Do you have Empathy for the Oppressor?

[WellNoWonder]

I do. Even sympathy.

And I mean any type of oppressor.

I think it's because I know there was some negative turning point in the life of the oppressor to cause this type of thinking/way of life.

Discuss???

 

[Gaze]

I don't condone their actions but i tend to think that perspectives on the "bad guy" are usually a bit one sided, and fail to consider situational, social, and societal factors which affect someone's actions and decisions. Yes, everyone is responsible for their own actions, but it doesn't help much if we don't understand what influences behavior and how to prevent it. I think society today is very much about judgment, and less about understanding, and thinking what gets someone from point A to B in thinking and action, so that we can tackle it, solve it if possible, and move forward.

 

[BlinkandThink]

No. There are exceptions, but in most cases: no.


ADD: Wait a sec ... we might not be thinking of the same thing: "any type of oppressor" could mean a lot of things. Does your definition include both dictators and mall cops?

 

[INFJesus]

What about self oppression?
IN That case, Restraint's words echo those of my therapist toward me.
and it's uncanny how I keep coming across that theme.

 

[WellNoWonder]

I don't condone their actions but i tend to think that perspectives on the "bad guy" are usually a bit one sided, and fail to consider situational, social, and societal factors which affect someone's actions and decisions.

True. How do we get up close to these kind of people to figure out what made them this way? It seems they are usually surrounded by "soldiers" who a) are afraid of them, but will call the fear "respect" or b) willing to do anything they say for the purpose of fitting in. Both of these are very dangerous in my opinion.

 

[WellNoWonder]

Does your definition include both dictators and mall cops?

Yes.

INFJesus: I was thinking of self-oppression too after I posted this. Let's discuss!

 

[BlinkandThink]

True. How do we get up close to these kind of people to figure out what made them this way? It seems they are usually surrounded by "soldiers" who a) are afraid of them, but will call the fear "respect" or b) willing to do anything they say for the purpose of fitting in. Both of these are very dangerous in my opinion.

Okay ... you put "soldiers" in quotation marks, so I probably would feel a little bad for that guy.


The more mismatched the people are, the less I give a damn about the childhood history of the guy in charge. If it's just a situation between people whose power gap is real only because both parties decided to treat it like it is, the less I feel like anyone is actually oppressed.


If someone is trapped and powerless ... with no realistic option to escape victimhood ... and the other person has control over that person's situation and exploits their weakness, then my compassion isn't with him in any way that actually matters. I wouldn't want him to be harmed (so you could call it empathy ... I wouldn't want harm for anyone), but I would want the situation to shift by any means necessary.

 

[NeverAmI]

I do. Even sympathy.

And I mean any type of oppressor.

I think it's because I know there was some negative turning point in the life of the oppressor to cause this type of thinking/way of life.

Discuss???

I seek to understand their motives and to figure out why they act the way they do. Depending on the context I can typically understand why the situation occurs. If I don't understand the motives, I seek to know why.

The best solutions and understanding typically come from taking into perspective all sides of the issue. One of the biggest problems in analysis is that both sides hide vital information like irresponsible children.

I am not sure if this fits your definition of empathy.

 

[WellNoWonder]

I seek to understand their motives and to figure out why they act the way they do. Depending on the context I can typically understand why the situation occurs. If I don't understand the motives, I seek to know why.

The best solutions and understanding typically come from taking into perspective all sides of the issue. One of the biggest problems in analysis is that both sides hide vital information like irresponsible children.

I am not sure if this fits your definition of empathy.

This is why I wonder why you think you're not an INFJ. But back to the subject..

 

[dneecey]

My empathy doesn't turn on and off.. I always see two sides of stories as well.. And I can't tell you how many times I think the words "poor thing" when I see someone who has done something really wrong, because I can't help but wonder how they got there.

 

[WellNoWonder]

Okay ... you put "soldiers" in quotation marks, so I probably would feel a little bad for that guy.


The more mismatched the people are, the less I give a damn about the childhood history of the guy in charge. If it's just a situation between people whose power gap is real only because both parties decided to treat it like it is, the less I feel like anyone is actually oppressed.


If someone is trapped and powerless ... with no realistic option to escape victimhood ... and the other person has control over that person's situation and exploits their weakness, then my compassion isn't with him in any way that actually matters. I wouldn't want him to be harmed (so you could call it empathy ... I wouldn't want harm for anyone), but I would want the situation to shift by any means necessary.

I think that oppressors eventually fail at their oppressing because of the type of soldiers they have. I don't even know why I keep using that word, but it's only what makes sense to me. Oppression is a regime as far as I'm concerned.

I understand about the situation shift. In my idealism, I would prefer the oppressor's mind is opened before "any means necessary", dig? I know this seems virtually impossible. Another question, perhaps rhetorical: If oppression ends through war, what lessons have we really learned? This is a big problem I have with the culture here in the States. But then psychological warfare is a whole nother ballgame.

 

[Gaze]

But then psychological warfare is a whole nother ballgame.

Yep.

I think that oppressors eventually fail at their oppressing because of the type of soldiers they have. I don't even know why I keep using that word, but it's only what makes sense to me. Oppression is a regime as far as I'm concerned.

Well, suppression of rights, freedoms, and liberties is a "war", a battle of the mind, to descent, to force submission and deny potential for retaliation, so yeah, the term "soldier" works. It means there is a system in place to reinforce the oppression, because it is not simply located in the individual but in the influence they have over a large group, who submits their will to an oppressive figure, who seems to be in control.

 

[Lucifer]

Yes.

A happy person never hurt anyone. And if you hurt other people you also hurt yourself.

I mean your average will probably be oblivious to there own sorrow. But that does not mean it is not felt, it is just twisted into something different.

 

[bamf]

I've always understood 'oppression' as a three-fold practice; injustice on the personal level, the social level, and the institutional level. I've always felt that anything without those three is discrimination (just as bad) but not real oppression.

I do pity the oppressor. Along the lines of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in oppressing, the oppressors are dehumanizing the oppressed, and also themselves. The oppressors are missing out on a piece of humanity, and for that I feel sorry for them. However, part of the blame does fall on the oppressed also. In accepting the role of the oppressed, they are feeding into the oppression. It's a two way street. In almost every case (except maybe systematic rape) the oppressed always have the option to say no. It might cost their lives, but in choosing to live in an oppressed way, they are accepting the role.

I feel bad for both. The whole system of oppression is dehumanizing.

 

[WellNoWonder]

Yep.




Well, suppression of rights, freedoms, and liberties is a "war", a battle of the mind, to descent, to force submission and deny potential for retaliation, so yeah, the term "soldier" works. It means there is a system in place to reinforce the oppression, because it is not simply located in the individual but in the influence they have over a large group, who submits their will to an oppressive figure, who seems to be in control.

Thinking: within the regime, the soldier is oppressed also. Is it when the soldier figures this out, that oppression starts to crumble? The betrayers begin the process? Does the ultimate oppressor ever figure that it was his/her own who betrayed him/her, so to speak?

 

[WellNoWonder]

In accepting the role of the oppressed, they are feeding into the oppression. It's a two way street. In almost every case (except maybe systematic rape) the oppressed always have the option to say no. It might cost their lives, but in choosing to live in an oppressed way, they are accepting the role.

What if the oppressed didn't know they were accepting the role?

 

[bamf]

Thinking: within the regime, the soldier is oppressed also. Is it when the soldier figures this out, that oppression starts to crumble? The betrayers so to speak? Does the ultimate oppressor ever figure that it was his/her own who betrayed him/her, so to speak?

I'd agree. Sadly though, oppression seems to be infectious. Those soldiers who are oppressed often times turn around and become oppressors themselves (partially because they don't know differently). Oppression seems to be a nasty cycle that's pretty hard to break.

 

[bamf]

What if the oppressed didn't know they were accepting the role?

I don't think it matters if they know they are doing it or not. They're still accepting it (and are probably in a shitty situation...I'd probably chose to be oppressed rather than dead. I don't fault them for accepting it, but I think it's a two way street)

 

[Gaze]

Thinking: within the regime, the soldier is oppressed also. Is it when the soldier figures this out, that oppression starts to crumble? The betrayers so to speak? Does the ultimate oppressor ever figure that it was his/her own who betrayed him/her, so to speak?

Never thought of that good point. So, you're saying, the soldier is an accessory to his own oppression as long as he follows the oppressive regime and ideology consciously or blindly(?), but when he becomes aware that the regime is a system of control over the oppressed, they are finally freed, and now realize that they were being oppressed by those they served?

Can't help thinking of Bob Marley's song, "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds."

 

[Soulful]

I've always understood 'oppression' as a three-fold practice; injustice on the personal level, the social level, and the institutional level. I've always felt that anything without those three is discrimination (just as bad) but not real oppression.

Can you explain this a little more Mf?