Critical Reflection 4 — The Simply Multidimensional Being
Who are you? To understand who you are, you need to have an understanding of what the world around you says that are. How have your family dynamics, historical factors, and social and political contexts have influenced your individual characteristics? How you experience one aspect of your identity is mediated by other dimensions such as race, gender, age, class, orientation, abilities, religion, etc. To put it simply, you are a multidimensional being. The development of our defined identities is a process that begins in adolescent and continues for a lifetime. Psychoanalytic theorist Erik Erikson introduced the idea that individual identity is embedded in social, cultural, and historical context. He believed that our identities are formed through a process of simultaneous reflection and observation of how we perceive ourselves, others, and where we lie in societal expectations.
In a classroom exercise, Beverly Daniel Tatum noticed that when asking students to define who they are, students were less likely to mention that they were members of a dominant or advantaged social group (for example, students of color were more likely to mention their ethnicities, whereas white students were less likely to do the same). This indicated that these aspects of their identity are taken for granted to the point where it goes without comment. The aspects of these students’ identities that they were more likely to mention were those that other people notice — those which set us apart as “other”. Tatum explains that there are at least seven categories commonly experienced in US society.
“People are commonly defined as other on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, age, and physical or mental ability. Each of these categories has a form of oppression associated with it: racism, sexism, religious oppression/anti-Semitism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, and ableism, respectively. In each case, there is a group considered dominant (systematically advantaged by the society because of group membership) and a group considered subordinate or targeted (systematically disadvantaged)” (Tatum, 1997, p. 11).
Although most of us belong to a mix of “dominant” and “subordinate” groups, it is the targeted identities that we and others draw our attention to. We focus on the ways in which are part of the “other”, arguing oppression against ourselves and forgetting that we too may belong to an advantaged group and may be seen as the oppressor in another perspective. Dominant groups have the power to “set the parameters within which the subordinates operate”, defining how things are meant to be and possessing the greatest influence in determining the structure of society. The relationship between the dominants and subordinates are arranged in such a way that the subordinate groups have been given roles that reflect a less valued status. When these “norms” are internalized, it because difficult to break out of that mold despite the skills and abilities innately present in the individual. Those who present these positive qualities — believed to be a characteristic solely of those within the dominant group — the individual is seen as an anomaly. The dominant group is seen as the norm in society, but then generally dislike being reminded that those who fall outside of this norm face inequalities in their daily lives. Those in the dominant group rationalizes that as we all share similar interests and goals, this likewise extends to a shared experience, thus justifying their belief that all is as it should be. In reality, no one knows the experiences of subordinates better than those of us in the position to begin with.
“The history of subordinate groups is filled with so-called troublemakers, yet their names are often unknown. Preserving the record of those subordinates and their dominant allies who have challenged the status quo is usually of little interest to the dominant culture, but it is of great interest to subordinates who search for an empowering reflection in the societal mirror” (Tatum, 1997, p. 13).
How can we share experiences between groups? It is easy to perform research on the experiences of the dominant groups, but the same cannot be said the other way around. Understanding the thought processes of the dominant group is vital when living in a society molded by an uneven power dynamic. One such strategy involves careful observation to become attuned to the dominant group which poses a threat to safety. The other strategy is the opposite, in which subordinates develop indirect way of resisting oppressive groups by not attending to the dominant groups at all. But practicing either strategy is costly. Avoiding structures implemented by the dominant group prevents individuals from learning necessary skills. Focusing too much on the dominant group and what they want leaves little time to focus on one’s self. But worst of all, “the negative messages of the dominant group about the subordinates may be internalized, leading to self-doubt or, in its extreme form, self-hate” (Tatum, 1997, p. 13). Regardless of whether or not you succumb to devaluing pressure or successfully resist them, having to deal with oppressive systems at all is physically and psychologically taxing. But despite the trials, the silver lining is that breaking beyond the limitations set upon one’s group is possible.
In his address “Perspective-Taking as a Tool for Building Democratic Societies”, Jose Calderon talks about his experiences as an immigrant. When he first came to the US as a seven-year-old boy, no one took the time to get to know him, his culture, or his family, instead simply checking him off as some kid with problems. However, when his teacher reached out to him, they found that the issue was that he just didn’t know English. So his teacher took the time to get to know him and his family, responding with empathy as she spent afternoons teaching him English while developing a connection between the two by asking if he could similarly teach him Spanish. Calderon attributes his success to this very teacher, and her actions which drive her not to see him as just a problem child, but to understand him and see the world through his eyes. Through his personal experience, he understands that “the ability to communicate one’s perspective affects one’s ability to participate in society, and with it, one’s access to power” (Calderon, 2009, p. 1).
The power possessed by certain groups to define dominant culture has the potential to either oppress or liberate others. These groups are given such power though language, “where words create a foundation for understanding” (Calderon, 2009, p. 1). Perspective-taking acts as a form of empowerment when implemented in education. When both educators and students practice perspective-taking, we are using our classrooms as the template to creating equitable democratic societies. However, perspective-taking cannot occur without first addressing questions of power. It is important to remember that we are all simultaneously dominant and subordinate. When we draw upon our own perspectives and those of our community members, we use perspective taking to acknowledge each other’s pain while attending to our own.
“The task of resisting our own oppression does not relieve us of the responsibility of acknowledging our complicity in the oppression of others. Our ongoing examination of who we are in our full humanity, embracing all of our identities, creates the possibility of building alliances that may ultimately free us all” (Tatum, 1997, p. 14).
Activists throughout history have organized against the violence that shaped their lives, drawing from the strength of shared experience to give us the power of voice today. Identity-based politics has been a source of strength, community, and intellectual development for members of groups previously recognized as isolated, such as people of color or members of the LGBTQ+ community. However, this embrace of identity politics has created a tension in regards to the conceptions of social justice. The problem with identity politics is that it frequently conflates or ignores intra-group differences. What happens to individuals who are members of multiple identity groups?
For example, take women of color. It is one thing to tell the story of being a woman, and another to tell the story of living as a person of color in our society, but something completely different to be a woman of color. When identity politics try to identify the individual as a “woman” or a “person of color”, they are inhibiting the aspects of the individual’s identity that need telling. Ignoring or disregarding differences within groups often contributes to tensions amongst the groups. Because intersectional identities within discourses are shaped to respond to one identity or the other, the interests and experiences of the exampled women of color are frequently marginalized within both groups. The lives of women of color cannot be captured by observing the individual’s race and gender experiences separately. Instead, we must build upon those observations by exploring the various ways in which they intersect, shaping the structural and political aspects of violence against members of intersectional identities.
Due to the ways in which we are located at the intersections of different structural groups, our experiences are qualitatively different from those of members of only one structural group, and are subsequently marginalized despite the identity politics in place. The problem is not that the multiple discourses do not acknowledge the “additional” burdens, but rather that they are often unable to articulate the full dimensions of the experiences of individuals with social intersectionality. Remember that we are deeply multidimensional beings. Although we may share the same experiences, we have the ability to draw upon our own experiences to empathize with those of others.
“Recognizing that identity politics takes place at the site where categories intersect thus seems more fruitful than challenging the possibility of talking about categories at all. Through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us and negotiate the means by which these differences will find expression in constructing group politics” (Crenshaw, 1991, p. 15).
In her article, “My Class Didn’t Trump My Race: Using Oppression to Face Privilege”, Robin J. DiAngelo discusses her experiences growing up in a poor, White family, and the resulting impacts on her person today. While she grew up thinking of her low class as a cross she must bear, she did not have to think about her race. Although she experienced class oppression, she cannot forget that her experiences growing up with poverty would have been different if she were born a different race. She states that Whites who experience oppression in other areas of their lives find it difficult to center racism into the analysis of their lives, instead only argue that their oppressions make them less racially privileged. It is difficult to acknowledge our own internalized dominances in some aspects when our oppressed aspects are what stand out to us.
Over time, after years in the field and personal work with mentors, she became more grounded in the dynamics of racialized knowledge construction. Her experience of marginalization from classism helped her to understand the marginalization others experience from racism, but she understood that the oppression she experienced growing up poor did not give her permission to disregard her privileges in the racial hierarchy. Although she felt distanced from White people of a higher class since she grew up poor, she realized that their racism was conveyed in different ways. It was always there, just enacted from different social locations. “I now realize that my grandmother and I needed people of color to cleanse and realign us with the dominant White culture that our poverty had separated us from” (DiAngelo, 2006, p. 141).
Growing up, she internalized the messages that as a child growing up in poverty, she was “stupid, lazy, dirty, and drain on the resources of hardworking people”, and had to work to uproot these perceptions. She may not attempt to interrupt racism because her fear to speak up stems the internalized messages that her words don’t matter. Thus, her silence colludes with racism, and ultimately benefits her by protecting her White privilege and maintaining racial solidarity with the other White people of all classes.
DiAngelo is no longer poor. The restrictions of her poverty are now only internal. Although they are no longer visible, they affect her life now; They limit her in what she believes she deserves, where she thinks she belongs, and her ability to stand up to injustice, “for as long as I believe that I am not as smart or as valuable as other White people, I won’t challenge racism” (DiAngelo, 2006, p. 141).In order to unravel internalized racial dominance, DiAngelo believes it is our task to overcome our own internalized oppression and face the internalized dominance that results from being socialized in a racist society. The key to interrupting internalized dominance is to reach for humility. It is to be willing to acknowledge that we will never fully understand the workings of oppression, that they are deeply complex and layered issue, and to be willing to admit that we do not know everything. It is through this humility that we are able to truly listen to each other’s stories, drawing upon our experiences to foster understanding amongst groups.
The specific intersectional identities that my community partner serves are difficult to pinpoint. While members include those who face racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and ableism, the specifics vary from person to person. For example, we could serve a homeless mother at one moment, and a few minutes later we would serve a LGBTQ+ man of color. The variety of intersectional identities that can be found in this community are what make it so vulnerable. The best part of The Spahr Center is that to address these intersectionalities, they strive to create a safe zone where they can cater to the needs of each individual without judgement. This includes ensuring all resources are readily available to everyone who stops by, such as medical supplies, health information, and resources to support groups. And while each person that comes possess unique intersectional identities, resources are client oriented and given based on the current and future needs of each individual.
