cultural oppression essay

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Morton Deutsch

Originally published in March 2005, Current Implications added by Heidi Burgess in July 2020.

Current Implications

This essay, which was written by one of the conflict resolution field's early and most distinguished scholars, explains the historical origins of oppression.

It is interesting, though not surprising, how much the oppression that has characterized human society for centuries still plagues the the contemporary world. Clearly, it is an extraordinarily complex problem that we have yet to solve. More...

What is Oppression?

Oppression is the experience of repeated, widespread, systemic injustice. It need not be extreme and involve the legal system (as in slavery, apartheid, or the lack of right to vote) nor violent (as in tyrannical societies). Harvey has used the term "civilized oppression" to characterize the everyday processes of oppression in normal life.[1] Civilized oppression "is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions and rules, and the collective consequences of following those rules. It refers to the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as a consequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions which are supported by the media and cultural stereotypes as well as by the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms."[2]

We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or by making some new laws, because oppressions are systematically reproduced in the major economic, political and cultural institutions. While specific privileged groups are the beneficiaries of the oppression of other groups, and thus have an interest in the continuation of the status quo, they do not typically understand themselves to be agents of oppression.

What are the Origins of Oppression?

Prior to the development of agriculture, the hunting-gathering-fishing societies were mainly egalitarian and cooperative. Since these very early nomadic societies generally did not accumulate and preserve food, all of the physically able members of such societies had to participate in securing the basic necessities of life. Whatever divisions occurred within these groups was mainly based upon sex, age, and individual physical and social abilities. The distribution of food, work products, and services tended to be egalitarian except during extreme scarcity, when survival of the group required giving priority to those who could contribute most to its survival. The aged and infirm would often have low priority.

Levels of conflict and oppression within such societies appeared to be low. Conflicts with other similar societies mainly occurred as a result of one group's encroachment on another group's territory. Such conflict resulted from the need to expand one's territory as a result of population growth or because one's territory was no longer productive of food and the other resources needed for group survival.

The simple technologies of hunting-gathering-fishing societies did not allow them to accumulate a surplus of food. As such groups experienced a growth in their populations, the balance between them and their environment was upset. To overcome the threats to their survival, about 12,000 years ago, some of these societies developed agriculture and animal husbandry.

This development led to two revolutionary consequences, which fostered social inequality and oppression: differentiation within societies and warfare between societies.[3] The accumulation of a surplus of food led to the emergence of new occupations -- such as traders, merchants, administrators, artisans, soldiers, and rulers; not all the members of the society were required to be involved in the production of food. One can speculate that social hierarchies developed as some food growers were more successful than others because of skill or luck. To obtain food, the unsuccessful peasants became dependent upon the successful ones and had to offer their land and services -- often as a worker, priest, or soldier -- to the more successful ones. For the successful ones, the result was increased wealth, increased godliness, support from the priests, and increased support from soldiers with the resulting power to appropriate the land and control the services of those who were weaker. Contests among the powerful would increase the power of the winners to exploit those who were weaker, as would alliances among the more powerful.

Another way of increasing power was through successful warfare against weaker societies. Success would lead to the expropriation of much of the wealth of the weaker society as well as enslavement of some of its population.

In summary, one can speculate that the need for the relatively egalitarian hunting-gathering-fishing societies to have stable sources of food led to the development of agriculture and animal husbandry. Small inequalities in luck or skills among the peasants within an agricultural society, or between societies, could lead to social inequalities and power differences that, in turn, could lead to increased power, social inequalities, and oppression of the weak by the strong.

Note: This was originally one long article on oppression, which we have broken up to post on Beyond Intractability . The next article in the series is: Forms of Oppression .

In the summer of 2020, in the wake of a widely-circulated video of yet another killing of an unarmed Black man by police, oppression is again the focus of much public attention. The protests and the narrative that followed have emphasized that this was not a one-time event. Rather, this happens often and is part of a much larger story. Blacks have been systemically oppressed ever since slavery ended. (They were even more oppressed, of course, during slavery, but my point is that oppression did not end when the slaves were freed, nor has it ended anytime since, despite efforts legal efforts to do so (such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act). (See a newly-added and very useful BI history of what went wrong during the "Reconstruction Era" to cement this oppression in place.)

Indeed, just as Deustch says, the "unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary situations which are supported by the media and cultural stereotypes as well as by the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms" has led to Blacks' widespread inability to join the middle class. For instance, Brookings reported in February of 2020 that in 2016 (the last year for which they had data), net worth of a typical white family was $171,000, while that of a typical black family was $17,150.[4] According to Wikipedia , Blacks receive lower grades in school than do whites, more drop out, and fewer go to or graduate from college, [5] which means that the jobs available to them are not as good as the jobs available to the average white youth or young adult. In addition, disparate treatment in the justice system (from policing to sentencing to treatment in prison) favors whites over blacks, resulting in a highly disproportionate number of black men being incarcerated, harming their own life chances permanently, as well as the chances of their families. And while the focus in the summer of 2020 is primarily on Blacks, the same is true for many other people of color, religious minorities, and other minority groups.

Back to Essay Top

[1] Harvey, J. (1999). Civilized Oppression. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

[2] Young, M.I. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 41.

[3] Gil, D.G. (1998). Confronting Injustice and Oppression . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

[4] McIntosh, Kriston, Emily Moss, Ryan Nunn, and Jan Shambaugh. "Examining the Black-White Wealth Gap." Brookings Up Front. Feb. 27, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-the-black-white-wealth-gap/ . Accessed July 2, 2020.

[5] "Racial achievement gap in the United States" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_achievement_gap_in_the_United_States . Accessed July 2, 2020.

Use the following to cite this article: Deutsch, Morton. "The Nature and Origins of Oppression." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: March 2005 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nature-origins-oppression >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Updating Our Impartiality Discussions - Part 1 -- The Burgesses update their 2-year old discussion of impartiality, adding to it Martin Carcasson's notion of "principled impartiality" which adds in quality information and "small-d" democracy.
Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of September 1, 2024 -- More in our regular set of links from readers, about colleague's activities, and from outside news and opinion sources.
Updating Our Impartiality Discussions - Part 2 -- In part 2 of this 2-part series, we apply Martin Carcasson's notion of "principled impartiality" to the Israel/Gaza/Hezbollah/Iran war, and to the political conflict in the United States.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability, the Conflict Information Consortium, or the University of Colorado.

Beyond Intractability Essay Copyright © 2003-2017 The Beyond Intractability Project, The Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado; All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission. All Creative Commons (CC) Graphics used on this site are covered by the applicable license (which is cited) and any associated "share alike" provisions.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources. Inquire about Affordable Reprint/Republication Rights .

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage and Landings Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability or Moving Beyond Intractability The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium , University of Colorado 580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone: (303) 492-1635 -- Contact

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Communication and Culture
Communication and Social Change
Communication and Technology
Communication Theory
Critical/Cultural Studies
Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
Health and Risk Communication
Intergroup Communication
International/Global Communication
Interpersonal Communication
Journalism Studies
Language and Social Interaction
Mass Communication
Media and Communication Policy
Organizational Communication
Political Communication
Rhetorical Theory
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Culture, prejudice, racism, and discrimination.

John Baldwin John Baldwin School of Communication, Illinois State University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.164
Published online: 25 January 2017

Prejudice is a broad social phenomenon and area of research, complicated by the fact that intolerance exists in internal cognitions but is manifest in symbol usage (verbal, nonverbal, mediated), law and policy, and social and organizational practice. It is based on group identification (i.e., perceiving and treating a person or people in terms of outgroup membership); but that outgroup can range from the more commonly known outgroups based on race, sex/gender, nationality, or sexual orientation to more specific intolerances of others based on political party, fan status, or membership in some perceived group such as “blonde” or “athlete.” This article begins with the link of culture to prejudice, noting specific culture-based prejudices of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. It then explores the levels at which prejudice might be manifest, finally arriving at a specific focus of prejudice—racism; however, what applies to racism may also apply to other intolerances such as sexism, heterosexism, classism, or ageism.

The discussion and analysis of prejudice becomes complicated when we approach a specific topic like racism, though the tensions surrounding this phenomenon extend to other intolerances such as sexism or heterosexism. Complications include determining the influences that might lead to individual racism or an atmosphere of racism, but also include the very definition of what racism is: Is it an individual phenomenon, or does it refer to an intolerance that is supported by a dominant social structure? Because overt intolerance has become unpopular in many societies, researchers have explored how racism and sexism might be expressed in subtle terms; others investigate how racism intersects with other forms of oppression, including those based on sex/gender, sexual orientation, or colonialism; and still others consider how one might express intolerance “benevolently,” with good intentions though still based on problematic racist or sexist ideologies.

discrimination
intolerance
heterosexism
stereotypes
ethnocentrism

Introduction

One of the causes that gave rise to the postmodern revolution in France in 1968 was the failure of modern science and philosophy—liberalism, social science, reason, and so on—to remedy problems of war, poverty, and intolerance (Rosenau, 1992 ). As we look around today at the world in general, or even within specific nations, we continue to see a wide range of prejudice, from the 1994 genocide of Tutsis (and many Hutus) by Hutus in Rwanda to the mass killing of 70 people, mostly youths, at a Utøyan youth camp in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik. At this writing, a major refugee problem exists from people fleeing Middle Eastern countries where a strong ISIS influence is leading to the killing of gays, Christians, and Muslims from rival belief systems. In many European countries, hate groups and right-wing politicians are gaining ground. The Southern Poverty Law center tracks 1,600 hate groups within the United States (“Hate and Extremism,” n.d. ), classifying 784 that were active in 2014 (“Hate Map,” n.d. ), and the FBI reports nearly 6,000 hate crimes in the United States, with the greatest numbers due to race (48.5%), religion (17.4%), and sexual orientation (20.8%; FBI, 2014 ). These statistics reveal some interesting things about intolerance. For example, the “race”-based hate crimes include crimes based on anti-white sentiment as well as against people of color; and about 61% of hate crimes based on sexual orientation target gay males.

Both the international events and the statistics relevant to any specific nation prompt difficult questions about intolerance. In a white-dominant society, can or should we call anti-white crimes by people of color “racist”? If someone commits a hate crime based on sexual orientation, why are gay men more often the target than lesbians? Would hate crimes in other countries reflect the same axes of difference, or might hate crimes be based differently? German hate crimes might be based more on ethnicity (e.g., against Turkish immigrants, who by most racial classifications would be Caucasian). Why do people commit such acts at all?

One mistake we often make is thinking of prejudice and discrimination only in extreme terms such as genocide and hate crimes. In many countries and cultures, where overt expression of racism (and other intolerances) has become socially unacceptable, intolerances have gone “underground,” hidden in subtle forms. Further, intolerance can rely upon a wide variety of identity groups, including some that are (supposedly) biologically based, like racism, or based on other aspects, such as political party, fan status, or membership in some perceived group such as “blonde” or “athlete.” In sum, we must consider the relationship between different forms of intolerance, including but not limited to prejudice, racism, and discrimination; but these must always be understood within specific cultural contexts.

Culture and Intolerance

(re)defining culture.

As we look to the cultural influence on intolerance, we must first consider the definition of culture. The study of culture has deep roots in anthropological and linguistic research, especially as seen in the work of Franz Boaz and his students Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Edward Sapir, as well as in the early work of Edward Tyler, itself based on earlier traditions of ethology (Darwin) and social evolution (Marx). This work influenced the work of anthropologist E. T. Hall (Rogers & Hart, 2002 ) and others who laid the groundwork for the study of intercultural communication (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1990 ). Scholars have debated whether culture is a shared mental framework of beliefs, norms for behavior (i.e., the expectations for behavior rather than the behaviors themselves), values, and worldview, or whether culture should also include actual behaviors, texts, and artifacts of a group. In 1952 , A. L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn synthesized over 150 definitions of culture into a single definition that focuses on “patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior,” along with “ideas and especially their attached values” (p. 181). These are influenced and created through symbolic behavior, action, and other aspects of the environment (history, geography). The definitional dimensions of culture described by Kroeber and Kluckhohn explained well many of the definitions of culture up until the 1980s. After that time, some scholars (especially in communication) began to treat culture more as a set of symbols and meanings. Others framed culture as a process of constructing social meanings and systems through communication. As people sing, speak, play, tell jokes, and conduct business, they are constantly (re)creating their culture—both relying upon it and changing it.

More pertinent to the study of intolerance is a new approach to culture that sees culture neither as “suitcase” of things (be those beliefs and values or texts and artifacts) passed down from one generation to the next nor as a neutral process of mutual symbolic creation through time, but as having vested power interests that seek to influence what is seen as accepted or normal within a culture. For example, Moon ( 2002 ) defines culture as a “contested zone”:

Thinking about culture as a contested zone helps us understand the struggles of cultural groups and the complexities of cultural life … If we define culture as a contested zone in which different groups struggle to define issues in their own interests, we must also recognize that not all groups have equal access to public forums to voice their concerns, perspectives, and the everyday realities of their lives” (pp. 15–16).

That is, every cultural manifestation, such as the framing of Australian culture as “individualistic” or saying that “Australian men have such-and-such characteristics,” highlights what one should not be within that culture and establishes bounds for group-based intolerance.

With this diversity of definitions in mind, one is not sure what to think culture is or should be. Baldwin, Faulkner, Hecht, and Lindsley ( 2006 ) present a series of essays on the definition of culture by authors from six different disciplines (e.g., multicultural education, anthropology, political science), as well as 313 definitions of culture from an even greater number of disciplines, which they analyze. While they are reluctant to settle on a single definition of culture, this definition embraces most trends:

The way of life of a group of people, including symbols, values, behaviors, artifacts, and other shared aspects, that continually evolves as people share messages and is often the result of a struggle between groups who share different perspectives, interests, and power relationships (Baldwin, Coleman, González, & Shenoy-Packer, 2014 , p. 55).

This definition of culture, like most definitions that take a symbolic, process, or critical approach, does not treat cultures as “nations,” but as people groups who share symbolic or speech codes, with multiple cultural groups—defined not by demographic constitutions such as race, sex, or age, but by shared communicative realities—sharing single geographic areas. It is in the creation and defending of cultures—from countries to local and virtual communities—that intolerance often becomes apparent.

The Role of Culture in Prejudice

Of various schools of thought about the nature and origins of intolerance, only one approach suggests that intolerance is biological or in some way inherited, and that is sociobiology, or evolutionary theory. This approach suggests that intolerance is based on such things as preservation of the purity of the gene pool of one’s group, an inherent fear of strangers, or an inherited need for group identity. But even evolutionary theorists cannot explain all intolerance based on a theory of inherited impulse. Meyer ( 1987 ) argues:

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism as extreme forms of this search for identity cannot be attributed to [human] biology … Their very existence is a result of [human’s] attempts towards understanding the world, and [their] strong affective need to delimit a cosmos of conspecifics with whom [they] can share interpretations of [their] socially construed world (p. 93).

Research on intolerance in 90 preindustrial societies suggests that, when there are clearly psychological causes for intergroup conflict, groups ultimately use communication to create who the enemy is and how one should demonstrate or show intolerance (Ross, 1991 ). In sum, there is a strong cultural component determining which intolerances are felt or expressed in a given place or time.

Culture, however one defines it, can affect tolerance. Culture might be a set of values and beliefs, such as the value of loyalty to one’s group, combined with a belief that people who belong to a particular group have particular characteristics, are unlikeable for some reason, or merit mistreatment and the application of a different set of standards than we apply to ourselves (Opotow, 1990 ). If culture is a process, then we might look at how a culture creates both identity and intolerance through the ongoing structures of language, including word choices (“babe,” “hunk,” “faggot”), conversational structure (interruptions, etc.), joke- and storytelling, and so on. For example, West and Zimmerman’s ( 1987 ) notion of “doing gender” (i.e., gender as an everyday accomplishment of language) has led to countless studies of gender construction in several nations, as well as a focus by others on how we also “do race” and other identities. The way that we construct our identities through communication is inherently linked to how we construct the identities of those in outgroups, as we shall see; but they are also linked to behavior within our group. Social constructionist approaches to culture thus often become critical in their focus on power relations. Critical approaches look at how cultures, through communication, architecture, law, literature, education, and so on create a sense of the “other”—and of the self—that constrains us and pits us against one another in group conflict.

“Culture”-Based Prejudices: Ethnocentrism, Xenophobia

The purpose of this article is primarily to look at racism and discrimination as forms of prejudice; however, these cannot be understood without a larger understanding of prejudice in general and other forms or types of prejudice. Allport ( 1979 ) defines prejudice as an antipathy one has or a tendency to avoid the other, based on the other person’s group. For Allport, prejudice is a cognitive or psychological phenomenon:

Prejudice is ultimately a problem of personality formation and development; no two cases of prejudice are precisely the same. No individual would mirror his [or her] group’s attitude unless he [or she] had a personal need, or personal habit, that leads him [or her] to do so (p. 41).

Based on the Greek word that means “fear of strangers,” xenophobia refers to “the fear or hatred of anything that is foreign or outside of one’s own group, nation, or culture” (Herbst, 1997 , p. 235). The idea is frequently applied to a mistrust or dislike (rather than merely fear) of outgroups or those perceived to be different, especially in national terms. While the Greek translation suggests the psychological component of fear, recent researchers have treated the concept in behavioral or message terms. Historical research on xenophobia links it to anti-Semitism and, more recently, to Islamophobia, though it does not have as clear a historical trajectory as ethnocentrism; many more recent studies look at South Africa as a model nation in attempting to strategically reduce xenophobia. Researchers use a variety of methods to look at xenophobia, depending on their research assumptions and background disciplines. Rhetorical media research, for example, analyzes how Czech newspapers code anti-Roma sentiment through subtle terms such as “inadaptable citizens” ( nepřízpůsobivý občan , Slavíčková & Zvagulis, 2014 , p. 159); and psychological survey research investigates how, among Southern California students, ethnocentrism is positively associated with both language prejudice and feelings of being threatened by immigrants (Ura, Preston, & Mearns, 2015 ).

Van Dijk ( 1993 ) notes how groups can use language such as hyperbole of differences to marginalize immigrants, often through appeals to so-called democratic values. He notes that in some countries, such as in Central Europe, where claims of racism are often forcefully resisted due to conceptual ties of the term to Hitler’s Holocaust, Ausländerfeindlicheit (fear of foreigners) takes its place, though this fear of foreigners is frequently aimed at Turks and other (often darker-skinned and religiously different) people who resist adoption of traditional Germanic culture.

Ethnocentrism

Some types of prejudice relate specifically to the larger and more traditional notion of culture (i.e., cultures as nations). Ethnocentrism gained prominence as an area of research following sociologist Robert Sumner’s 1906 definition of the term as gauging others in reference to one’s own culture ( 1975 ), though other sociologists soon began to distinguish between this notion of “centrality” and the idea of “superiority”—that one’s culture or group is superior to those of others. If one sees ethnocentrism strictly as a feeling of superiority, nationalism (or school spirit, or religious loyalty, etc.) might not in and of itself be ethnocentric if it focuses only on being loyal to or highlighting the benefits of one’s own group, without denigrating others, though some might argue that it is impossible to feel pride in one’s own group without, at some level, disdaining or thinking less of other groups. The possibility of an ethnocentric bias in research led many early anthropologists to suggest ethnography—spending extended time within a culture to see things from cultural members’ point of view—as a way to reduce ethnocentrism in research.

A consideration of ethnocentrism has implications for other forms of bias as well, as the factors that predict national cultural ethnocentrism—and solutions that address it—could apply equally to one’s perception of life within one’s own community. The Hmong-descended people of the Pacific Northwest in the United States will likely feel that their ways are superior to those of Moroccan- or Guatemalan-descended peoples, as well as to those of the dominant culture. Auestad ( 2013 ) presented a series of essays on the rise of political discourses across the world that highlighted elements of national security and identity (tradition), as well as the building of cultures of fear by focusing on the negative aspects of foreigners or those of different religious groups within single countries. Some elements of the U.S. presidential race rhetoric of 2015–2016 exemplified this xenophobic and ethnocentric trend.

Within the field of intercultural communication, at least two lines of research have focused on ethnocentrism. The first is by Jim Neuliep, who, with colleagues, has revisited the measurement of ethnocentrism in the classic 1950 work by the Frankfurt School, The Authoritarian Personality , with a new measure of ethnocentrism. After applying the measure to white Americans, Neuliep ( 2012 ) continues to test the relationship of ethnocentrism to other important intercultural variables, such as intercultural anxiety and communication satisfaction. The second is Milton Bennett’s ( 1993 ) consideration of ethnorelativism. In this approach, a range of attitudes reflects either ethnocentrism or ethnorelativism. Ethnocentric stances include denial (e.g., indifference toward or ignorance of any difference at all), defense (traditional ethnocentrism of denigrating the culture of the other or feeling one’s own culture is superior, but also in “going native”), and minimization (focusing on similarities and ignoring differences, by claiming “color blindness,” or focusing on how we are all the same, be that as “God’s children” or in the Marxist struggle against oppression; 43). As one grows more “ethnorelative,” or accepting of difference, one exhibits one of three stages: acceptance (being respectful of and even appreciating the value and behavioral differences of others), adaptation (actually adopting behaviors or views of other groups), or integration (adopting a worldview that transcends any single culture). This approach has gained ground around the world and in different disciplines, from Finland to Iran, with applications from cultural sensitivity to interreligious tensions.

One of the difficulties of discussing prejudice is the conceptual overlap between terms (e.g., xenophobia conflates with racial or ethnic prejudice; ethnocentrism might refer to any people group, such as ethnic groups, and not just nations). At the root of our understanding of prejudice is the very goal of “tolerance.” In fact, the notion of tolerance for diversity may be limited: It is often treated merely as “the application of the same moral principles and rules, caring and empathy, and feelings of connections to human beings of other perceived groups” (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995 , p. 65). That is, it is similar to Bennett’s ( 1993 ) notion of acceptance, of respect for difference, though that respect sometimes (a) occurs at a difference and (b) sometimes exists in behavioral form only, but is not internalized. Communication of tolerance is a worthwhile pursuit in our behavior and research; however, we argue that we can go beyond tolerance to appreciation—even to the behavioral and attitudinal integration of elements of the other culture (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998 ). There is a danger of such appreciation, as borrowing (e.g., “cultural hybridity”) occurs within power relations. We are not talking about a dominant group borrowing from subordinate or subaltern groups in a colonizing or folklorizing way, but about cultural learning and dialogue.

Limited Perspectives of Prejudice

That consideration of tolerance/prejudice should be treated as a dichotomy or a range is only one of the difficulties that has haunted the study and conceptualization of prejudice. Debates have swirled around the nature of prejudice, the causes of prejudice, and the “locus” of certain prejudices (such as racism or sexism), among other things. Allport ( 1979 ) suggests that prejudice is a “generalized” attitude—that if one is prejudiced, say, toward Jewish people, she or he will also be prejudiced toward communists, people of color, and so on. It is possible, however, that one might be prejudiced toward some groups, even in some contexts, but not toward other groups (Baldwin & Hecht, 1995 ).

The nature of prejudice

Allport ( 1979 ) defines prejudice as “an avertive [i.e., avoiding] or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he [or she] belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group” (p. 7). By this definition, prejudice is an aspect of affect , or feeling toward a group, though it is closely related to cognitions , or thoughts about the group, referring to stereotypes. Also, prejudice is inherently negative, following the primary definition common in modern dictionaries, though a secondary definition includes any sort of prejudgment based on group belonging, such as prejudice toward one’s own group. Most dictionary definitions follow the attitudinal approach, though in common usage, people often use the term to refer to things like racism, which carry behavioral and even policy implications that are not strictly attitudes. By strictest definition, prejudice is an attitude that favors one group over another, based on or related to cognitions, and both leading to and influenced by behaviors (including communication), texts (e.g., media, rhetoric), and policies (following the notion of structuration, in which social structures guide social behavior, but social behavior in turn creates and changes social structures).

Causes of prejudice

Allport ( 1979 ) recognized a series of influences that impact a particular incident of prejudice, such as police brutality based on racial group/social class divisions or anti-Islamic bullying in secondary schools around the Western world. These include historical, sociological, situational, psychodynamic, and phenomenological (i.e., perceptual) influences. But ultimately, for Allport, a social psychologist, prejudice is “a problem of personality formation and development” (p. 41). For Althusser ( 1971 ), a Marxist philosopher, prejudice would likely, in the last instance, be an issue of economic and social class considerations. Ultimately, a cross-disciplinary perspective is more useful for understanding a complex phenomenon like prejudice (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998 ). A broader consideration should consider multiple causes (Baldwin, 1998 ), including evolutionary causes, psychological causes (both psychodynamic and perceptual), sociological causes, and rhetorical causes. Communication and behavior become central in each of these causes, highlighting the need for a communicative understanding of prejudice.

Evolutionary causes, often referred to under the rubric of sociobiology, focus on the way in which prejudice might be an inherited trait, possibly even genetic (see, e.g., essays in Reynolds, Falger, & Vine, 1987 ). This approach includes the idea that groups seek to preserve themselves (e.g., by preservation of a supposedly pure gene pool or because of fear of the stranger), the ethnocentrism already noted. Behaviors that exclude have a sense of “naturalness” in that they help a group to survive, and such exclusion of strangers may help to preserve a group’s existence. Some scholars have criticized this approach as a rationale for conservative politics that create a notion of “us” and “them” as natural and that exclude the other, often in racial or religious terms, in order to preserve the way of life of a dominant group within a culture or nation.

Psychological explanations of prejudice fall into at least two major divisions. The first, psychodynamic, suggests that prejudice serves as a mechanism for individuals to meet psychological needs. Thus researchers have long linked it to things such as ambivalence toward parents, rigid personality structure, and a need for authority (Allport, 1979 ; Adorno et al., 1950 ). We see this indirectly through Kenneth Burke’s ( 1967 ) approach to rhetoric in his analysis of Hitler’s campaign against Jewish people as a means to divert negative emotions related to economic and political difficulties from the mainstream German people to Jews, and in Edward Said’s ( 2003 ) Orientalism , which notes how Medieval Europe cast negative images of lust and vice on Middle Easterners that the Europeans did not see in themselves.

A second aspect of the psychological approach concerns perception or cognition. This contains a range of possible influences on prejudice, including such things as selective attention, perception, and recall of the negative behavior of outgroup members, or the notion of attributional biases that impact how we give meanings to the behavior of those of our ingroup and those of outgroups. At the center of many of these explanations is the notion of categorization of people (i.e., dividing them into cognitive groups such as ingroups and outgroups). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986 ) suggests that we cannot think of ourselves apart from the groups to which we belong; we engage in intergroup comparison as a means to make us feel better about our group; and, if our group does not compare well to a group we admire or must rely on in some way—often the dominant group—we engage in strategies to reclaim a sense of pride for our group or distance ourselves from it.

Categorization, in social identity theory, is not a form of prejudice—it is simply the mental placing of people (or things, actions, characteristics, etc.) into mental boxes. However, those boxes are closely related to the stereotypes that cling to groups. Stereotypes are overgeneralizations we make about groups that we apply to individuals in those groups (Herbst, 1997 ). Although these stereotypes provide a mental shortcut for processing information about others, they interfere with our encoding, storage, and recall of information about members of our own group and other groups (Stephan, 1985 ). Countless studies of stereotypes suggest that stereotypes, like ethnocentrism, can serve positive ingroup functions, that they sometimes have at least some basis in an actual behavior or custom (a “kernel of truth”), and that we stereotype both our own group and other groups. Devine (e.g., Devine & Sharp, 2009 ) has found that even people who report lower prejudice, if mentally occupied, still rely on stereotypes, suggesting that everyone is aware of societal stereotypes toward certain groups (e.g., the elderly, athletes, the deaf). It is likely that if we are on auto-pilot or in a state of mindlessness, we will resort to stereotypes. But individuating people (i.e., taking them out of the group we perceive them to be in and treating them as individuals; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003 ) may require deliberate cognitive effort.

Group-based, or sociological, approaches, like psychological approaches, are varied. These include Marxist approaches, which are themselves varied in form (see various essays in Rex & Mason, 1986 ). Some hold tightly to a “vulgar” vision of Marxism, framing intolerance like racism as a creation of the elite to divide the working classes and distract them from revolution through “false consciousness.” Few Marxists take such a severe approach, choosing to see looser relations between capital and the construction of intolerance, but in the “last instance,” seeing intolerance as linked to social class and economic systems. “Capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchal social systems are frequently identified as producing inherent race and gender inequalities which, in various ways, serve the needs of the systems they perpetuate” (Knowles & Mercer, 1992 , p. 110). Weberian approaches see a wider variety of classes than workers and elite, with prejudice linked not just to labor forces but to the struggle over goods, services, and prestige (Gerth & Mills, 1946 ). Other group-based factors also impact prejudice, such as perceived group competition for jobs and resources in times of economic upheaval (e.g., the 1970s oil crisis in the United States), known as realistic group conflict (Bobo, 1983 ); immigration reasons (refugees versus those seeking economic opportunity, patterns of settlement; Omi & Winant, 1986 ); and historically developed class statuses between groups that link immigrants or members of a minority group to a certain class (Wilson, 1978 ), such as the Gastarbeiter (guest-worker) Turks in Germany or the Algerian-descended French.

In a classic “chicken-egg” argument about which came first, it is fruitless to debate whether psychology leads to sociological causes or vice versa, and, in turn, whether these lead to the communicative expression of intolerance, or whether it is the communicative construction of group identities and intolerance that creates the attitudes (Ruscher, 2001 ). It is more likely that mental structures and communicative practices co-create each other, through forms we shall examine in more detail. One possible metaphor for understanding these influences, the impact of historical situations (such as the longstanding antipathy between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, Broome, 2005 ), and specific incidents (such as the attack on the World Trade Towers in New York City in 2001 ), is as layers building upon one other, or even as a hologram, in which we can imperfectly see some semblance of a complex prejudice through a single image—an experimental study on racial perceptions and media use, an analysis of an anti-Irish speech or a pro-nationalist song, or interviews with women who are victims of catcalling (Hecht & Baldwin, 1998 ). But, as a complete hologram provides the most faithful image, the most complete view of an intolerance will come through multiple views (e.g., disciplines), using multiple methods.

Racism: A Case Study in Prejudice

Racism as a specific type of prejudice is one of the most hotly discussed and debated sites of intolerance in contemporary times in the United States and beyond. Even countries that once imagined themselves as “racial democracies” in which racially different people lived side by side (like Brazil) are now admitting the harsh reality of entrenched and historic racism. Even though many there argue that class, not race, is the primary social distinction, as racism has become officially illegal, forms of overt racism, from social media to abuse and killing of unarmed blacks by police continue to receive recent focus in U.S. news.

Racism is a form of intolerance that is based on the supposedly biological distinction of race, but many authors today argue that race is a social construct, sometimes defined differently from country to country and even over time within a single country. Different authors have outlined the history of the notion of race in the English language, noting that at different times, it has referred to an ancestral clan (the race of Abraham), to supposed biological differences, and, more recently, to culture (Banton, 1987 ; Omi & Winant, 1986 ). Those who see a biological component cannot agree on how many races there are and, historically, politics and rhetoric have done as much to construct who belongs in a particular race as biology (e.g., in the early U.S., the Irish were considered “colored”). In the United States, race was based on racist assumptions, on one having even a small degree of colored blood in one’s ancestral lineage; in other cultures, race is based strictly on physiological features, regardless of lineage. Ethnicity , in contrast, is related more to the cultural origins of one’s background or ancestry, sometimes linked to a specific time and place. To emphasize its social constructedness, many authors bracket “race” with quotation marks.

Who Can Be Racist? The Locus of Racism (and Other Intolerances)

Can minority members be “racist”.

Beyond the nature of race itself, researchers and educators debate the very nature of racism. Some contend that racism is an intolerance based on the construction of race that is perpetrated and held by the support of the dominant system. For example, Malott and Schaefle ( 2015 ) define racism as “a system of oppression, whereby persons of a dominant racial group (whites in the United States) exercise power or privilege over those in nondominant groups” (p. 361). According to this argument, only whites can be racist in a white-dominated system (whether that dominance is by numbers or in political and social power). Others contend that racism is any system of beliefs—“held consciously or otherwise”—that treats members of a group that is different on supposedly biological grounds as “biologically different than one’s own” (Herbst, 1997 , p. 193). By this definition, anyone who sees another race group as inferior would be racist.

The locus of racism: Individual or structural?

This distinction in racism also applies to definitions of sexism or to the delineation between homophobia as a personal dislike or fear of LGBT individuals and heterosexism as a social structure that reinforces prejudice against them (Nakayama, 1998 ). The debate is similar to the definitional debate of prejudice in general—is it something that is strictly an individual trait, or is it something that is socially built into the structures of society—the laws, the media, the educational system, the church, and so on? Associated with this question is the nature of what racism is: The “individual-level” definition treats racism as a system of beliefs (i.e., a psychological construct), and the other treats it as a system of oppression that goes beyond individual psyche and personality to consider racism embedded within social structures. The question of where we see racism (and other intolerances) is vitally important. Those who see racism and other intolerances as primarily individual-level (stereotypes, personal dislikes, etc.) tend to address intolerance through training and educational programs in organizations and schools; those who see it as systemic believe that such approaches ignore larger issues of policy, law, segregation, discrimination, and media/rhetoric that produce and reproduce racist beliefs or create an environment that makes them grow. We see this tension, for example, in Rattansi’s ( 1992 ) discussion of the debate between multicultural education—an educational solution to tolerance focused on educating about differences—and antiracism, which addresses political and social structures that propagate and support racism.

Racism: Defined by intent or result?

A related definitional distinction regarding racism concerns whether an intent of harm or exclusion is necessary to define thoughts or actions as racist. Miles ( 1989 ) criticizes earlier notions of racism, largely in that they re-inscribe the notion of race as if it were a concrete reality rather than a social construction. He weaves together a new approach to racism that begins with discourses that serve to exclude the “other” (based on supposed biological differences); for Miles, “the concept of racism should refer to the function, rather than the content of the discourses” (p. 49), allowing racism to include things that may not sound racist but still seek to exclude the other. Miles differentiates racism from racialization , the categorization of people based on supposed biological differences. He argues against the use of racism and disagrees with a stance that would have only whites being racist, such that “all ‘white’ people are universally and inevitably sick with racism” (p. 53), as this concept may ignore the specifics of racism in particular countries, cultures, or circumstances; however, he notes the need to consider institutional racism—racism built into organizational, legal, and social structures—that does favor whites in many countries. By this, one could speak of racism as something any person could hold or express, but institutional racism would be reserved for a group that has power in a particular context. Finally, he bases racism not on the intent of an action, but on the result. He argues that racism is an ideology, based on differentiation, that leads to “exclusionary practices” (pp. 77–78), such as differential treatment or allocation of resources and opportunities, regardless of one’s intent or even awareness of the ideological underpinnings of one’s actions. Goldberg ( 1993 ) argues that we should allow racism to include either intent or result.

Including resulting exclusionary practice in our definition of racism has implications for redressing or addressing racism. First, it suggests a limitation in addressing overt racist thoughts and stereotypes only through education, as policies, laws, and social structures foster an environment for the presence of such thoughts and their communication. Miles ( 1989 ) advocates that “strategies for eliminating racism should concentrate less on trying exclusively to persuade those who articulate racism that they are ‘wrong’ and more on changing those particular economic and political relations” (p. 82). A second implication is that, even as we seek to address racism through everyday interactions and social media, because racism is such a charged topic, we will advance our cause little by calling an action, a joke, or a Facebook or Twitter posting “racist.” The poster, holding a more traditional view of racism as intentionally harmful in some way, will deny racist intent, and a charge of racism will move the discussion into the original communicator’s attempts to avoid the charge of racism (or sexism, etc.), rather than addressing the specific policy, image, or statement. Instead, we might discuss and demonstrate through evidence the way that the policy or image excludes others based on race. Without invoking the “r-word,” we may have a better chance at engaging in dialogues about policies, laws, and communicative behaviors that exclude others.

Intersectionalities of Racism

As we have begun to notice, one thing that complicates the concept of racism is its overlap with other terms, such as prejudice (with racism being a subset of prejudice). So, although xenophobia and ethnocentrism are distinct and separate from racism, the “other” within these concepts is often articulated or perceived in terms of race. A focus on racism and antiracism, unfortunately, often excludes other bases of intolerance that may be even more prominent within a given area, such as religious intolerance, sexism, or heterosexism. At the same time, it is useful to see how racism intersects with and sometimes leads to other intolerances, all of which have received much thought in recent years.

In some cases, feminists and antiracists have been at odds, proponents of each claiming that their sphere of oppression is the one that merits the most attention. Feminism is defined as “the belief that men and women are equal and should have equal respect and opportunities in all spheres of life—personal, social, work, and public” (Wood, 2008 , p. 324). Feminist communication research seeks to make the voices of women heard, to highlight their experiences within the social construction of gender, and “their experiences of oppression and of coping with and resisting that oppression” (Foss & Foss, 1994 , p. 39). Recent feminists consider how patriarchy, or male power or hegemony over the realities and voices of women, is not something maintained only by men nor is it deliberate. Rather, it is held in place by systems often beyond the awareness of men and women, and consented to and participated in by women themselves (Zompetti, 2012 ). Each of these ideas could also apply to racism, revealing a similarity between sexism and racism. But racism and sexism are also joined in the experiences of women of color, whose specific life situations are not fully addressed by either antiracist efforts or feminism. Collins ( 1990 ), for example, argues that African American women in the United States live in a site of triple oppression—by race, sex, and class, with these oppressions articulated by both the dominant white community and within the black community.

Queer theory

Queer theory seeks to challenge the way in which society passes on heterosexuality as the norm. Warner ( 1991 ) sees oppression of gays and lesbians in every aspect of society and in “a wide range of institutions and ideology” (p. 5). But even more so, he feels that the academy’s silence regarding oppression of sexual identity participates in that oppression. Chávez ( 2013 ) supports this claim, noting that at the writing of her article, no major journal in the National Communication Association had devoted a full issue to queer studies. Again, recent scholars have been looking at the intersection of race and sexual orientation (Yep, 2013 ), such as the representations and experiences of older gay male adults, Latina lesbians, and transgender blacks.

Whiteness studies

Based on the early writings of Richard Dyer ( 1997 ) and Ruth Frankenberg ( 1993 ), researchers have highlighted the notion of whiteness —a hidden system of ideology and social structure that maintains whites in a position of advantage—but one that is often invisible to, and yet defended by, whites (Wander, Nakayama, & Martin, 1999 ). Whiteness studies call attention to areas of white privilege. “By exposing the ‘invisibility’ of whiteness, the study of whiteness helps us understand the way that white domination continues” (p. 22). A current search for “whiteness” in a communication library search engine reveals over 800 articles on the topic. Many of these are media studies on how whiteness is promoted and/or challenged in a wide variety of texts, including South Park , the Rush Hour movies, The Hunger Games , and Glee . But whiteness is also analyzed in areas of education, everyday language, and health and organizational communication, as well as in many different countries.

Orientalism/postcolonialism

whiteness studies owe part of their heritage to postcolonialism, which has its own roots in the conceptualization of Orientalism by Edward Said ( 2003 ). Said analyzes European art and literature to reveal the construction of the Arab or Middle Easterner as “other.” He notes how the Western ideology of the East (referring to the Middle East) folklorizes and sexualizes Middle Easterners, treating them as backward, in a way that justifies European colonization and paternalism. Thousands of books now deal in some way with Orientalism, and Said’s notion of the “other” has become a stock theme in how we consider the racial other. For example, though not framed explicitly in Orientalism, James Baldwin’s famous 1955 essay “Stranger in the Village” talks about the rage of the black man as he confronts white America and the naiveté of whites—a naiveté that they work hard to preserve (thus relating Baldwin’s ideas to whiteness). When whites arrive in Africa, blacks are astonished:

The white man takes the astonishment as tribute, for he arrives to conquer and to convert the natives, whose inferiority in relation to himself is not even to be questioned; whereas I, without a thought of conquest, find myself among a people whose culture controls me, has even, in a sense, created me, people who have cost me more in anguish and rage than they will ever know, who yet do not even know of my existence … The rage of the disesteemed is personally fruitless, but it is also absolutely inevitable: the rage, so generally discounted, so little understood even among the people whose daily bread it is, is one of the things that makes history.

Postcolonialism, building upon Orientalism, considers all locations where one nation or people group has colonized another group, considering the cultural, political, and social ramifications of that colonization and seeking to remedy social ills that it has brought about. Shome and Hegde ( 2002 ) call the approach “interventionist and highly political” (p. 250). Postcolonialism notes how much of the world is forced to work within thought systems created by the Western world (an effect only magnified through the rise of the internet and globalization). Postcolonial writers are often interested in issues such as migration of people groups (including diasporic groups); the hybrid (but power-laden) mixture of ideas, artifacts, and behaviors between cultures; the liminal spaces between cultures; and the imperialism of ideas (Bhabha, 1994 ). Thus, postcolonialism is inherently about prejudice and oppression beyond racism, though it also has links to racism specifically, as authors consider the ways that some have used racial categories to colonize others (e.g., see essays in Nakayama & Halualani, 2010 ).

Discrimination: Considering the Form(s) of Intolerance

As we have seen, it is difficult to discuss prejudice in general or racism specifically without moving into issues of institutionalized prejudice, media representations, school and government policies, and so on. In this sense, both prejudice and racism are intricately intertwined with discrimination. Discrimination specifically refers to “behavior that denies equal treatment to people because of their membership in some group” (Herbst, 1997 , p. 185). It is based on the “beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of prejudice” (p. 185), but these mental or social concepts are not in themselves discrimination. Discrimination involves behavior.

Institutional Discrimination

When we think of institutional-level discrimination, many examples come to mind. These include things like not allowing certain groups housing or refusing other privileges, resources, or opportunities to them. At the writing of this chapter, a popular U.S. media topic is the county clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to give marriage licenses to gays or lesbians based on her faith, despite a state law that allowed her to do so. The Jim Crowe laws of the United States, which gave unequal educational and public access rights to blacks and whites is a classic example, with many facilities being for “whites only.” The website Global Issues (Shah, 2010 ) details instances of racism and racial discrimination around the world, such as racism against white farmers in Zimbabwe and discrimination against the Dalits—the “untouchables” in India.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing

At the extreme end of discrimination, we have genocide and ethnic cleansing . For example, around 1915 , the Ottomon (Turkish) empire slaughtered 1.5 million Armenians (75% of the Turkish Armenian population). The Turkish government took Armenian (largely Christian) children and converted them, giving them to Islamic families. Even today, Turkey defends this “Turkification” of Turkey as a necessary act of war and has resisted the U.S. and other nations defining it as genocide (Armenian genocide, n.d. ). Other genocides have occurred in Central Europe (the Holocaust) in the 1930s–1940s, Rwanda in 2003 , Cambodia in the 1970s, and the Greek/Pontic genocide of World War I. Extreme discrimination includes hate crimes and overt hate groups. The introduction of this chapter noted the prevalence of hate crimes and hate groups within the United States and other nations.

Redlining and racial profiling

In many countries, overt forms of discrimination for many (but seldom all) groups have been outlawed. Institutional discrimination itself may take forms that are harder to name and prove, such as redlining , the process by which banks give fewer mortgages to people of color, based on the belief that they are less able to repay loans. Some real estate agents may steer people of color away from rentals in upscale neighborhoods; school advisers may tell people of color that their children are more suited for trade school rather than college or graduate school. In the United States in 2014–2015 , there was a spate of cases surrounding potential police brutality against unarmed black men, leading to the “Black Lives Matter” movement. There is also racial profiling , such as when police pay more attention to people of color, stopping and/or searching them more frequently than they do whites (what some people of color call “DWB” or “driving while black”). A growing and complex array of academic studies examine whether or not profiling exists and, if so, what its nature is (e.g., is it pro-white, or does it depend on the race of the officer?). A similar phenomenon experienced by many people of color is being followed through stores by security guards, regardless of their attire or appearance. Notably, some aspects of discrimination, such as redlining, might be done, at least in the minds of the banker, real estate agent, or high school counselor, without a notion of racial discrimination; but here, Miles’s ( 1989 ) notion of racism defined by exclusionary outcome would classify the behaviors as racist, as they exclude based on supposed biological differences.

Intolerant Communication

Redneck racism/prejudice.

Central to our discussion is the way that discrimination and racism can occur through communicative behavior. Brislin ( 1991 ) outlined several forms of discriminatory communication. In addition to hate crimes and ethnic cleansing, he mentions redneck racism —the expression of blatant intolerance toward someone of another race. He applies these categories to racism, but we can apply them to any group. These might include jokes, statements (e.g., about the inferiority or backwardness of a group), or slurs or names for people of another group (also called ethnophaulisms ). Conventional wisdom, for example, suggests that there are many more slurs for women then there are for men, and most of these have some sexual connotation.

Sometimes, the intolerance is slightly veiled though still present, as when we resort to “us/them” language or talk to someone from another group about “your people.” Brislin’s ( 1991 ) notion of arm’s-length prejudice occurs when someone voices tolerance for a group, typically of being accepting of them in the neighborhood or workplace, but wants to restrict them from closer relationships, such as marrying a family member (related to Bogardus’s notion of social distance ; Allport, 1979 ). Prejudice might manifest in statements like “She’s very smart for an ‘X’” or “I have a friend who is a ‘Y,’ and he is very articulate,” since such statements assume that most Xs are not smart and most Ys are not articulate.

Prejudiced colloquialisms

Prejudice also manifests in our use of colloquialisms that play upon a particular aspect of identity or ability, such as calling something “lame” or “retarded.” Both the harm and use of such phrases has been established. For example, one study found that hearing the phrase “That’s so gay” made gays and lesbians feel less accepted in the university setting and, to a lesser degree, increased reported health problems. Over 45% of the participants had heard the word “gay” linked to something “stupid or undesirable” (Hall & LaFrance, 2012 , p. 430) ten or more times within the last year. Hall and LaFrance ( 2012 ) find a complex interplay between identity—males’ endorsement of gender identity norms andthe desire to distance themselves from homosexuality, as well as the social norms around them, and their likelihood to use the expression.

Prejudice built into language

We might well say that intolerance can be embedded in every level of language. In one classic study, men interrupted women much more than women interrupted men. If women overlapped men, men continued their turn speaking, but if men interrupted women, women yielded their turn speaking (Zimmerman & West, 1975 ). Coates’s ( 2003 ) analysis of narratives told by men in mixed company (such as around the family dinner table) notes that men are both the target and subject of most stories, with dinner table discussion typically centering on patriarchal authority. Research has explored prejudice through verbal and nonverbal behaviors toward people of different ages, people with disabilities, people with different languages or dialects, and other groups, including much theory and research on how we adjust or do not adjust our behavior toward those we perceive to be of different groups (communication accommodation theory; Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005 ) or how minority members must negotiate their communication with dominant group members because of contexts of power and prejudice (co-cultural theory; Orbe & Spellers, 2005 ).

Bar-Tal ( 1990 ) and Zur ( 1991 ) note the way that we use rhetoric to create a sense of others (i.e., to create the identity of the enemy in a way that then justifies discrimination) resonates with Burke’s ( 1967 ) analysis of Hitler’s rhetorical construction of the Jewish people. Collins and Clément ( 2012 ), summarizing research from a special 2007 issue of Journal of Language and Social Psychology on language and discrimination up to the present, summarize the role of language as it pertains to prejudice:

Language is the primary means through which prejudice can be explicitly and implicitly communicated and is, therefore, a major contributor to its transmission and maintenance. But language can also play a more rooted and integral role in prejudice: changing perceptions by distorting the information it carries, focusing attention on social identities, and being a factor in the definition of group boundaries (p. 389).

Intolerance gone underground: Subtle forms of prejudice

As early as the mid-1980s, authors began to argue that in Western societies, racism and other forms of intolerance were going underground (i.e., aware that the redneck varieties of intolerance were socially unacceptable, people expressed less overt intolerance but continued to show intolerance through racism in ways that were “subtle” and “everyday”—a new and modern racism). People might express such forms of racism (and by extension other intolerances) through nonverbal behaviors, such as placing change on the counter instead of in an outgroup member’s hand, or through subtle sayings and word usages that exclude or put down the other person in some way that is not clearly distinguishable as prejudice. In the new racism, minority groups are not spoken of as inferior but as “different,” “although in many respects there are ‘deficiencies,’ such as single-parent families, drug abuse, lacking achievement values, and dependence on welfare and affirmative action—‘pathologies’ that need to be corrected” (van Dijk, 2000 , p. 34). Today, researchers and social activists refer to these subtle manifestations of prejudice as microagressions .

Symbolic racism is similar to subtle racism (Sears & Henry, 2005 ), though it relates more to political attitudes. Researchers have framed symbolic racism to include elements of anti-black sentiment hidden by political attitudes (e.g., that affirmative action has gone too far, that blacks are demanding too much; McConahay, 1986 ). Political research has a corollary in communication in that often, as whites talk about economic or political issues, there is at least a mental if not an explicit verbal coding of race or ethnic “othering.” International ownership of business becomes an issue when Japanese or Chinese companies start buying U.S. businesses, regardless of the large and long-term Dutch and English business holdings in America; discussions about welfare, gangs, and urban decay are often subtly about race. Similar verbal coding may also hold true with other identity groups.

Finally, in terms of face-to-face communication, researchers have explored the notion of “benevolent” intolerance. Discussions of things such as benevolent racism or sexism are often based on a larger notion of benevolent domination, whereby one nation or group seeks to dominate another, supposedly in its best interests (based on Rudyard Kipling’s notion of the “white man’s burden”). For example, Esposito and Romano ( 2014 ) contrast benevolent racism to other forms of post-U.S.-civil-rights forms of racism, such as laissez-faire racism, symbolic racism, and color-blind racism. Each might oppose affirmative action, for example, but for different reasons. Laissez-faire would oppose it based on ideas of meritocracy and free enterprise, blaming blacks themselves for lack of economic progress. Symbolic racism would hold that “the United States is a fair and equitable society where everyone has ample opportunity to succeed through hard work and talent” (p. 74), and that blacks who use the “race card” are hypersensitive—they are “too pushy, too demanding, too angry” (McConahay & Hough, 1976 , p. 38). Color-blind racism starts with what seems to be a reasonable assumption, that all people are the same, but then moves to assume that lack of progress of minority members is due to their personal choices, low work ethic, or lack of ability, and ignores structural support for inequalities.

Benevolent racism has a long history, even into slavery, a time in which some whites felt they were doing blacks a favor by controlling them and “providing” for them. More recently, it involves a seemingly positive attitude toward blacks that then opposes any social reforms like affirmative action as belittling blacks and working against their natural progress as citizens (Esposito & Romano, 2014 ). Benevolent sexism holds the same basic idea: Rather than sexism being based on anti-woman attitudes, it can also be supported by putting women “on a pedestal,” characterizing them as “pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored, and whose love is necessary to make a man complete” (Glick & Fiske, 2001 , p. 109). Extensive research has linked such benevolent ideas about women to negative outcomes for them.

Intolerance in the media and on the internet

Finally, many volumes have been written on the issues of stereotypes and intolerance in the media. This includes both social scientific work, such as the cultivation theory research that analyzes both representation of minorities in the media in different countries and the research that considers the effects of such representation. It also includes a wide array of critical and cultural analyses from the cultural studies school. Many of these analyses use the principles discussed—feminism, postcolonialism, critical race theory, whiteness, and so on. They work to demonstrate how the media systematically ignore, oversimplify, or negatively represent particular groups. One line of research in this field is the focus on the symbolic annihilation of race (Coleman & Chivers Yochim, 2008 ), which notes how, unlike stereotypes in the media that focus on the presence of some characteristic associated with a group, symbolic annihilation also considers “the meanings associated with absence, omission, or even inclusion that is not so obviously problematic (negative)” (p. 2), in terms of what such absences and seemingly benign images mean.

With the growth of the internet and video gaming, a final area of importance in understanding, researching, and working against prejudice includes all new media. The internet gives impetus for new research to understand hate groups on the media, flaming (e.g., in comments on video-hosting websites such as YouTube), and social media. We see examples of the use of social media for racist purposes in the flurry of racist twitters that followed the crowning of Nina Davuluri, an American of East Indian descent. Research considers both the presence of stereotypes in such media, as well as their effects.

The potential of communication

Unlike some early critical writers, who felt that media imagery (including new media) only produce and reproduce prevailing (prejudiced) ideologies, we must also consider the potential of face-to-face, mediated, and new media as places to challenge oppression. In terms of face-to-face communication, we can work through education to dispel stereotypes. That education can be simply on cultural differences and accomplishments, though changing cognitions alone may not change deeply felt affective prejudice, and only time (as more tolerant individuals assume positions of leadership) will lead to changes in discriminatory social structures. This is why some advocate for political education that addresses both personal and structural prejudice more directly, as well as political action and intervention in media systems.

Many scholars represent interpersonal contact as one of the best ways to address prejudice. Contact theory holds great potential for the planning of interventions to reduce intergroup tensions, as it describes how interpersonal contact with people from outgroups under the right conditions can work by changing both attitudes and affect, especially if people can see the other person as both a member of a new group while still recognizing their original group identity (Dovidio et al., 2003 ). Thomas Pettigrew ( 2016 ) outlines the history of research on authoritarianism (the desire and support for strong authority structures) and relative deprivation (the feeling that one’s group is disadvantaged in comparison to another group) as two of the main predictors of intergroup prejudice. He notes how, while personality factors like authoritarianism and cognitive rigidity are related to greater intolerance and make the likelihood of meaningful intergroup contact more unlikely, even in the presence of these variables, contact programs can have a positive effect for people with prejudice A meta-analysis of 515 contact studies suggests that contact works specifically by increasing knowledge of the other group, decreasing anxiety when one is with the other group, and increasing empathy for the other group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008 ).

In terms of media, we see both a growth in the production of media that challenges and resists stereotypes, rigid gender constructions, and so on, as well as a growth of grassroots efforts to highlight such oppression. One such effort is the website Fat, Ugly, or Slutty , a site composed of posts contributed by women who are stereotyped or verbally assaulted by men in video gaming websites, usually when the women have beaten them. The women are able to post comments made by other players, their own avatars, and even videos that the men sometimes send them. Efforts like these highlight forms of oppression that occur throughout the internet, but they also highlight the potential of the internet for addressing these forms of oppression in creative ways.

Conclusions

We have seen throughout this article that culture, prejudice, racism, and discrimination are related in complicated ways. Some people even see the characteristics of a particular culture (e.g., mainstream America’s conception of male and female beauty, the definition of a “good” education, or the focus on individualism) as negotiated between people with economic and power interests. Cultures (using the term much more widely than “nation”) are always ethnocentric, with individuals sometimes being xenophobic. But these forms of intolerance are frequently linked to other forms of intolerance—religious, racial, ethnic, and otherwise. Prejudice, most technically, is an affect—a desire to avoid someone because of her or his group, as opposed to stereotypes, which are more cognitive associations with a group—and efforts to reduce prejudice should focus on both affect and cognition. But intolerance is also clearly linked to higher-order manifestations of prejudice, such as discrimination through legal and organizational policies, symbolic annihilation of groups in the media, and everyday forms of discrimination, be they overt or subtle. More likely, communicative and policy forms of prejudice (and their manifest effects in terms of housing, education, job opportunities, and so on) “create” prejudicial perceptions, which in turn create the conditions of discrimination. Racism serves as an example—but only one of many—of the links among attitude, communicative action, policy, and social structure. With this complex view in mind, we can see that any attempts to redress or ameliorate racism or any other intolerance must include not only education, or even merely a wide array of communicative responses (media and face-to-face), but also efforts at addressing social inequalities at the structural and policy levels.

Article Contents

An overview of violence experienced by indigenous peoples, historical oppression and historical trauma, a framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence, the framework of historical oppression and resilience and resistance as applied to violence against indigenous women, future directions, applications, and implications for social work.

< Previous

Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence: Can a Holistic Framework Help Explain Violence Experienced by Indigenous People?

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Catherine Elizabeth Burnette, Charles R. Figley, Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence: Can a Holistic Framework Help Explain Violence Experienced by Indigenous People?, Social Work , Volume 62, Issue 1, 1 January 2017, Pages 37–44, https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sww065

Permissions Icon Permissions

Although all minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peoples in the United States tend to experience the most severe violent victimization. Until now, an organizing framework to explain or address the disproportionate rates of violent victimization was absent. Thus, the purpose of this conceptual article is to (a) introduce the concept of historical oppression, expanding the concept of historical trauma to make it inclusive of contemporary oppression; (b) describe the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence, which draws from distinct but related theoretical frameworks (that is, critical theory and resilience theory); and (c) apply the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence to the problem of violence against indigenous women. The proposed framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence prioritizes social justice and strengths; it provides a culturally relevant framework, which can be used to explain, predict, and prevent violence. The article concludes with recommendations for future research, implications for practice, and recommended applications to other problems and populations.

To provide a culturally relevant framework to explain, predict, and prevent violence experienced by indigenous peoples, this article will (a) introduce the concept of historical oppression, expanding the concept of historical trauma to make it inclusive of contemporary oppression; (b) describe the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence, which draws from distinct but related theoretical frameworks (that is, critical theory and resilience theory); and (c) apply the framework of historical oppzression, resilience, and transcendence to the problem of violence against indigenous women by synthesizing extant research, which works from this framework. Although all minorities experience inequalities, indigenous peoples of the United States, to whom the scope of this article is limited, tend to experience the most severe violent victimization ( Black et al., 2011 ).

Indigenous peoples is a term used to describe the diverse groups thought to be earliest inhabitants of a country and who share the history of being affected by colonization. The United States is home to 567 federally recognized tribes ( Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], 2016 ), 66 state-recognized tribes ( National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015 ), and around 400 tribes that exist outside either jurisdiction ( U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012 ). Thus, diverse membership and distinct trust relationships, based on treaty agreements with politically sovereign federally recognized tribes, warrants examining indigenous disparities separately from other ethnic minorities ( BIA, 2016 ).

The issue of disproportionate rates of violence experienced by indigenous peoples has drawn national attention ( Black et al., 2011 ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2013 ). Results of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey ( Black et al., 2011 ) indicated that 46 percent of indigenous (for the purpose of this study, that is, American Indian and Alaska Native) women have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) (that is, rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner), compared with 43.7 percent of non-Hispanic black women, 34.6 percent of non-Hispanic white women, 37.1 percent of Hispanic women, and 53.8 percent of women identifying as multiracial non-Hispanic. Similarly, indigenous men experience the highest rates of IPV (45.3 percent), in comparison with black men (38.6 percent), non-Hispanic men (39.3 percent), Hispanic men (26.6 percent), and non-Hispanic white men (28.2 percent) ( Black et al., 2011 ). Although IPV rates for both men and women are high, women tend to disproportionately suffer negative impacts from IPV, indicating the intersectionality and cumulative disadvantage of being female and minority ( Black et al., 2011 ). For example, approximately 60 percent of women versus 17 percent of men who report IPV report feeling unsafe from the violence and approximately 81 percent of women versus approximately 35 percent of men report a negative impact from IPV experiences ( Black et al., 2011 ).

Despite over five centuries of inequities against indigenous peoples since European American colonization began, there has been no organizing framework to explain or address such disparities ( Jones, 2006 ). This absence severely limits the ability to accurately explain, predict, and prevent these disparities. Likewise, the disproportionate rates of violence and health disparities experienced by indigenous people can overshadow the remarkable resilience and transcendence of oppression that have been demonstrated; moreover, there are concerns about the scarcity of research on protective factors relating to violence and health disparities ( Barney, 2001 ; Brownridge, 2008 ). This problem focus can marginalize already oppressed groups ( Waller, 2001 ) and overlook the deep strengths of indigenous communities, families, and individuals, which have sustained them for centuries.

In this article, we propose a framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence. The contributions of this framework are (a) expansion of a framework used with indigenous peoples (that is, historical trauma); (b) application of frameworks that are relevant but not yet adapted for indigenous people in the United States who have experienced violence (that is, the work of Paulo Freire); (c) delineation of a holistic theoretical framework, synthesizing relevant frameworks that have not been integrated (that is, critical theory and resilience theory); and (d) application of the explicated framework to the problem of violence against indigenous women. The resulting framework focuses on strengths and situates social problems experienced by indigenous peoples in their structural and historical causes ( Burnette, 2015c ).

The concept of historical oppression expands on historical trauma , a concept that includes the cumulative, massive, and chronic trauma imposed on a group across generations and within the life course ( Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998 ; Duran, Duran, Brave Heart, & Yellow Horse-Davis, 1998 ). Unlike historical trauma, historical oppression includes both historical and contemporary forms of oppression. Historical oppression describes the chronic, pervasive, and intergenerational experiences of oppression that, over time, may be normalized, imposed, and internalized into the daily lives of many indigenous people (including individuals, families, and communities) ( Burnette, 2015a , 2015c ). Although historical oppession is inclusive of historical traumas, it is distinct in that it is localized to specific contexts and is inclusive of the proximal factors that continue to perpetuate oppression, including discrimination, microaggressions (that is, everyday injustices and demeaning messages that marginalized populations experience) ( Walters & Simoni, 2009 ), poverty, and marginalization ( Burnette, 2015c ).

Examples of historical traumas inflicted on indigenous peoples include land dispossession, death of the majority of the populations through warfare and disease, forced removal and relocation, assimilative boarding school experiences, and prohibiting religious practices, among others ( Evans-Campbell, 2008 ; Harper & Entrekin, 2006 ). As a result of historical traumas, indigenous peoples have experienced historical losses, which included the loss of land, traditional and spiritual ways, self-respect from poor treatment from government officials, language, family ties, trust from broken treaties, culture, and people (through early death); there are also losses that can be attributed to increased alcoholism ( Whitbeck, Adams, Hoyt, & Chen, 2004 ). These losses have been associated with sadness and depression, anger, intrusive thoughts, discomfort, shame, fear, and distrust around white people ( Whitbeck et al., 2004 ). Experiencing massive traumas and losses is thought to lead to cumulative and unresolved grief, which can result in the historical trauma response , which includes suicidal thoughts and acts, IPV, depression, alcoholism, self-destructive behavior, low self-esteem, anxiety, anger, and lowered emotional expression and recognition ( Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998 ; Duran et al., 1998 ). These symptoms run parallel to the extant health disparities that are documented among indigenous peoples.

Walters et al. (2011) and others ( Gone, 2013 ) have emphasized the need for greater delineation and explication of historical trauma for it to predict and explain social problems among indigenous Americans. Historical trauma, encompassing massive traumatic events, does not fully explicate the pervasive and chronic oppression that indigenous populations continue to experience, such as disrupted cultural patterns, economic inequality, and disjunction between traditional and mainstream life ways ( Kirmayer, Gone, & Moses, 2014 ). Others have noted the challenges related to documenting empirical support for the concept of historical trauma ( Walters et al., 2011 ), including the methodological problems in connecting historically distant events to contemporary problems, despite their undoubted effects ( Burnette, 2015c ). Finally, the historical trauma response is proposed as the psychological result of experiencing historical traumas, but the consequences of historical trauma undoubtedly transcend psychological ramifications to affect entire ethnic groups, communities, and families. Thus, it is important to explore these ripple effects. The focus now shifts to the proposed framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence, which expands on the concept of historical trauma by incorporating contemporary and chronic forms of oppression and integrating an ecosystemic theory of resilience and transcendence.

Cross (1998) recommended characterizing indigenous resilience from a relational worldview, emphasizing the interrelatedness and harmony of the mind, body, context, and spiritual aspects of all things. Thus, the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence uses an ecosystemic perspective, which enables the examination of the interactions and interconnections among risk and protective factors, which are on a continuum rather than being static categories and occur across individual, couple, familial, community, cultural, and societal levels ( Masten & Monn, 2015 ; Waller, 2001 ). This perspective views resilience as a multidetermined and constantly changing result of people's interactions with the environment ( Masten & Monn, 2015 ; Waller, 2001 ).

Risk and Protective Factors in an Ecosystemic Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence

Consistent with Cross's (1998) relational worldview, the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence adopts an ecosystemic perspective on indigenous-related resilience, which emphasizes the interrelatedness and harmony of the mind, body, context, and spiritual aspects of all things. According to this framework, the interaction, accumulation, interconnections, and balance of risk and protective factors across multiple levels predict whether a person experiences wellness after experiencing IPV (see Figure 1 ). This perspective is culturally congruent with indigenous peoples’ holistic view of interconnections between physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health ( Cross, 1998 ; West et al., 2012 ).

Historical Oppression

The conceptualization of historical oppression is derived from critical theory, which examines the power dynamics that tend to impose and perpetuate inequality and oppression ( Guba & Lincoln, 2004 ; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005 ; Morrow & Brown, 1994 ). Although the work of Paulo Freire (2000) originally focused on his experiences in Brazil, he developed a useful perspective that can be applied to today's indigenous peoples, because it focuses on how colonial and historical oppression becomes embodied (that is, through internalized oppression) and self-perpetuating (that is, through horizontal violence and sub-oppression) ( Burnette, 2015a , 2015c ).

Freire's (2000) main assumption was that people desire for humanization , or freedom, yet often experience violence, oppression, and dehumanization , which is considered a limitation on freedom through exploitation and injustice. Freire (2000) suggested that mechanisms of dehumanization include (a) the oppressor imposing choices and values through prescription , the limiting the freedom of those with less power; (b) efforts to dominate and exploit others, which are intergenerationally transmitted; and (c) a possessive consciousness, “possessive of the world and of men and women” (p. 58).

Freire (2000) suggested that social problems emerge after centuries of experiencing chronic oppression, when people may feel resigned and helpless to effect change; this may lead people to be silenced, mistrustful, and understandably insecure. Similarly, when people are chronically and insidiously marginalized and feel that they lack the power to change the restrictive situation, there is a tendency to strike out at those of equal or less power (for example, women and children) through horizontal violence or to escape through substance use ( Freire, 2000 ). This can explain how and why recipients of oppression may oppress fellow group members. Freire (2000) normalized sub-oppression as a common component of the initial stage of liberation from oppression, for there can be a certain adherence to the oppressor due to the desire for their wealth and status. Experiencing chronic oppression can also lead to the internalization of the oppressor, with the recipients of oppression inadvertently adopting the oppressor's dehumanizing beliefs and behaviors.

Thus, those with less power may emulate the oppressor in hopes of attaining power or preventing backlash. For example, if men in indigenous communities internalize the patriarchal, hegemonic, and sexist gender norms introduced through colonization, IPV will increase; indeed, as studies of men across ethnicities demonstrate, such beliefs increase risk for IPV ( McDermott & Lopez, 2013 ; Tager, Good, & Brammer, 2010 ). It follows that leaders may become sub-oppressors, and oppressions may be perpetuated across generations with minimal external manipulation.

Resilience and Resistance

Nevertheless, humanization and transcendence are not only possible, but are a historic reality ( Freire, 2000 ). Dehumanization eventually leads to transcendence in those who experience oppression but seek liberation ( Freire, 2000 ). To overcome oppression, people must identify its causes and create a situation with fuller humanity, without resorting to oppressive tactics ( Freire, 2000 ). This activity involves praxis , reflection and critical dialogue about causes of dehumanization coupled with social action to change these structural inequalities ( Freire, 2000 ). Although those with more power may join them in solidarity in their fight for liberation, it is the job of those who experience oppression to seek emancipation ( Freire, 2000 ). Although Freire described liberation as a challenging process, he predicted decolonization through expelling the oppressor's mentality by replacing it with responsibility, autonomy, and the strengths present prior to colonization ( Freire, 2000 ; Walters & Simoni, 2009 ).

As Freire (2000) predicted, indigenous peoples have not been merely passive recipients of historical traumas, but rather have been resisting oppression and demonstrating “survivance” (a term coined by Vizenor, 2008 ) and resilience throughout history. Survivance includes the ingenuity indigenous peoples have continuously demonstrated despite the adversity imposed by colonization, such as a commitment to their homeland, strength of spirit, and humor ( Vizenor, 2008 ).

Centuries of historical oppression have seriously constrained indigenous peoples, but the constraint has also provided the opportunity to develop ingenious skills to resist and transcend oppression ( Robbins, Robbins, & Stennerson, 2013 ), sharpening resilience ( Cross, 1998 ). Resilience includes the ability to positively adapt despite experiencing adversity ( Greene, 2009 ). Risk factors increase or worsen negative outcomes, whereas protective factors buffer against problems (for example, IPV and health disparities) and strengthen positive outcomes ( Masten & Monn, 2015 ; Waller, 2001 ). Resilience can be assessed at individual, familial, community, and cultural levels. Resistance acknowledges the continuous efforts made by indigenous peoples to respond to and transcend historical oppression.

This section synthesizes research from a critical ethnography with 29 indigenous women who have experienced violence and 20 professionals who work with those who experience violence. Because the scope of this article is explicating how results apply to the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence, the details of this critical ethnography may be located within each respective reference.

An ecosystemic framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence examines the risk and protective factors across societal, cultural, community, partner, and individual levels. The focus now turns to emergent risk and protective factors, which are thought to give rise to IPV and impair recovery from such violence.

Societal-Level Factors

When applied to violence against indigenous women, risk factors at the societal level have included historical oppression, namely colonial tactics of dehumanization ( Burnette, 2015d ). Such tactics include (a) cultural invasion (decades of warfare and cultural disruption brought on through colonization); (b) fragmenting indigenous communities against each other and introducing adversarial gender roles to replace indigenous complementary and egalitarian gender roles; (c) replacing indigenous belief systems about women with patriarchal and dehumanizing beliefs; and (d) manipulation (that is, selecting leaders to engage in sub-oppression by offering them greater resources) ( Burnette, 2015d ). A clear history of historical oppression impaired the respect and status of indigenous women, giving rise to greater rates of IPV ( Burnette, 2015d ). These tactics undermined but did not eradicate the societal protective factors of spirituality, cooperation, unity, organization, and cultural synthesis (that is, the capacity of culture for decolonization and liberation) still present in indigenous communities at present ( Burnette, 2015d ).

Community and Cultural Factors

Historical oppression did not stop with initial colonial efforts, but rather has persisted into contemporary times. Forms of historical oppression are localized and context specific. Contemporary experiences of oppression reported by this southeastern indigenous sample included, for example, sharecropping, attending assimilative boarding schools, and insidious experiences of discrimination, which led to losses in the forms of cultural traditions and lives, through early death ( Burnette, 2015c ). In fact, 60 percent of indigenous women who experienced IPV had lost a parent by the age of 18 ( Burnette, 2015c ). Moreover, cultural disruption continues to occur through widespread exposure to mainstream media influences and the imposition of prescriptive ( Freire, 2000 ) policies, prioritizing Western service structures ( Burnette, 2015c ). In many ways, these service structures have clashed and competed with indigenous worldviews, which are thought to be protective for indigenous women ( Burnette, 2015c ).

Just as Freire (2000) proposed, experiences of discrimination and historical oppression have led community members to feel mistrustful of the general population and its services, causing them to remain silent about problems such as IPV ( Burnette, 2015c ). This silence and mistrust may have been an important survival and coping response to dangerous experiences of violence, injustice, and historical oppression over time ( Burnette, 2015c ). However, when silence is generalized to families, it may inadvertently enable family violence and pose as a barrier to help seeking and recovery from violence ( Burnette, 2015c ). Thus, coping mechanisms developed in response to historical oppression may have unintentional negative effects when generalized to individuals, families, and communities, perpetuating the problems introduced by historical oppression (for example, violence).

Weaver (2009) explained how dehumanizing beliefs about women have been internalized into indigenous communities, and, indeed, community members have described how IPV has been normalized ( Burnette, 2015c ; Burnette & Hefflinger , 2016 ; Freire, 2000 ; Weaver, 2009 ). These dehumanizing values and beliefs about women, introduced by colonization and perpetuated in a patriarchal context, made it difficult for women to leave violent relationships ( Burnette, 2015c ). Community members could blame women for being or remaining in violence situations, and IPV relationships tended to conform to the possessive ideology proposed by Freire (2000) (also see Burnette, 2015c ). Moreover, during European settlement, colonial missionaries imposed exclusive Christian patriarchal beliefs, which have been found to be a disincentive for women to leave violent relationships ( Burnette & Hefflinger, in press ; Knickmeyer, Levitt, & Horne, 2010 ; Sharp, 2009 ); thus, the indigenous spiritual beliefs that held women sacred were disrupted and impaired, as was the social fabric that kept them safe.

Moreover, just as Freire (2000) exposed the colonial tactic of dividing the unity of communities, indigenous community members have commented on divisions within the community along age, income, and educational lines ( Burnette & Hefflinger , 2016 ). Related to sub-oppression, many communities perceive inequality, which has disrupted the social and community support needed to overcoming IPV ( Burnette & Hefflinger , 2016 ). Other barriers to effective community services for IPV include complexities related to dual relationships, challenges related to confidentiality in tight-knit communities, a lack of accountability, impunity for perpetrators, delayed responses, and inconsistent service responses ( Burnette, 2015b ).

Despite these cultural and community risk factors related to historical oppression, ample protective factors were also evident in the forms of enculturation (that is, learning about and identifying with indigenous culture) related to spirituality, language, traditions, cultural practices, and celebrations, which could connect indigenous women with protective indigenous values ( Burnette, 2016a ). Likewise the presence of tribally run services for IPV were promising community protective factors that many indigenous communities do not enjoy.

Family-Level Factors

The protective factor of enculturation was primarily transmitted through one of the most promising protective factors related to violence against indigenous women: families ( Burnette, 2016a ). Given aforementioned challenges with formal services, indigenous women tend to rely on informal support systems, which is primarily comprised of family and extended family, which tend to be tight-knit, supportive, and affirming and provide the wisdom of elders and role models ( Burnette, 2016a ). These factors tend to protect women against the effects of IPV and enable them to leave violent relationships earlier. On the other end of this continuum, families with poor communication, parental substance abuse, mental health challenges, impaired parent–child bonds, absent parents, and families exhibiting intergenerational patterns of these impairments could pose risk factors for women who experienced IPV ( Burnette, 2016b ). Indeed, just as division was a prominent colonial tactic appearing at societal and community levels, family division also characterizes such families ( Burnette, 2016b ).

Relational and Individual Factors

At the couple or relational level, having a supportive partner post-abuse was protective ( Burnette & Hefflinger, in press ), whereas emotionally and physically violent partners who demonstrated dehumanizing tactics, such as dominating, manipulating, using threats, using children, being controlling, following rigid patriarchal gender roles, using substances, and demonstrating jealousy and insecurity were relational risk factors ( Burnette, 2015a ). The latter factors paralleled Freire's (2000) assumptions of insecurity being a result of historical oppression along with the dehumanizing tactics present in colonization, such as domination, manipulation, conquest, and division ( Burnette, 2015a ).

Finally, at the individual level, experiencing child maltreatment, adverse childhood experiences, and teenage pregnancy were emergent risk factors ( Burnette & Renner, 2016 ), whereas women demonstrated strongly protective traits to cope with and overcome violence, such as (a) being educationally oriented; (b) demonstrating affirming talents, abilities, self-sufficiency, and inner strength; (c) coping by helping others and expressing emotions; and (d) having faith, optimism, and resilience perspectives, such as learning and seeing growth from adversity ( Burnette & Hefflinger , in press). Interestingly, colonial dehumanizing tactics not only had emerged at the societal levels, but as Weaver (2009) predicted, had been internalized at the community, family, and couple levels as well.

As indicated, emergent risk and protective factors, which occur along a continuum, have been identified related to violence against indigenous women, and themes related to historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence were apparent across societal, community, cultural, familial, partner, and individual levels. Although not all indigenous populations experienced the same forms of historical oppression, the majority have experienced oppression and related losses, giving rise to greater social problems. However, resilience and liberating efforts can easily be located and built on. Educators, researchers, and practitioners can use such a framework—in whole or in part—to situate social problems in a historical context and locate culturally specific risk and protective factors at the societal, community, family, partner, and individual levels to build on strengths and develop culturally relevant interventions. This framework can serve as a tool to take a holistic account of problems within their historical context and address risk factors across multiple levels.

Although this framework was applied to violence against indigenous women, a promising area for future research would be to apply this framework to other social problems, such as health disparities experienced by indigenous populations and populations experiencing historical oppression based on other dimensions of diversity. Because the framework includes an examination and incorporation of strengths and resilience, pathways to liberation and recovery are integrated. Finally, other theoretical frameworks, such as historical trauma, social learning theory, and life course theory, among others, can easily supplement and be used in conjunction with this framework. The framework suggests that building resilience in the face of historical oppression and making incremental improvements leads to wellness. The byproduct of increasing resilience in response to historical oppression is realizing humankind's historical “vocation” of becoming more fully human ( Freire, 2000 ).

Barney , D. D. ( 2001 ). Risk and protective factors for depression and health outcomes in American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents . Wicazo Sa Review, 16 ( 1 ), 135 – 150 .

Google Scholar

Black , M. C. , Basile , K. C. , Breiding , M. J. , Smith , S. G. , Walters , M. L. , Merrick , M. T. , et al. . ( 2011 ). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report . Atlanta : National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

Google Preview

Brave Heart , M.Y.H. , & DeBruyn , L. M . ( 1998 ). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief . American Indian & Alaska Native Research, 8 ( 2 ), 60 – 82 .

Brownridge , D. A. ( 2008 ). Understanding the elevated risk of partner violence against Aboriginal women: A comparison of two nationally representative surveys of Canada . Journal of Family Violence, 23 , 353 – 367 .

Bureau of Indian Affairs . ( 2016 ). What we do . Retrieved from http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm

Burnette , C. E. ( 2015 a). Disentangling indigenous women's experiences with intimate partner violence in the United States . Critical Social Work, 16 ( 1 ), 1 – 20 . Retrieved from http://www1.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/DisentanglingIndigenousWomenExperiences

Burnette , C. E. ( 2015 b). From the ground up: Indigenous women's after violence experiences with the formal service system in the United States . British Journal of Social Work, 45 , 1526 – 1545 . doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu013

Burnette , C. E. ( 2015 c). Historical oppression and intimate partner violence experienced by indigenous women in the U.S.: Understanding connections . Social Services Review, 89 , 531 – 563 . doi:10.1086/683336

Burnette , C. E. ( 2015 d). Indigenous women's resilience and resistance to historical oppression: A case example from the United States . Affilia, 30 , 235 – 243 . doi:0886109914555215

Burnette , C. E. ( 2016 a). Family and cultural protective factors as the bedrock of resilience for indigenous women who have experienced violence . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Burnette , C. E. ( 2016 b). Historical oppression and indigenous families: Uncovering potential risk factors for Indigenous families touched by violence . Family Relations, 65 , 354 – 368 . doi:10.1111/fare.12191

Burnette , C. E. , & Hefflinger , T . (in press). Voices of resilience: Protective factors among Indigenous women who experience violence . Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work .

Burnette , C. E. , & Hefflinger , T. S. ( 2016 ). Identifying historical and community risk factors for violence against indigenous women using a framework of historical oppression . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Burnette , C. E. , & Renner , L. ( 2016 ). A pattern of cumulative disadvantage: Risk factors for violence across indigenous women's lives . British Journal of Social Work . Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw075

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . ( 2013 ). CDC health disparities and inequalities report—United States, 2013 . MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 62 (Suppl. 3), 1 – 187 .

Cross , T. L. ( 1998 ). Understanding family resiliency from a relational worldview. In H. McCubbin , E. A. Thompson , A. I. Thompson , & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in Native American and immigrant families (pp. 143 – 158 ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Duran , E. , Duran , B. , Brave Heart , M.Y.H. , & Yellow Horse-Davis , S. ( 1998 ). Healing the American Indian soul wound. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341 – 354 ). New York : Plenum Press .

Evans-Campbell , T. ( 2008 ). Historical trauma in American Indian/Native Alaska communities . Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 , 316 – 338 .

Freire , P. ( 2000 ). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York : Continuum .

Gone , J. P. ( 2013 ). Reconsidering American Indian historical trauma: Lessons from an early Gros Ventre war narrative . Transcultural Psychiatry, 51 , 387 – 406 . doi:1363461513489722

Greene , R. R. ( 2009 ). Risk and resilience theory: A social work perspective. In R. R. Greene (Ed.), Human behavior theory & social work practice (3rd ed., pp. 315 – 434 ). Piscataway, NJ : Aldine Transaction .

Guba , E. G. , & Lincoln , Y. S. ( 2004 ). Competing paradigms in qualitative research, theories and issues. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 17 – 38 ). New York : Oxford University Press .

Harper , S. S. , & Entrekin , C. M. ( 2006 ). Violence against Native women: A guide for practitioner action (Grant No. 96-VF-GX-K005) . Washington, DC : Office on Violence Against Women and the National Center on Full Faith and Credit .

Jones , D. S. ( 2006 ). The persistence of American Indian health disparities . American Journal of Public Health, 96 , 2122 – 2134 . doi:AJPH.2004.054262

Kincheloe , J. L. , & McLaren , P. L. ( 2005 ). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 303 – 342 ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Kirmayer , L. J. , Gone , J. P. , & Moses , J. ( 2014 ). Rethinking historical trauma . Transcultural Psychiatry, 51 , 299 – 319 . doi:10.1177/1363461514536358

Knickmeyer , N. , Levitt , H. , & Horne , S. G. ( 2010 ). Putting on Sunday best: The silencing of battered women within Christian faith communities . Feminism & Psychology, 20 ( 1 ), 94 – 113 . doi:10.1177/0959353509347470

Marsiglia , F. F. , & Kulis , S. S. ( 2015 ). Diversity, oppression, and change: Culturally grounded social work (2nd ed.). Chicago : Lyceum Books .

Masten , A. S. , & Monn , A. R. ( 2015 ). Child and family resilience: A call for integrated science, practice, and professional training . Family Relations, 64 ( 1 ), 5 – 21 .

McDermott , R. C. , & Lopez , F. G. ( 2013 ). College men's intimate partner violence attitudes: Contributions of adult attachment and gender role stress . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60 ( 1 ), 127 – 136 .

Morrow , R. A. , & Brown , D. D. ( 1994 ). Critical theory and methodology . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

National Conference of State Legislatures . ( 2015 ). Federal and state recognized tribes . Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx

Robbins , R. , Robbins , S. , & Stennerson , B. ( 2013 ). Native American family resilience. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 197 – 227 ). New York : Springer .

Sharp , S. ( 2009 ). Escaping symbolic entrapment, maintaining social identities . Social Problems, 56 , 267 – 284 . doi:10.1525/sp.2009.56.2.267

Tager , D. , Good , G. E. , & Brammer , S. ( 2010 ). “Walking over ’em”: An exploration of relations between emotion dysregulation, masculine norms, and intimate partner abuse in a clinical sample of men . Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11 , 233 – 239 .

U.S. Government Accountability Office . ( 2012 ). Indian issues, federal funding for non-federally recognized tribes (Report to Honorable Dan Boren, House of Representatives No. GAO-12-348). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Vizenor , G. ( 2008 ). Survivance: Narratives of native presence . Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press .

Waller , M. A. ( 2001 ). Resilience in ecosystemic context: Evolution of the concept . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 , 290 – 297 . doi:10.1037/0002-9432.71.3.290

Walters , K. L. , Mohammed , S. A. , Evans-Campbell , T. , Beltrán , R. E. , Chae , D. H. , & Duran , B. ( 2011 ). Bodies don't just tell stories, they tell histories . Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 8 ( 1 ), 179 – 189 .

Walters , K. L. , & Simoni , J. M. ( 2009 ). Decolonizing strategies for mentoring American Indians and Alaska Natives in HIV and mental health research . American Journal of Public Health, 99 ( 1 ), S71 .

Weaver , H. N. ( 2009 ). The colonial context of violence: Reflections on violence in the lives of Native American women . Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 , 1552 – 1563 .

West , A. , Williams , E. , Suzukovich , E. , Strangeman , K. , & Novins , D. ( 2012 ). A mental health needs assessment of urban American Indian youth and families . American Journal of Community Psychology, 49 , 441 – 453 . doi:10.1007/s10464-011-9474-6

Whitbeck , L. B. , Adams , G. W. , Hoyt , D. R. , & Chen , X. ( 2004 ). Conceptualizing and measuring historical trauma among American Indian people . American Journal of Community Psychology, 33 ( 3–4 ), 119 – 130 .

Month:	Total Views:
December 2016	2
January 2017	12
February 2017	76
March 2017	105
April 2017	79
May 2017	49
June 2017	48
July 2017	48
August 2017	50
September 2017	61
October 2017	123
November 2017	99
December 2017	76
January 2018	21
February 2018	31
March 2018	38
April 2018	28
May 2018	15
June 2018	21
July 2018	21
August 2018	28
September 2018	44
October 2018	73
November 2018	142
December 2018	53
January 2019	37
February 2019	47
March 2019	64
April 2019	82
May 2019	40
June 2019	196
July 2019	408
August 2019	438
September 2019	453
October 2019	520
November 2019	701
December 2019	606
January 2020	676
February 2020	904
March 2020	745
April 2020	1,122
May 2020	682
June 2020	1,544
July 2020	920
August 2020	812
September 2020	1,635
October 2020	1,955
November 2020	1,690
December 2020	1,162
January 2021	1,245
February 2021	1,544
March 2021	1,427
April 2021	1,621
May 2021	1,475
June 2021	899
July 2021	686
August 2021	808
September 2021	1,112
October 2021	1,444
November 2021	1,492
December 2021	1,206
January 2022	941
February 2022	1,444
March 2022	1,678
April 2022	1,366
May 2022	1,219
June 2022	734
July 2022	499
August 2022	636
September 2022	1,255
October 2022	1,439
November 2022	1,315
December 2022	1,027
January 2023	1,111
February 2023	1,450
March 2023	1,731
April 2023	1,403
May 2023	1,037
June 2023	660
July 2023	546
August 2023	635
September 2023	926
October 2023	1,135
November 2023	1,175
December 2023	797
January 2024	910
February 2024	1,194
March 2024	1,572
April 2024	1,484
May 2024	789
June 2024	529
July 2024	586
August 2024	564

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1545-6846
Print ISSN 0037-8046
Copyright © 2024 National Association of Social Workers
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Write for us

Sex Educations
Social Exchange Theory
Self-Determination
Sexual Assault
Emotional Contagion

Cultural Violence: Its Forms, Effects, and Solutions

Abstract: Cultural violence refers to the social norms, practices, and ideologies that promote and sustain violence and oppression towards specific groups or individuals. It can take various forms, including structural violence, symbolic violence, and direct violence. This blog post aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cultural violence by examining its various forms, effects, and solutions. The article is organized into ten main headings, each with three subheadings, covering the different aspects of cultural violence.

Cultural violence

Table of Contents

Cultural violence is a pervasive and insidious form of violence that affects millions of people around the world. It is often overlooked or ignored, as it operates at a subconscious level, perpetuated by social norms, practices, and beliefs that are deeply ingrained in our societies. Cultural violence can take many different forms, including structural violence, symbolic violence, and direct violence, and can be experienced by individuals and groups who are marginalized or discriminated against on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or any other aspect of their identity.

Forms of Cultural Violence

Structural violence.

Structural violence refers to the systematic ways in which social structures and institutions create and maintain unequal power relations, resulting in the marginalization and oppression of certain groups of people.
Examples of structural violence include unequal access to education, healthcare, and job opportunities, as well as the lack of political representation and participation.
Structural violence can be perpetuated by government policies, economic systems, and social norms that reinforce discrimination and inequality.

Symbolic Violence

Symbolic violence refers to the ways in which language, symbols, and cultural practices are used to legitimize and normalize unequal power relations and oppression.
Examples of symbolic violence include derogatory language, stereotypes, and cultural practices that reinforce gender, racial, or ethnic hierarchies.
Symbolic violence can be perpetuated by the media, education, and cultural institutions that promote dominant cultural values and perspectives.

Direct Violence

Direct violence refers to physical, psychological, or emotional harm inflicted on individuals or groups through the use of force or coercion.
Examples of direct violence include hate crimes, domestic violence, and police brutality.
Direct violence can be perpetuated by individuals or groups who seek to maintain their power and control over others.

Effects of Cultural Violence

Physical and mental health effects.

Cultural violence can have severe physical and mental health effects on individuals who are subjected to it.
Physical health effects can include injury, illness, and disability, while mental health effects can include trauma, anxiety, and depression.
Cultural violence can also lead to the development of negative health behaviors, such as substance abuse and self-harm.

Social and Economic Effects

Cultural violence can have significant social and economic effects on individuals and communities.
Social effects can include isolation, exclusion, and discrimination, while economic effects can include poverty, unemployment, and limited access to resources.
Cultural violence can also perpetuate intergenerational cycles of poverty and marginalization.

Societal Effects

Cultural violence can have profound effects on the wider society, including the erosion of trust, social cohesion, and democratic values.
Societal effects can include increased social conflict, political instability, and the breakdown of social institutions.
Cultural violence can also lead to the perpetuation of social inequality and the denial of basic human rights for certain groups of people.

Causes of Cultural Violence

Historical and structural factors.

Historical and structural factors, such as colonization, slavery, and patriarchy, can contribute to the development and perpetuation of cultural violence.
These factors create power imbalances and unequal distribution of resources, which can lead to the marginalization and oppression of certain groups of people.
The legacy of historical and structural factors can continue to impact contemporary society through social norms, practices, and ideologies.

Cultural and Religious Beliefs

Cultural and religious beliefs can also contribute to the development and perpetuation of cultural violence.
Certain cultural and religious practices can reinforce discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards specific groups of people.
These beliefs can be deeply ingrained in social norms and practices, making it challenging to challenge and change them.

Political and Economic Factors

Political and economic factors, such as authoritarianism, neoliberalism, and globalization, can contribute to the development and perpetuation of cultural violence.
These factors can create conditions of inequality and injustice, which can lead to the marginalization and oppression of certain groups of people.
Political and economic factors can also contribute to the perpetuation of cultural violence by reinforcing dominant cultural values and perspectives.

Examples of Cultural Violence

Gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence is a form of cultural violence that is experienced by women and gender groups .
Examples of gender-based violence include sexual assault, domestic violence, and forced marriage.
Gender-based violence is perpetuated by social norms and practices that reinforce patriarchal values and gender hierarchies.

Racism and Xenophobia

Racism and xenophobia are forms of cultural violence that target individuals and groups based on their race or ethnicity.
Examples of racism and xenophobia include hate crimes, discrimination, and racial profiling.
Racism and xenophobia are perpetuated by social norms and practices that reinforce white supremacy and racial hierarchies.

LGBTQ+ Discrimination

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is a form of cultural violence that targets individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Examples of LGBTQ+ discrimination include hate crimes, employment discrimination, and denial of basic human rights.
LGBTQ+ discrimination is perpetuated by social norms and practices that reinforce heteronormativity and cisnormativity.

Solutions to Cultural Violence

Education and awareness.

Education and awareness campaigns can help to raise awareness about cultural violence and its impact on individuals and communities.
Educational programs can teach individuals about the history and effects of cultural violence and provide strategies for challenging and dismantling oppressive structures.
Awareness campaigns can also help to challenge cultural norms and beliefs that perpetuate violence and promote social justice and equality.

Policy and Legal Reform

Policy and legal reform can help to address the root causes of cultural violence and provide protections for marginalized groups.
Examples of policy and legal reform include anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action policies, and gender and sexuality education programs.
Policy and legal reform can also help to hold individuals and institutions accountable for perpetuating cultural violence.

Grassroots Organizing and Activism

Grassroots organizing and activism can empower individuals and communities to challenge cultural violence and create social change.
Examples of grassroots organizing and activism include protests, community organizing, and mutual aid networks.
Grassroots organizing and activism can also help to amplify the voices of marginalized groups and create networks of support and solidarity.

Cultural violence is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that can have profound impacts on individuals and communities. It is perpetuated by social norms and practices that reinforce oppressive structures and deny basic human rights to certain groups of people. However, there are solutions to cultural violence, including education and awareness, policy and legal reform, and grassroots organizing and activism. By working together, we can challenge and dismantle cultural violence and create a more just and equitable society.

Before concluding, it is important to note that the opinions and views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or institution the author may be affiliated with. This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice. It is also important to recognize that cultural violence affects individuals and communities in different ways, and the experiences of marginalized groups should always be centered and prioritized in discussions about cultural violence and its impacts.

Last worded from Author

As we navigate a world that is still plagued by cultural violence, it is important to remember that change is possible. We must all do our part in challenging oppressive norms and structures, and work towards creating a more just and equitable society. It will take education, policy reform, and grassroots activism to achieve this goal, but the reward will be a world where all individuals and communities can thrive and live free from violence and oppression.

Cultural violence refers to social norms, beliefs, and practices that perpetuate and normalize oppression, discrimination, and violence against certain groups of people. This can include gender-based violence, racism, and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, among other forms of oppression.

Unlike physical violence, which is visible and tangible, cultural violence is often more subtle and insidious. It can be perpetuated through language, social norms, and institutions, making it more difficult to identify and address.

Cultural violence can affect individuals and communities from all backgrounds, but it often disproportionately impacts marginalized groups, such as women, people of color, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

Examples of cultural violence can include victim-blaming in cases of sexual assault, stereotypes that perpetuate harmful beliefs about certain groups of people, and discriminatory policies and practices that limit the rights and opportunities of marginalized individuals and communities.

Challenging cultural violence requires a multi-faceted approach, including education and awareness, policy reform, and grassroots organizing and activism. It is important to center the experiences of marginalized groups and work towards creating a more just and equitable society.

While cultural violence may never be completely eradicated, it is possible to reduce its impact and prevalence through sustained efforts towards education, policy reform, and grassroots activism.

Individuals can help in the fight against cultural violence by educating themselves on the issue, challenging harmful social norms and stereotypes, supporting policies and organizations that work towards social justice, and advocating for the rights of marginalized groups.

Addressing cultural violence is essential for creating a more just and equitable society. It is a necessary step towards ending oppression, discrimination, and violence against marginalized individuals and communities, and ensuring that all people are able to live free from harm and oppression.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005
Definition Physical Violence: Understanding the Causes
Different Types of Violence
Emotional Violence: Understanding the Invisible Form of Abuse

DR. ASHUTOSH TRIPATHI

Greetings, I am Dr. Ashutosh Tripathi, a psychologist with extensive expertise in criminal behavior and its impact on psychological well-being. I hold a Master of Physics (Honors), a Master of Philosophy, a Master of Psychology, and a PhD in Psychology from BHU in India.Over the past 13 years, I have been privileged to serve more than 3200 patients with unique and varied psychological needs. My clinical work is guided by a deep passion for helping individuals navigate complex psychological issues and live more fulfilling lives.As a recognized contributor to the field of psychology, my articles have been published in esteemed Indian news forums, such as The Hindu, The Times of India, and Punjab Kesari. I am grateful for the opportunity to have been honored by the Government of Israel for my contributions to the Psychological Assistance Program.I remain committed to advancing our understanding of psychology and its applications through my ongoing research, which can be found on leading online libraries such as Science Direct, Wiley, Elsevier, Orcid, Google Scholar, and loop Frontiers. I am also an active contributor to Quora, where I share my insights on various psychological issues.Overall, I see myself as a lifelong student of psychology, constantly learning and growing from my patients, colleagues, and peers. I consider it a great privilege to have the opportunity to serve others in this field and to contribute to our collective understanding of the human mind and behavior.

What Is Violence: Understanding The Meaning And Definition

Violence is a term that is often used in everyday conversation and...

Domestic violence enhancement refers to laws that provide harsher punishment for offenders of domestic violence, promoting accountability and victim protection.

Understanding Domestic Violence Enhancement: A Comprehensive Guide

Abstract: Domestic violence enhancement refers to the increased penalties and punishment that...

Discover the common causes and prevention strategies for violence in schools. Learn how to support victims and promote a safer school environment.

Violence in Schools: Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Abstract: Violence in schools is a growing concern that affects students, teachers,...

4th degree domestic violence, its effects, prevention measures, and reporting options. Get help and support for victims of domestic violence.

Understanding 4th Degree Domestic Violence: Causes, Effects, and Prevention

Abstract: Domestic violence is a widespread social problem that affects individuals and...

National Museum of African American History & Culture

Plan Your Visit
Group Visits
Frequently Asked Questions
Accessibility Options
Sweet Home Café
Museum Store
Museum Maps
Our Mobile App
Search the Collection
Initiatives
Museum Centers
Publications
Digital Resource Guide
The Searchable Museum
Exhibitions
Freedmen's Bureau Search Portal
Early Childhood
Being Antiracist
Community Building
Historical Foundations of Race
Race and Racial Identity

Social Identities and Systems of Oppression

Why Us? Why Now?
Digital Learning
Strategic Partnerships
Ways to Give
Internships & Fellowships
Today at the Museum
Upcoming Events
Ongoing Tours & Activities
Past Events
Host an Event at NMAAHC
About the Museum
The Building
Meet Our Curators
Founding Donors
Corporate Leadership Councils
NMAAHC Annual Reports

Talking About Race: Social Identity and Systems of Oppression

Whether we are aware of it or not, we are all assigned multiple social identities. Within each category, there is a hierarchy - a social status with dominant and non-dominant groups. As with race , dominant members can bestow benefits to members they deem "normal," or limit opportunities to members that fall into "other" categories.

A person of the non-dominant group can experience oppression in the form of limitations, disadvantages, or disapproval. They may even suffer abuse from individuals, institutions, or cultural practices. "Oppression" refers to a combination of prejudice and institutional power that creates a system that regularly and severely discriminates against some groups and benefits other groups.

We use the video player Able Player to provide captions and audio descriptions. Able Player performs best using web browsers Google Chrome, Firefox, and Edge. If you are using Safari as your browser, use the play button to continue the video after each audio description. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Systems of Oppression The term "systems of oppression" helps us better identify inequity by calling attention to the historical and organized patterns of mistreatment. In the United States, systems of oppression (like systemic racism) are woven into the very foundation of American culture, society, and laws. Other examples of systems of oppression are sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, ageism, and anti-Semitism. Society's institutions, such as government, education, and culture, all contribute or reinforce the oppression of marginalized social groups while elevating dominant social groups.

Social Identities A social identity is both internally constructed and externally applied, occurring simultaneously. Educators from oneTILT define social identity as having these three characteristics:

Exists (or is consistently used) to bestow power, benefits, or disadvantage.
Is used to explain differences in outcomes, effort, or ability.
Is immutable or otherwise sticky (difficult, costly, or dangerous) to change.

Stop and Think!

Explore your own social identities [ view PDF ]

Learn More!

Download this fact sheet on privilege and oppression in American society from Kalamazoo College

There is no hierarchy of oppressions. Audre Lorde

Oppression causes deep suffering, but trying to decide whether one oppression is worse than others is problematic. It diminishes lived experiences and divides communities that should be working together. Many people experience abuse based on multiple social identities. Often, oppressions overlap to cause people even more hardship. This overlapping of oppressed groups is referred to as "intersectionality ." Legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term in the 1980s to describe how black women faced heightened struggles and suffering in American society because they belonged to multiple oppressed social groups.

Watch: A short video on black women and the concept of intersectionality. From the NMAAHC, #APeoplesJourney , "African American Women and the Struggle for Equality.”

During the time Crenshaw was articulating the concept of intersectionality, poet-scholar and social activist Audre Lorde warned America against fighting against some oppressions but not others. She insisted, "There is no hierarchy of oppression." All oppressions must be recognized and fought against simultaneously. She pushed American society to understand that although we possess different identities, we are all connected as human beings.

“So long as we are divided because of our particular identities we cannot join together in effective political action.”

Audre Lorde cautioned us about the ways that our various identities can prevent us from seeing our shared humanity. Why do you think she felt this was a danger to all people?

In American society, systems of oppression and their effects on people have a long, profound history. However, America and our society can change. As our country continues to evolve, we can acknowledge its problems and work to make changes for the better. We can join together to resist the status quo and the systemic barriers that exist to create new systems of justice, fairness, and compassion for us all.

To make this better America, each of us should look at our own privileges and power. Some people have more power or influence than others, and this can shift quickly according to circumstances . Do you enjoy power, privilege, or influence? If so, what do you do with it? Do you silently enjoy your moments of comfort? Or, do you take risks to stand in solidarity with others?

Take a moment to reflect

Let's Think

“I learned a lot about systems of oppression and how they can be blind to one another by talking to black men. I was once talking about gender and a man said to me, ’Why does it have to be you as a woman? Why not you as a human being?’ This type of question is a way of silencing a person's specific experiences. Of course, I am a human being, but there are particular things that happen to me in the world because I am a woman.” - Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Why do you think Ngozi Adichie insisted on being able to talk directly about her specific identity as a woman?
What identities are important to you that others don’t always acknowledge?

It can be hard to talk about oppression no matter what side you find yourself on. However, these conversations are needed to develop a deeper understanding of the issues and prevent further harm. An effective way to enter into these kinds of conversations is by thinking through your own social identity.
Do this “Social Identity Timeline Activity” with one or more people .
Find relevant handouts here . Source: Resource adapted for use by the Program on Intergroup Relations, University of Michigan; Resource hosted by LSA Inclusive Teaching Initiative, University of Michigan .
Share about the process of your identity formation with your partners using the discussion questions.
WATCH: How the U.S. Suppressed Native American Identity
How do you think individuals, institutions, and the dominant American society justified this cruel and inhumane treatment?
What kept those who had power and voice (government officials, school teachers, civic leaders, regular citizens, etc.) from acknowledging the humanity of these children and preventing this atrocity?
Banks connects historical oppression to current oppression faced by Native peoples. How can we join together as allies against this oppression?

Work to be continuously self-reflective about your own privilege and power. Write self-reflections and revisit them so that you can seek out resources and supports to stop your own contributions to oppression.
Be a Georgia Gilmore by joining with others in teaching, advocating, and organizing locally to dismantle systems of oppression where you are.

Why Us, Why Now?

Subtitle here for the credits modal.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Code Switch

School Colors
Perspectives

LISTEN & FOLLOW
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Commentary: Cultural Appropriation Is, In Fact, Indefensible

K. Tempest Bradford

Elvis Presley, in the studio in 1956 — Presley's success was undoubtedly driven by the material he appropriated from black musicians. Bettmann Archive/Getty Images hide caption

Elvis Presley, in the studio in 1956 — Presley's success was undoubtedly driven by the material he appropriated from black musicians.

Last week, the New York Times published an op-ed titled "In Defense of Cultural Appropriation" in which writer Kenan Malik attempted to extol the virtues of artistic appropriation and chastise those who would stand in the way of necessary "cultural engagement." (No link, because you have Google and I'd rather not give that piece more traffic than it deserves.) What would have happened, he argues, had Elvis Presley not been able to swipe the sounds of black musicians?

Malik is not the first person to defend cultural appropriation. He joins a long list that, most recently, has included prominent members of the Canadian literary community and author Lionel Shriver.

But the truth is that cultural appropriation is indefensible. Those who defend it either don't understand what it is, misrepresent it to muddy the conversation, or ignore its complexity — discarding any nuances and making it easy to dismiss both appropriation and those who object to it.

At the start of the most recent debate , Canadian author Hal Niedzviecki called on the readers of Write magazine to "Write what you don't know ... Relentlessly explore the lives of people who aren't like you. ... Win the Appropriation Prize." Amid the outcry over this editorial, there were those who wondered why this statement would be objectionable. Shouldn't authors "write the Other?" Shouldn't there be more representative fiction?

Yes, of course. The issue here is that Niedzviecki conflated cultural appropriation and the practice of writing characters with very different identities from yourself — and they're not the same thing. Writing inclusive fiction might involve appropriation if it's done badly, but that's not a given.

Cultural appropriation can feel hard to get a handle on, because boiling it down to a two-sentence dictionary definition does no one any favors. Writer Maisha Z. Johnson offers an excellent starting point by describing it not only as the act of an individual, but an individual working within a " power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group ."

That's why appropriation and exchange are two different things, Johnson says — there's no power imbalance involved in an exchange. And when artists appropriate, they can profit from what they take, while the oppressed group gets nothing.

'Columbusing': The Art Of Discovering Something That Is Not New

Don't Call It 'The New Ramen': Why Pho Is Central To Vietnamese Identity

Dear white artists making music videos in india: step away from the 'holi' powder, author lionel shriver on cultural appropriation and the 'sensitivity police'.

I teach classes and seminars alongside author and editor Nisi Shawl on Writing the Other , and the foundation of our work is that authors should create characters from many different races, cultures, class backgrounds, physical abilities, and genders, even if — especially if — these don't match their own. We are not alone in this. You won't find many people advising authors to only create characters similar to themselves. You will find many who say: Don't write characters from minority or marginalized identities if you are not going to put in the hard work to do it well and avoid cultural appropriation and other harmful outcomes. These are different messages. But writers often see or hear the latter and imagine that it means the former. And editorials like Niedzviecki's don't help the matter.

Complicating things even further, those who tend to see appropriation as exchange are often the ones who profit from it.

Even Malik's example involving rock and roll isn't as simple as Elvis "stealing" from black artists. Before he even came along, systematic oppression and segregation in America meant black musicians didn't have access to the same opportunities for mainstream exposure, income, or success as white ones. Elvis and other rock and roll musicians were undoubtedly influenced by black innovators, but over time the genre came to be regarded as a cultural product created, perfected by, and only accessible to whites .

This is the "messy interaction" Malik breezes over in dismissing the idea of appropriation as theft: A repeating pattern that's recognizable across many different cultural spheres, from fashion and the arts to literature and food.

And this pattern is why cultures and people who've suffered the most from appropriation sometimes insist on their traditions being treated like intellectual property — it can seem like the only way to protect themselves and to force members of dominant or oppressive cultures to consider the impact of their actions.

This has lead to accusations of gatekeeping by Malik and others: Who has the right to decide what is appropriation and what isn't ? What does true cultural exchange look like? There's no one easy answer to either question.

But there are some helpful guidelines: The Australian Council for the Arts developed a set of protocols for working with Indigenous artists that lays out how to approach Aboriginal culture as a respectful guest, who to contact for guidance and permission, and how to proceed with your art if that permission is not granted. Some of these protocols are specific to Australia, but the key to all of them is finding ways for creativity to flourish while also reducing harm.

All of this lies at the root of why cultural appropriation is indefensible. It is, without question, harmful. It is not inherent to writing representational and inclusive fiction, it is not a process of equal and mutually beneficial exchange, and it is not a way for one culture to honor another. Cultural appropriation does damage, and it should be something writers and other artists work hard to avoid, not compete with each other to achieve.

For those who are willing to do that hard work, there are resources out there. When I lecture about this, I ask writers to consider whether they are acting as Invaders, Tourists, or Guests, according to the excellent framework Nisi Shawl lays out in her essay on appropriation . And then I point them towards all the articles and blog posts I've collected over time on the subject of cultural appropriation , to give them as full a background in understanding, identifying, and avoiding it as I possibly can.

Because I believe that, instead of giving people excuses for why appropriation can't be avoided (it can), or allowing them to think it's no big deal (it is), it's more important to help them become better artists whose creations contribute to cultural understanding and growth that benefits us all.

K. Tempest Bradford is a speculative fiction author, media critic, teacher, and podcaster. She teaches and lectures about writing inclusive fiction online and in person via WritingTheOther.com .

University of Michigan School of Social Work

Audience menu.

Connect with SSW
Discover Social Work

Privilege, Oppression, Diversity and Social Justice

MasterTrack Online Certificate
Online MSW Program
Schedule a Visit
Course Catalog
Financial Aid & Tuition
MSW Program
Joint PhD Program
SSW Faculty
Class-Related Forms
Student Guide
Academic Calendar
Course Planning Worksheets
Educational Agreement
Office of Field Education
Office of Student Services
SSW Reservations
Safety & Emergency Preparedness
Student Advising
Committee Meetings & Minutes
Wolverine Access
Faculty Handbook
Instructional Faculty Resources
SSW Directory
Information Technology
Faculty and Administrative Support Team
U-M Webmail
Community Forum
Instructions

Search form

Dean's Welcome
Mission & Goals
Contact & Building Hours
Rankings, Facts & Figures
Mission Statement
Printable Strategic Plan
Detailed Strategic Plan
Action and Engagement
Training/Resources
Partnerships
Employment Equity Learning and Action Collaborative
Faculty Books
Ongoing Magazine
Presentations
Research Publications
Ann Arbor & Beyond
Hotel Information
Maps & Parking
Welcome Letter
Strategic Plan
Social Work & Social Justice Dialogues
DEI Impact Awards
Student Diversity
Anti-Racism Statement
DEI & Anti-Racism Initiatives
History of Social Work
Land Acknowledgment Statement
Oral Histories
Social Justice Collection
Current Openings
Printing Computing Sites
U-M Computing Sites
MSW Brochure and Flyers
Connect With an MSW Admissions Counselor
Connect With a Current MSW Student
Request MSW Program Information
Visit Our MSW Program
Financial Aid
Part-Time Programs
Program Length
Special Programs
Tuition & Fees
Admitted Students
CSWE Competencies Assessment
MasterTrack
PhD in Social Work and Social Welfare
Joint PhD in Social Work and Social Science
Students & Alumni
Declarations and Requirements
Certificate Programs
Faculty & Staff
Outreach Board
Preferred Admissions
Stories & Videos
Funding Opportunities
Community Action and Social Change Minor
UM Dearborn
U-M Sociology and Social Work
Affidavit of Financial Support
English Proficiency
Health Insurance
Student Stories
LGBTQIA2S+ Students
Prospective Field Instructors
Licensure Requirements
Exam Preparation
Mailing List
Global Activities Scholars Program
Global Course Extension
Global Independent Study
Peace Corps
Global Social Work Practice Pathway
Exchange Visitors
Identities Abroad
Global Career Guide
Scholarship
Course Planning
Courses & Field Placements
Community Action & Research Certificate
Interprofessional Mini-Certificate in Trauma-Informed Practice
Groups/Labs/Centers
Past Discoveries
Faculty Support
Newsletters
Proposal Notification
Responsible Conduct
Schedule a Consult
Evaluation Skills Video Resource Library
Education/Training
Signature Programs
White Papers
Become a Faculty Affiliate
AHEAD Magazine
Athletics Tickets
Spaces for Students
Students with Children
Students with Disabilities
Job Search Resources
Job Preparation
Licensing & Exam Prep
Alumni Jobs & Salaries
Graduate Fellowships and Assistantships
Post-MSW Fellowships
Student Employment
Writing Assistance
After Hours Transit Services
SSW Building Maps
Affordable Care Act
Domestic Health Insurance
International Health Insurance
Liability & Auto Insurance
Counseling and Psychological Services Embedded Therapist
Virtual Student Mental Health Resources
Get Help at U-M
Student Help & Support
Upcoming Ceremonies
Past Ceremonies
Commencement Calendar
International Students
International Applicants
Student Activities
Request a Community Conversation
Upcoming Community Conversations
Outside Classes
Class Descriptions
Credit Hour Policy
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
Faculty and Administrative Support
Contacts by Office
Tenure-Track Faculty
Clinical & Research Faculty
Research Fellows
Field Faculty
LEO Lecturers
Emeritus Faculty
Joint PhD Students
LEO & GSI
Research Fellow
Academics & Curriculum
Continuing Education
MSW Applications & Admission
Registrar's Office
Letter from the Director
Halla Jomaa-Jouney
Nancy Riske
Charlotte Hoppen
Madison Mariles
Abigail Niehaus
Ways of Giving
Fundraising Initiatives
Donor Impact
Class Notes
Host Your Own Event
Get Your Transcript
Lifelong Learning
Alumni Recognition
Alumni Board
Present a Webinar
Advances in Child Maltreatment Prevention
Building Healthy, Strong Communities
Conversations Across Social Disciplines
Fedele F. and Iris M. Fauri Memorial Lecture
Homecoming & Reunion Weekend
Leon and Josephine Winkelman Memorial Lecture
Social Justice Changemaker Lecture
Social Work Month Celebration
Contact Information
Update My Record
Meet the Team
Dean's Welcome
Mission & Goals
Contact & Building Hours
Rankings, Facts & Figures

P. O. D. S.

What is p rivilege, o ppression, d iversity and s ocial justice.

This acronym of P.O.D.S. and the concepts of privilege, oppression, diversity and social justice, provide us with a framework for keeping justice at the center of our work. P.O.D.S. helps us in developing a vision for justice and it recognizes and reduces mechanisms that support oppression and injustice. A focus on P.O.D.S. can also help us identify theories and policies that promote social justice and eliminate injustice.

Types of advantages or unearned access that are granted based on how we are identified in terms of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality and ability status. Privileged groups often hold characteristics that are considered by dominant culture to be more socially acceptable or most valued, they tend to be seen as the norm. Considering privilege — where it exists and where it doesn't — helps us understand the context in which people are engaging with the world.

Can be thought of as the social act of placing severe restrictions on an individual, a group or an institution. Oppression occurs at all levels and is reinforced by social norms, institutional biases, interpersonal relationships and personal beliefs. Political theorist Iris Young created a model called The Five Faces of Oppression , which includes violence, exploitation, marginalism, powerlessness and cultural imperialism.

Encompasses the wide range of identities including (but certainly not limited to) race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, ability, language, culture, national origin, religion, age and political perspective. Diversity speaks to how we interact with different mixes of people and identities different from our own. We know that diverse groups of people make more well-informed decisions by including different points of view and creating more opportunities for more people. We also know those benefits don't occur if people feel they need to suppress some area of their identity. Diversity is about valuing the range of experiences and perspectives.

A key concept in understanding diversity is intersectionality, which describes how different identities such as race, class, gender and other individual characteristics overlap and interact with one another. Intersectionality demonstrates the complexity within our social systems and how individuals can face multiple intersections of oppression and discrimination.

Social Justice

The belief that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights, opportunity, and access. Social justice requires equity, fairness, and respect for diversity, as well as the eradication of social oppression. Achieving social justice can be seen as the core of social work practice, and informs all we do.

How is P.O.D.S. applied at the School of Social Work?

For more than 20 years, the exploration of these concepts has been a foundation of a University of Michigan School of Social Work education. In the revised 2020 curriculum, P.O.D.S. is integrated into every course, helping us strengthen our focus on justice and critical consciousness.

P.O.D.S is at the crux of all we do. It provides the Michigan Social Work community with a shared language and a platform to discuss these issues as a community. It provides a metric for students to use in their own practice. By centering justice at the core of our work, we allow justice to become the lens through which all our goals are viewed.

Contact Us Press escape to close

Phone 1 (734) 764-3309 Fax 1 (734) 936-1961
Email MSW [email protected] CE [email protected] PhD [email protected]

University of Michigan School of Social Work 1080 South University Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106

Faculty, Staff & PhD Directory » Building Hours & Maps

The Classic Journal

A journal of undergraduate writing and research, from wip at uga, evolving oppression: how societies keep women down.

by Catharine Nienaber

A social science perspective on gender violence broadens the way we define violence against a person or persons based on their gender, and it also provides nuance to what we consider as violence. Cultural violence is evident in the different beauty standards that women are expected to possess, be it from corsets or foot-binding, and these expectations are put upon young girls by the older women they are close to, like their family. Sexual violence was and still is a tool for controlling and silencing women, as female genital mutilation is used for taking body autonomy away from young women of marrying age. Structural violence is even more oppressive and damaging when it is a cycle of violence that is perpetuated by higher-ranking women onto those of lower status. However, it also should be noted that some women did not passively accept attacks on themselves or their homes but engaged in combat and even leadership positions. Gender violence evolved over time and space across cultures and is still very relevant today.

Gender violence is a plague across most societies historically and presently. Bioarcheology is uniquely situated to shed more light on the subject, since the human body is culturally shaped by the practices of groups (Perez 2012: 36). Studying gender violence through markers on bones can tell a story of what a particular society’s attitude toward women was and with the help of ethnographic accounts to supplement details, a social science approach becomes more practical and informative. Also, the bioarchaeological evidence can challenge the historical narrative, and can be used to disprove stereotypes and reinterpret misconceptions. A social science approach can help bioarchaeologists puzzle out the way of life that they see mapped out on the bones and burial sites and this in turn can help professionals connect with issues that the general public face today. Movements for equality have mobilized and united women across cultural borders and it is beneficial to study the different forms of oppression that women had to endure in past societies because, some of the problems brought up in this paper are still highly relevant today .

To study this widespread humanitarian issue, it must be recognized that gender violence can be cultural/structural, sexual, and physical, Sometimes, there are inequitable power structures amongst women, and other times we find evidence of women who resisted and fought against external violence. It is important to note the distinction between direct and indirect harm that affects women. Physical and/or sexual abuse, such as domestic violence or rape, is direct harm on a person. This can take form as blunt force trauma, healed fractures, and chipped facial bone. Structural violence is more on how a power dynamic or a ‘social norm’ negatively affects a plural group of people that shared a common trait. Johan Galtung in “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” explains it as such: “There may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure. The violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as unequal life chances” (Galtung 1969: 170-171).

Cultural Violence: Beauty is Pain

Some of the most dramatic and best examples of structural violence as seen on the bones of women is the work done by Dr. Pamela K. Stone. If we were to look at modern society today, and what it has been doing to damage young girls’ self-worth, what is most prevalent is body-shaming and idealism of beauty. What is considered ‘beautiful’ or ‘attractive’ is all rooted in social context and the generally accepted norms. In modern North America, the image of an ideal woman is long, silky hair, big breasts, narrow hips, unblemished skin, and the list goes on. These notions of what is beautiful and how women and young girls are expected to be are not new social constructs, rather they have just been evolving over time and space for centuries. Stone states that bioarcheology should focus on the skeletal markers of body modifications on female remains, as they are a direct reflection of indirect cultural violence (Stone 2012: 53). Some examples of this is the well-known and studied practices such as foot-binding, wearing neck rings, and Victorian corsets.

“Cast of women’s foot deformed by foot binding” from Wellcome Images [CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

In another Asian tradition, the Padaung people in Burma practiced coiling women’s necks in rings. It was tied to wealth and marriageability, so it became part of the woman’s identity and self-image. Like with foot-binding, girls started wearing neck rings at age five and by forty could wear up to thirty-two rings. The weight pressing down on their clavicles and ribs would have caused tension between their head and shoulders. This would have the illusionary effect of a long neck; however, the women would also have limited mobility. The practice continues today, and now researchers have a better understanding of its impact on the human skeleton. In 2005, Donjai Chawanaputorn examined sixty-one women who had worn neck rings since childhood and found that developmental changes ranged from shorter faces and narrower widths of the mandible. With removal of the rings and a neck brace, the women could perform exercises that could reverse the effects of the rings (Chawanaputorn et al., 2005: 642-644).

In the Victorian era, it was considered fashionable for elite women to wear tightly bound corsets. The corsets exacerbated problems of childhood rickets, and young girls were encouraged to stay out of the sun and to stay as thin as possible, resulting in malnourishment. This resulted in lasting impacts on the pelvic girdle such as flattening it in the front and back. The added pressure from the corset would result in a decreased waist size and subsequently would make pregnancy and childbirth even more dangerous for the life of the mother and the fetus (Stone 2012: 58). Just like the women who bound their feet, or wore neck rings, the high-status ladies of the Victorian London society had suffered from chronic health issues for the rest of their lives. All due to their community’s misguided conception of what is beautiful.

All of the above acts of internalized violence are kinds of structural violence towards women, in these cases abusing younger women and girls. When it was time for girls to start binding their feet, wearing neck rings, or being trapped in tight corsets, it was their mothers who got them started. This is the extent of how ingrained harmful cultural practices and the structure of unequal power can be.

Sexual Violence

Gender violence cannot be discussed without bringing up sexual abuses and rape. The difficulty of discussing rape in the bioarchaeological context is that it can rarely be showcased in the archeological record. Bluntly put, someone’s rape does not make marks on their bones. What we do know of are historical patterns of mass rape specifically during times of war. Dr. Paul Kirby discusses moral responsibility and the unconscious social roles that men act in during armed conflict. The more patriarchal the structure, the less space for challenging or defiant attitudes, and therefore the less morally responsible actors (Kirby 2012: 105). So, when the mass rape of women occurs during conflict the perpetrators do not suffer consequence from their superiors, and the men who do not participate do not intervene. Not all men in these positions commit rape but the social agenda is set up to facilitate, encourage, and protect those who do.

Female genital cutting is slightly different. It falls under, again, structural violence and is still practiced today in Africa and Asia. Artwork attests that the Egyptians were practicing circumcision on boys and girls for as far back as the VI Dynasty, or 2340-2180 B.C.E. (Kennedy 1970: 175). Though both sexes went through the operation to ‘initiate’ them into adulthood, the ceremony and attitude surrounding the events were starkly different. For a boy’s circumcision, there was feasting and dancing on the morning of the operation and the boy bathed as well as dressed in white. Those invited to the event donated a product of a monetary product to the father, while the mother received gifts from the attending women. During the procedure, the boy’s parents would sit next to him, his female relatives would hold him down, and the barber would sever the foreskin. More singing and dancing followed as he was bathed again (Kennedy 1970: 177-178). For boys, though it was painful, circumcision was quick, and the apprehension of discomfort was quickly swept away by the celebration afterwards.

For a young bride, it was the complete opposite. The girl was bedecked splendidly in a white gown, gold jewelry, makeup, and henna, but with little fanfare and preparation was put under the knife. Another woman would excise the labia majora and labia minora with a knife or razor and the clitoris was completely cut away. All of this without anaesthesia. When it was done, the girl’s legs were tied together and kept so for seven to fifteen days, although it was sometimes for forty while her genitals healed. The healing process left scar tissue that sealed shut the vulva, except for a small orifice for urination kept open by a reed tube (Kennedy 1970: 180). The rationale for such a severe mutilation was the belief that it would preserve a girl’s virginity and prevent a shameful pregnancy: with a direct assumption that all women were wanton to sexual wildness if their behavior was not curbed. Once again, the set-up for female genital cutting is facilitated by older women who went through it themselves, and their mothers and aunts before them, symbolizing a cycle of structural violence.

Self-Perpetuating Violence: Women Hurting Women

As mentioned before, gender violence is not just exclusive to men abusing women; in fact, sometimes it is self-perpetuating. Dr. Debra L. Martin’s article on the Pueblo populations of the Southwest U.S. argues that women also used violence to obtain a desire, wherein they used violence against other women to assert their own power. Martin offers a bioarchaeological perspective on violence through studying the patterns of skeletal pathology. Osteological trauma can provide insights on inequalities linked to gender and social status (Martin 2010: 3). In the La Plata Valley a group of female human remains had healed cranial depressions, which indicates they suffered a nonfatal blow to the head. The way some of the women were oriented when buried, and the lack of grave goods, also indicated that they were not considered an integral part of the community (Martin 2010: 10). Given that the skeletal trauma and cavalier burials were only applied to certain women, it is obvious that these individuals were considered ‘outsiders’ and the archeological evidence supports large-scale raiding in the region.

Martin also argues that the community’s women encouraged the raiding of other women to have less of a burdensome workload from their own society. There are indicators on the remains showing that some of the women were ‘worked to the bone,’ such as muscular stress markers, indentations on the tibiae, and raised irregular areas of the clavicle near the shoulder. An analogy for women-on-women violence is best witnessed in the human’s closest relative, the chimpanzee. Females move out of the group they are born in to decrease the risk of mating with their father, but risk injury and death when establishing themselves in a new group. Their offspring is specifically targeted by established, older females and sometimes males, who are most likely to rout them out (Wilson and Wrangham 2003: 371). Another analogy that Martin herself uses is the dominant control between the women of the Turkana, a nomadic pastoralist people in eastern Africa. She states, “It is particularly interesting that it is socially acceptable, and fairly common, for higher status women, such as the first wife, to beat the lower status women, i.e. the second wife” (Martin 2010: 12).

Women can be just as violent as men. In a social context the actions they can resort to are violent even if it is less confrontational than traditional aggression. From what we know of structural violence, however, it is rational to draw the conclusion that the Pueblo women in the Southwest oppressed and abused each other due to the existing power dynamic that was already present. Given that the captive women were being worked to death, the established women probably escaped long term back and joint problems by shrugging it off to the unlucky prisoners. The power structure that was imposed and maintained by the existing leaders did not make it easy to live and work as a woman, and unfortunately, the slaves had to bear the brunt of the punishment since they were outsiders with no rights.

War and Conflict: The Female Fighter

On the other hand, bioarchaeologists know that women were sometimes active participants in battle and war. Consider the Viking skeleton found in Bika, Sweden in the 1880s that was assumed to be a high-ranking male warrior, given that the grave was full of weapons, shields, a chess piece game (indicating that the Viking was a tactician and leader), and the sacrificial remains of two horses. It was only after DNA analysis in 2017 that the warrior was confirmed to be a woman (Hedenstierna-Jonson 2017: 855). This not only cemented the long held suspicion that Viking women could participate in raiding and warfare like the men, but that they could also rise above the ranks and lead other warriors. Evidence of warrior life that could be identified on a skeleton are traumatic injuries consistent with battle, such wounds that are mostly on the front of the body, and repetitive stress markers consistent with the use of weapons like archery, swordplay, or horseback riding. Vikings are not the only example however. Dr. J. Bengtson studied forty-three individuals at Morris Village in the Central Illinois River Valley. The group consisted of eighteen females, seventeen males, and eight of indeterminate sex. Two of the women had survived projectile point injuries, while three others had survived scalping. Another six of the women had healed cranial depression fractures. Bengtson concluded that the injuries sustained did not appear degenerative or age-related and were potentially the result of interpersonal violence (Bengtson 2017: 235). What was also investigated was the faunal and flora diversity in the village’s diet. The village was still eating much of the same things, even during war time. Some of the women’s bodies showed not just traumatic wounds but taphonomy markers such as sun bleaching and gnawing from scavengers. This suggests that they died away from the village and had to be recovered later. Bengtson argues that all of this points to the fact that the women were taking the risks of ambush to get food for their community, and were going out ready to defend themselves, possibly armed. This might explain the healed injuries that some of them possessed (Bengtson 2017: 238-239).

These women would have possessed the same presence of male warriors that survived the battle and had brushed up close to death and would have the scars to prove it. Should this case in particular be considered ‘gender violence’ when it’s clear the community was feuding with its enemies? This could have been a ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ scenario. However, if this were a group of men out foraging for food, or even if a sizeable number of men were assigned to protecting the women, it is highly likely that they would have lessened the risk of an ambush. Gathering food was considered a female task, so even during a turbulent period between neighbors the women were still expected to do their part. Despite the likeliness that they carried weapons, the women would have been seen as weak enough to risk an attack by a group of male warriors, especially if they were outnumbered. It remains to be discovered if any Native American people actively trained their women to fight alongside the men and let them participate in roaming war bands, thus recognizing them as venerated fighters by societal standards. Most likely with the Morris Village case, the women who survived and healed from their near-death experiences were treated with the respect of individuals that were expected to defend their home and family, but no more than that.

What many of these case studies have illuminated is not just a list of the symptoms of female oppression such as body shaming, image idealism, mass rape, genital mutilation, toxic masculinity, higher status women exploiting those beneath them, and the difficulty of recognizing female wartime leaders in the past and modern day; rather, all of these contribute to the root of the problem that women are still struggling with today: structural violence, the unlevel playing field. Gender violence is not something that has faded from existence and cannot be comfortably put to rest in the ancient history books. Structural violence is a common theme in most societies, taking shape in varying ways. This term umbrellas the others: physical, sexual, and cultural violence all lend to unequal power structures that perpetuate cycles of violence that are not easily purged from any society. It has taken form in concepts of beauty that surround impressionable girls, psychologically coercing them to modify themselves to extreme degrees that do more harm than good. It is present in traditional practices that mutilate female genitals with the belief that it will keep brides from infidelity, and the mass utilization of rape during conflicts. On the other hand, it is true that women commit violence against each other for reasons that can include power dynamic. Lastly, women fighting for themselves, their families, and their communities shows that not all of women could passively accept an unkind fate. Therefore, the behavior change studied in many populations across time and space is not just altering methods to keep women down but the women themselves that change their self-perceptions and are working to change other female lives for the better.

Bengtson, J., O’Gorman, J. (2017). Women’s participation in prehistoric warfare: A central Illinois River Valley case study. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 27 (2), 230-244.

Chawanaputorn, D., Patanaporn, V., & Malikaew. (2007). Facial and dental characteristics of Padaung women (long-neck Karen) wearing brass neck coils in Mae Hong Son Province, Thailand. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 131 (5), 639-645.

Cummings, S. R., Ling, X., & Stone, K. (2005). Consequences of foot binding among older women in Beijing, China. American Journal of Public Health, 87 (10), 1677-1679.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3), 167-191.

Hedenstierna-Jonson, C., Kjellstrom, A., Zachrisson, T. (2017). A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 853-860.

Kennedy, J. G. (1970). Circumcision and excision in Egyptian Nubia. Royal Anthropology Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 5 (2), 175-191.

Kirby, P. (2012). Refusing to be a man?: Men’s responsibility for war rape and the problem of social structures in feminist and gender theory. Men and Masculinites, 16 (1), 93-114.

Martin, D. L., Harrod, R. P., & Fields, M. (2010). Beaten down and worked to the bone: Bioarcheological investigations of women and violence in the ancient Southwest. Landscapes of Violence, 1 (1), 1-15.

Perez, V. R. (2012). The bioarcheology of violence: Infusing method with theory. The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology, 12 (3), 35-38.

Stone, P. K. (2012). Binding women: Ethnology, skeletal deformations, and violence against women. International Journal of Paleopathology, 2 (2-3), 53-60.

Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2003). Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 363-392.

Citation style : AJPA

. . . . . . . . . . Return to the Table of Contents .

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Cultural appropriation and oppression

Published: 17 December 2018
Volume 176 , pages 1003–1013, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

Erich Hatala Matthes 1

15k Accesses

42 Citations

Explore all metrics

In this paper, I present an outline of the oppression account of cultural appropriation and argue that it offers the best explanation for the wrongfulness of the varied and complex cases of appropriation to which people often object. I then compare the oppression account with the intimacy account defended by C. Thi Nguyen and Matt Strohl. Though I believe that Nguyen and Strohl’s account offers important insight into an essential dimension of the cultural appropriation debate, I argue that justified objections to cultural appropriation must ultimately be grounded in considerations of oppression as opposed to group intimacy. I present three primary objections to the intimacy account. First, I suggest that in its effort to explain expressive appropriation claims (those that purportedly lack an independent ground), the intimacy account doubles down on the boundary problem. Second, I question whether group intimacy possess the kind of bare normativity that Nguyen and Strohl claim for it. Finally, I argue that these objections give us reason to accept the importance of group intimacy to the cultural appropriation debate, but question the source of its significance as identified by Nguyen and Strohl.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Group Ownership, Group Interests, and the Ethics of Cultural Exchange

Cultural appropriation: an husserlian account.

Cultural Competence, Identity Politics, and the Utopian Dilemma

I follow Young ( 2011 ) in adopting a pluralistic understanding of oppression.

For a more detailed overview of these and other issues related to cultural appropriation, please see Matthes ( 2018 ).

Though it is worth noting that the idea of cultural property itself need not (and, I’ve argued, ought not) be understood in a depoliticized, universalist sense either (Matthes 2017 ).

For a broader discussion of gendered behavioral control, see Manne ( 2017 ).

For an interesting example of appropriation used as a tool to combat oppression, see Walsh and Lopes ( 2012 ). Even in this case, though, it’s not clear that the appropriation challenges the dominant group’s autonomy per se.

Compare with the idea that we should repatriate material culture to former colonies independently of their claim to any particular item, but rather, as an act of recognition and redress for the undermining of their autonomy (Ypi 2013 ; Matthes 2017 ).

Appiah, K. A. (2006). Whose culture is it, anyway? In Cosmopolitanism (pp. 115–135). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Coombe, R. J. (1993). The properties of culture and the politics of possessing identity: Native claims in the cultural appropriation controversy. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, VI (2), 249–285.

Article Google Scholar

Cooper, B. (2015). Iggy Azalea’s post-racial mess: America’s oldest race tale, remixed. Salon . https://www.salon.com/2014/07/15/iggy_azaleas_post_racial_mess_americas_oldest_race_tale_remixed/ .

Dotson, K. (2011). Tracking epistemic violence, tracking practices of silencing. Hypatia, 26 (2), 236–257.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Hladki, J. (1994). Problematizing the issue of cultural appropriation. Alternate Routes, 11, 95–119.

Google Scholar

Hurka, T. (1999). Should Whites write about minorities? In Principles: Short essays on ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Keeshig-Tobias, L. (1990). The magic of others. In L. Scheier, S. Sheard, & E. Wachtel (Eds.), Language in her eye: Views on writing and gender by Canadian women writing in English . Toronto: Coach House Press.

Killmister, S. (2011). Group-differentiated rights and the problem of membership. Social Theory and Practice, 37 (2), 227–255.

Liberto, H. (2014). Exploitation and the vulnerability clause. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17, 619–629.

Manne, K. (2017). Down girl: The logic of misogyny . New York: Oxford University Press.

Matthes, E. H. (2016). Cultural appropriation without cultural essentialism? Social Theory and Practice, 42 (2), 343–366.

Matthes, E. H. (2017). Repatriation and the radical redistribution of art. Ergo, 4 (32), 931–953.

Matthes, E. H. (2018). The ethics of cultural heritage. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-cultural-heritage/ .

Mezey, N. (2007). The paradoxes of cultural property. Columbia Law Review, 107, 2004–2046.

Patten, A. (2014). Equal recognition: The moral foundations of minority rights . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rogers, R. A. (2006). From cultural exchange to transculturation: A review and reconceptualization of cultural appropriation. Communication Theory, 16, 474–503.

Shelby, T. (2002). Foundations of black solidarity: Collective identity or common oppression? Ethics, 112 (2), 231–266.

Todd, L. (1990). Notes on appropriation. Parallelogramme, 16 (1), 24–33.

Todd, L. (1992). What more do they want? In G. McMaster & L.-A. Martin (Eds.), Indigena: Contemporary native perspectives in Canadian art . Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.

Valdman, M. (2009). A theory of wrongful exploitation. Philosophers’ Imprint, 9 (6), 1–14.

Walsh, A. N., & Lopes, D. M. (2012). Objects of appropriation. In J. O. Young & C. G. Brunk (Eds.), The ethics of cultural appropriation (pp. 211–234). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Young, J. O. (2005). Profound offense and cultural appropriation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63 (2), 135–146.

Young, J. O. (2008). Cultural appropriation in the arts . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Young, I. M. (2011). Five faces of oppression. In Justice and the politics of difference . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ypi, L. (2013). What’s wrong with colonialism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41 (2), 158–191.

Ziff, B., & Rao, P. V. (Eds.). (1997). Borrowed power . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited from helpful discussions with Shen-yi Liao, Nick Riggle, Thi Nguyen, Matt Strohl, and audience members at the 2018 APA Pacific Division meeting in San Diego. Special thanks to Dominic McIver Lopes and Margaret Moore. Some parts of this paper were further developed in blog posts at Aesthetics for Birds : thanks to Alex King for feedback and providing an excellent venue for work in aesthetics. Thanks always to Jackie Hatala Matthes.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

324 Founders Hall, Wellesley College, 106 Central St, Wellesley, MA, 02481, USA

Erich Hatala Matthes

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erich Hatala Matthes .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Matthes, E.H. Cultural appropriation and oppression. Philos Stud 176 , 1003–1013 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1224-2

Download citation

Published : 17 December 2018

Issue Date : 15 April 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1224-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Cultural appropriation
Essentialism
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Discrimination and Prejudice — Oppression

Essays on Oppression

What makes a good oppression essay topics.

When it comes to writing an oppression essay, choosing the right topic is crucial. A good essay topic should be thought-provoking, relevant, and provide ample opportunity for critical analysis. Here are some recommendations on how to brainstorm and choose an essay topic, what to consider, and What Makes a Good essay topic.

When brainstorming for essay topics, consider current events, historical events, literature, and social issues. Think about what interests you and what you feel passionate about. Consider topics that are not only relevant but also have enough research material available to support your arguments.

A good essay topic should be specific and focused. It should not be too broad or too narrow, allowing for in-depth analysis and discussion. It should also be thought-provoking and challenging, encouraging the reader to think critically about the subject matter.

Consider the target audience when choosing an essay topic. Think about what would engage and interest them. Additionally, consider the purpose of the essay and what you hope to achieve with it. Are you looking to inform, persuade, or provoke critical thinking? Your essay topic should align with your goals.

A good essay topic should also be relevant and timely. It should address current issues and provoke discussion and debate. It should also be unique and original, offering a fresh perspective on the subject matter.

Best Oppression Essay Topics

When it comes to oppression essay topics, it's important to choose topics that stand out and provoke critical thinking. Here are some creative and thought-provoking essay topics that go beyond the ordinary:

The psychological effects of systemic oppression on marginalized communities
The role of language in perpetuating oppression
The impact of colonialism on indigenous communities
Oppression and resistance in dystopian literature
The intersectionality of oppression and identity
The role of media in perpetuating stereotypes and oppression
Oppression and the criminal justice system
The impact of economic oppression on mental health
Oppression and the LGBTQ+ community
The effects of oppression on mental health and well-being
Oppression and the education system
The role of religion in perpetuating oppression
Oppression and environmental justice
The impact of oppression on access to healthcare
The role of privilege in perpetuating oppression
Oppression and the refugee crisis
The impact of oppression on freedom of expression
Oppression and the arts
The role of technology in perpetuating oppression
The impact of oppression on access to basic needs

Oppression essay topics Prompts

If you're looking for some creative prompts to inspire your oppression essay, here are five thought-provoking ideas to get you started:

Imagine a world without oppression. What would it look like, and how can we work towards achieving it?
Write about a personal experience with oppression and how it has shaped your perspective on social justice.
Choose a work of literature or film that addresses oppression and analyze its themes, characters, and message.
Research a historical event or movement that sought to challenge oppression and discuss its impact on society.
Consider the role of privilege in perpetuating oppression and how we can work towards creating a more equitable society.

Choosing a good oppression essay topic is essential for creating a thought-provoking and engaging essay. By considering relevance, specificity, and creativity, you can choose a topic that will inspire critical thinking and meaningful discussion. Whether it's addressing current issues, analyzing historical events, or exploring the intersectionality of oppression, there are plenty of unique and creative essay topics to choose from.

Oppression in America: then and Now

Black american oppression in the united states, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Oppression, Its Brutality and Its Inescapability, is a Dominant Theme in Literature

Beauty prejudice in the mass media, the legal and economic status of black people during the history of america, oppression of minorities in modern society, let us write you an essay from scratch.

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Oppression of Women in The 21st Century

Historical understanding of the term 'slavery', a reflection on oppression and privilege, oppression in the crucible , get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Oppression of Women in The Victorian Age: Play Pygmallion

Black oppression in preceding apartheid as depicted in mine boy, why censorship is always about oppression, oppression of minority groups in america from 1800’s to today, black oppression in america: jim crow laws to today’s society , oppression: sexual violence and marginalization of today, the role of systemic oppression in shaping civil wars, women's rights and roles of women in society, tool kit for social justice, anti-dialogical theory vs dialogical theory, the damaging effects of an oppressive society in dave's neckliss, the theme of racial domination in "song of solomon" and "translations", slavery in the history of the united states, review of the rohingya crisis, analyzing injustice against blacks in between the world and me, depiction of systemic oppression in pop culture: analysis of movies, a theme of oppression in women at point zero, depiction of black women oppression in the color purple and the flowers, analysis of racial oppression in america using critical race theory, the fight for freedom in "my children my africa" by athol fugard.

Oppression is malicious or unjust treatment or exercise of power, often under the guise of governmental authority or cultural opprobrium.

Authoritarian oppression, socioeconomic, political, legal, cultural, and institutional oppression. Social oppression includes privilege, racial oppression, class oppression, gender oppression, religious persecution, domination, institutionalized oppression, economic oppression, etc.

Relevant topics

Racial Profiling
Discrimination
Islamophobia
Peer Pressure
Gender Discrimination
Cultural Diversity
Hate Speech

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Search this journal
Search all journals
View access options
View profile
Create profile

Add email alerts

You are adding the following journal to your email alerts

	New content
Organization Theory

Shades of Cultural Marginalization: Cultural Survival and Autonomy Processes

Introduction, cultural marginalization, the continuum of cultural marginalization, cultural survival and cultural autonomy processes, acknowledgments, declaration of conflicting interests, biographies, cite article, share options, information, rights and permissions, metrics and citations, figures and tables.

Authors	Definition
, p. 657)	‘Poorly resourced communities’
, p. 658)	‘Actors not occupying dominant positions in a field’
, p. 10)	Those ‘typically disconnected from or invisible to the firm because they are remote, weak, poor, disinterested, isolated, non-legitimate, or non-human’
, p. 420)	The ultra-poor who are ‘excluded from participation in markets and social life’
, p. 1340)	Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals ‘marginalized by the common assertion that homosexuality and ordained ministry are morally incompatible’
, p. 1206)	‘Those who are broken psychically and physically’
, p. 423)	‘Low-power, role-constrained actors’
, p. 1584)	‘Actors in perpetual liminality [ ] tend to have less control over the ambiguous social structure, leaving them to engage in identity work that remains unresolved’
, p. 553)	‘Powerless communities, stigmatized population and labor forces with low income are defined as marginalized because they are dominated by powerful actors’
, p. 16)	‘Marginalized stakeholders are individuals who lack self-representation, and they are ignored, neglected, mistreated, misrepresented through bias, and discriminated against’
, p. 1)	‘Those who predominantly come from vulnerable social identities or belong to lower social classes’

	Cultural extermination	Cultural isolation	Cultural exiting	Cultural distancing
The interplay of structural constraints and agency	High structural imposition and low agency	High-moderate structural imposition and moderate agency	High-moderate level of agency and moderate structural constraints	High-moderate level of agency and moderate-low structural constraints
Structural constraint modus operandi	Symbolic, regulatory, physical and territorial	Symbolic, regulatory, economic	Mostly symbolic, partly regulatory	Mostly symbolic, partly regulatory
Dominant group’s intent	Asserting one’s cultural superiority	Maintaining the social order (power hierarchy)	Maintaining the cultural order	Unconsciously reproducing the cultural norms
Possible reactions by the marginalized	Extremism	Hostility	Stigmatization	Value misalignment
Potential level of cultural loss	Radical (Marginalized groups may completely lose their culture due to cultural genocide)	Partial (Marginalized groups may partially lose their culture in the social sphere)	Radical (Marginalized groups may completely lose their culture due to a radical shift in their own cultural identity)	Partial (Marginalized groups may partially lose their culture as they gradually reassess their cultural framework)

Cultural extermination

Cultural isolation, cultural exiting, cultural distancing, cultural survival processes, cultural survival toolkit: embedded cultural elements, cultural survival toolkit: discursive cultural elements, cultural survival toolkit: material cultural elements, from cultural survival to cultural autonomy processes, cultural autonomy toolkit: discursive cultural elements, cultural autonomy toolkit: material cultural elements, cultural autonomy toolkit: embedded cultural elements, from cultural autonomy back to cultural survival processes, directions for further research, download to reference manager.

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share this article

Share with email, share on social media, share access to this article.

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information

Published in.

cultural autonomy
cultural survival
culture as toolkit
marginalization
marginalized groups

Rights and permissions

Affiliations, journals metrics.

This article was published in Organization Theory .

Article usage *

Total views and downloads: 3389

* Article usage tracking started in December 2016

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score. Learn more about the Altmetric Scores

Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures & Media

View options, view options, access options.

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

I am signed in as:

I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.

Access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional or society access and free tools such as email alerts and saved searches.

loading institutional access options

Click the button below for the full-text content

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Also from Sage

CQ Library Elevating debate opens in new tab
Sage Data Uncovering insight opens in new tab
Sage Business Cases Shaping futures opens in new tab
Sage Campus Unleashing potential opens in new tab
Sage Knowledge Multimedia learning resources opens in new tab
Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab
Sage Video Streaming knowledge opens in new tab
Technology from Sage Library digital services opens in new tab