Curiosity and Its Role Within Systems of Oppression

Cynthia Enloe describes curiosity as something which “takes energy.” It is what leads humans to question aspects of the world around them. Without it, humanity would make no steps forward, and we would likely remain living without technology. We can thank curiosity for every advancement which has made our lives easier or more enjoyable. The lack of this curiosity, however, is exactly what has helped maintain existing power structures, enabling the oppression of certain groups within society.

People who are in power tend to not realize their own privilege. Because of the benefits they receive from oppression, they are comfortable and thus generally unaware that the comforts they receive are directly as a result from those on the other side, who are at a disadvantage. Peggy McIntosh states, “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege.” White people and men are automatically born with some amount of advantages, due to their skin color or sex. These advantages are brought to them at the expense of the oppressed, who are in turn at a disadvantage due to the white and male privilege. They are conditioned to not only accept the privilege but to also not question the fact that they have it and how. This shows a perfect example of a lack of curiosity helping to enforce oppression. If white people and men do not possess curiosity towards their advantages, there can be no change. If everyone were to question why they are awarded privilege while others are put at a disadvantage, there may be some changes to the system. Once we question what makes men and white people inherently better or more deserving of privileges than women and people of color, we will begin to question the structure as a whole. People who lack the curiosity and never question such aspects of life are holding back progress by clinging to the pattern of assumptions that are passed on to them through ideals of the past.

Failure of the oppressed to question their situation, as well as the possible differences between themselves and fellow oppressed people, can be problematic as well. Often, white women who, in the words of Bell Hooks, “act as if black women didn’t not know sexist oppression existed until they voiced feminist statement,” only serve to further perpetuate exclusion. The assumption that these black women only joined and realized that they were oppressed when the white women said so is a lack of curiosity and effort to look closer and examine the true circumstances that drove black women to need feminism. Their assumptions perpetuate oppression and place themselves in a hierarchical position above the black women, adopting the message that it is their movement and they know what’s best for all women.

Instances such as this also allow for the white women seeking to be rid of their oppression come into the role of the oppressor to black women. Liberal ideals of feminism not only exclude and discredit the voices of women of color, but also places them in a position of inferiority. While the movements may allow for white women to hold jobs outside of taking care of children and being housewives, these advantages not only do not benefit the black women, but it places them at the disadvantage of assuming the roles dropped by white women, but as their employees. Because of this, any instance of the black women seeming to be powerful within this setting is because, as Bell Hooks puts it, “a white authority figure allowed it.”

It is easy to have an absence of curiosity on a matter when you are seemingly unaffected, or even benefitting from it. Those who are affected may be questioning and wondering, however, as those who are benefitting are generally those in positions of power, the curiosity of those individuals carries a little more weight. For example, the Alamo massacre is a part of American history, with a plaque in the town to commemorate said history. However, the massacre never happened, and while this subject has been brought to light, the townspeople defended “the lie as part of the culture and history of the area” (King 7). While the factuality of the massacre may have been disproven, those who are not affected, or possibly even benefit from it through the recognition and tourism brought by the story, refuse to get rid of it, claiming it as something that has always been there. Rhetoric such as “always” is used as a tactic to save mental energy from having to explore new ideas. The privilege that the story of the Alamo massacre brought to those who are advantaged led them to a complacency in which they were too comfortable within the known “always” to explore and question the possibility that maybe this “always” isn’t necessarily a good thing.

In addition, the details of John Smith’s story involving Pocahontas may not be completely factual either. He began telling a story of being captured in Virginia in 1607. However, mention of Pocahontas does not come up until 1616, almost ten years later. By this time, Pocahontas had already become quite famous. While this may seem like a harmless tweaking of a tale told by a boastful man, it is rooted in a far more serious issue which is often overlooked. That is, the issue of those who are in the position of power to take one’s fame, accomplishments, etc., and claim them as their own, or claim to be the reason for said fame. This appropriation is problematic because if it is coming from a person in power, in this case a white male, their word is accepted without question or inquiry into the claims. We see this time and time again when a member of privileged groups within society tacks themselves onto another person’s success and in turn degrades or devalues the individual’s accomplishments as their own.

In conclusion, curiosity regarding current power structures and the stories or histories we are told about humans is needed to begin taking on the task of demolishing systems of oppression. While the presence of curiosity certainly does not mean that there are no more steps to be taken, and that is simply the answers to all social problems, it is a key factor in starting change. Without the questioning of current ideas, there is no way to realize what needs to be changed or discarded, and how.