affect on the social construction of reality. Power is "the ability to define reality and to convince other people that it is their definition" (Nobles, Dr. W.).

Power exists among individuals, groups, and institutions. Therefore,

Institutional Power:

• is the ability or official authority to decide what is best for others, who will have access to resources, and the capacity to exercise control over others.

With most forms of power comes 
Privilege:

• Or the advantages that people benefit from based solely on their social status. Privilege is not, and cannot, be seized by individuals--rather, it is conferred by society to certain groups. Privilege is usually invisible to those who have it--often leading to a phenomenon known as "privilege denying."
• Privilege operates on personal, interpersonal, cultural, and institutional levels and gives advantages, favors, and benefits to members of dominant groups at the expense of members of target groups. In the United States, privilege is granted to people who have membership in one or more of these social identity groups:
• White people
• Able-bodied people
• Heterosexual people
• Men
• Christians 
• Middle or owning class people
• Middle-aged people
• Native citizens
• English-speaking people

• At its essence, privilege is about how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being "normal," and others being the deviation from "normal."

Many people, including those with and those without significant privilege have
Prejudice:

• Or a judgment or opinion that is formed on insufficient grounds before facts are known or in disregard of facts that contradict it. Prejudices are learned and can be unlearned.

Prejudice sometimes leads to
Stereotype:

• Or an exaggerated or distorted belief that attributes characteristics to members of a particular group, simplistically lumping them together and refusing to acknowledge differences among members of the group. (As in fabulous video below.)

 

Once someone/something has power and prejudice, (s)he/it can engage in

Oppression:

• Which, put quite simply, is power + prejudice. Oppression can be conscious or unconscious; individual, group, or systemic.
• Marilyn Frye reminds us that "[t]he root of the word 'oppression' is the element 'press.' The press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press a pair of pants; printing press; press the button.Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gases or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce” (Frye, 1983, The Politics of Reality).
• Therefore, the combination of prejudice and institutional power creates a system that discriminates against some groups (often called “target groups”) and benefits other groups (often called “dominant groups”). Examples of these systems are racism, sexism, ableism, classism, ageism, heterosexism, and religiuos discrimination. These systems enable dominant groups to exert control over target groups by limiting their rights, freedom, and access to basic resources such as health care, education, employment, and housing.

Often, when we think of oppression, we think of it as something external. However,

Internalized Oppression:

• Is quite common, and is the process through which the power and influence of the dominant group pushes oppression and oppressive beliefs within target groups and members of target groups. Internalized oppression is characterized by target groups' belief in the prejudices, stereotypes, and lies that dominant groups propagate about them. 
• Internalized oppression can be projected inward, via low self-esteem, self-doubt, and self-loathing, as well as outward via fear, criticism, and distrust of members of one’s target group.

Sometimes, psychological and sociological principles contribute to prejudices, stereotypes, and systems of oppression.  This helps us understand these phenomena--but does not excuse them. One such principle is the

Confirmation bias:

• Or the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. 

Another example is the
Fundamental attribution error:

• Which places a heavy emphasis on internal personality characteristics to explain someone's behavior, rather than considering about external situational factors 

Moreover, when we interact with others, we are responsible for both our intent and our impact.
Intent:

• The purpose or design with which something is done.

Impact:

• The effect or force exerted by an idea, concept, statement, action, etc. 

Ideally, the two will go hand-in-hand--and we're all human, and we all oops sometimes.

The key is knowing that intent and impact are not the same--and that we must accept responsibility for both. Even when our intent was not hurtful--if the impact was, we need to own it, and make amends.

Some derivative of the above terms manifests in most people's lives daily through forms of

Microaggressions:

• Brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, socioeconomic status (SES), age, religion, national origin, etc.

or

Macroaggressions:

• Aggressive acts, whether intentional or unintentional, that support large-scale, macro-level injustice, often related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, socioeconomic status (SES), age, religion, national origin, etc.
• In contrast with microaggressions, macroaggressions are more likely to be committed by an individual with a large amount of power, or by a system.

And that's Sociopolitical Realities 101 according to Dr. Alison! Congratulations--you made it to the end! Have a cookie or other treat of your choice. :)