Privilege and Power

The condition of possibility of power… should not be sought in the primary existence of a central point, in a unique space of sovereignty whence would radiate derivative and descendent forms; it is the moving base of relations of force that incessantly induce, by their inequality, states of power, but always local and unstable. Omnipresence of power: not at all because it regroups everything under its invincible unity, but because it is produced at every instant, at every point, or moreover in every relation between one point and another. Power is everywhere: not that it engulfs everything, but that it comes from everywhere. - Michel Foucault
I have had some interesting conversations recently on power and privilege. As Foucault notes, power is everywhere, seeping from the recesses of every societal institution and present in the connections linking every human relationship. And if that is the case, it's inescapable nature defines nearly everything that we do.

And what about privilege? Privilege is often defined by whitness or maleness or heterosexuality or westernness. But privilege is inherently defined by power. Coincidentally, in the US and Europe, white heterosexual men have held power for a long time. The intent of their structures initially were not necessarily conspiratorial in nature -they did serve a purpose. And in some cases, their purpose was a reaction to abuses of power in other people. However, the structure began to drive the actions of the people within it.

Some white, heterosexual men in the US may act privileged due to the conditioning they are receiving from society, while others may not. What's the difference here? Some are thinking about their place in society and how they got there. Others are acting as though their existence was just destined to be. So is privilege something that should be apologized for? Should it be acknowledged? I think probably it should be acknowledged so that it can be discussed. But maybe an apology is too far since being born white and male and straight is as much of a random occurrence as being born black and female and gay. I am not sure though. In college, I went to a lecture by a female, white, middle class teacher who said that all of the female, white, middle class teachers in the audience who wanted to "help" children were fooling themselves. That they were privileged little naive Michelle-Pfeiffer-in-Dangerous-Minds-wanna-bes and they should get over themselves. It made me mad. Really mad. Here was this female, white, middle class teacher telling us WE had it all wrong. But weren't you ALSO a teacher? Weren't you ALSO wrong for all these years? No? Well, bullshit. If you want us to recognize where our own privilege got us, well fucking recognize your own privilege too. So if we're going to go around calling kettles black, and we're a kettle too, then own it. And do something about it. And maybe that's why I wanted to be a teacher. Wow. Revelatory. Be aware of your "power" and reflect on it. Use it to change something about the current structure that is privileging you over others.

Let's start easy if we're going to discuss pure power - a dog does something wrong, you slap its muzzle. It stops. Dog now bows to you as alpha dog. A 4 year old child does something wrong. You slap him. He stops. But what does he learn? Does he bow to you as alpha human? Does he learn to not do said act again to avoid punishment? Does he learn to not do said act because the act itself was wrong? Or maybe he just learned to not do the act when you're around. Or even better yet, he'll do the act when you're not around and then feel bad about himself.

So what is the outcome of corporal punishment is in the end? Well, just like pretty much everything else involving humans, which are animals with an ability to reflect, we'll have to wait and see, which is a pretty shitty determinant of whether a course of action to right wrongs is working when you think about it.

I do have a problem with Foucault sometimes. There's only so far I will take him before I feel like I'm in an inception-type scenario only regarding power instead of dream layers. He himself questioned the conspiratorial nature of some of his writings in later interviews and letters. However, another aspect of power, which I think he was right about, and which I think various groups (running the gamut of left to right wing groups) oftentimes brush under the rug, is that concessions are made for power structures within their own groups or for the groups as a whole. Power, on all scales, corrupts the original intent.

If we take on the idea of gender roles and their power, for example, children raised in a gender "neutral" environment will not necessarily NOT exhibit male or female characteristics, but they will benefit from the leeway to explore (and let us separate deciding not to swath your child in pink or blue from that Canadian family who won't reveal the sex of their child to the world, cause you can be more neutral about gender without being extreme). Children raised in a family adhering to stereotypical gender roles will be influenced by the attitudes of others toward them from the time they are born as much as they are by their own biological desires and in fact, their own desires may come as secondary to their outside pressures.

Continuing with gender and power, using an example from the French Revolution, the Parisian Peasant women, tired of seeing their children starve, and of hearing their leaders (on all sides) tell them to wait it out, marched on Versailles, whittling down their demands to just bread (aka stability). Their march was a success due to the overwhelming numbers that joined their cause. Ultimately, the King had to accept the Declaration of the Rights of Man before everyone got off his front lawn. And in so doing, accepted the end to his autocracy (don't worry, he wasn't really doing that great a job at it). But it took moms with hungry kids to really get the ball rolling. And in that case, I would argue that power worked toward a positive change. But it was shared power. And not power concentrated into the hands of one or a few. No one "knew what was best" for everyone else. Nor did they really claim that.

Another example, also from the FR, on the function of power: Olympe de Gouges was beheaded for her ideas on equality extending beyond class structure. A Declaration on the Rights of Women? In a time of revolution? Questioning the goals of the revolutionaries as being....too myopic? In the time of revolution? Mama, get back in the kitchen or get your head cut off! But seriously, why was she beheaded? Because she chose to question not only the prevailing system of political power, but also the motives of the revolutionaries. Furthermore, she attempted to shed light on the inconsistencies of how women (and slaves) were being treated despite all of the talk of egalitarianism and justice. These inquiries did not jive with people who were vying for power. Sure, their goals were good -to overthrow the ancien regime and provide a new playing field for society as a whole, but at the same time, their way was going to supplant the existing structure and was their way the best way for the time? Did it explore all options? Take into consideration the needs and opinions of just their peers or of society as a whole?

When it comes to power and privilege, it's the system that must be changed, challenged or crushed, not the people within it. Don't hate the player, hate the game is a pretty simplistic way of summing it up.