Insider Knowledge

Double-Consciousness as In-between-ness

           The epistemic privilege of double-consciousness that DuBois suggests is more narrow than he lets on. I would argue that the double-consciousness of two identities is beneficial only when one of those identities is higher than the other. Marginalized people do not inherently know more than those at the center- they know differently.

           I picture a "club" of sorts. I guess let's call it a country club because that feels pretty applicable. The club is exclusive to white people. They know the ins and outs of how the club functions, the social norms, what have you. Someone of a different race on the outside wouldn't know that kind of information, though they could probably make some guesses. Now, if someone of a different race worked at the country club, but wasn't technically a part of it, this person would have the kind of beneficial double-consciousness.

           In reality, that club (to my knowledge) does not physically exist, but the idea still stands. If there is a center of elites with power, there are also marginalized people without power. Their experience of powerlessness does not equal knowledge or even double-consciousness. Those who have access to the center but are not necessarily a part of it are the ones who have the "beneficial" kind of double-consciousness. They can see what it is like on the inside, and also know what it is like on the outside.

            Obviously, marginalizing, oppressing, and silencing voices is not a good thing. However, the reality is that social structure doesn't allow for 100% full equality. I would argue that marginalized people with "insider knowledge" likely know more than people solely at the center or the margins. I think that is true because they are provided with more perspectives, experiences, and narratives. On the flip side, people at the center who are given "outsider knowledge" might also know more. An important distinction, however, is that the norms of the center are more "established" (part of everyday public life) than the norms of the margins, which makes understanding a marginalized experience harder than understanding the center experience.

Comments

  1. I like that you draw the distinction between knowing more and knowing differently, but I disagree with your conclusion. To stick with your analogy of a country club (because I think it's apt and I like it), you're right to say that those within the country club would know everything about it and someone on the outside of it wouldn't know the exact details, but could caution a guess. When it comes to the question of knowledge, imagine a researching conducting a poll within the country club about the inside and outside of the club. The residents of the country club would be too privileged to answer any questions about the outside of the club, as they've never bothered to live that type of life. However, those outside the club could answer (or try to answer) all the questions. I think that they possess intrinsic, powerful knowledge simply because they're able to see both walks of life, while others are not.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment