The last posting of this
blog presented information in a form not previously used by this blog. That is, it presented and compared elements
of three mental constructs in a chart.
The three constructs are federation theory, natural rights, and critical
theory. This blog judges federation
theory to be, in certain key aspects, a compromise between natural rights and
critical theory constructs.
That
means, federation theory has adopted certain claims the other two constructs
set forth. To gain a sense of this
“cross pollination,” the reader is invited to click on the last posting to see
the chart, but this posting wants to address how critical theory informs
federation theory on the concepts of solidarity and equality.
To
begin, in terms of critical theory, its ultimate or trump value is
equality. Equality for critical
theorists means equal results; that is, equality is reached when society
distributes equally its wealth and income.
Under such a regime, the people of that society share a sense of
comradeship that reflects a solidarity among the populous.
And how does such a view see liberty or freedom? This is a real concern, especially to
American sensitivities and beliefs. With
a strong view of unity – solidarity – Americans are apt to shun this level of
oneness among a citizenry. They would
worry about their individualism if ever a serious attempt were made to enforce the
critical theory view.
This
worry is well placed. From the chart,
liberty is seen as the “[f]reedom from the exploitation by dominant class
…” This, for the advocates of critical
theory, leads to a “true” freedom; one in which people are free to discover
their true humanity. It also means the
diminution of what most Americans regard as their sacred rights – especially rights
associated with property.
This posting aims to expand on this last point. It extends the ideas expressed on a previous
posting, “Be As I Am, Or Not,”[1] in which this writer
reported on the ideas of Paulo Freire.[2] Specifically, Freire outlines how in
exploitive societies, the exploited take on the standards of the
exploiters. Chief among these standards is
that the exploited pine to become exploiters.
This, along with the actual realities of exploitation, offends the
humanity of those involved, both the exploited and the exploiters.
Therefore,
according to that view, true liberation entails breaking this psychological
connection. Why? Because to be truly human, one cannot harbor
such a sense of who one is, who his/her fellow citizens are, or what he/she or
they should become. The fate of each and
the fate of all are inextricably tied.
The
exploitation path might lead to riches for the oppressors, but only to be
enjoyed in a perverted reality where constant vigilance and suspicion
prevails. When people are exploited, the
realities associated with the desire for justice are constantly at issue and the
resulting demands, on the part of the oppressed, never disappear.
When
the oppressed struggle to be free, they are seeking liberation. That can be a perverted sense of liberation –
when the oppressed want to become oppressors – or a state of true liberation –
when the oppressed strive to eliminate the system of exploitation. But the struggle for true liberation is not
easy and the oppressed often do not see or understand it.
But
when it is sought, it is difficult and it often involves a slow process in
order to accomplish it. Freire uses the
analogy of being reborn. In its way, the
challenge is due to the very psychological factors just mentioned. It calls for a “birth” of a new person that
sheds any desire to exploit. That is a
person that is neither an oppressor nor an oppressed person.
What
can one say about the process to achieve this birth? Most of the initial processes have to do with
one’s thinking and feeling. Those mental
processes must be arranged to be encompassing of two realms of thoughts and
feelings: over the objectified realities
involved, and over the normative judgments made of those realities.
If
done, this psychological accomplishment opens the possibility of exiting the
oppression in that it allows a belief, that liberation can be achieved. One needs, first, to be convinced that the
world in which they are living is not a closed one where there is no exit. And that insight, in turn, can become the
motivation to move on.
In
this there is an objective reality to know – mostly of the forces sustaining
the exploitation – and there are valuations or espoused theories to formulate
and define – a vision of what is just, legitimate, and in the best interests of
all involved. Despite the “dialectic”
relationship between these two mental realms (one needs to introduce Hegelian
language), a realization can descend on the oppressed: the oppressor cannot exploit – cannot reap his/her
wealth – without the oppressed. And that
is a liberating realization.
And
for the oppressor, such realizations can also be liberating. Afterall, who wants to be given the title of
oppressor with all its degrading character?
He/she, history shows, is apt to engage in what he/she sees as actions
undermining such a designation. “Rationalizing
his[/her] guilt through paternalistic treatment of the oppressed, all the while
holding them fast in a position of dependence, will not do. Solidarity requires that one enter into the
situation of those with whom one is solidary; it is a radical posture.”[3]
What
the oppressed people need is not paternalistic treatment – meant to continue dependency
by smoothing its rougher edges – but for the oppressors to take on another
strategy. Not a strategy to continue the
exploitive relationship they hold over the oppressed, but by actively fighting,
along with the oppressed, for true liberation for all. Obviously, this calls for a transformation of
their beliefs, attitudes, and values similar to those changes needed from the
oppressed.
They,
the oppressors, need to see the oppressed as real people, not as some abstract
figure to be pitied or for whom to feel sorry.
He/she needs to adopt a true love for these people as people, each with
their own stories, challenges, and hopes.
The oppressed are not a category but are beings with humanity.
This
other humanistic sense, to be satisfied or actualized, must be accompanied by
the subject engaging in related practices – praxis – that actuates a newer view
of who the oppressed are. Two aspects
emerge: the objective reality and the
subjective valuation of that reality and they must be accommodated within one’s
thinking and feeling. This internal
dialectic characterizes the psychology of the liberated oppressed and of the
liberated, former oppressor.
Therefore,
Making “real oppression more
oppressive still by adding to it the realization of oppression” corresponds to
the dialectical relation between the subjective and the objective. Only in this interdependence is an authentic
praxis possible, without which it is impossible to resolve the oppressor-oppressed
contradiction. To achieve this goal, the
oppressed must confront reality critically, simultaneously objectifying and
acting upon that reality. A mere
perception of reality not followed by this critical intervention will not lead
to a transformation of objective reality – precisely because it is not a true
perception.[4]
A liberated person does
not divorce or attempt to separate the reality (objectified to attain reliable
knowledge) from the judgement (the normative valuations of how and why
oppression is unjust); he/she, to be effective at achieving true liberation,
thinks, analyzes, and arrives at workable solutions for the dichotomies his/her
mind observes and must account for in any resulting praxis.
The next posting will address the implications of this
argument on federation theory.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “Be As I Am, Or Not,” Gravitas: A Voice for Civics, January 5, 2018,
accessed October 25, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2018/01/be-as-i-am-or-not.html .
[3] Ibid., 31.
[4] Ibid., 33-34.
