Mateo on Justice, Power, Oppression, and other topics

Mateo Rull 12th grade
Social Justice Magazine Club
01/29/2018




What is justice? What does it mean and look like within our school, community, and society?


Justice, similarly to the other abstract terms that will be discussed, derives its meaning entirely based off the personal, individual convictions people hold of it. If the definition and application of this particular concept is thus ambiguous, how is something veridically considered just or unjust? The answer is simple, yet very misleading; it has to be agreed upon by a majority (or the respective socio-political authority). This very incongruence in its definition has blurred the concept enough to be wrongfully attributed to its antonym, injustice. A system based by normative rule inevitably carries with it a possibility for the discussed incongruence. In times past, the people (and the power that rests with them) may have deemed something as radical as racial segregation just when, in reality (although the conflict indeed had been agreed by a majority as just), was thoroughly unjust. Nowadays, this democratic ‘golden rule’ is somewhat more progressive and refined than previously; yet the possibility of incongruence will persist and survive for as long as democracy does. Why is this? This last question is far more difficult to answer; in brevity, it is because we humans are incongruent beings ourselves; we tend to listen not to the voice of reason, but to the voice that is louder, passionate and authoritative. We don’t stop to question the preconceptions and fallacies of the modern society we live in, instead abiding to its systematic rules for the purpose of ‘fitting in’. It thus becomes our personal mission to battle with this appealing conformity, in our unique and individual struggle for social justice; advocating not for what is considered just, but for what our most pure, kind, childish and gentle impulse commands us as a species: peaceful and effective coexistence.





Who and what is power and why? How have people gained power? How can we gain power?



Using Dante’s poetic strategy of embodying the abstract, we can better understand power and other terms in the future: We can then think of Power as a very gregarious individual, a person; and furthermore, a convenient acquaintance for anybody. I say convenient because the credibility and authority that precedes Power will offer its various acquaintances the ability of influence and persuasion without the need for disillusion and dishonesty. No matter its erratic nature, a powerful mandate will be established as both morally acceptable and necessary for the good of its topical application. Power is then not only a dangerous but a very naive individual, because it is not that Power is ill intended, but rather that he is gullible (which is in itself very ironic) and easily manipulated by the real, malevolent tyrant.


However, the acquaintance of Power is a double edged sword as well. If found in gentle company, its influence can become philanthropic and benevolent. The consequences of an acquaintance with power rely not in its faithfuls or in Power himself, but in the individual manipulating him. What the author is desperately trying to convey is that there is no such thing as evil Power; instead, Power is a vessel that can be filled with either a nurturing or noxious nectar; which has a direct impact to the development of hierarchy in government and society as a whole.


Having clarified that, an important question still remains: how does one acquire the acquaintance of Power? When asking my friends this question, most recur to the logical connection that Power has: money. At first, I immediately disagreed, instead proposing that Power’s relationship with money was one of deceitful correlation, and not causation. However, after pondering on this question further, I came to the realization that regardless if one does not have money before acquainting Power, one will always end up acquainting Power after acquiring money. What a gold digger huh?


Regardless, the question at hand still remains. I could continue to write about these correlation relationships that either accompany or succeed Power, such as social/inter social hierarchy, yet I feel like addressing these thoroughly would not only be a waste of time, but it would deviate us from reaching the real, meaningful answer we originally set out to find: True, raw Power, is conceived simultaneously with the vessel of its acquaintance. This means that one does not necessarily acquire power, but instead one is born with the potentiality for Power to acquaint and ultimately manifest in oneself. Much like two fraternal twins living their first 2 weeks of existence within the same fertilized egg.


This conclusion also helps to understand the complex relationship between Power and its manifestations in an individual. An individual can be placed in a position of authority without an innate sense of power (regardless if the individual can furthermore put up a facade that reflects authority) and yet still hold the influence that comes with the position of authority (showcased in the following discussed Milgram experiment). In contrast, an innate powerful individual will exert his influence without the need of the position of authority; although ultimately if the individual pursues it, it is likely for him to reach said position. We see this pattern repeat itself for the aforementioned manifestations; money, and social hierarchy.





What is agency and what does it look like?



In the previous essay’s section of authority, we talk about the individual(s) exerting it (that is, Power and its acquaintance), but have not addressed the other vital facet of successful influence: obedience. Stanley Milgram, a psychology professor at Yale University, performed his (in)famous obedience experiments of 1963. Milgram “examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors” (McLeod). In brevity, he wanted to test his hypothesis that people, under the influence of an authority, will succumb to obedience even to the extent of inflicting pain, or worse, on another individual.


Milgram’s experiment consisted on a pair of ‘volunteers’, were a Milgram’s confederate was always designated to a ‘student’ position, and was strapped to an electrical chair that was supposed to give out electrical shocks whenever he failed to answer a question right. On the other hand, the real participant was a ‘teacher’ whose job was to ask the questions and administer the shocks if the answer was wrong; and everytime it was, increase the intensity or Voltage of the shock.


The teacher was placed in a room right next to the student, with an authoritative looking experimenter dressed in a lab coat, and an electric shock generator that read 15 Volts all the way to 450, right next to the words DANGER. The student then proceeded to (purposely) answer many questions wrong; and when the teacher was hesitant to continue, he was persuaded by 4 prods that the experimenter used in order when the teacher continued to refuse administering the shocks:


Prod 1: Please continue.


Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.


Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.


Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.


Thankfully in this already controversial experiment, the shocks were fake, and the pain acted by Milgram’s confederate was too. However, it was fascinating to see that even though only “65% (two-thirds) of the participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts, all the participants continued to 300 volts” (McLeod).


What we are to take away from this set of experiments is the danger that obedience poses on an individual. Because not just the gullible, submissive, or obedient participants continued with the experiment, but all of them did. Blind obedience to an authority is the break of our agency, our ability as human beings to make decisions based not on set guidelines, not on protocol, not on peer pressure, not on the influence of an authority, but based on our own moral and humane sense of justice and morality. This, the first step towards combating the oppression of agency and justice, is precisely what we should aim for.





What are the issues of oppression within our school, community, and society?



We are extremely privileged to study in a concerned and involved school such as Frontier. We are likewise privileged to live in such a progressive and liberal area (although diversity may be somewhat lacking), and it is okay to acknowledge this. As previously discussed in one of my essay responses, there is no shame in acknowledging and enjoying privilege. In order to successfully enjoy privilege however, (also as previously discussed in said essay, The Responsibility of Privilege) one must strive to dismiss any delusion of superiority, while also bearing the responsibility of applying this privilege for the welfare of those who lack it; to those in other parts of this school, town, country or world who are not so privileged. How does one achieve this? Well, its quite simple. Make other people happy; and if you can, make people who are often unhappy, happy: charity work, food pantries, volunteering, even paid work with a big smile and a quick compliment can make someone’s day you know? Small acts of kindness go a longer way than people expect them to.


What the author is again trying so desperately to convey is that there is no need to be a superhero. No super-force or lightning speed will save this world from the repercussions of power but the small acts of kindness which we can all understand and appreciate.


However, there are still countless victims of oppression throughout the world (and even in our school): socio-economy, skin color, gender identity, nationality, physical appearance, fashion style; everything that makes us unique, everything that makes us individuals, also makes us alienate from one another. How ironic, is it not? We criticize others for who they are and yet we fail to see the many criticizable aspects of our own self. This is why people who are most self-aware (note the word choice; self aware is not the same as having a poor self-esteem, but merely refers to the empathy that tags along with an absence of egocentricity) tend to be more polite and considerate for others, because they realize that there is no reason to call someone a dimwit, if we all are in fact, dimwits as well. We should strive to reach this enlightenment. Today, I invite you to start to be self-aware. Know yourself, know who you are; identify yourself as a responsible individual, and in doing so, break through the stigmas that so often leads to oppression.

Works Cited:
McLeod, Saul. (2007) “The Milgram Experiment” Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html on January 29th, 2018.

Comments

  1. This is a very thorough analysis Mateo! You discuss Power as if it is something external i.e. "money," "an acquaintance" or "vessel." One idea I've been introduced to recently is the idea of Power as restraint and self-control. These virtues are internal and therefore always accessible no matter the external factors that exist, like financial standing, social norms, etc. To exercise true Power, one may need to first "acquaint" themselves, WITH themselves.
    And here at Frontier, I'm glad you established that no one needs to be a superhero or do anything that is outside of one's natural ability, or the Power that is within all of us.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Mr. Costello Is Reading Right Now: Wyatt Walker

What Mr. Costello Is Reading Right Now: Jaylen Brown

What Mr. DiDonna wants to direct your attention to...