Consciousness-Raising
Greta Christina, while discussing the sexism kerfuffle at an atheist conference, brings up a commonality among various forms of consciousness-raising....in particular, I want to address the people who have been asking the question, "Why do we have to keep having these fights? Why is it that every time there's an atheist conference, there's some kerfuffle about sexist comments or actions, and everyone flies into a tizzy about it, and it's the only thing anyone remembers about the event?"
Let me ask you this. When religious believers tell atheists, "Why do you have to keep talking about atheism? Why do you have to keep pointing out religious privilege, and anti-atheist bigotry, and the ways that religion is so deeply entrenched in our culture? It's so divisive. Nobody can talk about religion and atheism without starting a huge, ugly fight. So why do you keep bringing it up?"
When religious believers say this to atheists... do you say to yourself, "You're right. This is such a troubling, divisive issue. I'm so sorry I brought it up. We'll stop talking about it now."
Or do you say to yourself, "Wow. You really don't want to hear what we have to say, do you? There's a part of you that knows we're right, or that fears we're right, or that's getting some assumptions challenged that you're deeply attached to... and you're uncomfortable with that. And you're trying to shut us up. Knock it off. And try listening to what we have to say for a change."
This is why I can relate when somebody talks about consciousness-raising and cultural blinders. I have been thinking for nearly a year about how to point out the commonality-- I don't want to be misunderstood as equating the seriousness of various problems. I'm not trying to get their sympathy or appropriate their issue as my own. I'm saying their communication is getting through to me, and this is part of why.
What faith has in common with privilege is that most people:
1. ...do not do so with any ill intent.
2. ...are dumbstruck with sincere surprise when someone challenges assumptions they have never thought to question.
3. ...think you're calling them or their identity group monstrous, unforgivable atrocities, when really you're just trying to tip them off that at the moment, they are without perspective.
Mostly, people get power over other people through social dynamics and institutional systems that can rarely be traced back to any individual's decisions. People who oppose these systems get much, much more angry when told that it's just no big deal. Far angrier than we were at whatever incident caused the discussion.
As a rationalist, few things scare me more than my own self-affirming perceptions, or that there is some aspect of my environment to which I am blind or conditioned. I know that I'll never be perfect at it, but I know it's possible to become less wrong, and the idea of improvement is dear to me.
Let me ask you this. When religious believers tell atheists, "Why do you have to keep talking about atheism? Why do you have to keep pointing out religious privilege, and anti-atheist bigotry, and the ways that religion is so deeply entrenched in our culture? It's so divisive. Nobody can talk about religion and atheism without starting a huge, ugly fight. So why do you keep bringing it up?"
When religious believers say this to atheists... do you say to yourself, "You're right. This is such a troubling, divisive issue. I'm so sorry I brought it up. We'll stop talking about it now."
Or do you say to yourself, "Wow. You really don't want to hear what we have to say, do you? There's a part of you that knows we're right, or that fears we're right, or that's getting some assumptions challenged that you're deeply attached to... and you're uncomfortable with that. And you're trying to shut us up. Knock it off. And try listening to what we have to say for a change."
This is why I can relate when somebody talks about consciousness-raising and cultural blinders. I have been thinking for nearly a year about how to point out the commonality-- I don't want to be misunderstood as equating the seriousness of various problems. I'm not trying to get their sympathy or appropriate their issue as my own. I'm saying their communication is getting through to me, and this is part of why.
What faith has in common with privilege is that most people:
1. ...do not do so with any ill intent.
2. ...are dumbstruck with sincere surprise when someone challenges assumptions they have never thought to question.
3. ...think you're calling them or their identity group monstrous, unforgivable atrocities, when really you're just trying to tip them off that at the moment, they are without perspective.
Mostly, people get power over other people through social dynamics and institutional systems that can rarely be traced back to any individual's decisions. People who oppose these systems get much, much more angry when told that it's just no big deal. Far angrier than we were at whatever incident caused the discussion.
As a rationalist, few things scare me more than my own self-affirming perceptions, or that there is some aspect of my environment to which I am blind or conditioned. I know that I'll never be perfect at it, but I know it's possible to become less wrong, and the idea of improvement is dear to me.