Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Various Philosopher's Views of Oppression, does it really need to be…
Various Philosopher's Views of Oppression
Cudd (analysing oppression)
4 Conditions:
harm condition
: harm comes from institutional practice
social group condition
: harm is perpetuated through a social institution/practice onto a group whose identity exists apart from the oppressive harm
privilege condition
: there is another social group that benefits from the practice of harming
coercion condition
: there is unjustified force/coercion which brings about the harm
oppression
: a harm through which groups are systematically burdened, constrained, or reduced by a number of forces
always unjust
subjective/objective
subjective
: feeling oppressed
objective
: being oppressed
these two are independent, can have either one without the other
univocal concept of harm: there are irreducible forms of oppression, with clear criteria that can pick out oppressed groups
two types of harm manifest oppression
psychological
: being oppressed via mental states, emotions, manipulation of the mind
material
: being physically harmed (including deprivation of material resources like wealth, income, healthcare, space)
cannot solely be based on harms consequent alone, the harms must be unjust (from Clatterbaugh)
clatterbaugh
generally agreed elements of oppression
social
systematic
aimed at certain groups
requires social upheaval to solve, not just reform
3 theories of oppression (rejected)
inequality/limitation
inequality/limitation can obtain w/o oppression
clatterbaugh is trying to avoid making 'identifiably privileged groups into ones oppressed' in a theory (293)
could respond that this begs the question? But it also seems pretty reasonable?
think it sees things in a way that is too one-dimensional, you can be privileged by and constrained by your environment, how tight do we want the restriction?
harm
if we base oppression solely on harm done, then the solution would be solving it subjectively like therapy rather than actually solving the problem
dehumanisation
theory
oppression is the systematic dehumanisation of a certain group
dehumanise
: to deny that the group in question has the full range of human abilities or needs
is this only one way of oppressing someone? Or is it necessary to oppress them
if a social structure treats a group as defective in any of these respects, then it dehumanises them
women, but not men are oppressed by social roles. Clatterbaugh says that if you want to draw parallels, then they must be oppressed for the same reasons.
do they really need to be parellel? Could argue that men are oppressed too, just in different ways
frye
young
there is not necessarily a correlate group which benefits from the oppression because it is
systemic
in nature
New
does it really need to be so institutional?
worry that if you place such a heavy emphasis on the institutional, what happens once legal equality is achieved? Oppression might pervade is less obvious ways?
maybe this is avoided by Cudd's use of 'practices'
investigate the reasoning behind all of these a little more?
what does she think of men/women oppression?
challenge univocal oppression
who does men's "oppression" benefit? Could it be other men?
https://feminisminindia.com/2018/08/22/oppression-marilyn-frye-essay/