We are enveloped by arbitrary rules that dictate our perceptions and interactions with the world. For example, what determines that in the United States pigs, cows and chickens are food and that hamsters, dogs, and parakeets are pets? (I remember learning in Japan that the main ingredient in the cheap canned corned beef we bought was horseflesh. I was okay with that).
We are surrounded by systems, rules and symbols that present themselves as natural, universal, divine and that obscure their human costs. Centuries ago, many cultures took for granted racism, slavery and the earth’s central position in the universe. What inequities remain invisible to our minds today? Church hierarchies are divinely mandated, but women are secondary citizens in most religious traditions. We support global capitalism through our work and purchases, but it impoverishes many more than it enriches (if you’re reading this, you’re probably on the receiving end).
Many live short, tormented lives thoroughly victimized by these social structures. Others play these games in deadly earnest because they have little choice–unemployment, hunger, ostracism, disease are not viable alternatives.
What oppressions are hidden from our awareness? What injustices are we unwittingly perpetrating? And what agency do we have? Are we locked into these systems, or can we reject, rebel, or at the very least subvert them?
4 responses so far ↓
1 Rich // Feb 10, 2007 at 9:45 am
I suspect few if any of the rules and systems could be considered “arbitrary” John. My guess is the vast majority of them have their roots deeply planted in someone’s (monetary, sexual conquest, or power) benefit.
Our agency is only as limited as our awareness. Knowledge is the key to make meaningful changes. I really like Carl Sagan’s classic book-title metaphor (along of course with its contents):
“The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”.
As to menu preferences, culture and environment certainly play a significant role, but so do our tastebuds…
Mmmmm, hamster! :^P
2 Miko // Feb 10, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Agreed, I think that most rules are crafted by the powerful to maintain their power (even if, in the case of the US or France, that power is new to them). Once we start to realize that some of the things we take for granted as “normal” are abnormal to someone else, we have the opportunity to work for that change.
I’m reminded of the, possibly apocraphal story of the wife of an African diplomat visiting a white (I don’t remember if it was supposed to have occurred in Europe or the US) politician’s home. She had recently moved from her home to be with her husband and the wife of the politician (of course, it was the men doing the work…) wanted to make her feel at home. So she made sure that a certain melon that was common in the diplomat’s country was part of the dinner she served. Unfortunately, the diplomat’s wife could not bring herself to eat it since, where she came from, the rind was eaten and the flesh scooped out and thrown away, but the politician’s wife served the flesh and threw the rind away. Food is, of course, one of the least of these changes we can make.
And horse, btw, is actually very good…
3 nee // Feb 10, 2007 at 4:34 pm
“Are we locked into these systems, or can we reject, rebel, or at the very least subvert them?”
Bahahaha! I KNOW you know the latter is correct.
4 John // Feb 13, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Rich, you’re probably right. Perhaps it just looks pretty arbitrary from below. I agree that access to the knowledge (of certain kinds) is empowering and can be liberating, but even much of the access to such knowledge is mediated by the system.
Actually, now that I think about it, I’m not sure that all rules are necessarily consciously crafted by higher powers to maintain power, though certainly enough of that goes on. Many of the rules are probably deeply embedded, and it is in the interest of those already in power to maintain the status quo, or to tighten their own hold on power.
nee, I have my doubts sometimes. I wonder if we aren’t trapped in a big onion, peeling off one layer only to find that there’s another.
Leave a Comment