Somebodies and Nobodies: Understanding Rankism--A Guest Post From Robert Fuller

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 15:00


Most of our discussions about rankism here at Open Left have been about its application in specific political contexts.  But for me, the essential power of the concept is its vast generality without dissolving into mindless mushiness.  And to really grasp the power of that generality, it helps to go back to basics, as Robert Fuller does here in this guest post.

There's just one thing I want to stress in advance--the fact that everyone can be on the receiving end of rankism is extremely useful. It stands in sharp contrast to the extreme defensiveness we've seen among whites about recognizing the continued existence of racism.

At the same time that we need to keep confronting the denial involved in this, taking up the new, broader theme of rankism opens up another line of potential progress, an easier way, in that it invites a more inclusive outlook, in which all have experienced some form of abuse, but a harder way, once the lesson has sunk in, in that it ultimately removes all our excuses for resisting change.

One last thing: tremayne has a diary scheduled for 5 PM EST about a dramatic example of rankism that started off victimizing poor and minority criminal suspects, and now threatens just about everyone: the routine abuse of tasers.

Somebodies and Nobodies:
Understanding Rankism

by Robert Fuller

What is rankism? First, some examples; then, a definition.

    An executive pulls into valet parking, late to a business lunch, and finds no one to take his car. He spots a teenager running towards him and yells, "Where the hell were you? I haven't got all day."

    He tosses the keys on the pavement. Bending to pick them up, the boy says, "Sorry, sir. About how long do you expect to be?"

    The executive hollers over his shoulder, "You'll know when you see me, won't you?" The valet winces, but holds his tongue. Postscript: That evening the teenager bullies his kid brother.

The dynamic is familiar: A customer demeans a waitress, a boss humiliates an employee, a principal bullies a teacher, a teacher mocks a student, students ostracize other students, a parent beats a child, a coach bullies a player, a professor exploits a graduate student, a doctor insults a nurse or patronizes a patient, a priest abuses a parishioner, a caregiver mistreats an elder, executives award themselves perks and bonuses, police use racial profiling, politicians serve the special interests. Surely, you can add to the list.

Paul Rosenberg :: Somebodies and Nobodies: Understanding Rankism--A Guest Post From Robert Fuller
Most such behaviors have nothing to do with racism, sexism, or other discriminatory isms. Yet perpetrators of these insults, like racists and sexists, select their targets with circumspection. In every case, a disparity of power and rank figures in the choice of target and higher rank shields perpetrators from retaliation.

Rank signifies power. Sometimes rank is abused, as in these examples, but often it's simply an organizational tool used to get a job done in a timely manner. Many bosses, coaches, doctors, priests, and professors interact with their subordinates without insulting or exploiting them. Yet in the hands of a sadistic bully, rank is a cudgel if not an instrument of torture. What can victims of rank abuse do to protect their dignity?

Those abused on the basis of color unified against racism. Women targeted sexism and the elderly took aim at ageism. By analogy, "rankism" denotes abuses of power associated with rank. Once you have a name for it, you see it everywhere. More importantly, once you call it by name, everyone else will see it too, and perpetrators will find themselves on the defensive.

"To have a name is to be," said Benoit Mandelbrot, the inventor of fractals. As "sexism" gained a foothold, men's desire to avoid being labeled "sexist" caused them to modify their treatment of women. Likewise, the desire of perpetrators to avoid being labeled rankist will make them think twice about insulting the dignity of subordinates.

Rankism is what people who take themselves for "somebodies" do to those they mistake for "nobodies." Whether directed at an individual or a group, rankism aims to put targets in their place and keep them weak so they will do as they're told and submit to being taken advantage of.

In the examples above, rankism consists of abuse of the power attached to rank. Another expression of rankism occurs when the abuse lies not in how rank is used, but in the very fact of ranking in the first place. There are lots of hierarchies whose only purpose is to justify privileging one group over another. Then, high status is used by the creators of these fabricated hierarchies to rationalize the privileges they've arrogated unto themselves. Contrariwise, the inferior status of the less powerful is invoked to justify their on-going exploitation. The irony is that while the less powerful are forced to serve as benefactors to those of higher rank, they are routinely depicted as dependent and inferior.

Examples of rankism based on pseudo rankings include the illicit hierarchies maintained by racism, sexism, ageism, classism, ableism, and heterosexualism (or, homophobia)--in short, the familiar isms that plague societies and that, one by one, are being discredited and dismantled.

Like abuses of legitimate rank, the use of illegitimate rank is a source of humiliation and indignity. Both expressions of rankism are indefensible violations of human dignity. Rankism is simply an umbrella name for the many ways that people put others down to secure advantages for themselves. All forms of rankism have their roots in predation and have evolved from the practice of slavery.

The relationship between rankism and the specific isms targeted by identity politics can be compared to that between cancer and its subspecies. For centuries the group of diseases that are now seen as varieties of cancer were regarded as distinct illnesses. No one realized that lung, breast, and other organ-specific cancers all had their origins in cellular malfunction.

In this metaphor, racism, sexism, and homophobia are analogous to organ-specific cancers and rankism is the blanket malignancy analogous to cancer itself. Rankism is the mother of all the ignoble isms.

Now that rankism has a name, we must learn to say it aloud. It was not easy to use the word "sexism" at first. Men utterly refused, and women demurred for fear of seeming "uppity." As we overcome our reluctance to be uppity nobodies, and gain the confidence to stand up for our own and others' dignity, rankism will become insupportable.

The demise of rankism in all its guises will mark the dawn of something new in human affairs--dignitarian societies. In a dignitarian society, no one is taken for a nobody and, regardless of role or rank, everyone is accorded equal dignity.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I've been 'ranked' (4.00 / 1)
Right here at Open Left. You don't have to be a troll to have an authority move pulled on you by a member of 'The Community'.

On the other hand there are some legitimate forms of Rankism, at least if you are in a position to pull rank. I am a regular at a bar, so regular that if I am perceived to be late on any given day people ask "Where's Bruce". I have a seat and a table and a recognized spot in the line of succession that controls the bar TV.

You will never eliminate rankism, humans have been plying this game, and it is a game with often serious rules and consequences since we were competing with baboons for control of the Olduvai. And nowhere does rankism end up having a stronger hold than in those groups that set out to eliminate it. Everything starts with 'Brother and Sister' and 'Comrade', but almost universally someone ends up living in the House on the Hill while others work down in the field in the valley, you can see this truth working from Mendocino to Myanmar. Better to address the question from the beginning rather than assuming that the Age of Aquarius will Dawn all on its own.

Soviet Russia in the 1920s was a Dignatarian Society in its outward form. Not only did that that not last it is less then clear that it was ever more than an illusion to start with.


I believe that Robert Fuller has argued previously that Dignitarianism (4.00 / 1)
does not ask for an end to rank, but rather asks for an end to the abuse of rank and authority.  

[ Parent ]
Rank And Rankism Aren't The Same Thing (4.00 / 2)
This is one of Robert's key points.  There are legitimate reasons for some to have higher stature--such as you at your bar.  There are various different ways in which people legitimately earn respect, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.  However, there are problems with how that respect gets transformed into something else, as well as with how illegitimate means are used.

One of the chief benefits of this analysis is that it allows us to be much more subtle in drawing our distinctions.  If we recognize, and commonly acknowledge legitimate rank, we are much better situated to discern abuses than we are if were are all caught up in a shared illusion that there are no differences of rank--just as we are equally blinded if we think that rankism is identical with the legitimate aspects of rank.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
10,000 years of slavery (4.00 / 1)
And nowhere does rankism end up having a stronger hold than in those groups that set out to eliminate it.

How can you say that after 10,000 years of slavery on this planet?  Traditional concur who you can warfare is rankism at an even more basic level; I'm stronger, therefore I take what you have.

I'll stop, since Paul gets to the heart of your misunderstanding, above.  (And then he continues...)

Rank isn't the problem, the problem is abuse of rank.  The only time rank appears to be the problem is when rank was created to support abuse in the first place.


[ Parent ]
Czarist Serfdom vs Soviet Collectictvism (4.00 / 1)
As the first response to the thread I am sure that my point was overstated and histrionic.

But I would ask if the Russian Peasant prior to the freeing of the serfs in 1905 (?) by the Czar and his elevation to Komrad in 1917 was in a materially better place by 1922 than he was in 1892 is not an open and shut proposition. The work of Chayanov and his seminal work The Theory of Peasant Economy suggest that the material and social life of the
'slave' serf of Czarist Russia had a lot more freedom than the life of the Collectivist  'Komrad' of Soviet times. And that the same was true for the 14th century English serf as compared to the late eighteenth century 'free' factory laborer. In each case the formal appelation of being 'free
just obscures the social reality.


[ Parent ]
These Are All Good Points, Bruce (0.00 / 0)
But I don't think they're specifically on target for the points that Robert is advancing.

It's always relevant to look beyond abstract claims to see what the reality is.  So your point is generally applicable. However, it's also the case that even when abstract claims are lies, the very fact that they are seen to be necessary is itself proof of some sort of progress.

Turning that sort of progress into stone soup--well, that's the real trick, now, in'it?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The "It's hopeless" argument (4.00 / 5)
When the word "sexism" was first introduced (~1968) men said, "You will never eliminate sexism ..." and gave reasons ranging from genes to other primates to the Bible. Three years later there was Title IX, equal pay for equal work, and major advances in reproductive rights. I think the same will happen once "rankism" is a household word. Targets of the various isms need a name they can pin on their abusers that puts them on the defensive. From that point on it takes only a few generations for discriminatory behaviors to become widely regarded as uncool. The dignity movement is at an early stage -- just getting a name for the cause of man-made indignity into the lexicon. The movement will have to deal with arguments that go "what has ever been will ever be," just like the other isms. Nothing looked truer to me as a boy in the 1940s than the fact that girls could not play real sports or do real math. Now any college women's basketball team would demolish the pathetic men's team I played for at Oberlin College in the 1950s. And the percentage of women faculty in university math departments has risen from zero to about thirty. Domestic abuse, once off limits because "a man's home is his castle," is now illegal. Humans can change. We can override our conditioning. If we do not disallow rankism we will be handicapping ourselves so seriously in the global marketplace that by century's end we will be a poor and pitied nation. Dignitarian states (ones that disallow rankism) will lead the world by mid-century much as democratic nations led the world in the 20th century.

Well, I, For One, Am Proud To Have Open Left (4.00 / 2)
playing a role in furthering this change.

I'm old enough to remember all the foolish stuff said about sexism that you refer to, and I can definitely relate.  Especially since I had been thinking about sexism for over a decade by then.

When I was about 6 years old, we moved to a street in a new development.  As the houses filled up, it turned out I was the only boy my age.  There were about 16 or 17 girls my age on the block.  At that age, one year is like a generation.  So for the next two years, until we moved to a different town, I spent the majority of my playtime with girls.  A few of them were tomboys, so did "boys stuff" like climbing trees and roughhousing.  But mostly we just played tag, jump rope, hopscotch, that sort of thing.  But what I learned to the marrow of my bones (as if I didn't already know from my mother, my sister, my aunts, etc.) was that girls where human beings just like me, and all the gender socialization that went on at school was just a little bit more than ridiculous--it was insulting.

From that perspective, when 1968 rolled 'round, and I heard the same sort of stuff you describe, I just rolled my eyes, and I was like, "You guys have no idea.  You've been asleep all your lives, and boy are you ripe for a wake-up call--ready or not."

I get the same sort of feeling about rankism today. I didn't have the word or the precise conceptual framework for it, but as soon as I stumbled across your writing, I had the same sort of "Of course!" reaction I had the first time I read something labeled "feminist" in the 1960s.

It may take longer, it's always hard to judge these things.  But there's that same sense of inevitability.  The way things are right now is just too absurd.  And too many people are starting to see the absurdity.  It's just a matter of time before major change will start happening.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Sexism (0.00 / 0)
Color me stupid! By 1971 Title IX had secured equal treatment of women's sports, all women had secured equal pay , and there were no more challenges to reproductive rights! All fixed because after all a law was in place!

Gosh when I arrived on campus at Berkeley in 1974 I should have told the women advocating for Women's Studies and some balance in academic representation and curricula was already won.

Hey woman you got your Title IX now bring me a sandwich.

The idea that all we need to do is declare that rankism is no longer acceptable or that this law or that proclamation makes it all good is what has led to where we are today. In principle the 14th Amendment made the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 unnecessary. The claim that the battle for Women's Rights was in any sense over by 1971 seems to me crazy, even in the most radical corners of America, and Berkeley in the early 70's was pretty damn radical, that battle was considered not even started and by no means completed today.

Did I miss Robert's point here? God I hope so.


[ Parent ]
I Really Think You DID Miss His Point (0.00 / 0)
As I read him, Robert was talking about the dramatic change in what was thought possible. Of course, it takes a great deal more struggle to turn abstract rights into everyday realities.

But things that weren't even spoken of in 1961 were laughed at in 1968, and passed into law in 1971.  That was real, mind-blowing progress, no matter how much thankless hard work still remained (and still remains) to be done.

Like Delmore Schwartz said, "In dreams begin responsibilities."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
One worry (0.00 / 0)
My only concern with the term "rankism" is I can see how it can be used against itself.  If racism is an example of rankism then some will use this a evidence that whites really do outrank blacks.  I fully understand this isn't what you are saying, but it seems like an easy mistake (or "mistake" as the case may be) for some to make.  From a Lakoff prospective it seems this term would encourage people to think of blacks, women, elderly, etc. to be thought of as lower ranking individuals.

Have you given this issue much thought?


social rank is bogus (0.00 / 0)
Those social ranks, wherein, for example, whites outrank blacks, are examples of rankism of the kind where the ranking is socially constructed precisely to keep one race down and force it to subsidize the other. This is explained more fully in the post. Legitimate ranks can be abused; and rank itself can be phoney. The distinction between tenured professors and adjunct professors works the same way. Rank is here not based on merit, but rather to justify discrimination. We simply have to get better at making this kind of distinction.

I have been open to a better term than rankism for 14 years since proposing it and have to date not found or heard a better word. "Sexism" was thought to be a bad choice too at first. Now, I suppose, we would call it "genderism." But sexism has stuck because we all know what it refers to. Rankism will likely stick, too. Google it and see what you get.


[ Parent ]
artificial ranks (0.00 / 0)
To the first paragraph: yep.

To the second: I don't have any better idea at all.  Overall I think rankism is a fantastic idea and hope to see the term become widely use.  I was just curious if you thought much about the problem of emphasizing artificial ranks and had any solution other than repeating the first paragraph a lot.

An extreme example would be the old Disney movie Song of the South.  I watched a bunch of it recently on Youtube and was surprised to see how anti-rankish the movie was.  It almost had the moral that whites shouldn't pull rank on blacks.

But man, did it assume the ranks themselves where correct.  The assumption that blacks were inferior to whites is at the very core of the soul of that movie.


[ Parent ]
Masters and slaves... (0.00 / 0)
The irony is that while the less powerful are forced to serve as benefactors to those of higher rank, they are routinely depicted as dependent and inferior.

I entirely agree with Dr. Fuller's thesis, and wish him all possible success with raising consciousness about rankism. But maybe it isn't out of place here to mention another irony involved in relations of rank, parallel to the ironic and upside-down attribution of dependence which Dr. Fuller describes.

Hegel's famous discussion of the dialectic relation between masters and slaves accords perfectly with Dr. Fullers description of rankism, and in particular the difference between "somebodies" and "nobodies" is reflected in the master's dependence on the slave's recognition to achieve his own self-consciousness, just as in Dr. Fuller's example of the boss and valet, the boss doesn't know he's a boss unless a valet plays the role of "nobody" to be bossed around.

Meanwhile the valet remains almost invisible to the boss, just a thing that moves cars, but just as the boss in Dr. Fuller's example all too accurately remarks "You'll know when you see me, won't you?" the slave will indeed know the master, and know him better than he knows himself.

As a small homage to Paul Rosenberg, whose genuine intellectual ambition I sometimes praise and sometimes pillory, it may be useful to apply this dialectic to relations between black and white Americans at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, when white bossism was only one jump removed from the master-slave relationship a la lettre, and black Americans were almost entirely invisible to their white fellow-citizens, with an even more complete invisibility than Ralph Ellison described decades later in his great novel, and not only invisible but inaudible, too.

White Americans did not hear black music, but as an ironic compensation for their "inferior" situation under white domination, black musicians heard everything, black and white, and out of a fusion of everything they heard, they created the greatest music of the Twentieth Century, in the form of jazz.



Invisible, Inaudible Man (0.00 / 0)
That blacks were not only invisible but inaudible in early 20th c. America, and that their 'nobody' statis enabled them to "hear everything, black and white, and out of a fusion of everything ... create ... jazz"-- this insight sent tingles up my back. And I remembered my times in Nobodyland and just how fertile those unwelcome absences can be. Thank you, Jacob.  

The distinction between legitimate uses of legitimate authority, and illegitimate uses of legitimate authority, (0.00 / 0)
becomes the really crucial one, no?  Everyone recognizes who has more power and whom they might be able to abuse, but differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate uses of that power is the capacity that people need to acquire and refine.

My thoughts on this subject had centered on that capacity.  Creating a clear division in the world of normal everyday ideas between "right-power" and "wrong-power" is the important step.  "Power" kindof exists as one undivided idea in America (and probably many other places), and if you have it there are not obvious proscriptions or taboos on how you may use it.  The phrase "abuse of power" exists, but is an uncommon, unused, and uninfluential one.  If the thoughts of all of America were a word cloud, "power" would be a very big word, and "abuse of power" would be a very very small one.  The idea just barely exists with us.

The difference between the right uses of legitimate authority, and the wrong uses of legitimate authority, needs to be an extremely salient one -- thought about, discussed, argued over vigorously in daily life.  Whether power is used in only right ways, or in right and wrong ways, is the question in so much of life, including politics.  It needs to become a central part of how we think about how we and others live.  The choice to use power well or poorly needs to be one of the major conscious choices that constitute our self-identity.  We need to reach a point where people take personal pride in their commitment to "right-power", where it becomes not just a socially shared idea but a social norm as well.  That is when we can start to see civilization break out among us.  When the abuse of power is recognized, called out, counseled against, and tamed: if we're going to have a decent world that is the path to it, I think.

This is your rankism but it's a difference in emphasis, or might be.  It puts slightly less emphasis on where we stand in the power hierarchy relative to each other, and slightly more on the differentiation between the right and wrong uses of power.  You can abuse power against someone of your own rank, or even someone above you: a student who cheats abuses his peers; a mid-level corporate guy can sabotage his peers as well; Undersecretary Bolton sabotaged Secretary Powell.  Relative position in the hierarchy very clearly matters, but I think it's the distinction between the legitimate uses of authority and power and the illegitimate uses of same that is where the juice is.

On the other hand, tying all these well-known problems of power together and showing how profoundly they're all related is a hell of a point, so I can see why it might be useful to lead with that.

What do you think?  I only know of your work what I've seen over the years at Open Left.  Probably you've put a lot of thought into all this already.


right and wrong-power (0.00 / 0)
I take your point, but I'm thinking it's a corrective that gets at certain abuses of power left over from all those attached either to legitimate rank or to pseudo-rankings. I've played with "power abuse," but find that the similarity of the word "rankism" to the familiar isms is useful in getting people to see how they are being nobodied and how they nobody others. Most of the time a rank difference is involved, and even when it is not as in the examples you give, the behavior in question can often be seen as an attempt to assert rank and hold it long enough to weaken someone so they can then be taken advantage of, or so the perpetrator will look good or temporarily feel superior.

In short, I want first to go after rankism as defined here. That will cut a large swath into power abuse. And then go after all the variants. Kind of like we tackled racism first and then noticed there was such a thing as reverse racism and colorism (among people of color), and all sorts of variations.

Disallowing rankism heralds a transformation of human sensibilities and behavior that will take generations to realize (as does the shift around racism and sexism). But, we can make this change, of that I am certain. There is the added fact that failure to make it will lead to such horrors that it's a carrot and stick setup: carrots if we become dignitarian; sticks (in the form of suitcase-sized WMDs in our midst, if we do not). The nobodies are no longer impotent. If for no other reason, therefore, it behooves us to treat them with dignity.


[ Parent ]
Yes, although (0.00 / 0)
this part I disagree with:
I take your point, but I'm thinking it's a corrective that gets at certain abuses of power left over from all those attached either to legitimate rank or to pseudo-rankings.

So far, I'm inclined to think that rightpower/wrongpower is the larger and fuller expression of the problem, and the behaviors you've identified as rankism comprise the largest but not the only instances of it.  Producing a "unified theory" of racism classism sexism ageism abusive-behavior-to-subordinates etc is a significant part of the value of your project; what I'm trying to articulate is not so much a way of getting at the leftovers as an even more unified theory, hopefully.

The problem is not exactly abuse of rank but abuse of power itself, including a great many times when rank is in play and also some times when it's not.

.

I have to go to work and so I can't engage further as much and with as much organization as I would like.  I'll quickly add that one other thing I like about placing the emphasis on the proper and improper uses of power is that it is a more individual mode of thought.  Instead of thinking "managers need to be nice to interns, and I am a manager, so I should be nice to this intern", and having a thought process in which the self and the other are significantly defined by rank or caste, a rightpower/wrongpower formulation places a more individual and situational emphasis: "I have been entrusted with certain types of power, I need to use them only in the ways and for the purposes they were given to me (ie, the right and not the wrong ways), so I am not going to torment this intern just because I have the technical power to do so.  That would be wrong."  It has more the flavor of an individual ethical imperative, than a social obligation of one caste of people (managers) to another (interns).

.

Again, I deeply regret that I have to go.  I'll come back and check for a response, but also I'll probably need to read your book if I want to get into a real engagement with you on this.


[ Parent ]
I'm Interested, But... (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes a more general theory is a weaker one.  Not necessarily in theoretical terms in this case, I'm thinking.  But certainly in terms of getting a macro-historical point across.

Which is to say, I think this would be a very interesting discussion to have.

BTW, are you familiar with Reimann and Lebesgue integration?  Reimann integrals are constructed by chopping up the variable range into finer and finer pieces.  Lebesgue integrals are constructed by chopping up the functional value range into finer and finer pieces.  Some functions are Reimann integrable, but not Lebesgue integrable, some functions are Leebesgue integrable, but not Reimann integrable, some functions are both, and some are neither.

That may be the sort of situation we find ourselves in here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
To solve a math problem, sometimes you have to make it a bigger problem, but not always. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I'm familiar with Lebesgue and Reimann integration. And it's a well chosen example, indeed. What I'm proposing is a generalization of the familiar ignoble isms and abuses of legitimate rank. That generalization seems inclusive enough to me, but more importantly, it's actionable in a way that power abuse is not. Power abuse is more ambiguous and therefore interminably arguable. In fact, it's not much different than what we have now--ethics, and ethics are not very effective at bringing about behavior change. We had ethics during the Jim Crow era and they said segregation was wrong, wrong, wrong. Nothing changed till the Civil Rights movement (the prototype for subsequent identity politics movements) got into the equation. The Golden Rule has had millennia to catch on, but is honored mainly in the breach. Rank abuse is not equivlanet to "being nice" because ranks have defined powers and abuse of rank is therefore more quantifiable and objective. Moreover, the Golden Rule takes a different form in the dignity framework: Protect the dignity of others as you would have them protect yours. Most man-made indignity is a consequence of what I am calling rankism. Rank entails a defined relationship, one which is broken when rank is abused. Rank holders are entrusted with certain powers and accountability is potentially achievable, if not yet actually in place, in hierarchies defined by rank.

Of course, power abuse is the more general framework, but I don't see how to give that framework traction, either political or social or interpersonal. The notion of rankism invites a conversation about how to eliminate the indignities that it causes and the conversation -- which may run for hours, weeks, years, decades -- changes behaviors in such a way as to lessen and finally eliminate the presenting indignity. I know of hundreds of cases of people who used the word "rankism" to invite someone they felt was abusing their rank to re-examine their behavior and modify it so as to create dignity for all. I do not think the notion of power abuse will work as well in this regard and I am interested in providing nobodies with something useful with which they can defend themselves in the give and take of life now. My model is identity politics but generalized to include all of us in our capacities as both victim and perpetrator.

But all good wishes to 'Texas Dem' to work out a more general theory. My guess is that an intermediate step targeting rankism is the one we're ready for now, and that achieving a dignitarian world will preoccupy humankind for most of the 21st century.  


[ Parent ]
Of Course, I KNEW That You'd Know About Them! (0.00 / 0)
I was trying to talk to Texas Dem, somewhat abstractly, but you brought it back down to Earth.

My sense is quite similar to yours--we can't cure every human evil, but we can engage systemic means for combating systemic evils.  And if we can do that, then even more general formulations may become actionable as a result in ways that can't become actionable directly and immediately.

I think Texas Dem may be able to define what he means more succinctly than others previously have been able to, simply by piggy-backing on what you've done.  But that intellectual advance will not necessarily translate into an effective strategy tool (talking strategy on a really big scale here!)

Still, I think it's a conversation well worth having just because of how it may stretch and stimulate our thinking.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Thanks for sharing and enlightening Paul (0.00 / 0)
Having been a teacher for four decades, I saw many examples of rankism (even though I did not have a word) along with sexism.
I grew up, like you, with many friends of the opposite sex.  We played baseball, climbed trees, did all kinds of things together from early on.  I was that tomboy girl who just loved trains, and ball games, and never understood what was fun about playing "house", pretending to cook and clean...egads.

Honestly sexism came as a real shock to me when I encountered it as I hit adolescence.  So the feminism of the 60s intrigued and enabled me.  

The rankism I encountered in my early years of teaching was often mixed in with sexism.  When I started teaching almost all administrators were male, all the primary teachers female and only rarely did women teach in the upper grades.  I started in 5th and then went to sixth and learned early on that some believed a woman, especially a young one, might  not be as good in handling boys.  Boy, that just ticked me off.  
And it was as false a generalization as I had heard.

One way I handled the rankism was to become involved in my teacher's organization/union early on, being a rep, attending meetings, learning the contract etc etc.  Knowledge is power. I am sure people have heard that from many a teacher.

Anyway thanks to you and Robert for this enlightening piece.


That Reminds Me (0.00 / 0)
The story I told was really the central one, as I was literally inundated in a female world, and found it perfectly wonderful.  But I also remember having all female teachers in my early grades, and being astonished at how smart and knowledgeable they were.

I can't remember her name, but my second grade teacher was particularly impressive.  She was very young, just out of school, and I remember her talking to us about India & Pakistan.  She had written a masters thesis, I believe it was, with the impish title, "Pulling the Wool Over Kashmir's Eyes."  And she really didn't see why she couldn't talk to us intelligently in grown up terms about what she knew.  She didn't talk over our heads, just talked to us as if she were describing someplace she had been over the summer.  (It was the same sort of way that my aunts used to talk to me--but only one of my various uncles ever talked to me like that.)

So, in short, I can't help but think that teachers like you--going back I have no idea how long--have had a tremendous impact on millions of kids, which just didn't show up in obvious ways, but clearly prepared us for seeing gaping discrepancies in the world as we grew into adulthood.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
About 16 minutes in (0.00 / 0)
http://newstalgia.crooksandlia...

"They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox