Whosiwhatsit?
We erect communities solely on the basis of label ownership; we decree authoritarian norms of conformity solely on the basis of label ownership that we subsequently enforce through draconian censorship and expulsion solely on the basis of label ownership; and we espouse rancorous -isms that fuel ignorance, bigotry, and separatism solely on the basis of label ownership -- all in the name of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc.
Do we not?
Otherwise, why does Rachel Dolezal's lack of label ownership preclude her membership to a label community on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label -- or delegitimize her deliberate conformity to label norms on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label -- or invalidate her unflinching espousal of rancorous label -isms on the basis of her ownership of a self-appointed label?
Needless to say, who among us is a deity of anyone, to omnipotently decree what is and isn't within the limits of permissibility and legitimacy vis a vis #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. for our selves and each other?
Which begs the question: aren't declarations of permissibility and legitimacy, i.e. what emphatically belongs to whom, what is incontrovertibly prohibited for whom, etc. -- by virtue of labels alone -- the very apotheoses of privilege?
Indeed, the power with which we imbue our labels is so extraordinarily pernicious, that we mask the malice of labels behind shameless pretensions of self-empowerment, self-righteousness, etc. In reality, labels are without exception privilege by another name. An invisible knapsack that label owners unequivocally avow grants totalitarian dominion over that which cannot be fettered in a conscionable society of the free: who and how our selves and each other are.
Verily, 'cultural appropriation' and 'cultural competence' are actuations of privilege:
Needless to say, the former is an unearned entitlement that grants unearned authority, on the basis of labels alone. While the latter is an unearned advantage that confers unearned authority, on the basis of labels alone.
And are not unearned entitlements and advantages -- exemplifications of privilege?
How many of us circumscribe where we go, who we associate with, and what we experience, on the basis of labels alone? Do we not acquiesce to social and behavioral norms of conformity or risk censorship and reprisal, on the basis of labels alone? Moreover, are we not prohibited from places, people, and experiences, on the basis of labels alone, especially when such prohibitions are grounded by attestations of 'cultural appropriation' (as well as overt and covert threats of sanction and retaliation for breaching authoritarian norms, on the basis of labels alone)?
Concurrently, how many of us assume where others go, who others associate with, and what others experience, on the basis of labels alone? Do we not presume that we and each other possess special expertise, by virtue of nothing more credible than labels alone, especially when such knowledge is grounded by attestations of 'cultural competence' (as well as overt and covert vociferance of ignorance masquerading as competence defended by unearned superiority, on the basis of labels alone)?
As long as we wield 'cultural appropriation', 'cultural competence', and other actuations of privilege as weapons of oppression that deprive our selves and each other of access to places, people, and experiences -- on the basis of labels alone -- our society will never achieve conscionable peace, freedom, and equality for all.
Ultimately, advocacy for labels and labels alone devolves into label oppression:
Because the deafening laudation for labels comes at a price.
For labels are nothing more than vacuous attributions of meaningless authenticity that fuel label tyranny through the categorical circumscription of who and how our selves and each other are, through the blithe exercise of label privilege, whereby we imbue arbitrary delineations with limitless totalitarianism over our selves and each other, solely on the basis of labels.
When despotism is ubiquitous and has been subsequently internalized, our prevailing doctrine for empowering the disempowered is labels and labels alone. In our misguided zeal to reverse the alignment, identification, and categorization of our selves by others who seek to disenfranchise, segregate, and subjugate us -- we misappropriate the tactics of tyrants for our own self-empowerment, self-righteousness, self-advocacy, and self-aggrandizement vis a vis labels alone.
What else is our alignment, identification, and categorization of our selves and each other by label -- than the oppression of our selves and each other by label? Moreover, what else is our overt and covert delimitations of who and how our selves and each other are vis a vis label -- than the actuation of unearned label entitlements and privileges? And is not the actuation of unearned label entitlements and privileges nothing less than label tyranny?
By any other name:
What's in the invisible knapsack? The appalling arrogance with which we defend our employment of every spectrum of our devisement, to delimit and oppress our selves and each other, on the basis of nothing more credible than labels alone.
When we arbitrarily deny access -- when we unmistakably suppress self-expression -- when we disproportionately coerce and enforce delimitation of who and how our selves and each other are -- all in the name of #race, #socioeconomic status, #age, #gender, #national origin, #religion, #marital status, #educational attainment, #sexual orientation, etc. --
are any of us free?
More
The color/gender of privilege is not the answer to the tyranny of oppression of our selves and each other.
Why not?
Because our unabashed zeal to remedy suffering by label -- leads to the passionate identification of antagonists -- by label.
This insidious bias -- that catastrophically saturates our ideological framework for 'the invisible knapsack' -- frees no one.
For the tyranny of label centrism indiscriminately imprisons every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc., while the ideological framework of 'the invisible knapsack' fuels the mercilessly rampant persecution of our selves and each other on the basis of nothing more substantive than race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.
Which begs the question: is the path to peace, freedom, and equality for all -- paved with label privilege? Or is label privilege -- tyranny masquerading as enlightened freedom?
- M.
Addendum
Peggy McIntosh articulated the ideology of 'the invisible knapsack' (more: Wiki) to address the marginalization of others via the unearned advantages of invisible privileges, namely 'white' and 'white male' privileges.
Hence, the proponents who espouse this ideology, do so under the presumption that this device exposes invisible privileges that disenfranchise everyone who is not a 'white male' or 'white' for the overt and covert benefit of 'white males' and 'whites'.
However, label privilege disenfranchises non label holders -- as well as noncompliant label brethren -- for the overt and covert benefit of label holders, of every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc. -- over every race, socioeconomic status, age, gender, national origin, religion, marital status, educational attainment, sexual orientation, etc.
Thus, regardless of the explicit intent of such a device, in the end, the ideology of 'the invisible knapsack' perpetuates label privilege as unequivocally as any -ism, which ultimately dilutes any residual value gained from the lingering exposition of the invisible privilege of one color/one gender (which are hardly the only color/only gender who exercise invisible privilege).
Nevertheless, the deleterious potency of -isms within our society, is a repugnant reality. For -isms do exist, from the mildest careless stereotypes to the most vicious calculated savageries.
However, when we divest our selves and each other of our humanity, by ruthlessly reducing our currency as humans qua humans to that of labels and labels alone -- we wittingly deprive our selves and each other of our wherewithal to revel within the vast unbridled universe of the infinitude of truths of humans qua humans.
For our power -- our humanity -- resides within the infinitude of our truths -- not the delimitations of our labels.
- M.
Label privilege is everywhere. Indeed, it's so omnipresent across popular social and mass media, that it suffocates our wherewithal to actively engage each other as humans qua humans:
Ex. The One Thing That Liberal White Folks Need To Stop Doing (by Aaron Barksdale from the Huffington Post 11/6/2015)
Sadly, personal experiences and sympathies invariably propel our crusades for the abolition of -isms, which habitually limit the scope and puissance of our best efforts.
Notwithstanding that even our best efforts unfailingly espouse -isms in order to oppose -isms:
Ex. How a Whites-Excluding Yoga Class Exposes the Absurdity of Identity Politics (by Lizzie Crocker from The Daily Beast 10/23/2015)
Needless to say, in our stalwart fervor to dismantle the intractable institutions that buttress our enduring legacy of -isms... we're astonishingly oblivious to the -isms and -ists that are vanquishing us all.
- M.
