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.
I've long been a champion of Robert Fuller's advancement of concept of "rankism"--and its opposite, "dignitarianism"--as a framework for unifying, universalizing, deepening and expanding existing struggles for social justice and against group discrimination. While some people have embraced his perspective enthusiastically, others have been slow to appreciate its power, often getting hung up on the mere aesthetics of "clunky-sounding" new term (btw, the same thing was said about "sexist" back in the day). There's also been some legitimate controversy over whether or not it's accurate to ascibe a dignitarian philosophy to President Obama, controversy that has had the unfortunate side-effect for some of distracting attention from the core power of Fuller's concept.
That's why I'm delighted to have this latest piece by Fuller to introduce, since it demonstrates so clearly the power of "rankism" to include both sides of a current controversy--and multiple perspectives as well--without devolving into a politics of compromise that leaves everyone half-satisfied at best. This is not the last word on the situation, to say the least. Nor would Fuller claim that it is. But it's a good place to start.
Fully justified Black grievances against abuses of the legal system go far beyond this kind of incident. But making real, substantive progress in redressing those grievances can be greatly assisted by forging a common framework that recognizes and respects the role of police when they are truly acting as guardians of the common peace and security--and not as enforcers of an unjust system.
I ask you to imagine what our country would be like today, if the following words came not from Robert Fuller, former President of Oberlin College, but from Barack Obama, current President of the United States.
Rankism: The Elephant in Professor Gates's House
We were quick to look at the Gates Affair through the lens of race. But it soon became clear that race was not the whole story. To bring things fully into focus, we need a second lens--that of rank. The lens of race highlights the well-known injustices of racism. The lens of rank reveals the less well recognized indignities of rankism.
Rankism has not received the attention that racism has. Perhaps its time has come. But, before looking through the lens of rank, a common misconception must be cleared away. Rank, in itself, is not the problem. Like race, rank is just a fact of life. Rank tells us who's in charge. Used properly, it's a useful organizational tool. The problem lies not with rank per se, but in rank abuse. By analogy with racism, sexism, and ageism, abuse of the power signified by rank is rankism. Once you have a name for it, you see it everywhere.
Robert Fuller emailed me with a request to post the following diary, which is also available Huffington Post here. Ordinarily I wouldn't do that. I would reset his password and tell him to post it himself. But asking me to do it for him gives me the opportunity to intervene and insert my own two cents, which in this case is something I very much want to do.
I think that Fuller is very right about one thing--his concept of dignitarianism is something we very much need to adopt, and the opposite concept--that of rankism--is something we need to become much more sensitive to and commited to rooted out. Fuller's conception provides a common framework for encompassing all the struggles against forms of prejudice--racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, religious bigotry, etc.--as well as the far more various and diverse ways that systems of rank and power (both formal and informal) are subject to abuse. And that's a very powerful unifying concept.
I also think that Fuller is half right about another thing--President Obama does have an intuitive dignitarian bent to him. But I think Fuller sees more in Obama than Obama himself is aware of, or even committed to. The exclusion of single-payer advocates from the health care debate is just one example of Obama "pulling rank" on a large segment of the base that helped elect him, as well as the American people generally, who at the very least deserve the opportunity for a full, free and fair debate.
My way of making sense of Obama's relationship to the dignitarian philosophy that Fuller expounds is relatively simple: I think that Obama has a strong intuitive orientation toward dignitarian conduct, but that that he resists what is most needed, the open, explicit articulation of dignitarian principles, and the adoption of dignitarianism as an organizing framework, as context, as well as content. Taking those steps would put him definitively at odds with Versailles, and that is a step that he is very loathe to take, to put it mildly.
That's my two cents. Read Fuller's article, and let us know what you think.
President Obama's Politics of Dignity
Robert W. Fuller
America is broken. Even if we pull through the current economic crisis, recovery won't last absent an overhaul of our primary institutions.
• One out of ten Americans is now unemployed and the recovery is expected to be jobless.
• Fifty million Americans have no heath insurance; two million, no home.
• Two million Americans are in jail.
• Our public schools have fallen behind those of most developed nations.
• Higher education is priced out of reach of the middle class.
• Our infrastructure is in an advanced state of disrepair.
• We rank first in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Immigration, once our pride, is now our shame.
• We're living on credit and leaving the debt to our children.
The crisis is compounded by corruption of the democratic process. Politicians who owe their seats to private and corporate money are not easily persuaded to put the public interest over the special interests of their benefactors.
An important new book substantiates something progressives have long intuited. Published first in Britain and now headed for the United States, it's by epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson and health researcher Kate Pickett, and its title conveys its message: The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.
Since the French Revolution, belief in the social benefits of egalitarianism has been central to progressive thought. Now Wilkinson and Pickett have produced some hard evidence for this plank in the liberal platform. They show conclusively that the wellbeing of whole societies is closely correlated not with average income level but rather with the size of the disparity of income between the top 20% and the bottom 20%. Countries with smaller disparities like Norway, Sweden, and Japan (4 to 1) have fewer medical, mental, crime, and educational problems than countries like the Britain, U.S. and Portugal with higher disparities (7 or 8 to 1). France and Canada both have mid-range disparities (6 to 1) and place in the middle on health, education and psychological indicators. Even within American society, it's not the absolute income level of a state that determines its social wellbeing, but rather the level of income disparity. Economic inequality and social dysfunction go hand in hand, and Wilkinson and Pickett have marshaled the evidence to make the case.
It's one thing to demonstrate the social benefits of egalitarianism, and another to spell out the underlying political, economic, and psychological mechanisms that explain these findings. Only as we understand how the level of income disparity affects social wellbeing will we be able to generate the political will to undo the damage wrought by gross inequality.
Just over a week ago, on Friday, June 6, I promoted a diary that caused considerable controversy and misunderstanding, that I'd like to try to address. The diary was by Pamela Gerloff, The Real Reason Hillary Should Not Be Veep. Pamela is is the co-author, with Robert W. Fuller, of Dignity for All: How to Create a World without Rankism (forthcoming, June 2008, Berrett-Koehler Publishers). Fuller is the originator of the concept of rankism, defined as the abuse of power derived from rank. The opposite of such abuse is respect for human dignity.
Some forms of rank are inherently abusive-valuing men over women, whites over blacks, Jews over Arabs, etc. Other forms of rank are socially useful, but subject to abuse. A great leader will not just inspire others, but develop their capacities to become leaders in their own right. There is nothing inherently abusive in this. Yet leaders throughout history have repeatedly abused those they have lead. Rankism is a way of talking about what these forms of abuse share in common, and how to overcome them. It is a conceptual tool in the ongoing struggle for human liberation.
(Another person's take on Robert Fuller's work on dignity and rankism, to start Sunday off on a high note. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
I didn't understand why I found Obama's race speech so moving until I read Fuller's comments on it. They seemed brilliant to me, so I proceeded to read Fuller's other writings. I think they make a powerful contribution to our understanding of the enigmas of our time, and may have the potential to helping us surmount them.
Fuller has had an illustrious career; first as physicist, then President of his alma mater, Oberlin College, as a citizen diplomat during the Cold War, chair of the board of Internews, and many other distinctions. The approach he takes to the issue of inequality may be a still greater contribution.
In his approach there are two main components to the problem of inequality: rankism, on the one hand, and dignity, on the other. The term rankism doesn't concern rank per se, only the abuse of rank. Some systems of rank are inherently abusive: white over black, male over female, hetero over homosexual, Christian over Muslim, extreme nationalism, and so on. But even legitimate systems of rank, those in most organizations, are often abusive; if not in principle, then in practice.
(In my never-ending quest to totally confuse everyone, I'm promoting this new diary by Robert Fuller that offers a much more hopeful, promising view of Obama's speech last week than I offered in my previous diary. To make matters worse, I'm not just doing this to stimulate debate. I actually think that the two diaries converge in viewpoint, because I see Obama's way of distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright as manifesting his own imperfect modeling of the dignitarian promise. While people have asked me how Obama could have done better, one answer is to have better studied and understood what he often grasps intuitively, but has yet to CONSCIOUSLY master. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Americans are listening to Senator Obama on the issue of race, and recognizing something qualitatively different about what he's saying. That's because he's addressing race-based discrimination in a larger context-that of human dignity and affronts to dignity that are even broader than racism itself.
Racial discrimination is but one brand of a more pervasive and still unacknowledged form of abuse and discrimination-rankism. Other subspecies of rankism are sexism, ageism, ableism, classism, nativism, homophobia, etc. All of these ignominious "isms" denote a situation in which a more powerful group disadvantages a weaker group. These "undead" isms can be seen as discrimination based on social rank, each sustained by an interlocking set of expectations, customs, understandings, and laws.
Despite decades devoted to eradicating them, these isms cling to life like vampires. After a flurry of initial progress, often marked by the passage of "landmark" legislation, successes become rarer. Diminishing returns set in long before the ism has been entirely defanged, and its enervating effects continue to diminish the lives of countless individuals who bear a trait that makes them targetable.
(Robert Fuller, father of the dignitarian movement, offers his views of a potential connection I wrote about early this month in "Rankism-An Issue Custom-Made For Obama". - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Barack Obama is offering Americans dignity, and they're grabbing it with both hands. Dignity permeates his speeches, informs his policies, and is evident in his manner. Whether he intended to or not, Obama has become a herald of the politics of dignity.
But dignity for whom? For blacks and whites, for men and women, for gays and straights, for young and old, for rich and poor, and for immigrants and the native-born. Obama also reaches out to both sides of the aisle-liberals and conservatives-and to other nations and their leaders. Americans, eager to move beyond the fractiousness of identity politics and to end the standoff between libertarian and egalitarian ideologies, are lining up in support. They are ready for a leader committed to building a world of dignity for all.
What exactly is the dignity that people crave? It's more than good manners, respect, and civility. It's the absence of indignity. The American people know that indignities inflicted on the world have diminished America's stature. They know that the indignities they and their fellow citizens are suffering at home are sapping the American spirit.
Barack Obama's campaign has been called a "phenomenon," one with the potential to swell into a movement. But to realize its promise, a movement must evolve from a call for change to a plan for removing the obstacles that stand in the way of that change. How can the energy that has crystallized around Obama's candidacy be effectively focused to fight the indignities of everyday life?
It's not simply a matter of protecting folks at the bottom, Hacker argues-effective dealing with risk is vital for creating an environment in which people feel secure enough to take on the sort of voluntary risk that helps drive the economy forward-what's often called "entrepreneurial risk," but that includes a wide range of choices to invest resources of time, money and effort in future possibilities that by their very nature cannot be certain. These include investments in eduction, training, changing careers, starting a new business, etc. In short, Hacker argues, a security orientation is not the polar opposite to an opportunity orientation-it is a vital aspect of an opportunity orientation. And it's this latter argument that gives Hacker's point about countering the Great Risk Shift a potential bipartisan cross-over appeal that fits perfectly with Obama's articulated intentions.
In this diary, I'd like to make another major issue proposal that is, if anything an even better fit for Obama. In fact, this is an issue that is truly transformative. It's called "rankism," and it consists, quite simply, of the abuse of the weak by the strong.
If the term "rankism" sounds a bit odd and contrived, the positive value opposing it is anything but. It's called "dignity," and the struggle against rankism is the struggle to make dignity a universal human right.
The purpose of this web site is to discuss the social cost of rankism and to develop a grassroots capacity to defend and protect dignity in everyday life. We hope you will join us in planning and building a world without rankism!
On the website, Fuller explains:
Rankism: A Social Disorder
An undiagnosed disorder is at large in the world. It afflicts individuals, groups, and nations. It distorts our personal relationships, erodes our will to learn, taxes our economic productivity, stokes ethnic hatred, and incites nations to war. It is the cause of dysfunctionality, and sometimes even violence, in families, schools, and the workplace.
Over the course of history, the most common abuses of power have acquired special names:
Each of these practices is an abuse of the weak by the strong. Each of these familiar named offenses is an instance of bullying, of pulling rank. By analogy with abuses based on race and gender, abuse based on rank is given the name rankism.
1. n. abuse, discrimination, or exploitation based on rank
2. n. abusive, discriminatory, or exploitative behavior towards people who have less power because of their lower rank in a particular hierarchy
Once you have a name for it, you see rankism at the heart of many infringements of human rights, far away or close to home. Rankism is the root cause of indignity, injustice, and unfairness. Choosing the term rankism, places the goal of universal human dignity in the context of contemporary movements for civil rights. Reexamining racism, sexism, and ageism as examples of rankism breathes new life into the movements opposing them. Identifying rankism in all its guises and overcoming it is democracy's next step.
In Part One, I presented the argument for viewing conservatism as a form of identity politics, showed how differences on issues between liberals and conservatives are much smaller than differences on candidates, and showed that conservatives--even self-identified extreme conservatives--support welfare state spending. In Part Two, I examined two cognitive models that distinguish liberalism and conservatism., both of which show reasons why conservatism is associated with a constricted notion of identity, while liberalism is more diffuse.
Now, in Part 3, I address how to construct a diverse liberal identity. The key to doing so lies in weaving together issues, values and narratives, and doing so with a diversified messaging and organizing strategy. To bring things solidly down to earth, I will focus on two key concepts that I believe have tremendous potential for liberal politics, both in 2008, and for decades to come. These concepts can be expressed in a simple pairing: "dignity and security for all."
As I will explain, there is more than just a rhetorical echo of another famous liberal formulation, "liberty and justice for all." In a very real sense, dignity is the lived foundation for justice, just as security is the lived foundation for liberty (this is a key aspect of Locke's social contract theory). What's more, when these concepts are presented together, they represent a fuller and more robust expression of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" --freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship in his own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Thus, what I am arguing for is a new articulation of core liberal values in a form that pro-actively responds to 40+ years of rightwing slander, as well as the realworld challenges of the 21st Century. To accomplish a lasting political realignment--along the lines seen in 1930/1932--we will need to change the basic contours of the politically possible, which means the politically imaginable. Fortunately, we've done it before. We can do it again.
STATE BLOGS
