The Dominant Lens

We had a question in class . . . Goodman discusses how people in dominant classes discuss social justice definitions differently than how someone in the minority might. A common example is that white people would say racism is "individual acts of meanness" while black people would see racism as systemic. In what areas have you seen similar disparities between dominant and minority groups and how might seeing the disparity through a different lens might help you understand social justice challenges better?

This is a good discussion point. There is something to be said for selecting the appropriate lens, but I think it's more difficult than JUST selecting the appropriate lens . . . there's the need to understand that a different lens is needed . . . being able to adjust your own eyes to that new lens and make sense of what you see through the new lens. My classmate felt this was enough, and brought up a great point about using social justice language to help define, identify, and acknowledged moments of microaggression,  . . . that is a good starting point for helping people understand new lenses might be needed. 

I think about the Army. The Army was a terrific environment to understand social justice experiments. It's so different than typical workplaces. I'm in a social position of power and privilege, and Goodman might state that we see that as progress because we are in our position and attuned to think that that is progress. However, to someone in a less dominant position, the perspective would be different and challenging for me. 

When I consider what you've said, I think too about some more examples where my position makes it challenging for me to understand the other side. There is a movement regarding trans-freedom and trans-acceptance that is being challenged and it would be tough or challenging for you or I to understand the problems or the feelings of those in the less dominant group. 

Then there is this . . . we've both mentioned how we in the position of power and privilege are challenged to understand the nature of the problems expressed by those in less dominant groups. Could it be that those in the less dominant group are constantly challenged on a daily or hourly basis to understand the views that you and I have such an easy time understanding? 

I think too that the Army is a tough foundation from which to build these perspectives. So much of the army, especially the enlisted ranks, is not built on previous positions of power and privilege but is instead a mini-society that is unlike the society it protects. Procedurally strict, hierarchical, yet diverse and equity and equality based at the same time. Still, it's also built on everyone signing onto that social contract. 

Finally, there is this. It's funny to think there can be two different definitions of "racism." Mine would be making generalizations about people based on the color of their skin. A black person might say that racism is a system of oppression. How can this be? How can there be two different definitions of the same word? 

Actually, it happens all of the time. Think of the color blue. I might say it's navy blue, someone else would say it's dark blue, someone else might say it's just blue. We've all used similar wording, but not exactly the same. Then think that someone else might say that the blue we see is indigo, or sapphire. That's a perfect example of something simple with different definitions. None are "incorrect" per se. They're just different. Same with this word "racism."