Dismantling Race, Class, and Gender - Essay Example

?Dismantling Race, and Gender It is undeniable that in life some people are well positioned than others. Most times, it is not as if they did anything special to deserve what they are, who they are or what they possess. It is often a case in which the circumstances that surround their birth, who they were born as, the colour of their skin, the child of whom they are and the general prevalent situation of the clime in which they were born (Barker 436). Some of the privileges enjoyed include being white, male or/and wealthy. By and large in the many societies, these sets of people are easily favoured because of the circumstances surrounding their birth. In Dismantling Privilege—An Ethics of Accountability, what Hobgood the author simply does is to reveal how certain group of people in the society are made to undergo suffer because of some of the features they possess or because of the circumstances surrounding their birth. What Hobgood eventually reveals is that some of the victimised and some of those that dish out victimisation may not recognise that they are involved in it. Class, race and gender systems construct different identities through unjust power arrangements. These systems are patterns of relations that elites reproduce through their ownership and/or control of the major institutions in the society (Hobgood 1). Every race seems to be wired to think of itself as superior to others. Many people even believe that if a person comes from any other race apart from theirs, such a person does not deserve to get any attention from them. This superiority complex has been attributed as the reason colonialism thrived in the manner it did. Colonialism succeeded because the whites – the colonisers – were of the opinion that their race was superior to every other race in the world. They went around to parts of the world that were yet to be explored with the intention of being lord and master over those people. In many of the places they went, the culture of the locals was rubbished. The colonisers were often involved in the act of saying that they discovered things the locals had been using for a very long time, even before the birth of the colonisers themselves. It was so bad that the coloniser had to share the colonies amongst themselves without consulting the people whose daily lives were affected by the sharing. This is only a tip of the iceberg of what the segregation as a result of race has caused. Obviously, as in her book, the opinion of Hobgood is the same with this. So, in this regard, what she succeeds in doing is to deepen many of my long-held opinions. It is important to mention that at many points in history, race, class and gender have adversely affected the growth and development of humanity. There have been periods in human history when women were not recognised in anything. During this period, they were completely inconsequential (Purvis 40). During that period, it was really a man’s world in which a woman was only supposed to be who the man says she is. Religious institutions did not even help the plight of women (Blevins 21). Women got little or no education. They could not even vote or be voted for at some point. It is very certain that during that period of time, many women who had potentials for greatness were denied a chance to bring their endowments to reality. Of course, as repercussion, not only those women will suffer from it, even the society would suffer from the consequences. This also is very much in line what Hobgood expresses. Assumptions about human behaviour that members of market societies believe to be universal, that humans are naturally competitive and acquisitive, and that social stratification is natural... (Gowdy 291) In many societies of the world, there is social stratification. In such societies, certain unseen borders are automatically created when people are divided into classes based on their social means or capability. In such societies, the wealthy is the master and the poor is the servant (Barnard 379). The wealthy are the elite of the society while the poor are the illiterates. The poor are in perpetual servitude to the rich. This kind of environments is often rife with rebellion and recalcitrance which is often displayed by the downtrodden (the poor). The irony of it all is that this situation is often viewed from two opposing points of view by those concerned. While the benefitting upper class wants the status quo to be maintained, the suffering lower class is all out in pursuit of change. There is also the idea of one class being a social burden on another class. The truth is that all social classes are burdens on one another, one way or the other. But it is often the case that each class says only that which suites members of its class (Gidden et al 206). For instance, in a capitalist society (which is a society that greatly engenders the emphasis of differences), it may be argued that as much as the lower class is a burden on the upper and middle class, the middle and upper classes are also burdensome in some ways on the middle class. But, depending on one’s view point, one class is more burdensome than the other. If an arguer is socialist-inclined, the capitalist is more burdensome. If the arguer is more capitalist-inclined, the labourer is more burdensome. Here a clarification from my personal socialist point of view. The capitalist is a business entrepreneur whose primary goal is not the wellbeing of his workers, all the capitalist is concerned about how profit can be optimised (even at all cost). Shifting over a bit to the capitalist side of the coin, the capitalist is of the opinion that he has every right to get whatever he wants to get from his worker because he has done his share by paying the workers their salaries. This is where Hobgood’s postulation of the demolition of class, race and gender barriers comes in. What Hobgood proposed will largely bridge the gap between the poor and the rich. Hence, there may no longer be need to wonder which social class is more burdensome. The implication of breaking the barrier of class is that there will no longer be classes. All human will be equal. It is said in George Orwell’s Animal Farm that all animals are equal but some are more equal (Orwell 11). In this case, all animals will be equal and there will no longer be “more equals.” Hobgood’s postulation has soft spots for socialism because no genuine capitalist will ever think along Hobgood ‘s line of thought. Like every other obstacle to proper human relations, the impediments posed by social class need to be totally removed. This is exactly what Hobgood advocates. Her opinion does not in any way counter what I have always believed. On the contrary, it has reiterated by position. One must state that it may be inconvenient for those concerned to effect a change. For the bourgeois, this change does not come on a platter of gold. Most times, as a result of the fact that they have power, they often use everything within their means to stand on the way of change. On the other hand also, change for the proletariat is never easy. Most times, many of them usually often wait to be pushed to the limits of the wall before they move to act to change their fate. At times, those persons that benefit from inequality do not even know that they benefit from it. (Or should one say that they would rather live in denial). For instance, in a society where there is a dichotomy between whites and blacks, some whites are just ripping the result of the activities of their forebears. As James Baldwin says White people are trapped in a history they do not understand ( Ayers 42). Similarly, most men have never experienced what it is like to be a woman neither do many rich people know what it is to be poor. However, this does not mean they should not work towards having a state in which equality is paramount. This is in line with what Hobgood advocates. Besides, it must be clearly mentioned that all human beings, at their worst or at their best, are the same. One should not forget in a hurry the fact that all human races, gender, colour or class have elements of the abnormal in them. In a situation in which there is not equality of status, a situation in which the boundaries of colour, race, gender and class are supreme, the group that sees itself as superior would deemphasise or even deny its own abnormality while emphasising the abnormality of other. In accordance with Hobgood’s stand, when all groups of persons are seen as equals, all elements of abnormalities will become inconsequential. It is important to mention that in as much that everyone is entitled to their opinion, one might have course to disagree with the opinion of some people. Even though my personal opinion is largely in tandem with that of Hobgood, the point where she says that some of the perpetuators of an oppressive act do not know it seems to be too big to swallow. It must be mentioned that even human beings who claim that they are dead to their conscience still have their supposedly dead conscience calling back at them. The point being made here is that it is impossible for anyone to say they are totally unaware of the fact that they are from an oppressive system. Against all forms of inequality, according to Mary Elizabeth Hobgood, there is one solution—a politics of solidarity. This is very much in line with what Marxist philosophers stand for. When all those that are wronged realise that they have a common enemy and they cannot defeat this common enemy by challenging him or her personally. They can only attain victory in their fight by coming to together (Hobgood168). According to Karl Marx, a time will come when the oppressed can no longer take oppression, so they will rebel (Lenin 35). But their rebellion can be successful only if they form a united front. Rasmussen also reinstate this when he supports the idea of involving all of human in efforts aimed at achieving development and power sharing in a way that would please all concerned (13). It must be stated that Hobgood makes many valid points, many of which are in line with my personal line of thought. As earlier observed, the only point where her opinion slightly counters mine is when she says that it is possible for the victimiser to live in denial of the fact that they are benefiting from the wrong started by their progenitors. Work Cited Ayers, Bill. Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist. Massachusetts: Beacon. 2001. Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage. 2005. Barnard, Alan "Images of hunters and gatherers in European social thought," Eds. Lee Richard B. and Daly Richard H. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, p. 379. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Blevins, Carolyn D. Women in Christian History: A Bibliography. Macon, Georgia: Mercer Univ Press, 1995. Giddens A. et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th ed. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2007. Gowdy, John. "Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market." Eds. Lee Richard B. and Daly Richard H. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2006. Hobgood, Mary E.  Dismantling Privilege—An Ethics of Accountability.  Cleveland: Pilgrim Press. 2000. Lenin Vladimir. Karl Marx: A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition of Marxism. Peking: Foreign Languages Press. 1967. Orwell George. Animal Farm. Fairfield: 1st Literary World. 2004. Purvis, June. "Women's History Today," History Today, Nov 2004, Vol. 54 Issue 11, pp 40- 42. Rasmussen, Larry. "Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice: Moral Theory in the Making?" Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 24 (2004) 3-28. Read More