[How do we measure who suffers the greatest? Is physical suffering worse than emotional suffering? If people suffer in different ways, to different degrees, how do we find out who really needs help? Should we help those who do not agree with us, who hate us? Should we only help the people who will listen to us, only the ones who seek help? Does everyone deserve help? What if what's right for one person, isn't what's right for another? Does any one deserve help? Is help something that is given, or asked for? Both? Neither? Do only some of us need help? Or is it bigger, deeper, more inherent than we thought? Do all of us need help?]

This week, I wanted to talk about privilege and oppression in America. I believe this is perhaps the center from which all of our present problems grow: as bad as gender/sexual/racial relations are, they are still only products of a larger system of privilege and oppression; a system contingent upon the division of all social groups through the unequal distribution of money and material goods: all of this on the grounds that collective, organized ideology is the single most serious threat to the social order.

As a preface, I just wanted to include this little DISCLAIMER: I wrote this essay as a whole, but it is too large to share as a single article. Because this is meant to be seen as a whole, there are references that each article will make to one another: so, If you see something that seems potentially ill-thought out or normative in any way, it is most likely a reference that will be picked back up on, later in the article, and fleshed out more fully. That being said, I appreciate any and all feedback/comments/questions/concerns/miscellany. I guess what I mean is that the essay was meant to be seen as a whole: so, do not expect too much from each articles on its own; rather, I hope that you will follow along through the five essays, and see how the points [sort of] come together in the end.

Okay. On to the essay. Privilege is not something reserved solely for straight, white men — not anymore, anyway. It was indeed written into the constitution, without writing, that straight, white, christian males were to be the ruling class: our society was born atop this inequality. Even in the age of “equality”, we are still unequal: the only difference is that both the privileged and oppressed classes are no longer homogeneous, no longer quarantined to their own social group. We switch codes now: we are each apart of many, many different discourse communities; loyalty is no longer unilateral, rather, each person's loyalties are spliced in a million different directions. This is called alienation. Increased alienation leads to insurrection, which is contained by either violence or propaganda or both: insurrection always leads to steps taken by the ruling class in order to placate the masses. These are small things, such as an 8-hour work day, a minimum wage, the right to vote: material "privilege", that have had the effect of muddling an already overly complex social system. The real problem, however, is that material privileges are not real privileges: material is the result of oppression, so what seems like "privilege" is really just access to a tiny portion of what you help create. It leaves one asking: what are we actually getting out of this system?

As a theme to go back to, let’s think about whether it’s realistic to argue that a white, heteronormative American family unit that is suffering and starving and deep in poverty, has it better off than, say, a celebrity who happens to be LGBTQ, or of color? Let’s take Caitlin Jenner for example. Although the white, heteronormative family enjoys social privileges that Caitlin Jenner is barred from, the family is still suffering. Not to mention, the white family may feel even more alienated than Caitlin Jenner for the simple fact that their problems are not talked about at all: whereas Caitlin Jenner’s problems, for better or for worse, are broadcast internationally for all to see. Could one really ever successfully argue that a starving, white, heteronormative child is benefiting more than Caitlin Jenner from this system of oppression? Not to mention, why did Caitlin Jenner become the person that liberal media used to illustrate the recent pop-trans movement? Not to say her struggles aren’t valid: but her experiences are not normal compared to what many trans people go through (sort of like “white” feminism) (i.e she was a successful athlete until she was very old, and so spent most of her life within the zeitgeist; her privileged position within the zeitgeist did not leave when she came out as trans, it only shifted; she is rich, and does not have to deal with the financial difficulties of estrangement from friends and family, as many other trans persons do: for Caitlin, there is really no physical aspect to her suffering as a trans person, for her, the suffering must mostly be emotional and social; whereas due to socioeconomic and geographical reasons, an average trans person can experience incredibly violent, virulent suffering).

Much of Caitlin's oppression occurs in her own world, the world of celebrities, mainly because she is simply different than the average American: she does not dress like us or hangout with us, she goes to fancy parties with fancy people we don't know; celebrities are like gods, to us normal people. It is also easier, in the world of celebrities, to see the oppression Caitlin faces: bias towards her, comments about her being thrown around, less air time, less job opportunities, etc. etc. There is definitely an edge of inequality, this much is clear: but because she accepts or ignores the inherent bigotry of the system, she is able/permitted to remain nearly unchanged in her social position. The oppression she faces is from her peers: she remains untouched by lower classes simply because she is not apart of those classes. However, Caitlin Jenner, after all's said and done, is still rich, still has influence in media: just less than she did when she was a white male, and less than those celebrities who fit into heteronormative categorization.

Basically, Caitlin Jenner as a celebrity spokesperson for transgender issues is an automatic fallacy, because the platform from which she speaks exists solely because of the oppressive structures set up against minority groups, such as those who identify as transgender. Her job, social status, and life experience are outside the normal trans experience, which means Caitlin is only able to inform others about trans issues through the lens of her own privileged experience, and in doing so excludes the greater part of the trans experience.

Then, another thing to think about is whether or not either Caitlin Jenner and the impoverished white family have anything more than their material privileges. Do either have ideological power? How much influence does one or the other really have over public and private policy? While Caitlin Jenner, and other celebrities, do have some ideological pull in the world, they will never have as much influence over ideology as, say, a successful white male businessperson. Someone in business or politics has more power over ideas — which is the true currency of the 21st century — than celebrities, such as Caitlin Jenner. Wealthy businesspeople influence both public and financial legislation: they are able to control their destiny by means of money; influencing the ideology of the State, and therefore its citizenry, and, in turn, making even more money. Caitlin Jenner, on the other hand, works for those businesspeople: people who are using her in order to cultivate certain images and messages, in order to market certain products. Even if it appears what she is saying is her own opinion, the things we hear her say on TV are what the owners want us to hear. So, not only would a pure account of Caitlin's views on trans issues be exclusive to her experience and thus non-inclusive, if you add the fact that whatever she says is edited and placed in certain contexts by people who want to create a certain idea, it becomes pretty clear that commercial arguments for equality are not really seeking equality, but are instead seeking to sell you things (ideas, t-shirts, literature, documentaries, etc.). Celebrities are the tools by which the ruling class maintains ideological control over the masses: this happens both naturally, accidentally, as well as deliberately.