Power, Privilege, and Difference

“As long as we participate in social systems, we don’t get to choose whether to be involved in the consequences they produce. We’re involved simply through the fact that we’re here. As such, we can only choose how to be involved, whether to be just part of the problem or also be apart of the solution. That’s were our power lies, and also our responsibility” (p.95)


Johnson’s final statement seems to contradict an underlying issue of counter-individualism that is present throughout his piece. He posits that as individuals we have the choice in how we involve ourselves in social systems. Thus, the power lays in the choice and responsibility of an individual. Counterintuitive to that statement he reiterates that we live in a society that encourages us to think that the social world begins and ends with individuals, and that this ideology is false.

Johnson states, “ It’s as if an organization or society is just a collection of people, and everything that happens in it begins with what they each think. It’s an appealing way to think, because it’s grounded in our experience as individuals, which is what we know best. But it’s also misleading, because it boxes us into a narrow and distorted view of reality” (p.84)

So what is it Johnson, can individuals make a difference or not? If our conformity is crucial to ensuring our future and oppression is inevitable with our silence then wouldn’t our individual involvement account for some impact?

Johnson underestimates the individual and their experiences. I do support Johnson’s argument that individuals are venerable to regulations set by social systems but I believe our experiences broaden our vernacular of reality. To experience poverty per say gives you more credibility to comprehend others misfortunes. Thus, one’s experience of poverty would broaden one’s understanding of reality. It’s as if Johnson believes that our experiences are not credible and that they will deter us from other ideologies.

He furthers his argument by stating “If we use individualism to explain sexism, for example, its hard to avoid the idea that sexism exits simply because men are sexist” (p.90) He continues his argument by declaring that social systems promote sexism to uphold the status quo of privilege. Though certain social systems promote sexism ideals, individual should also be accountable for not questioning such notions. Johnson fails to acknowledge that were active and dynamic individuals that can detect idiosyncrasies.

Johnson undermines himself by stating “ people are indisputably the ones who make social systems happen. If no one plays Monopoly, it’s just a box full of stuff with writing inside the cover”(p.86) Exactly!!! We are not prisoners to some ordained system and because so, we as individuals have to power to alter or fix broken systems. I think individuality fosters for accountability; and accountability exposes contradictions.

Contradictory to his final statement, breaking the paralysis, as quoted by Johnson:
“ Begins with realizing that the social world consists of a lot more than individuals. We are always participating in something larger than ourselves-what sociologists call social systems-and systems are more than collections of people… A university, for example is a social system, and the people participate in it. But the people aren’t the university and the university isn’t the people" (p.85)

I argue that the people play a vital role in the system. The university would not be able to sustain itself if the people who compose it are not fulfilling their ascribed role. Participating includes a reciprocal action. Individuals participate because its benefits them but when the system is no longer awarding they begin to deviate. I’ll use the university analogy to better clarify my statement. One attends a university to attain an education, if a university ever fails to meet that expectation, a student has the option of transferring, protesting, or act in retaliation. Though there are repercussion to these actions, if enough students react the university will succumb to the demands or crumble.

He later declares that system don’t “control us in a rigid and predictable way”(p.87).He suggests that we can fallow a path of resistance that deviates from expectations set by social systems. The path of least resistance, Johnson proclaims, it is more appealing to follow since it awards conformity. I agree, the path of least resistance is more alluring but in order to revamp systems we must sacrifice the luxury of indifference and come together.

We all surrender some control of our self every time we venture into society but that does not constitute us as incompetent to decipher between our self-involvement in social systems. Although the individual is subjugated to the rules of social systems, they (the individuals) hold an immense power to redefine the system’s ideologies and become apart of the solution.