Executive Brief: Cultural imperialists engage in oppression when they reserve the right to control speech (and other forms of expressive communication) based on what they feel will consolidate their abuses of power. When the people in power want to punish you for saying something like “shit,” it is not because they are truly harmed by hearing that word, but because they are members of a cultural elite that is fighting to maintain its privilege by punching you in the face whenever you say certain words. Culturally normative imperialism is a type of violence, which is a face of oppression.

Details… 

Powerful people create and enforce laws to perpetuate their privileged access to power. Those laws enshrine the “sameness” of the beliefs among the population residing in the xenophobe fort, so there is no objective specification to support the law because “everyone just knows it is the truth.” These people lie about having objective reasons for the laws because their decision making processes are all and only grounded in ignorant fear.

This is a form of cultural imperialism.

Some of these laws, we look back on with ridicule (one might hope); for example, sumptuary laws allowed only powerful lawmakers to enjoy certain premiums in their lives, and to clamp down on the expressive communication of others. The most impoverished classes were only allowed to wear brownish colors (which was cheap), and royalty was the only class allowed to wear purple (which was expensive). The strata in between were established as follows: brighter reds (such as scarlet, as opposed to umber) could only be worn by wealthy nobles and merchants, and then blues and greens were allowed only for the next rank down of merchants. This is of course a simplification for the purposes of illustration, and there was variation according to time and space (i.e., region), but you get the gist.

You are also likely familiar with “Jim Crow” laws, and those that targeted “miscegenation.” Laws that differentially punish people on the basis of their color, both in how such laws are written and how they are enforced, are not to be reviled solely as matters of the past, as the current federal administration is in the process of reinstating them.

So let’s take a look at some contemporary laws of this sort:

1. “Obscenity” and “indecency” laws — These rely on community standards tests (i.e., “I know it when I see it”) that can vary widely based on local cultural norms. The question to ask is, “Who is getting hurt?” I am not talking about the drama-trauma experienced while searching for pearls to clutch or couches upon which to faint. Hate speech, while offensive, lies outside of obscenity in that it wages actual, measurable harm as it promotes violence towards the vilified groups. The complaint here is that you are not being tactful, courteous, and polite enough to your bullies, who beat you around the mouth until you retreat back into submissive masking. And of course, which words count as impolite are manipulated by the bullies to suit their purposes… they will insist that there is no way to come up with a list, but “Everyone knows.”

2. “Public order” or “disorderly conduct” laws — These frequently give law enforcement significant discretion to determine what constitutes “disorderly” behavior, applying differently to different communities; that is to say, if the people in power want to arrest you, then anything you say or do, particularly expressing disagreement with their authoritarian rule, suddenly counts as disorderly conduct. The reward for “orderly conduct” is a seat at their table to engage in discussions… but they ignore you anyway.

3. Dress code regulations — Laws prohibiting specific religious attire (like hijab bans in some countries) or criminalizing clothing deemed “indecent” often reflect dominant cultural perspectives. The sumptuary laws are not gone. This is often associated with hygiene expectations, where your appearance is equated with cleanliness, and only certain types of clothes are considered to be “clean” enough for professional wear. And if you can’t afford to buy expensive clothes, then you don’t get to sit at the rich kids’ table. And of course we know that the sexist regulations are still rampant.

4. Language requirements — Official language laws that prioritize one language over others in government, education, and public services marginalize linguistic minorities. Marginalization is one of the five faces of oppression. The current federal administration recently declared that English is the official language of the United States as part of the war that they have declared on people of color.

5. Loitering laws — These often allow for subjective enforcement and have historically been used to control the presence of marginalized groups in public spaces.

6. Immigration laws determining “desirable” immigrants — Many countries use culturally-specific criteria to determine which immigrants are “valuable” or “assimilable.”

7. Some aspects of family law — Definitions of appropriate family structures  exclude certain arrangements (like polygamous marriages or certain custody arrangements)  reflect specific cultural prejudices.

8. Morality-based commercial regulations — Laws restricting business hours, alcohol sales, or other activities on religious grounds encode specific religious values into law.

9. “Nuisance” and zoning laws — These are used to restrict cultural practices deemed undesirable by dominant groups (like certain religious gatherings, cultural festivals, or food preparation methods).

10. Voter ID laws — Requirements that specify certain forms of identification  disproportionately impact communities with different documentation practices or access. They are designed to disenfranchise those people who are not members of the socioeconomic elite.

All of that is seriously fucked up, or, for those who would prefer that I make a statement that conforms more closely to the language used in objective statistical analyses, I will say that all of that is substantially fucked up.

[The Personality and Pathology Part]