On Kyriarchy, Intersectionality and privilege

Kyriarchy is a very important idea that more people need to be aware of. The notion itself is relatively complex, so I'll break it down here best I can as I understand it.

Note I've learned all this in the past couple of months and am very new to it all. Undoubtedly my understanding is a bit raw or lacking in places. So please be considerate if commenting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

Kyriarchy means “Rule by a lord” and is effectively a way of describing the social system by defining how different groups are oppressed or dominated by others. The concept describes how different social systems interconnect to produce individuals who may be disadvantaged in some ways, and privileged in others. It is basically and intersectional extension to the idea of patriarchy, combining all forms of innate differences (or “axes of identity” as they can be called) into the mix, not just gender. So when we talk about feminism and the patriarchy, we should really talk about Kyriarchy as well.

The main different aspects of being that are included under Kyriarchy are as follows. Each effectively exists on a sliding scale (or continuum, I like to get that word in now wherever possible ;-) ) where any given individual can occupy any possible position on any scale:

* Sex/Gender

* Race

* Class

* Sexuality (i.e. Orientation)

We might also want to consider the Abled / Disabled scale as well as I think this can be an innate attribute which affects privilege.

In Kyriarchy, the aspects which are considered most privileged are: white/Caucasian for race, male for sex and cis- for gender identity, upper classes and heterosexual orientation. Other values are to some degree, less privileged.

So basically any sliding scale attribute (axis of identity), provided at birth, that an individual can possess, where one end of the spectrum gives a higher degree of privilege or social acceptance than the other, is fair game to be included in Kyriarchy. As the system was introduced in peer-reviewed academic journals, we should give it some intelectual respect.

I prefer to hold Kyriarchy up as a slightly higher standard than regular privilege for two reasons. Firstly, the attributes above are either genetic, or defined at birth by the parent's situation (OK maybe orientation is at least partly formed in early years), and although some of them could potentially change during a lifetime, the change would be slow/gradual and probably not switch back again. Secondly, other forms of privilege are more temporary or transient, and may change from year to year, month to month or even week to week and are the types of things we should consider when we “check our privilege”.

Checking one's privilege is a important activity for everyone to perform once in a while. I have done it, as you can imagine I am a relatively privileged person (I openly admit that!), but am proud to announce that I come in at just below the century mark at about 95. I like to try and get as low a privilege as possible (a good way to do this is give away your money – an advert for altruism if ever I saw one!) This is mainly due to the fact that I'm an ugly bastard who has a disfavoured job role (Scientist). Don't quite get why Scientists get -15, but hey ho.

Consider your:

* Wealth

* Attractiveness (mine's -20 :-0)

* Job/Career (mine's -15 :D)

* Nationality

* Religion (or lack of preferably!)

* Height

...And score according to the scale given in the picture in this link:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/check-your-privilege

Using this can help quantify your advantages over other people and can help you understand why you might be better off than them. It helps engage our empathy for those less fortunate than ourselves and helps motivate and justify attempts to redress the balance. The exact values are a bit arbitrary, so don't get caught up in a few points here and there, but as a rough guide it's quite interesting and useful to use.

The way I like to work this system is to consider the Kyriarchy attributes as an upper tier of base, innate values which are unlikely to change much, or at least quickly. The other privilege values are more open to change. For example, people can make and lose fortunes; get plastic surgery to improve their looks, or become horribly scarred in a accident; people change jobs all the time; someone can migrate to another country; or can change religion; OK so changing height is more difficult but I think is influenced by environmental factors when growing up, not just genes, so it isn't strictly part of Kyriarchy.

Of course this thinking leads to the possibility of other types of privilege. I use the term “situational privilege” to describe a very fleeting advantage/disadvantage that may only hold for a few minutes but can radically alter someone's ability to influence a certain group. Imagine a white male, normally a very privileged group, joining in a conversation with a group of Jamaican women about West Indian culture for example. Unless he had specific knowledge or personal experience of this topic he probably wouldn't be able to offer much to the discourse. In that respect he is “situationally underpriveleged”. That these instances tend to be rare and usually fairly inconsequential, and that they are just about the only way that a privileged person could lose a significant portion of that privilege, shows just how powerful a hold Kyriarchy has over our lives.

Intersectionality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

This is closely connected to Kyriarchy. When someone is underprivileged and experiences discrimination, it may be due to any one of their “axes of identity” depending on the situation and the society they exist in. For example the cause of a black woman experiencing discrimination may be racial but it could be because she is a woman (please excuse the lame example BTW). How our different privileges and oppressions intersect on multiple levels (simultaneously) can contribute to our overall experienced inequality in society (or conversely privilege for some people). Again like Kyriarchy it is quite complex.

So because women are such a large part of the population (50% obvs !) and because gender bias is very significant, feminism has risen before any other movement to be the chiefly supported form of activism against inequality. With Intersectionality, we are including other minority and underprivileged or oppressed groups in the same overall movement, in a “group” effort to improve equality for everyone. After all, it is one thing to improve the lot of women, but to then to realise that racial prejudices, for example, have been made worse in the process would kind of defeat part of the purpose.

So we need to simultaneously fight for all oppressed groups – that is the nature of intersectionality. Problems of this approach include the issue that a broader movement my lack focus, and may contain dissenting voices working against the group. For example some more radical feminists don't believe trans-women really count as women for the purposes of standing up for their equality. I disagree with this position. Such problems should not mean that we don't try our best to incorporate an intersectional approach, however. Apart from the underprivileged groups on the “axes of identity” already mentioned, there are other groups to be considered who I've not mentioned yet, such as sex workers.

Sex workers (S.W.s) have been oppressed, abused, humiliated and shunned for thousands of years. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex work – it is a perfectly valid occupation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being prudish and should consider their heteronormative bias, as it were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity

The evidence that a man-woman relationship for life, with no other partners involved is in fact the best practice, or the only way to go, is pretty thin. These relationships can often break up with dire consequences. Experimentation in a struggling relationship for example can help keep it together and avoid unnecessary break-ups. I personally think the idea of sexual commitment to just one person can be a bit overrated.

improving S.W.'s social status and working conditions is an important goal for a number of reasons. Some feminists believe that sex work is demeaning to women and part of patriarchy, so should be banned. I understand this viewpoint, however, my liberal senses tell me that prohibition would be problematic. I liken the situation to drugs laws - banning drugs doesn't really work either, and just demonises people as criminals.

It may be pragmatically best to legalise and regulate the system so that conditions for S.W.s can be improved. We must not forget that there is a scale of motivations in S.W. and just as some are forced into it against their will or have no other choice, others do it willingly, as the financial rewards can rightly be high.

Well all this has gone on for a lot longer than I intended and I really must call it a night now. So overall I favour an intersectional approach, in working against Kyriarchy, towards achieving the ultimate goal of some sort of social justice...And then there's humanism and atheism as well. So much to think about.