Inane Ramblings of a Wannabe Intellectual

[We take a break now from our regularly scheduled program for some random ramblings from Bekah's puny little raisin brain.]


I was thinking about this concept of oppressor-oppressed and...well...I'm always thinking about it at some level, really, but I saw this posted this on someone's fb recently:

‎"Do not be defeated by the
Feeling that there is too much for you to know. That
Is a myth of the oppressor. You are
Capable of understanding life. And it is yours alone
And only this time."
Some General Instructions, by Kenneth Koch

...and my immediate reaction to it was "well that's sorta stupid" to which I had to stop and ask myself WHY i thought it was stupid because really it's a pretty optimistic and empowering sentiment that probably should have inspired me. I suppose I could just be jaded and cynical (I can think of a few people who'd probably roll their eyes and say "you think?") but truth be told I'm not that cynical. I may be that cynical about church/organized religion, yes, but not about topics of oppression and freedom and liberty and education and knowledge. Plus, if you know me at all you know I talk a big game, but my opinions are rarely as extreme as I may act ¹. So I started to think about what bothered me about this quote, since in many ways it actually echoes my feelings and philosophies.

I think what bothered me about it was the reference to a nameless/faceless and yet supposedly ever-present "oppressor."

"Who is this supposed oppressor?", is the question that tugs at the back of my mind when I read things like this. Who are you rising up against? Who is this alleged naysayer who haunts our creativity and impedes our pursuit of knowledge?²

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that there are not real oppressors in this world, or that systems of oppression don't exist. Clearly they do, with very real, tangible, deeply ingrained consequences. The issue I find is not within the concept of oppression, or the idea that there are historical relationships between people/societies/cultures/etc. of oppressors-oppressed, or that that such relationships can and do evolve into systematic oppression which, in a way, becomes an organism of its own over which even the oppressors seem to wield very little power (like creating a monster and losing control of it - the basis of so many horror flicks and sci fi stories).

I think the real problem I have with many of these discussions or sound bytes or proclamations revolving around concepts of oppressor-oppressed is that they rarely seem to move beyond defining life and people in terms of dichotomies. This bothers me because often those who are shining a light on the reality of such dichotomies are, in fact, seeking to discredit the idea that life can be defined in terms of dichotomies in the first place; much feminist literature, queer theory, postcolonial theories, liberation theology etc. etc. seek to challenge the idea that people/life can be defined in essentializing terms/in terms of "us" and "them" dichotomies. Yet, instead of truly refuting "us" and "them" ideas, it seems like more often than not these brilliant thinkers end up defining themselves and humanity in terms of the us-them categories of oppressor-oppressed, perpetuating the very categories - albeit with different labels - that they seek to refute and dismantle.

In many ways these conversations seem to actually reinforce dichotomies and in doing so (and this is the part that I find the most problematic and unsettling) they seem to say, not so much in words as in practice, that identity essentially is defined in opposition to someone else, or in opposition to another identity or definition. The oppressed cannot exist without an oppressor. And while such definitions are useful in beginning the discussion and in helping people to recognize the systems of oppression, power and privilege that do exist and affect our lives, my opinion is that they are of little benefit beyond this initial stage of education and recognition of the situation.

The way I see it is this: defining oneself in opposition to something or someone else is extremely problematic, and it is problematic because not only does it pigeon hole people into particular, seemingly innate categories, but it begs the question: who are you once the "other" - to whom you define and compare your reality - person or concept or reality ceases to exist? If the point of such scholarship is to cease the perpetuation of oppression (as I hope it is), then the categories of oppressor/oppressed  too, in time, must cease to exist (theoretically).

What then?

It feels to me like at this point in scholarship we know who we are not (or who we don't want to be), but we don't have a clue as to who we are (or who we want to be).

I suppose in some sense I'm asking for an answer to the question: what would utopia look like? But isn't that what good scholarship should do? Shouldn't it be as visionary and creative as those works of art which shake us to our bones and not only shed light on the world as it is, but also force us to imagine an alternate reality? Shouldn't scholars, at some point, imagine a world in which oppression and dichotomous labels do not exist, instead of using the very labels and dichotomies they are opposing to present a different but equally dichotomous and limiting world?

Clearly this is a very broad consideration of this issue. I really am just basically free-writing on the topic because it's on my mind and I felt like it needed to escape my brain via my fingertips. There is a lot more complexity to it than I'm allowing here, and I recognize that. And of course I do think the scholarship or artistic lens that undergirds quotes like the one at the beginning of this post have their place, and I think amazing accomplishments have been made because of such scholarship, creativity and imagination. I just crave the day where someone takes the next step and imagines something new and different and actually breaks the mold of oppressor-oppressed and dichotomous identities.

That goal is, at the core, what spurs me towards pursuing further academic work. I want my academic peers and superiors to recognize that the initial, and even 2nd or 3rd waves of these ideas are tools, not the goal, and ought to be left on shore once we've crossed the river and begun our trek through the woods.³ I think too often we get so attached to these ideas - as revolutionary as they may be at the time of their inception - that we refuse to let them go when they cease to be useful, or to propel us forward. And that's what I feel I find myself reacting negatively to, even in such good-willed sentiments as the one that spurred this babbling.

...

Um...anyway, I think that's enough for now. I'm getting tired, and this could go off in so many directions and ways that I should probably just stop now before I write an entire book's length post (or have I already?).

[You survived. If you actually read this thing, thanks for bearing with me as I ran around in the garden of ideas. And if you caught that reference, I owe you a beer.. If you read the footnotes, gold star to you and I owe you a beer. And if you didn't read a word of it: I don't blame you. But you owe me a beer. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming!]

1 And such extreme expressions of opinions are more of a defense mechanism than anything else, really. It's a really good way to cut things off when I don't want to be in a particular conversation. And yes I did just use a footnote in a blog post. Academia has seeped into my bloodstream. And yeah. I did make it with html code. I am so cool.

2 Of course, I realize this is a quote from a poet and I'm responding to it as if it was from a scholarly journal. However, this was being posted by an academic and used in order to illustrate an academic point, therefore I think it's fair to analyze from an academic/scholarly lens. Also, I am thinking more and more than academia/scholarship and art are two sides of the same many-faced dice. I could take up an entire book explaining what I mean by that, but suffice it to say that both mediums seek to observe, interpret, re-interpret and re-invent the world from a particular viewpoint. They try to help you see the world in a new way and both are only effective and exciting when they are creative, original, and tap into something that resonates with the reader/viewer/listener/consumer. So in that sense, I think it's appropriate to look at art from an academic lens and vice versa.
3 A reference, if you're not familiar, to a saying attributed to the Buddha in which he once again tries to teach us non-attachment. The "parable" of sorts is that his teachings/the teachings of Buddhism are like a boat. When you're crossing the river you need the boat. But when you arrive on the shore, you leave the boat behind. To carry it with you and cling to it because it got you to shore would be foolish and counter-productive. You don't need it any more so leave it behind and move on.