Thank you for raising the question of context. Since my remarks were born out of a discussion specific to a U.S.-specific contexts, I was referring to the structure of the U.S. (and similar societies) in the OP specifically. I agree that who is the minority depends on the context of culture, history and geography. But I stand by what you refer to as "some kind of flowchart hierarchy" because there always is one. The players might change based on context, but there is always a specific group in possession of power. The subversive group is almost always oppressed in some fashion. Might I suggest reading some Foucault on power?
I've read a couple of his essays, but haven't found them particularly compelling. I think he tries to imagine a forest where there isn't one, and misses the few, very large, trees right in front of him.
I honestly think that's a symptom of problems with the sociological field as a whole. The necessary education is a huge, expensive barrier to entry, and there's a lot of competition for not very many and not very well-paying jobs, so it ends up becoming a rich man's (or woman's) field because only they can afford to play. (Anecdotally, all the sociology grads I met through law school were by far the worst of the "jet-setting" crowd, though you may have had different experiences.)
As a result, oppression becomes a nebulous social force that manifests itself in the problems faced by rich people, rather than something generally perpetuated by rich people. So we have this weird scenario where oppression isn't the state's governor telling you that "your kind" isn't fit to rule yourself, and disbanding your elected government, like happened to (poor and black) Detroit. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) And oppression isn't the local chemical company seeing you as subhuman scum and negligently poisoning your water supply, like happened to (poor and white) West Virginia. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) Instead, oppression is the supermarket cashier being rude to you -- clearly because she has a biopolitical motive to control you.
It really, really seems like rich people have latched onto a justification for being able to say "I'm oppressed too." It's better than "I have to pay more taxes," but only very slightly.
Your view is fascinating. I can't say that I am compelled to agree but it is fascinating, none-the-less.
In an attempt to address your post, I am going to lay out my interpretation of what you stated, please correct me if I have misrepresented your views:
1. So, in a way, you believe in the "flowchart" of social hierarchy much like OP does but instead you see the rankings of this chart defined in dollar signs rather than color, gender, etc.
2. Your argument states that personal action, attitude, and speech is trivial by comparison to larger, more powerful forms of oppression like that seen in law, business practices, and governing bodies of all kinds
3. Addressing Societal Oppression as a problem in the context of everyday communication is merely a way for wealthy people to find something to complain about and/or make themselves a minority for the benefits of getting special recognition, sympathy, and/or political gain.
Assuming that I have correctly understood your post, I think you have a valid point in that it may not be the highest priority when it comes to fighting against oppression but I think you may have missed the larger picture that it feeds into.
There are still many civil rights issues that minority groups face in law, governing bodies, religious institutions, businesses, etc. These things are real and not subjective. An example: Atheists cannot hold public office in South Carolina and many other states. This is obviously oppression. Communication plays into these oppressive policies and circumstances by feeding the minds that agree with them. Many people don't mean it when they tell a racist joke, but a racist person who hears that joke may actually feel validated by it. The same is true in the context of the Ellen Pao controversy. If someone attacks her race in anger with no real racism meant, it may re-affirm another person's racism. This is what I believe OP was hitting on when she stated:
Any behavior that contributes to the culture of oppression, sometimes in seemingly insignificant or innocuous ways, perpetuates a societal structure of oppression.
Online posts and random comments here and there may seem innocuous and/or insignificant but they actually give validation to people who want to advance an agenda based on oppression.
I concur, however how will these racist jokes die? One may think that they are not throwing fuel onto the fire and continue to do so. At what point should this behavior be curbed?
Thank you for raising the question of context. Since my remarks were born out of a discussion specific to a U.S.-specific contexts, I was referring to the structure of the U.S. (and similar societies) in the OP specifically. I agree that who is the minority depends on the context of culture, history and geography. But I stand by what you refer to as "some kind of flowchart hierarchy" because there always is one. The players might change based on context, but there is always a specific group in possession of power. The subversive group is almost always oppressed in some fashion. Might I suggest reading some Foucault on power?
I've read a couple of his essays, but haven't found them particularly compelling. I think he tries to imagine a forest where there isn't one, and misses the few, very large, trees right in front of him.
I honestly think that's a symptom of problems with the sociological field as a whole. The necessary education is a huge, expensive barrier to entry, and there's a lot of competition for not very many and not very well-paying jobs, so it ends up becoming a rich man's (or woman's) field because only they can afford to play. (Anecdotally, all the sociology grads I met through law school were by far the worst of the "jet-setting" crowd, though you may have had different experiences.)
As a result, oppression becomes a nebulous social force that manifests itself in the problems faced by rich people, rather than something generally perpetuated by rich people. So we have this weird scenario where oppression isn't the state's governor telling you that "your kind" isn't fit to rule yourself, and disbanding your elected government, like happened to (poor and black) Detroit. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) And oppression isn't the local chemical company seeing you as subhuman scum and negligently poisoning your water supply, like happened to (poor and white) West Virginia. (Or at least there's no interest in talking about it that way.) Instead, oppression is the supermarket cashier being rude to you -- clearly because she has a biopolitical motive to control you.
It really, really seems like rich people have latched onto a justification for being able to say "I'm oppressed too." It's better than "I have to pay more taxes," but only very slightly.
Your view is fascinating. I can't say that I am compelled to agree but it is fascinating, none-the-less.
In an attempt to address your post, I am going to lay out my interpretation of what you stated, please correct me if I have misrepresented your views:
1. So, in a way, you believe in the "flowchart" of social hierarchy much like OP does but instead you see the rankings of this chart defined in dollar signs rather than color, gender, etc.
2. Your argument states that personal action, attitude, and speech is trivial by comparison to larger, more powerful forms of oppression like that seen in law, business practices, and governing bodies of all kinds
3. Addressing Societal Oppression as a problem in the context of everyday communication is merely a way for wealthy people to find something to complain about and/or make themselves a minority for the benefits of getting special recognition, sympathy, and/or political gain.
Assuming that I have correctly understood your post, I think you have a valid point in that it may not be the highest priority when it comes to fighting against oppression but I think you may have missed the larger picture that it feeds into.
There are still many civil rights issues that minority groups face in law, governing bodies, religious institutions, businesses, etc. These things are real and not subjective. An example: Atheists cannot hold public office in South Carolina and many other states. This is obviously oppression. Communication plays into these oppressive policies and circumstances by feeding the minds that agree with them. Many people don't mean it when they tell a racist joke, but a racist person who hears that joke may actually feel validated by it. The same is true in the context of the Ellen Pao controversy. If someone attacks her race in anger with no real racism meant, it may re-affirm another person's racism. This is what I believe OP was hitting on when she stated:
Online posts and random comments here and there may seem innocuous and/or insignificant but they actually give validation to people who want to advance an agenda based on oppression.
I concur, however how will these racist jokes die? One may think that they are not throwing fuel onto the fire and continue to do so. At what point should this behavior be curbed?