An interesting aspect of the reading is the idea of humanization and dehumanization, and the implications that come along with both. It seems simple to say that a group of people who are oppressed in similar ways are part of an oppressed group and identify with each other, but that is not necessarily the case. For example, this week’s reading spoke of the oppressed becoming more individualistic and thus becoming an oppressors if given the opportunity.
Studying rhetoric, this makes a lot of sense. In a public, there is a center of power. Those not fitting the criteria to voice themselves in this public become marginalized and silenced. So, in many cases, those who are marginalized create their own counter-public where their voices and sentiments are the center of power. Unfortunately, the counter-public becomes a microcosm of the original public and marginalizes and silences just as the original public did. This is an interesting point because there is an idea of having a double identity, or what W.E.B. Du Bois would consider a double consciousness, where oppressed people see themselves through the lens of their oppressors. So, through the oppressor’s lens, the “collective marginalized group” may be a solid group but they may see themselves in a different light.
A good example of this is a clip from the movie “Hotel Rwanda”. Through the Euro-centric lens, all people from Rwanda were the same. But, there was a civil war between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes, which view themselves as completely different. Link: Hotel Rwanda
-Funmi Solar