Johnson: Privilege, Power, and Difference

Johnson argues that the problems of difference belong to everyone, and that the social grouping that a person belongs to and the power associated with that group does not necessarily reflect on that person as an individual. He is explaining the role of societal values and how they endow some with power and privilege while others are denied. These advantages or disadvantages can be bestowed based on factors such as race, gender, sexuality, and economic status, as well as a number of other attributes.

What I found most clever and interesting is his attempt to disarm the defensiveness of those who have the power and privilege and through denial and defensiveness hold back our society's opportunities to move toward what Johnson thinks of as the ultimate goal - to change the world and eliminate these difference based troubles that we share.

For example, I have always wondered why the "family values" people think that allowing two people in love to get married somehow takes away from "family values". But this is a prevalent argument against gay marriage. Why do they feel so threatened? Johnson also addresses this "fear of the other" and dismantles the belief that it is an inborn part of our nature but rather a learned idea. I can see this because I grew up curious about people who are different from me and have an affinity to seek out and discover what I have not yet experienced in my social exchanges.

I also connected with Johnson's examples of "Mama's Boy" vs. "Daddy's Girl" because I experienced it with my own children... It was so cute and sweet that my daughter was a daddy's girl, but then after my son was born when I would snuggle him (same as I did my daughter) I was accused of turning him into a mama's boy.

Lastly, I smirked about the "diversity training" which I have heard about and was spoofed on "The Office" an so was surprised to find that they have any affect. But then, at the heart of this section on unearned advantage vs. conferred dominance was a kernel of the secret of "the threat". What if there isn't enough to go around? Why should one person give up the power and privilege and risk not having all that they want? It is easier to believe that they deserve it or earned it, rather than that it was given to them. This is what I fear will hold us back from Johnson's goal... that the people we need most to enact change are the people who least want it, those with the most power and privilege, those with the most "to lose". Or at least that is how they see things through their "pane".