6:59am July 25, 2014

“In my experience working with a multitude of anti-racist organizing projects over the years, I frequently found myself participating in various workshops in which participants were asked to reflect on their gender/race/sexuality/class/etc. privilege. These workshops had a bit of a self-help orientation to them: “I am so and so, and I have x privilege.” It was never quite clear what the point of these confessions were. It was not as if other participants did not know the confessor in question had her/his proclaimed privilege. It did not appear that these individual confessions actually led to any political projects to dismantle the structures of domination that enabled their privilege. Rather, the confessions became the political project themselves. The benefits of these confessions seemed to be ephemeral. For the instant the confession took place, those who do not have that privilege in daily life would have a temporary position of power as the hearer of the confession who could grant absolution and forgiveness. The sayer of the confession could then be granted temporary forgiveness for her/his abuses of power and relief from white/male/heterosexual/etc guilt. Because of the perceived benefits of this ritual, there was generally little critique of the fact that in the end, it primarily served to reinstantiate the structures of domination it was supposed to resist. One of the reasons there was little critique of this practice is that it bestowed cultural capital to those who seemed to be the “most oppressed.” Those who had little privilege did not have to confess and were in the position to be the judge of those who did have privilege. Consequently, people aspired to be oppressed. Inevitably, those with more privilege would develop new heretofore unknown forms of oppression from which they suffered. “I may be white, but my best friend was a person of color, which caused me to be oppressed when we played together.” Consequently, the goal became not to actually end oppression but to be as oppressed as possible. These rituals often substituted confession for political movement-building. And despite the cultural capital that was, at least temporarily, bestowed to those who seemed to be the most oppressed, these rituals ultimately reinstantiated the white majority subject as the subject capable of self-reflexivity and the colonized/racialized subject as the occasion for self-reflexivity.”

—

andrea smith, the problem with “privilege” (via enzopower)

“Consequently, the goal became not to actually end oppression but to be as oppressed as possible.”

That’s the thing I keep trying to find words to tell people about. People say it’s not a thing because “it’s never an advantage to be oppressed”. But it is a thing. It’s absolutely a thing. Because within these particular small communities, there are social advantages to being able to claim as many types of oppression as possible, including some of the dubious ones described above.

Also, regarding absolution… I’ve been approached by nonautistic parents many times, who have done something horrible to their autistic children, or for that matter were continuing to do something horrible to their autistic children. The best example I remember was a woman who had her autistic daughter institutionalized in a nursing home. At any rate, they would approach me wanting absolution. And it was very clear that was what they wanted.

And if I did not give it to them – which I never did, and at one point repeatedly told the woman “I can’t give you the absolution you’re looking for.” As in, can’t. Not won’t. Because it’s not in my power to give that kind of absolution. If I did not give it to them which I never did, because I couldn’t… they’d become hostile, and irate, and demanding.

One of them began antagonizing me every chance she got. Every time I made a post on the mailing list we shared, she’d find something snarky to say about how her daughter was pure and innocent and I was corrupt and awful. Even when it was about something as innocent as playing a musical instrument, she could find a way to make it into a condemnation of me and an elevation of her daughter practically into the realm of sainthood. This was after I told her that we came from such different worlds that I didn’t think responding to her was a good idea, and goodbye, and all that. So first she tried to escalate things by baiting me every chance she got. And when I didn’t take the bait, she started trying to tell everyone else on the list that I was an evil magician who had launched a “psychic attack” on her “solar plexus”, that I was dangerous, and that I should be removed from the list. She herself was removed from the list shortly after making that accusation – because she was the one disrupting the list with her hostility and unfounded personal attacks.

She may have been an extreme example (and I’ve talked to other folks in the autistic community who have run into her, some of the things she said were distinctive enough they recognized them). But I’ve run into this time and time again: Parents wanting absolution for something, real or imaginary, that they’ve done to their autistic child. And then approaching autistic people to provide that absolution. And then when the autistic person refuses, however politely, to do so (because we’re not capable of providing absolution even if we wanted to), they become extremely hostile and turn on us in the blink of an eye.

I’m sure that happens with all kinds of groups of people. I just encounter it the most vividly in the autism community for some reason. And the thing that gets me is they’re asking the impossible, and then becoming unbelievably hostile at people who can’t provide the impossible. Because no oppressed person can give absolution to oppressors. It can’t be done, that’s something that has to come from somewhere else, if it comes from anywhere.

Notes: