Last night, we talked a a bit about oppression and hierarchy as it relates to corporate culture. Paulo Freire was brought up. We asked, who is oppressed? If a group is not aware of their own oppression, are they then oppressed? By extension, does lack of awareness mean that it is ethical to continue certain systems of behavior provided the oppressed is not aware of his/her own oppression? I would argue that it is not ethical.
If we use an example of people with less intellectual capability (mild retardation), I am thinking that everyone would probably be on board, although history shows that this was not always the case. Such ppl would not be aware of their own abuse or exploitation; therefore, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not exploited or oppressed. So it is also unacceptable to exploit children. So why is it acceptable to oppress a group of people (blue collar workers, for example, or the "rank and file" on a corporate ladder) by training them to enact only obedience in order to justify the success and wealth of those above them? Why do we make the excuse that they are not oppressed, only living out the life which is suited for them?
People perish when they lack knowledge. Education and information are keys to unlock the world to us. However, if one is incapable of gaining access to this knowledge, he is limited, and it is up to the strong to bear the infirmaties of the weak. We should all reach back, advocate, help, assist, be better managers, train and develop our people, provide equal opportunities, create environments that are inclusive, etc. If those who are leaders are not aiding the disadvantaged and opening the world to them, regardless of why they are in their situation, then the leaders become vultures who prey and feast at the expense of others. Shame! When one moves ahead, he ought to realize that it is the "low" that helped him, and he should reach back to bring the other along.
ReplyDelete