Exploitation
is one of five faces of oppression that philosopher Iris Young identifies in
her article Justice and the Politics of Difference. Young presents a general definition as, “a
systematic process in which the energies of the have-nots are continuously
expended to maintain and augment the power, status and wealth of the haves”
(50). This definition gets at the
underlying idea of a group being taken advantage of because of their lower position
in society. The main groups Young
identifies as victims of exploitation are workers and women. Desperate workers who are forced to accept
pitiful wages are being exploited by the wealthy capitalists who can get away
with not properly compensating them. This
is a situation which is still prevalent in our current society. Many factory jobs and other menial labor
positions are occupied by people unaware that they are receiving insufficient
wages for their efforts. Young also identifies women as being
exploited. This example is more about structural
exploitation by society. Because of
gender constructs, women are expected to give the, “fruits of material labor to
men and transfer of nurturing and sexual energies to men” (50). Today, this
issue is less common than the labor issue.
Gender barriers have made significant changes since this article was
written to a point that society’s structure does not impose this on women as
strongly.
What
makes exploitation oppressive is simple the lack of control and power. For example, in the factory example, the
workers did not have the choice to negotiate wages because they were in
positions where they were forced to accept anything. They lacked the financial and perhaps even
racial authority in society to voice an opinion.
Exploitation
is a difficult face to apply to adoption.
It was more present in the “baby scoop era” where birthmothers can said
to be “exploited” for their babies. This
could be seen in hospitals and homes where doctors, social workers, and other
authorities were able to manipulate the mother’s pregnancy and ultimately force
adoption. The birthmothers were not
properly compensated for their children because they lacked choices and suffered
emotional turmoil in the process.
Today,
the face of exploitation does not truly apply to any of the parties of
adoption. There are much stricter
regulations implemented which aim to prevent situations of exploitation. Birthmothers have more of a choice than in
past decades and authority figures have less of a coercive role.
Reanna Nelson
Iris Marion Young,
Justice & the Politics of Difference, New Jersey: Princeton,
1990.
Graded Reply #2
ReplyDeleteMy group also had exploitation for the five faces of oppression. Young did not say an exact definition but instead used definitions from other theorist. I generally thought that exploitation meant to take advantage of another or groups for your own benefit. Young mainly identified people of lower socioeconomic status, women, wage-workers, and Black and Latinos to be victims of exploitation. I am currently reading a book call the Working Poor by David Shipler and he really explains how low income individuals are “forced” to accept low paying jobs because they have to in order to survive. It’s either work for little money or starve. This being said, I agree with you about wealthy capitalist are the ones who take advantage of low income families who work for minimum wage. No one wants to say they are taking “advantage” or “benefiting” from others but when I think about it they technically are. I also agree that exploitation really does not apply to adoption. My group had a hard time thinking of ways it did. We ultimately decided that the only way it applies to adoption is when you view it from a socioeconomic stand point. Generally, people who have a higher socioeconomic status are at a higher position to adopt because they have more access to resources.
Katie L.
Graded Reply #2
ReplyDeleteMy group did exploitation as well. In addition to the workers and women your group eluded to as being exploited, my group and I also thought that people of lower socioeconomic status (SES), races (e.g. African Americans and Hispanics), as well as different sexual orientations (e.g. lesbians and gays) were being exploited as well. Although my group and I believed that we are progressing as society by becoming more accepting of diversity (in ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), there is still improvements that can be made. The exploitation of these groups can vaguely be applicable to adoption. For example, I think that it would be a lot easier for a white high socioeconomic heterosexual couple to adopt a child than a lower socioeconomic homosexual black couple to adopt. I think that this is major ethical concern that should and probably is a being taken into by various adoption agencies (as well as by birthmothers and prospective adoptive parents). After thinking about this some more, I came up with some questions of my own. Should the birthmother’s chose who gets to adopt their child (e.g. a homosexual couple, heterosexual couple, single parent) or should those decisions be left for the discrepancy of the adoption agency? How specifically can we avoid these various groups from being exploited?
-Kathryn M.