Guest post: Being oppressed doesn’t make people immune to being wrong
Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on When two oppressed groups are in conflict.
The admonition to shut up and listen to the members of the oppressed group is a valid one, but it only works when dealing with a non-oppressed group (to-wit, straight white men, preferably but not exclusively middle-class and up).
You know, I don’t think it actually is valid, or more like the validity of “shut up and listen” isn’t on the axis of oppressed versus non-oppressed, but rather on the axis of expertise vs non-expertise.
Because the thing is – being oppressed doesn’t actually make people immune to being wrong, and all too often putting the validity of “shut and and listen” on that axis, leads to a situation in which one ranks oppressions.
We saw it with “Islamophobia”, where concerns around sexism, the mistreatment of apostates, homophobia, anti-Semitism etc… were more or less silenced because Muslims were the oppressed minority of the day. A minority that was deemed more oppressed than these other groups, thus the other groups needed to “shut up and listen”.
The TRAs very specifically aimed to paint themselves as the most oppressed minority, specifically because that grants a greater ability to tell other groups to “shut up and listen”.
And I can’t help but think it is going to end up being the response to women who point out that calling people “Karens” is sexist. In fact I’d be surprised if the argument hasn’t already been floated.
I think there is something to be said for listening to people about their experiences, but it should be an active sort of listening, in which one asks questions and requires claims to be supported.
And yes, this can come off as JAQing off, but there is so much bullshit out there floated as “woke” that you can’t really get around it.
I’m South African so my example is always going to be Bell Pottinger, a PR firm that sought to undo the legacy of Nelson Mandela in order to run interference for a pack of thieving scumbags who were robbing my country blind. They did it using woke points, cynically and expertly playing up racial tensions and pushing “White Monopoly Capital” as the villain, in a way that was indistinguishable from people who may well have been genuine about it.
There is a lot of fakery mixed in with the stuff we’re supposed to be shutting up and listening to, even with causes we’d normally all get behind. “Shut up and listen” – doesn’t help us sort the bullshit from the real, and that has become a real problem that is actively undermining a lot of groups.
And a lot of the bandwagon on bullshit causes is populated by well meaning straight white guys who “shut up and listened” to the wrong people.
And these straight white guys now believe themselves to be deputized to act on behalf of the causes they’ve taken on and consider themselves to be “punching down” when speaking or acting on their behalf, despite the fact of “straight white guys.” I’m also not so sure that all of them are really that well meaning when it comes to being able to rebuke women for “white feminism.”
“If you’re punching women you sure as shit aren’t punching up…”
-BKiSA 2020
I generally agree with the post.
People can inform me about their experiences in a way that might influence me. Certainly I’ve learned a lot over the years about the sheer amount of harassment that many women endure, why they often choose to ignore it or even in some situations give in to it.
But experiences don’t trump everything else.
Being white, middle-aged, upper class, British, and cis doesn’t mean that one’s viewpoint is intrinsically more or less valuable or veridical than that of someone who is black, young, lower class, South African, and trans. Experiencing something, whether that be oppression or illness, does not automatically confer operational expertise regarding it. It does confer (first person limited) phenomenological knowledge of the experience per se.
This is the difference between being an oncologist and being a cancer patient. The former understands the disease; the latter understands what it is like (for them) to have the disease. So the demand to “shut up and listen” when a person with an Oppressed Group Membership ID speaks quite often makes a category mistake.
To be sure, some of the oncologist’s operational expertise derives from listening to cancer patients, and it is important that all sources of relevant sources of information be plumbed. If sources of information are overlooked, and they can be demonstrated to be relevant, then it is reasonable to demand that the argument to consider them be heard. However, if they cannot be demonstrated to be relevant, why should anyone consider them so? Why should anyone have to shut up and listen to a faith claim?
“Shut up and listen” is an appropriate response to someone who loves the sound of their own voice and is used to holding the microphone and reluctant to share it.
It’s bullshit when it’s used to mean “shut up and agree with me (or else)” or “shut up forever, I’ve got the mike and I’m going to hog it now”.
They’re like that one guy in every Q&A session who begins with “more of a comment than a question…” and rambles on about himself until there’s no time for any more questions.