Oppression, privilege and relations of domination

We live in an unequal world structured along the relational divisions of class, race, gender, sexuality and other social divisions. How that inequality is understood and the extent to which it is justified has been the subject of a considerable amount of debate in popular culture and in the social sciences. Numerous books have documented various forms of social inequality in Western societies, including economic inequality, status inequality, sex and gender inequality, racial and ethnic inequality and inequalities between different countries. Many of these books concerned with sociological inquiry have also examined the sources of social and political inequality in modern capitalist societies and the ways in which social and political arrangements reproduce those inequalities.

To help understand the costs of inequality, other key concepts in the social sciences have also been used to explain the dynamics of modern capitalist societies, including: social exclusion, social divisions, social problems, discrimination, disadvantage, powerlessness, exploitation, oppression and, to a lesser extent, the concept of elites. While each of these concepts is important in illustrating the structural dimensions of unequal social relations and examining the costs of these relations for marginalised and oppressed groups, they do little to address the role played by those of us who benefit most from existing social divisions and inequalities. Nor do most of these books examine how these inequalities are reproduced by and through the daily practices of privileged groups.

Many writers on social inequality demonstrate the structural and institutional dimensions of social inequality and how it is reflected in political and legal institutions. Such theories of social dominance emphasise the importance of locating inequality within the context of institutional and structural arrangements. These theories have been significant in explaining the continuation of social inequality. They have certainly informed my own understanding of modern capitalist societies and they have shaped my own critical consciousness of structural inequalities.

However, most inequality theorists do not explore the responsibility of privileged groups for maintaining these social arrangements. Perhaps they consider it to be self-evident. But it is this self-evidence that, in part, lessens the responsibility that members of such groups have to challenge these unequal arrangements.

The other side of discrimination and oppression

One concept that would seem to provide a basis for holding privileged groups responsible is that of discrimination, whether this be in the form of class, race, sexuality, age or gender discrimination. There has been an explosion of social science literature dealing with the experiences of discrimination. While much of this literature acknowledges the structural basis of discrimination based on race, gender, class, sexuality and so forth, it is usually presented in terms of personal or group attitudes and prejudices. Terms like 'racist' and 'sexist' are used to describe people who stereotype and discriminate against others. However, such terms focus on the behaviour of individuals and groups and usually ignore the wider social context in which discrimination takes place. Mostly, the individual is blamed for being prejudiced rather than identifying the ways in which their behaviour is socially reinforced and normalised (Wildman and Davis 2000). In this way, these descriptions often hide the flipside of discrimination, which is privilege. We need to make privilege more visible rather than focusing on only one half of the system of inequality. The concept of discrimination places too much emphasis on prejudice and is too narrowly focused to address the complexity of dominant-subordinate relations.

In relation to the concept of oppression, there is a considerable amount of literature that focuses on the oppression of particular groups: women, gays, people of colour, and so forth. While it is usually recognised that dominant groups gain from the oppression of others, most books on oppression are concerned with changing the way the oppressed think and act. Considerable attention is given to how oppressed groups reproduce their own oppression.

Such writers emphasise how inequality is legitimated through a belief in the 'rightfulness' of existing social inequalities. However, when discussing which groups believe in the 'rightfulness' of the unequal distribution of rewards and resources, most social theorists emphasise the role played by the marginalised. It is suggested that subordinated individuals perpetuate their own marginalisation and oppression by internalising the ideas from the dominant culture into their psyches. Many people blame themselves for not achieving more in their lives because they are actively encouraged to do so.

One way that has been used to explain this accommodation is 'internalised oppression', which Pheterson (1986: 148) describes as 'the incorporation and acceptance by individuals within an oppressed group of the prejudices against them within the dominant society'. For example, some gay men may internalise homophobia and feel a lack of pride in their identity and their history.

This leads often to a concern with strategies to assist marginalised groups to challenge their oppression. Oppressed groups may accept, accommodate to or reject their subordination. The latter response is what Mansbridge (2001) refers to as 'oppositional consciousness'. Subordinate groups are said to 'have an oppositional consciousness when they claim their previously subordinate identity as a positive identification, identify injustices done to their group and demand changes in the polity, economy or society' (ibid.: 1). Such a term is seen to embrace race, class and other forms of consciousness of subordination. Oppositional consciousness encourages subordinate groups to identify dominant groups as oppressors. During the rise of second-wave feminism, gay liberation and anti-racist struggles by indigenous peoples in the 1970s, this critical consciousness of oppression was the basis of much social activism.

The concern is with the opportunities and capacity of the excluded to resist the forces of their exclusion. There is a danger here that those seen as socially excluded may be portrayed as reproducing their own marginalisation. This notion comes close to blaming victims for their own victimisation. To what extent can we charge those who are oppressed with not doing enough to challenge their oppression, while those who are privileged...