Reflection Questions: Deepen Your Understanding of Oppression, Develop Empathy & Challenge Biases
JFM has created reflection questions to encourage individuals to approach the content in the most recent drop with an open mind and engage in critical thinking and inquiry. It is important to evaluate information and claims thoughtfully while being open to different perspectives and maintaining a respectful and constructive dialogue. Reflecting on these questions and engaging in conversations around them provides an opportunity for personal growth and learning. It allows individuals to expand their knowledge, challenge their assumptions, and develop a more nuanced understanding of social justice issues. Group discussions and conversations centered around these questions can create spaces for collective reflection, learning, and solidarity. Participants can share their perspectives, insights, and personal experiences, fostering a sense of community and mutual support.
Overall, reflecting on these questions and engaging in group conversations allows individuals to deepen their understanding of oppression, develop empathy, challenge their own biases, and take action toward creating a more equitable and inclusive society. It promotes personal growth, community building, and transformative change. JFM encourages you to be curious.
How do you maintain an open-minded perspective while critically examining the questions and claims presented?
What are your initial thoughts and reactions to the content? How did the content make you feel and where did those feelings show up in your body?
How does your reaction intersect with broader issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion? Are there ways in which you can use your response to advocate for greater equity and fairness in the systems and institutions involved?
How does the language and tone of the content affect your perception of it? How can you approach the questions being asked without feeling threatened or defensive, fostering a constructive and open dialogue?
Do you feel provoked? What specific aspects of the content provoked you? Are there any underlying factors or personal experiences that may have contributed to this emotional response?
Do you feel angry? How does recognizing anger contribute to a deeper understanding of your own emotions and reactions? What strategies can you employ to ensure that your anger is properly channeled towards addressing the underlying issues rather than being misdirected?
How can you approach the content as an opportunity to explore different narratives and challenge your own preconceived notions? How does being open to alternative perspectives contribute to personal growth and a deeper understanding of complex issues?
Preconceived notions, also known as preconceptions or preconceived ideas, refer to pre-existing beliefs, opinions, or judgments that people hold about something or someone before having complete or accurate information. These notions are formed based on previous experiences, cultural influences, societal norms, personal biases, or limited exposure to different perspectives. Preconceived notions can affect how individuals perceive and interpret new information or experiences. They can shape expectations, assumptions, and attitudes, sometimes leading to bias or closed-mindedness. These notions may be positive or negative and can be based on stereotypes, generalizations, or incomplete understanding.
How can engaging with the content and its questions, even if you disagree with them, enhance your ability to engage in respectful and productive conversations about complex issues? How can you bridge gaps in understanding and find common ground with those who hold different perspectives?
In what ways can the act of asking questions and seeking answers contribute to a deeper understanding of complex situations, even if the initial claims or suspicions seem far-fetched? How can critical thinking and inquiry be valuable tools in evaluating information?
Are there any elements in the most recent JFM drop that resonate with real-world challenges or issues that you are familiar with? How can you balance your skepticism with the potential for uncovering valid concerns or systemic problems?
What sources of information or perspectives could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation? How can you engage with diverse viewpoints to gain a broader perspective and avoid confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to seek, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or preconceptions. It involves a selective perception and recall of information that aligns with one's own viewpoints, while dismissing or downplaying information that contradicts or challenges those beliefs.
Are there any biases or assumptions that may have influenced your perception of the content? How can you challenge and interrogate these biases to ensure a more objective and empathetic understanding of the situation?
Bias refers to a systematic tendency or inclination to favor or hold a particular preference, belief, or perspective over others. It can influence our thoughts, perceptions, judgments, and actions, often in unconscious ways. Bias can arise from various sources, including our personal experiences, cultural influences, socialization, and exposure to media and information.
Have you considered the possibility of broader systemic factors that may be contributing to the situations described in the content? How can a deeper understanding of these systemic issues help inform your response and actions?
Are there any parallels between the questions raised in the content and historical instances where legitimate concerns were initially dismissed as conspiracy theories? How can you navigate this potential bias and ensure that valid concerns are given due consideration?
Have you reached out to BIPOC colleagues to provide support or check in? If not, why?
What role does transparency play in fostering trust and accountability in government institutions?
In what ways can you channel your reaction into positive action or advocacy for change? How have you engaged with the relevant stakeholders or communities to address the concerns raised in the content?
Are you contributing to the harm?
These reflection questions are meant to encourage self-reflection and introspection. Reflecting on these questions can foster empathy and perspective-taking. By considering the experiences and perspectives of marginalized individuals, participants can develop a greater understanding of the systemic barriers they face and develop empathy for their struggles. The questions are not exhaustive, and you may have additional questions or thoughts that arise while processing. By critically examining oppressive systems and understanding your role within them, you can identify ways to challenge and dismantle these systems, both individually and collectively.
These questions and the material can help you become more aware of the complexities of oppression, including how it operates at different levels (interpersonal, institutional, ideological, and internalized). This awareness can lead to a deeper understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by marginalized communities. The questions encourage individuals to critically examine power dynamics within society and institutions, particularly about race and racism. By engaging in this reflection, people can recognize and challenge their own biases, prejudices, and complicity in systems of oppression
The Four I's of Oppression is a framework that helps us understand the various dimensions and mechanisms through which oppression operates in society. Developed by Iris Marion Young, this framework provides insights into the structural and systemic nature of oppression, shedding light on how power imbalances are created and maintained. Watch or listen to this video on the 4 I’s of Oppression.
The Four I's of Oppression are:
Institutional: Institutional oppression refers to how societal institutions, such as governments, educational systems, and corporations, perpetuate discriminatory practices and unequal power dynamics. These institutions may have policies, practices, and norms that systematically disadvantage certain groups based on their race, gender, class, sexuality, or other social identities. By examining how institutions reinforce and reproduce inequalities, we can work towards creating more equitable systems.
Interpersonal: Interpersonal oppression focuses on the interactions and relationships between individuals that perpetuate oppressive dynamics. This can manifest through acts of discrimination, prejudice, and microaggressions. Interpersonal oppression is often rooted in biases, stereotypes, and prejudices that individuals hold, leading to discriminatory behaviors, exclusion, or marginalization of others. Recognizing and challenging these dynamics is essential for fostering more inclusive and respectful interpersonal relationships.
Ideological: Ideological oppression refers to how dominant ideologies, belief systems, and cultural narratives reinforce and justify systems of oppression. These ideologies often serve to maintain the status quo and uphold existing power structures. They can be embedded in societal norms, values, and discourses, shaping our perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Recognizing and challenging these dominant ideologies is crucial for dismantling oppressive systems and promoting more inclusive and equitable societies.
Internalized: Internalized oppression refers to how individuals from marginalized groups internalize and internalize the messages and stereotypes imposed upon them by society. This can lead to self-doubt, low self-esteem, and the internalization of negative beliefs about one's own identity or group. Internalized oppression can also manifest in individuals adopting harmful stereotypes or biases about themselves or others from their own group. Recognizing and healing from internalized oppression is a crucial step in promoting self-empowerment, self-acceptance, and collective liberation.
Understanding and addressing the Four I's of Oppression requires ongoing reflection, education, and action. By examining how oppression operates at institutional, interpersonal, ideological, and internalized levels, we can work towards dismantling oppressive systems, advocating for social justice, and fostering inclusive and equitable societies for all.
JFM has addressed many instances of interpersonal and idealogical oppression and harm. The most recent drop addressed structural racism, or institutional oppression, in the following ways:
Disproportionate Impact: Structural racism refers to the systemic patterns of policies, practices, and norms that perpetuate racial inequalities across various institutions. In this context, the unjust removal of Dr. Medlock raises questions about how systemic racism may have played a role. Examining the differential treatment of Dr. Medlock, a Black-identifying leader, and Michelle Barnes, a white-identifying leader, highlights how structural racism can contribute to the unfair targeting and scapegoating of individuals from marginalized racial groups.
Scapegoating is a psychological and sociological phenomenon in which a person or group is unjustly blamed or made a target for the problems, shortcomings, or frustrations of others. In social contexts, scapegoating involves singling out an individual or group and attributing negative qualities or responsibility for complex issues to them, often without valid evidence or justification. Scapegoating serves several purposes. It can provide a sense of relief by redirecting blame away from the actual causes of problems. It also allows individuals or groups to maintain a sense of cohesion and unity by creating an external target to unite against. By projecting blame onto a scapegoat, people may avoid confronting deeper systemic issues or taking responsibility for their own contributions to problems. Scapegoating often involves stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. It can result in harmful consequences for the scapegoated individuals or groups, including social exclusion, stigmatization, and even violence. Scapegoating perpetuates inequalities and reinforces harmful power dynamics within societies.
Institutional Bias: The false media narratives and inaccurate information have been spread by those in positions of power, potentially leading to the public disparagement of Dr. Medlock. This example reflects how institutional bias can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and unfairly assign blame to individuals from marginalized racial groups. Such biases within institutions can influence decision-making processes and contribute to the marginalization and exclusion of Black leaders.
Lack of Accountability: The lack of accountability allows for harmful narratives and false information to persist, potentially contributing to the oppression and harm experienced by Dr. Medlock. It reflects how systemic racism can manifest through the failure to address and rectify racially biased actions and behaviors within institutions.
Double Standards and Inequitable Treatment: The comparison between the treatment of Dr. Medlock and her successors, particularly the differential coverage by the media, highlights the presence of double standards and inequitable treatment. This disparity can be attributed to structural racism, which allows for the perpetuation of biases and discriminatory practices that advantage white-identifying leaders over Black-identifying leaders.
Need for Investigation and Accountability: The call for a comprehensive investigation to uncover the truth and ensure transparency and accountability underscores the importance of addressing structural racism within institutions. By examining the systemic factors contributing to the unjust removal of Dr. Medlock it becomes evident that structural racism can undermine the public's trust in institutions and hinder their ability to serve all people equitably.
Understanding how structural racism operates and intersects with other forms of oppression can help shed light on the complexities and injustices inherent in these situations. It encourages individuals to critically analyze power dynamics, institutional biases, and the need for systemic change to foster racial equity and justice within society.
Sign the Petition to Reinstate Dr. Medlock
On Monday, April 17, 2023, Colorado Behavioral Health Administration (BHA) Commissioner, Morgan Medlock, MD, MDiv, MPH, a Black community leader, was unjustly removed from her Colorado cabinet position without cause. Her removal risks the lives of millions of people in Colorado who deserve accessible, trauma-informed, and culturally-responsive behavioral health care. It also perpetuates the message that strong, qualified Women of Color are vulnerable to the whims of political systems and cabinet leadership.
Demand justice for Dr. Medlock by signing the petition for Governor Polis to bring her back as the Commissioner of the Colorado Behavioral Health Administration (BHA).