Privilege is a hot topic in sociology. I think it is in some philosophical realms as well, and Christian blatantly brings it up in a section of his book, the part where he dubs existentialism "classist":
"You don't worry about what to wear if you only have one outfit; you don't worry about what to do with your life if you only have one career option available to you. [...] If it takes you the better part of your time and money and energy just to provide food and shelter for yourself, where and when can "the anxiety of freedom" set in?" (134-135)
He seems to be referring to our limits of facticity and those situations which we are simply incapable of transcending. But I am not convinced that existentialism is itself very classist; I am fairly certain actually that OTHER realms of philosophy are much worse in this sense (cough, cough, metaphysics). Perhaps privileged people have time in particular to muse more explicitly about their own freedom and their own human-ness, but only in a sense that is more widely-regarded as the fancy word "existentialism" by academia.
But when do poorer people really not WORRY about what to wear? It seems to me that those on the bottom of the social food chain probably worry MORE about their freedoms--about how to go about exercising that freedom in a seemingly more restricted environment, which in some cases instigates even MORE creativity and originality. My thoughts here are underdeveloped, but I am not convinced that every human does not constantly consider his/her own facticity and freedom all the time.
And I think there is a part of the book that really DOES get classist:
"Reincarnation seemed preferable to either [heaven or hell]. To me, the real, in-flux, changeable and changing world seemed far more interesting, not to mention fun." (263)
This struck me as a reflection of Neitzsche's "yes-saying", and embracing of eternal recurrence. A part of me here says "Yes! Embrace the uncertainties, interpretations, interactions, and subjectivity that makes your life yours!" But a part of me knows that it does not just take a certain attitude to enjoy life. To enjoy one's being, one generally (not always) must be in a situation in which they can make themselves happy. How could we tell an abused lower class person, or a slave from American history for that matter, to say YES to reincarnation / eternal recurrence / all that FUN Christian talks about?
First off, this is by far my favourite blog-post of the semester thus far (Soc Theory represent!).
ReplyDeleteI think you're absolutely right when you mention that the marginalised and non-powerful are likely the most sensitive and hyper-aware of their "freedom." Anyone who is not white, male, or heterosexual will almost certainly face social resistance in one form or another. This is not to say every white, straight male will not encounter social resistance, but rather that he is statically the least likely of any category. Social resistance is negative feedback from a socially unacceptable manifestation of freedom. Thus, those who face the most social resistance are compelled to be hyper-aware of how exactly they are manifesting their freedom, as without such awareness, one is at risk of violence (and I mean violence as a continuum). In other words, because those who are marginalised are necessarily dehumanised (as their freedom is disproportionately regulated and stifled), society expects to exist as being-what-one-is-in-the-mode-of-being-it, as existing like an inkwell is an inkwell. Through this paradigm, a woman should not set projects, but rather her husband should set them for her; a person of colour is violent, untrustworthy, lazy, unintelligent just like the surface of a table is flat. Marginalised folks are the most aware of what agency is, as society attempts to strip them of it. On the other hand, it is astronomically easier for privileged folks like myself to live life taking frictionless expression of freedom and agency for granted
I likewise was stricken by this small point in Christian's book, and felt cheated when it was quickly glossed over. Karissa, you make an excellent point that those with harder life circumstances could possibly be more existentially focused because of (not in spite of) material deficiency, and Schaeffer, you make an excellent point that because of society's assertion of the lower class as mere facticious beings, one would expect a lower class individual to be further intimately acquainted with existential struggles. One thing I would add is that this nearly seems to imply that the bourgeoisie is disadvantaged when it comes to unpacking existentialism because in their unhindered material freedom they can perpetually escape existential confrontations, such as Kierkegaard's ethical dilemmas. Heidegger's reminders of death, or Sartre's unwelcome instances of facticity.
ReplyDelete