Link Between Oppression And Social Labelling Sociology Essay
As a member of a minority group this subject is something of interest and has personal relevance to my experiences living in a pre-dominantly white society. The absence of appropriate Asian role models in the media such as television, films, history, newspapers and in positions of credible political and economic influence, stimulated a natural process of personal questioning of identify. The social labels which surround us either positive or negative shape our perceptions of self and influence the kind of decisions we make. If we don’t understand the social fabrics of society in which self is developed and do not nurture a genuine inquiry into how oppression functions, we end up living those social labels. Some of these can be harmful and cause us to become disadvantaged even to the point of oppression of ourselves. It could be argued that this is an unlikely phenomena but psychological oppression is a well-researched and uncontested concept amongst academics. I am simply referring to and naming what it really is, “internalised self-oppression”.
This paper will attempt to examine the discourses and ideas which shape and influence our understanding of oppression as well as establishing a link between this and social labelling. Oppression as a concept has a very broad meaning and relates to different forms of minority groups in different ways. In this paper I will explore the relationship of oppression drawing on various forms of resources and information to support a particular perceptive. It should be recognised that oppression is not exclusive to race but impacts on other groups such as women, disability, age, sexual orientation and class with varying degrees of intensity and differences. However, for the purposes of this assignment I will specifically focus on the concept of race. I will present the four key criteria’s of oppression presented by Ann Cudd in her book Analysing Oppression (Cudd, 2006) and then focus on the effects of social labelling as phenomena. I will present a view that in order to understand oppression we must also understand the social systems, structures and influences that facilitates internalised oppression. My conclusion will aim to provide some suggestions towards highlighting how to end oppression and limit or reduce its effect on individuals who are exposed to the dynamics of oppression.
Defining layers of oppression
History literature books document oppression in different ways from religious repression, class differences, poverty and wealth, language and knowledge just to name a few (Kernohan 1998). Oppression is traditionally understood to relate to the loss of freedom, free choice, independence and capabilities due to actions of those in positions of power (Wartenberg 1992). Half a century ago, if asked the question what is oppression, many would refer to slavery or colonialism. In this day and age there is a greater understanding and awareness of oppression. Iris Young a respected author on the subject of power and oppression highlights how oppression has a much broader understanding making reference to “systematic and structural phenomena that are not necessary the result of the intentions of a tyrant. Oppression in the structural sense is part of the basic fabric of a society, not a function of a few people’s choice or policies”(Young, 1992, p. 176). In this respect oppression can be considered to be in the psychological and behavioural patterns of every member of society including those who are well meaning individuals whether they are aware of it or not.
Oppression as we once thought of is far more subtle, as Jean Harvey explains civilised oppression “involves neither physical violence nor the use of law. Yet these subtle forms are by far the most prevalent in Western industrialised societies” (Harvey, 1999, P. 1). Recognising different forms of oppression means decoding cultural and societal norms which do not clearly categorise or has a clear distinct oppressor. We all contribute to oppression in different ways and perpetuate forms of harm consciously or unconsciously, either to ourselves or to others (Harvey, 1999).
Ann Cudd helps us to explain this further by outlining four key criteria’s which are necessary and appropriate in increasing our understanding of oppression:
“Oppression must involve some sort of physical or psychological harm, though it may not be recognised as harm by the ones who are oppressed” (Cudd, 1994, p.25). So harm can be imposed without being self-conscious limiting one’s “freedom of choice relative to other in one’s society” (Cudd, 1994, p.25).
“Oppression is a kind of harm that individual members of group suffer by virtue of their membership in that group. aˆ¦harm that comes to persons because they belong to a group that they closely identify with, so that the harm attaches to their very self-image” (ibid). Individuals are not oppressed as individuals but due to their membership to a specific group, such as race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. Keith Vaz MP might not be considered as being oppressed although black men in society are. He has the same limitations as other black men who have less power in society and will have obstacles to cross that other white men take for privilege.
The third criteria, is what Cudd refers to as the ‘privilege group’ (Cudd, 1998). She makes the point that an individual who has membership to a group which benefits from the oppression is advantaged by their association and status. However, not every individual member of the group will be intentionally or knowingly benefiting but they gain from the membership to that group.
Oppression must involve some kind of coercion or force ((Cudd, 1994). Coercion is the lack of ability to make free choice. Cudd goes on to explain that “coercion is not the absence of all choice, but a lack of the right kind of choices, namely, voluntary choices” (Cudd, 1994, p. 27). Cudd suggests that this is what explains injustices of oppression.
A further dimension
My concept of oppression will focus on Ann Cudd’s coercion criteria with some variation. Not all coercion might be considered immoral as an explanation towards injustices of oppression. There are other forms of oppression, more subtle kinds which equally are not coercive such as psychological oppression. Prilleltensky and Nelson make reference to Sandra Bartky who states “To be psychologically oppressed is to be weighed down in your mind; it is to have a harsh dominion exercised over your self-esteem. The psychologically oppressed become their own oppressors; they come to exercise harsh dominion over their own self-esteem. Differently put, psychological oppression can be regarded as the ‘internalisation of intimations of inferiority” ((Isaac & Prilleltensky, 2002, p. 13).
In this respect there is no force or coercion; individuals will have the ability to make free choice in making decisions, so the lack of voluntary choice is not affected. Individuals who are psychologically oppressed become their own persecutors. The options are available to them but they are only likely to make decisions and choices which their culture or community demands of them. There are other forms of elements of oppression at work which are dynamic, fluent and interact, as oppression doesn’t occur in isolation but many forces come together in order to hold people in a state of oppression (Frye 2005).
Oppression is well documented throughout history and in literature. Particular references are made to slavery of the treatment of African slaves, the holocaust and the suffering and torture of European Jews. The systematic discrimination against sexual minorities including gay and lesbians ((Cudd, 2006). The disproportionate use of ‘stop and search’ against black minorities being seven times more likely to be stopped by the police compared whites ((Muffler, 2006).
The above examples make reference to the way in which physical ill-treatment is used to subjugate particular groups of people. However, the most efficient and effective way a society can propagate oppression is by a system of non-physical means transforming into a process of what we call negative labelling or commonly referred to as stereotyping.
There are many studies undertaken which highlight the effects of stereotyping on particular groups. This includes how these groups of individuals self-categorise themselves into positive or negative stereotyping which either way leads to negative and damaging effects. Michael Hogg refers to a study undertaken by Jost and Elsbach suggesting the link between stereotyping and power differentials as a negative force within social relations which results in distortion, control and false awareness of the oppressed groups reality ((Hogg, 2002). The element of control is imbedded into the consciousness of the individuals being stereotyped. Altshuller refers to the following quote by Jost and Banaji “those with power can control ideas, beliefs, and stereotypes in the same way they control other social and material resources and can thereby instil a ‘false consciousness’ in the powerless such that the powerless become complicit in their own disadvantage” ((Altshuller, 1999, p. 325). The weak become accepting of their position of being oppressed and psychologically become their own oppressors by self-limiting their opportunities and life chances. Cudd makes the following point, “it is not that they (the psychologically oppressed) will prefer oppression to justice, or subordination to equality, rather they will prefer the kinds of social roles that tend to subordinate them, make them less able to choose, or give them fewer choices to make” (Cudd, 2008, p. 114).
There has been varying degrees of research analysing the relationship between oppression and stereotyping which support findings that individuals who are negatively stereotyped adopt the stereotyping. This in turn sets into motion self-defeating beliefs which develops into limiting factors in accessing life opportunities. In a study conducted by Devos and Banaji they refer to how stereotyping leads to a type of phenomenon that results in self-stereotyping ((Banaji, et el, 2005).
However, stereotyping distorts the reality of the lived experiences of individuals who are being stereotyped. Sayers suggests that “the media influences our perceptions and that these perceptions then influence our behaviour towards stereotyped groups (Sayre, 2009, p. 318). So for example if we see a rebellious young teenage black adolescent, we may perceive him/her as having a violent culture in comparison to a white civilised European culture. Instead of challenging institutional oppression we use blame to shift the focus of responsibility (Cudd, 2006).
Stereotyping can be damaging in other ways. According to the theory of stereotype threat ((Laurie A. Rudman, 2008) “the existence of such stereotypes means that anything one does or any of the one’s features that conform to it make the stereotype more plausible as a self-characterisation in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in one’s own eyes” (Steele and Aronson, 1995, p. 797).
A further dimension to stereotyping is direct situational threat that arises through negative stereotyping. This relates to the risk of being treated or judged in a stereotypical way or even perhaps self-fulfilling the stereotype.
Immediate situational threat is another result of the negative stereotypes against a group. That is the threat of the possibility of being judged or treated stereotypically, or even self-fulfilling the stereotype. This stereotype threat, according to Stangor, “Can befall anyone with a group identity about which some negative stereotype exists, and for the person to be threatened in this way he need not even believe the stereotype. He need only know that it stands as a hypothesis about him in situations where the stereotype is relevant”(Stangor, 2000, p. 370).
There are many studies carried out exploring the relationship between stereotype threat and poor intellectual tests (Weiten, 2012). Different people will react differently to situational threat. Individuals will either blame themselves for their lack of achievements or internalise inferiority, both of which leads to lowering their rank and status in society (Aronson, 1995). Internalising the blame leads to individuals not feeling they have the ability or confidence to succeed, therefore they are likely not even to make any attempt. So for example, I have always wanted to paraglide. It might not be in my capabilities, so have never tried and never will. However, it will not affect my life opportunities, impact on my quality of life or leave me in an oppressed social status. Nevertheless, self-blame could cause to decrease and lower quality of life. If self-blame is used for our lack of success on our incapacities, it would make it problematic to identify and challenge institutional oppression. Self-blame is the final ingredient in maintaining oppression.
Realigning the balance
In order to redress the balance, there are different ways to overcome oppression in culture and attain a more egalitarian society. This requires personal commitment in challenging oppressive structure. It requires re-structuring of established institutions and the thought processes that influences them. It is helpful to remember that simply making policies to encourage change does not help, although policies give some direction reflecting where society is going, it does not simply “promote social justice and reduce oppression” (O’Connor, 2003, p. 20).
It is not a far-fetched view, that stereotyping is used to justify all kinds of harms on groups of individuals. Harm causes damage to one’s ability. Therefore any harm that violates one’s self and their development of human ability is a violation of universal and human rights (Nussbaum, 2001). The impact and effect of negative labelling attacks and destroys his/her sense of self image by violating their experiences. This violation occurs not only physically but through years of ‘training’ and being subject to negative messages, instilling a false consciousness and it is this which results in oppression.
All human beings have a right to live free of physical and emotional violations which results in any form of harm. Each individual has the right to dignity, self-worth, and to maximise their internal potential without the fear of abuse. Through self-stereotyping, if we lack the confidence that we do not have abilities then we are less likely to pursue and develop our capabilities.
However, simply having basic human rights is not sufficient to bypass the harm which oppression causes. Challenging cultural dynamics, religious practices and social norms which create the kinds of conditions for oppression to flourish should be confronted through education and providing information enabling individuals to make decisions and choices that do not violate their sense of self.
Developing influential role models that advocate and develop a collective identify regardless of their individuality can assist in developing images of credible and honourable representatives. Such individuals would help to counter the negative portrayal of groups which are likely to be exposed to some form of negative labelling.
Conclusion
The path to ending all forms of oppression is by far not an easy journey. More often than not minority leaders rarely challenge the structures or the system but instead they adapt to increase their own access to power. It is not uncommon that many minority leaders holding positions of influence create an impression of equality of opportunity which is reassuring to the privilege groups. However, this kind of representation could be damaging to the oppressed groups, as it distorts the reality of the oppressed, ignoring the very real problem with cultural oppression. This has the risk of overlooking the conditions and social problems which keeps people in their underprivileged positions. Rather than focusing on readdressing the system, oppressed groups are ridiculed, blamed and stereotyped for their circumstances (Segal, 2009).
To overcome the impact of self-stereotyping, simply ending social stereotype is not enough. More needs to be done to increase individuals’ ability and self-worth, so that every member of society can enjoy their true human rights. Social conditioning starts at a very early age, which defines our identity and the realisation of our ability or the lack of it. If we focus on countering the destructive stereotypes in our communities, then drawing our attention at children when they are young might be a start. This would include improving the quality of education and funding for the schools, but also ensure that funding is distributed equally to avoid creating a culture of differential treatment.
Education of adults is another element which would assist in reducing oppression. What is needed here is effective training that not only focuses on the future members of society but also on those individuals who are affected by oppression and stereotype threat currently. In this exists the challenge and the goal at reversing the stereotypes and reconstructing individual capabilities. Re-establishing and re-developing the undermined capabilities is our primary task here. Education which raises the awareness and empower oppressed groups should benefit from public support. There is no doubt that education itself is not just simply a cure to a complex range of dynamics such as oppression but it remains the most firmly established institution towards seeking restoration. An educational method originating and centred from the experiences of the oppressed is what is needed. In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire gives the following quote: “Just as the oppressor, in order to oppress, needs a theory of oppressive action, so the oppressed, in order to become free, also need a theory of action. The oppressor elaborates his theory of action without the people, for he stands against them. Nor can the people-as long as they are crushed and oppressed, internalizing the image of the oppressor-construct by themselves the theory of their liberating action. Only in the encounter of the people with the revolutionary leader-in their communion, in their praxis-can this theory be built (Freire, 2007, p. 183). Having leaders with integrity and institutional support are the necessary elements in the ending of oppression.
Greater understanding and awareness should be developed into making individuals motivation independent from the negative identities, so that we have a society that is built on strong ambitious people. As part of a broader community, restructuring the capabilities which have been damaged and developing people to an equal threshold of using their potential and capabilities. Encouraging positive perceptions of identity would result in opening up many different possibilities and experiences which is critical in undermining the negative patterns of thoughts and feelings which result in internalising the oppression. Reducing the patterns of oppressive thoughts would be one of the first challenges towards making progress in ending all forms of internal and external oppression.
