Allan Johnson’s Analytical Tools in Privilege, Power, and Difference

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

It cannot be denied that women’s position in society has changed through history. Even without taking a long historical period, it can be seen that such position shifted through periods of a couple of decades. Such positions can be assessed in different ways. In a sociological context, a system proposed in Allan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference (2006) can be seen as suitable to provide an analysis of the current position of women in society. As the basis of the analysis, four recent journal articles were taken, in which the main focus is discussing the shift that happened in the status of women in the world today. In that regard, the present paper will attempt to utilize the analytical tools discussed in Privilege, Power, and Difference to discuss women and their role in contemporary society.

The position of women in society is mainly an issue of gender in which two groups existed within a system of oppression and privilege. In that regard, the significance of the way women are portrayed in society today is largely connected to the fact that women historically were in the oppressed group, while men were in the group of privileges. One of the notions outlined in Johnson (2006) is the concept that dominant groups did not see privilege as a problem (Johnson, 2001). The reasons for that can be seen in the position of women in the armed forces.

A privilege for men it was, although it was hardly perceived as a privilege by men. Looking at a few arguments for barring women from combat, such as “Women can’t do it” and “the very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it”, it can be seen that being able to be in combat was not perceived as a privilege (Henderson, 2008). The reasons in the aforementioned two arguments were mainly prejudiced and not seeing such privilege as a problem (Johnson, 2001). The quotes mentioned can be also used to support the way a system of privileges centers on dominant groups. Where in terms of gender, serving in the army, and being able to participate in combat, women, i.e. an oppressed group is invisible for the dominant, and it is partially the cause for that the privileged group does not feel that there is a privilege in the first place (Johnson, 2001).

Johnson states that the group with privileges tends to act as they are not part of the dominant group. Analyzing the aforementioned statement and applying it to the situation of gender, it can be stated that oppression of privileges will remain intact, and the same aspects stated about the dominance of men can be stated about the dominance of women, although in lesser forms. In Sklaroff (2007, the author outlined several societies in which the dominance is for women, e.g. Minangkabau and the Mosuo. It can be seen that the author, being a woman and part of the dominant group described in the article, does not recognize oppression in other groups. Although the author states that males would not be better off in a matriarchy (Sklaroff, 2007), the description of the fictional world in the article and which will be ruled by women, shows exactly that the same rules of oppression and privileges are followed. In that regard, taking a passage describing the life in a female planet such as the following might support such statement:

This will be a woman’s world, and men will have to outlearn to fit in. Industrial design will be based on an average woman’s size… so men will have to squeeze themselves into public bus seats and crouch down to reach items on supermarket shelves… Pricing schemes that currently favor men will be reversed (Sklaroff, 2007, p. 64).

It can be seen that if the words men and women were switched in the aforementioned paragraph, the passage will be exactly describing a real world, in which the oppressed group is women. The latter supports the notion of the author that oppression and privileges are not a problem of only one group, in this case, women. Thus, the problem of being a woman cannot be separated from the problem of not being a man and being a man; “Privilege is always at someone else’s expense and always exacts a cost” (Johnson, 2001).

The latter conforms to the notion that oppression and privileges will always coexist in a certain system that focuses on a single aspect, e.g. gender. Unless the changes that attempt to eradicate such inequality will focus on other social aspects as well, such changes cannot be continuous. Imagining a female world, where the change was focused only on the aspect of gender proved to be ineffective, as the inequality will persist although in reverse. In that regard, according to Johnson (2001), focusing on a single aspect can be ineffective. Analyzing “Great Expectations” by Judith Havemann (2007), the author of the article clearly outlines that despite the fact that the role of women steadily increases in society, whereas an example the author cites the fact that women hold half of all management jobs in America, women still lack in the percentage of leaders (Havemann, 2007).

Such a fact can be explained by choosing the wrong strategy of change, focusing on the gender aspect. Johnson states that for the change to be sustainable there other options should be considered. In that regard, the article did not find a “female difference” which should be responsible for the success of a particular company. Accordingly, when focusing only on the gender factor, the increase in positions might be attributed to affirmative policies, which according to Johnson can be classified as a strategy of appearing to fairness and decency (Johnson, 2001). Thus, rather than focusing on the4 gender as a single aspect, sustainable change should acknowledge many aspects in conjunction, such as class inequality, income inequality, education inequality, ethnicities inequality, etc.

One of the most important notions outlined in Johnson’s book is the path that should be avoided in conducting change. In that regard, Johnson did not specify what strategy should be taken in order for the change to be sustainable. At the same time, he outlined what path should be avoided –the path of least resistance. Such path is represented in silence, which is as stated by Johnson is as racist or sexists or heterosexist, as oppression is maintained by silence (Johnson, 2001). Avoiding silence in that regard can be seen as an important factor in the rise of women’s leadership, which in turn contributed to several achievements.

Such achievements, for example, might include the advancement of women in the upper ranks of the US military (Yeager, 2007). Such achievements do not ignore the differences that exist between both groups, and at the same do not imply that women will fit in easily in their roles (Yeager, 2007). However, the choice of participation in the military can be a sufficient indication of participation in the social system as a whole. Accordingly, such fact can be perceived as one of the ways where the initiatives for change are concerned with several aspects, rather than just a single one.

The present paper provided an analysis of several of the concepts introduced in Allen Johnson’s Privilege, power, and difference. The analysis of the concept was conducted utilizing several examples from different journal articles. In that regard, it can be concluded that the system of oppression and privileges can be used to support the position of gender, namely for women in society.

In that regard, the paper outlined that focusing solely on gender as a factor in a social system might temporarily change the roles of the oppressed and the privileged, but such change is unlikely to be sustained. As long as the change of the roles of privileges will be at the expense of other groups such change cannot be sustained. Thus, in order for change to happen, such change should involve all the groups in society. In the examples outlined in the paper, the latter implies that the role of women in society is not only the concern of women only.

References

Havemann, J. M. (2007). Great Expectations. The Wilson Quarterly, 31(3), 46-53.

Henderson, K. (2008). Ready to Kill. Washington Post Magazine.

Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill.

Sklaroff, S. (2007). A Woman’s World. The Wilson Quarterly, 31(3), 63-66.

Yeager, H. (2007). Soldiering Ahead. The Wilson Quarterly, 31(3), 54-62.

Click Here To Order Now!

Allan Johnson’s Analytical Tools in Privilege, Power, and Difference

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)