Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx

Rank and Rank Roles
If Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the onion to observe,
the next layer which we call Rank is more hidden. The elusive
nature of the Rank layer is part of its mystique, the reason we
find it hard to identify in action. We use the word Rank to
invoke two associations. One is the idea of something that is no
longer fresh, that has an unpleasant smell. The other is the
association with military Rank. Social Rank is made up of
memberships in social groups and the ways in which those
memberships influence our social conditioning. We use the
word “role” to describe the parts of us that are most shaped by
socialization.
We speak of oppression as outmoded supremacy. Can
supremacy ever be anything other than smelly? We will offer
the idea that there are functional, circumstantial reasons for
overvaluing certain people in certain situations. In a disaster-at-
sea movie, it makes sense to have the strongest swimmer dive
into the already flooded part of the upside down ship in order to
save the cluster of protagonists. So we will coddle, support,
privilege, and overvalue the star swimmer to make sure that
they have all their nutrition and strength as they represent the
best chance for our survival. Once we’re rescued by the
helicopters and safe on land, it no longer makes sense for us to
advantage that swimmer. In other words, in that particular
context, it’s supremacist but not oppressive.
As human collectives, we have a tendency to institute
supremacies much more easily and readily than we dismantle
them. All societies are burdened with practices of unfair
advantage of some, which may have been functional at some
point in history but now exist as part of the social weave and
tend to go unexamined. This is the Rank system. Rank the
system under which some of us are systematically valued more
than others is closely connected with roles. Rank systems exist
in all human societies; the specific groups that are valued more
or less highly across the globe and across time. Our focus here

is mainly on Rank as it currently exists in the United States.
Roles
We associate the word “role” with the theater that maybe where
the concept originates. In ancient Greek drama, players wore
masks that let the audience know what land of character they
were playing comic or tragic, Icing or warrior. Behaving
appropriately according to social role is quite similar to playing
a character in a play. Characters may do and say only certain
things, according to the script, stage directions, and director the
actor has a limited ability to determine how their character will
appear, at least in conventional theater.Rank
According to Dr. Nieto, as a result of social conditioning, there
is an insect like consciousness, a crusty, robotic, mechanistic
layer that interrupts our personhood. It is in place by three to
five years of age. The chances of this not happening or of
preventing it are nil. It is ascribed, applied, and installed
without critical thinking or reflection. Rank is heavy.
Julia Maxwell
Roles, Continued
Jacob Moreno (1993) suggests that people in post-industrial
societies like ours are socialized to a narrow scope of behavior
and a rigid, limited role repertoire. Such societies tend to
restrict members to prescribed roles with rigidly defined rules
of behavior (businessman, soccer mom, rebellious teenager).
Where roles are predetermined, many behaviors and ways of
expressing are outside the role description. Much of
socialization is to teach and learn congruence with social roles.
For example, it could be out of role for an adult to sit on the
floor and pull off their socks and shoes with delight, or for a
woman to sprawl in a chair and smoke a cigar. Some out-of-role
behaviors and attitudes can be hard to discern. Some social
roles demand primarily high Status stances, others low Status
ones. We all get more practice in the land of Status play, be it
low or high, associated with our prescribed social roles than

with the other kind. Our role and social assignments maybe
comfortable or uncomfortable for us, depending on the situation
and on the fit with our personality or temperament.
Societies have mechanisms designed to train us in our roles as
soon as possible after birth. All elements of our environment,
family, school, media, peer culture, etc., conspire together to
socialize us. This process, socialization, is not free of bias quite
the opposite. We internalize the particular biases of our social
context while very young. By the time we are three years old,
we demonstrate fluency with social values and norms.
Children’s play is rich with social roles practice, explicit
performance of social norms, and the mechanisms for enforcing
them, such as ostracism.
Consider children playing at being parents, young adults
experiencing relief at the mastery of at least some social
expectations, and middle-aged adults comfortably living into
unexamined lifestyles. Initially, we may feel we are adopting a
character or putting on a costume, but eventually the roles come
to feel quite natural. We enjoy our newfound competency,
knowing “how to be,” whether as a college student, an up-and-
coming employee, a hot date, or even a total failure. Knowing
what is expected of us and how to do that very thing can open
doors to the social world. Like a well-worn pair of shoes, our
roles may feel natural. Yet, until we step out of them, we may
not have a feel for our own true footprint. We may not know the
extent to which the shoes have shaped our gait. We often don’t
even “feel” our roles. Instead, we may readily identify with
them as a central definition of who we are.
“I’m an addict.”
“I’m the vice-president of finance.”
“I’m a college drop-out.”
“I’m a happy mother of three.”
From a human development point of view, we first focus on
fulfillment of expectations of our assigned Rank roles; we work
to become our roles. As we mature, if we develop skills that
take us out of conventional attitudes, we may begin to feel the

limits and edges of our socially ascribed roles. We may wish to
express a more authentic self, to discern chosen values from
inherited ones, and to act on our deepest passions. Many people
spend the latter part of their lives getting out of the mold that
they worked so hard to fit into. This shift beyond our socially
conditioned role selves is what we identify with anti-oppression
and true Power. Moving to more authentic expression can be a
huge risk one that anyone might hesitate to take yet worth
everything.The River of Oppression
Picture a river, flowing along with a strong current. A member
of a Target group is in the river managing life against the
current. Part of Target socialization is to normalize the
conditions of living against the current of the river. This is how
the world feels and looks; this is how much effort it takes to
move forward — or even to stay in place. The member of a
socially devalued group does not necessarily pay attention to
the force or quality of the oppressive current. In order to work,
participate, shop, and live each day, the Target group member
needs to navigate the river unconsciously as if in a trance.
But at any moment an incident can happen. An incident is an
event that disrupts the trance and causes the Target group
member to be swept down the current, forcing them to engage
more consciously with the river. The incident reminds the
member of the socially devalued group that Rank is always
active. It "puts them in their place.” While status play is
reversible and anybody can play high or low, Rank is not like
that, Rank is like a river: it flows in one direction only, The
hierarchically dualistic river of oppression is always there,
advantaging members of Agent groups who can move with the
river, in the direction of the current and disadvantaging
members of Target groups in complex, cross-cutting, and
internalized ways.
Roles, Continued 2
We cannot shed our roles until we master them. Before we can
move beyond our roles, we must learn to inhabit and fulfill

them well. We can’t skip any stage of development, and
adequately fulfilling social roles is a necessary skill that marks
adulthood. Fulfilling these roles enables us to participate in
work, partnerships, and public life.
As we move into increasingly conscious living, we may find it
harder to fit into social expectations and Rank roles. Concerns
and self-identity shift. Even as we gain authenticity, integrity,
and Power, we may be perceived as losing something rather
than gaining something. We may seem somehow less sturdy,
less predictable, less delineated. Performing roles we have
mastered can bring social rewards money, influence, belonging,
and safety which discourage us from changing even when the
mold becomes uncomfortable. Role compliance can provide
psychological safety and physical safety from violence, hunger,
or need. Our cultural rules can prevent people from claiming the
wisdom of their later years, a wisdom that society desperately
needs.
When we identify with roles that no longer fulfill our needs for
growth, roles that once fit us well can become a kind of prison,
an obstacle to authenticity and Power. Identifying with narrow,
socially defined roles limits our perceptions and prevents us
from accessing the fullness of our creativity and our truth.
Agent & Target Group Memberships
In our discussion of Status play, we reviewed high Status style
and low Status style. Status dynamics are changeable; that is,
within the same context, a person can use high Status one
moment and low Status the next. They are also situational; a
person may play low Status in one context and high Status in
another. In contrast, Rank roles are neither changeable nor
situational. They are fixed. They show up consistently from one
context to another and hold continuity across time. Within the
Rank system, two roles are central: we refer to them as Agent
and Target.
As individuals, we likely hold both Agent and Target group
memberships. Social groups that are overvalued and normative
we term Agent groups. As members of social groups that hold

Agent Rank, we are overvalued and receive unearned advantage
and benefits. Examples of Agent groups include adults,
heterosexuals, Whites, biological males, or the U.S.-born. As
members of Agent groups, we receive affirmation and support
and have ready access to rewards. As Agent group members we
have an easier time getting jobs, are more likely to see people
“like us” on television, and can expect that our concerns will be
taken seriously by public institutions.
Social groups that are devalued and “otherized” we term Target
groups. As members of social groups that hold Target Rank, we
are undervalued and subject to marginalization. Examples of
Target groups include children/ elders, gay/lesbian/bisexual
people, People of Color, women, and people born outside the
U.S. As members of Target groups, our access is limited and our
movement restricted. For example, we experience difficulties
finding work appropriate to our education and abilities, we
often see people “like us” depicted negatively in the media, and
public institutions rarely address our concerns.Role-bound
Agent-Target Dialogue
When both Agent and Target are fully in-role, plugged in to the
system, the conversation itself becomes part of the system. They
enact a scripted play, with no consciousness and no freedom to
change their roles.
A: I don’t even think of you as a kid. You are so much more
mature than any other 14-year-old I know.
T: I bet you don't know a lot of 14-year-olds.
A: You don’t have to be rude. I was paying you a compliment.
T: I’m not interested in your compliments. You don’t get it at
all.
A: That's what I get for trying to talk to you.
T: Talk at, you mean.
Social Rank Category
Agent Rank
Target Rank
Age
Adults (18-64)

Children, adolescents, elders
Disability *
Able-persons
Persons with disabilities
Religion (relates to religious culture) **
Cultural Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists
Jews, Muslims, and all other non-Christian religions
Ethnicity
White Euro-Americans
People of Color
Social Class Culture
Middle and Owning Class (access to higher education)
Poor and working class (no higher education access)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexuals
Lesbians, Gay men, Bisexuals, Queer, and Questioning
Indigenous Heritage
Non-Native
Native
National Origin
US-Born
Immigrants and Refugees
Gender
Biologically male
Female, transgender, and intersex
* Now identified by Hays as “Developmental and acquired
disabilities”
**Now identified by Hays as “Religion and Spiritual
Orientation”
The flip side of disadvantage is advantage. You can’t have a
down without an up. Tim Wise (Cook, 2009)
Economy of Energy
Imagine a room in a military setting such as a barracks where
enlisted personnel are busy working under pressure of a

deadline. An officer walks in. What do the enlisted personnel
do? They stop what they are doing. They stand and salute. They
await orders. The enlisted must suspend their focus and attend
to the officer. The officer will either say “at ease” releasing the
enlisted back to their task or give them an order. Now imagine
an officer and an enlisted soldier, both in civilian clothing,
shopping at a grocery store located off the base. The chances
that the enlisted person will notice the officer are very high.
The officer, on the other hand, may or may not notice the
enlisted person. The presence of one of these people will affect
the other more. These images are illustrations of a differential
economy of energy. We suggest that the enlisted person must
use some or much of their energy to tune in the officer and their
requirements. The reverse is not necessarily so.
Rank dynamics are not reversible. Because societal systems are
set up in ways that advantage members of Agent groups, those
individuals can allocate energy focusing on personal interests.
Usually, as Agent group members we do not notice the
advantage of being free to spend our energy on things like
reaching our goals, meeting our needs, pursuing our dreams.
Because societal systems are set up in ways that advantage
members of Agent groups, Target group members must use
considerable energy dealing with social barriers and restriction
of movement, unnecessary suffering that comes from being
frequently given devaluing messages: some overt, some not;
some intentional, some not. Target group members must also
use energy to manage internalized oppression including
internalized versions of barriers, restrictions, and devaluation.
As we will discuss later, members of Target groups are
conditioned to be always aware of and attentive to Agent group
members. The extra energy it takes to get through the day, to
get a job and to perform at extraordinary levels, drains our life
energies. As in the example we gave of the officers and enlisted
personnel, Target group members unconsciously or consciously
live subordinately, while Agent group members receive un-
earned benefits from inequality.Laurel Collier Smith’s Story

One April day I was on a walk to a therapist’s office. I had all
manner of things to work out in my once-per-month
appointment with this wise person. That morning I remember
feeling particularly inspired.
My walk to the office was interrupted by some men whistling at
me from a car window, but I shook it off and returned to my
thoughts. Ten minutes later, more shouting from a different car:
“Nice Ass!,” they shouted. I scowled and kept moving only sort
of able to return to my thoughts. Two blocks from my
therapist’s office a third incident: a man pulled up behind me
slowly driving there for a few long minutes before pulling up
beside me and asking if he could please drive me somewhere
scary!
Incidents like these are not infrequent for most Targets of
sexism, but three in an hour’s time was enough to take all the
inspiration I’d had right out of me. When we say that
oppression interrupts the flow of life, this is what we mean. I
spent that day’s long-awaited and expensive therapy session
sorting out the fear I felt about my safety, and the disgust I felt
about being so objectified. What deeper puzzles might I have
been able to go after that day had the incidents not piled up one
after another? I feel most angry about oppression when / think
about how short and valuable life is. So much irreplaceable time
is spent by Targets when we have to cope with incidents like
these.
Laurel Collier Smith
Gender Target Group Member
Economy of Energy, Continued
Every semester, while teaching a graduate course called Gender
and Ethnicity Issues in Psychotherapy, Dr. Nieto hears from
female students in their thirties, forties, and fifties about their
increasing consciousness of this phenomenon of subordination.
The same student who at the start of the semester spoke about
never having felt restricted as a woman, particularly in
comparison to her mother, later reports that she was and is

restricted. She recognizes that she is devalued and marginalized
in ways that are different, but no less harmful, than the ways
her mother was treated in the past. While some of the
experience of marginalization becomes normalized and
absorbed, some experiences of restriction and struggle do tend
to register in the minds of Target group members. Given social
profiles, which for most of us include both Agent and Target
group memberships, we are more likely to notice experiences of
restriction than experiences of advantage. In this way, we may
find that we over-identify with our Target group memberships,
to the exclusion of noticing our Agent group memberships.
Later in this book we suggest disciplines for attending to both.
Mechanical Metaphors
In talking about Rank, we find it helpful to associate all things
Rank-related with machine-like or mechanical images. We are
trying to evoke the sense of automated, impersonal, “in place,”
and industrial. These are features of socialization and
conditioning. The idea is that we each house a layer of material
that operates as if installed, robotic, and remotely controlled.
Try on the image of the Rank robot. For Star Trek fans,
remember the Borg declaring, “Resistance is futile. You will be
assimilated” (Frakes, 1996). We can think of the Rank system as
a network of machines either as a simple device for sorting, a
primitive clockwork or conveyor belt system, or a bar code
scanner in a supermarket. The Rank layer of interactions can be
thought of as “operating on automatic,” as when we work, drive,
or even speak to each other in a highly routinized and
unconscious way. Many behavior patterns and actions in
contemporary life in the U.S. have this mechanical feeling,
lacking in life and authenticity.
“How are you?”
“I’m fine, how are you?”
Consider how much of your day is taken up with mechanical
interactions. The view of human beings as machines has history.
Images of the world as a machine, God as the great watchmaker,

and mechanical models as the most accurate way to
conceptualize the universe lie at the root of much medicine,
economics, and politics. Societies that place a high value on
material production and profit, and a low value on subjective
experience, happiness, or even long-term survival, are based on
generally mechanical concepts of existence. These “doing
versus being” models pervade the consciousness of many people
even people who are critical of the results those models create.
For example, environmentalists may criticize the mechanical
model directly, while still using economic efficiency as a
primary measure of value.
Many of us have been trained to understand the world in
concrete terms that lend themselves to analysis and dissection.
Talcing things apart, seeing the pieces rather than the whole, is
central to this worldview. Within this mental framework, we try
to solve problems by looking for what’s wrong so that piece can
be corrected or eliminated. Problems and challenges are
conceived as broken parts in a machine.
The very term “metaphysical” suggests that our primary
orientation is to the physical world. We have been trained to
conceptualize the subtler aspects of existence like
consciousness, spirit, and feeling as “beyond physical.” From
the dominant point of view, the physical is central, the basic
fact, our home ground. Ironically, we tend to hold this concrete
consciousness while living disembodied lives.
The centrality of the mechanistic view can be seen in the
ubiquitous use of computer metaphors for all kinds of human
experiences. Terms like hard drive, software, feedback, and
download are applied to a variety of situations, as if the
computer was the ultimate symbol of our lives. People’s minds,
in particular, are often compared to computers, both explicitly
and by metaphorical implication. The film Office Space (Judge,
1999) provides an image many of us can relate to, of a man who
is driven mad by the cold, inhumane, mechanical routines of
office life. These mechanical metaphors have come to seem
inevitable and natural, even to those of us who question their

underlying assumptions. They increasingly are a part of our
everyday discourse and way of framing problems and solutions.
The Rank Machine
If the Rank system is a network of machines operating
independent of human reflection and input, the Rank robot lives
exclusively out of the Rank role. The Rank roles are prescribed
scripts, assigned to each of us, which determine how each
person is to behave in the world. Rank is an essentially artificial
or cultural marker, something determined by society, based on
socially ascribed (assigned) memberships, such as gender,
ethnicity, and religious culture. While the Status layer of human
interaction is obvious and easy to identify, the Rank layer is
mystified, covered over, and entangled. Individuals have little
or no influence on how they are assigned Rank membership. As
influential as it is in determining the course of our lives, Rank
is arbitrary and, ultimately, absurd. Our Rank is assigned, in a
mechanized way, without input from us. Yet, Rank acts through
us. The Rank machine as if installed in every environment
including our minds sorts us into Target and Agent Rank roles.
We like to say that the Rank machine is not intelligent. It
doesn’t have the complexity to organize and sort human beings
based on valid elements. It does not have capacity to learn. It is
more like a really large clockwork, filling a whole room.
Picture huge gears, chains, and pulleys or factory conveyor
belts, chutes, and funnels. Picture a bar-code scanner, which
reads information on the label of the products in the store.
Unlike a computer, which can do many things, the Rank
machine can do only one. It sorts people into two categories,
consistently, in every situation and interaction, over and over
again.Rank and First Impressions
Malcolm Gladwell exposes how our Rank memberships can
influence interactions with significant implications when he
writes, "If you have a strongly pro-White pattern of
associations, there is evidence that that will affect the way you
behave in the presence of a Black person. It's not going to affect

what you'll choose to say or feel or do. In all likelihood, you
won’t be aware that you're behaving any differently than you
would around a White person.
But chances are, you’ll lean forward a little less, turn away
slightly from him or her, close your body a bit, be a bit less
expressive, maintain less eye contact, stand a little farther
away, smile a lot less, hesitate and stumble over your words a
bit more, laugh at jokes a bit less. Does that matter? Of course
it does. Suppose the conversation is a job interview. And
suppose the applicant is a Black man. He’s going to pick up on
that uncertainty and distance, and that may well make him a
little less certain of himself, a little less confident, and a little
less friendly. And what will you think then? You may well get a
gut feeling that the applicant doesn't really have what it takes,
or maybe that he is a bit standoffish, or maybe that he doesn’t
really want the job. What this unconscious first impression will
do, in other words, is throw the interview hopelessly off course”
(2005, p. 85-86).
The Rank Machine, Continued
The Rank machine operates invisibly and constantly. It operates
within us, but it’s really a social mind or collective mind at
work, rather than our own individual thought. It reflects
programmed behavior, convention, and rolebound
unconsciousness. This Ranking mechanism acts instantly, before
our conscious thought can catch up. As individuals, we cannot
influence the way the Rank machine sorts people, We can
become more aware of it, and more resistant to acting on its
messages.
The Rank machine is a social mechanism that has been with us
since the beginning of human collectives. Lacking intelligence,
the Rank machine cannot tell the difference between truth and
reality. Human beings cannot actually be sorted into dyadic,
dualistie, binary categories. This is not a meaningful or accurate
way to organize human features. We are complex,
unpredictable, infinitely varied: anything but binary.

Yet the reality of daily life is that our existence, our
experiences, our chances of getting our needs met, are strongly
influenced by the Rank memberships ascribed to us. To be
defined as White or Black, as straight or gay, as biologically
male or female, as persons with or without a disability, has a
tremendous effect on people’s lives. That’s reality. These
categories are not true, but they are real. They make a
difference. We may criticize these terms, analyze them, and
challenge them, but they remain influential forces.Status Play
Cannot Affect or Change Rank
Status and Rank are two separate realms, but I previously
thought that Status maneuvers made me more or less oppressive
in matters involving Rank. Status play cannot affect or change
Rank. This knowledge means I have to deal with my agency in
those areas that I hold Agent Rank, and build Allyship skills,
instead of relying on Status play to change dynamics.
Amanda MorstadThe Rank Machine, Reconceptualized
The Rank Machine can be visualized as a large mechanical
apparatus like a motorized clock or a culling device in an
assembly line. The Rank machine was designed and crafted long
agoto do only one thing: to exclude the largest number of
people for the smallest possible reason.
Another image for the Rank Machine is a bar code scanner in a
supermarket, The scanner reads the nine-digit code for each
person to determine his or her Agent and Target Rank roles,
This happens very fast, automatically. The speed of this
scanning is clear from the Implicit Association Tests (IAT
Corp„ 2010) discussed at Harvard University
(https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/). The scanner doesn't stop
to investigate whether the coding really fits the person it just
picks one and goes on. The point here is that Rank is not an
evolving identity, It is simply an assigned or ascribed category.
Sorting
What if, in the back of your neck, under your skin,
imperceptible to you, there was a bar code, nine bars each one

identifying you as member of either a Target or Agent group?
As you read on, you will find a model describing nine social
membership categories that the Rank machine sorts by. In
reviewing this model, most of us find at least some of the
categories confusing or objectionable. We find it difficult to
place ourselves cleanly into the Target or Agent side,
Nonetheless, the Rank system operates as if it were possible to
tidily classify you as either one or the other. Each of these
categories is false. Each is a social construct. It was made up,
invented for mercenary purposes, at a time in human history
when the understanding of human beings was even more limited
than today. We are working here with inherited supremacies,
strong tendencies to overvalue particular groups and devalue all
others.
We think of oppression as outmoded supremacy. We consider
that there may have been a function to the establishment of
supremacist practices. It can be possible to trace the origins of
these constructs and discover the reasons (moral, amoral, or
immoral), for the establishment of supremacies. In the present,
though, we live against a backdrop embedded with these
outmoded, foul-smelling, supremacies. They are woven into the
fabric of our collective life, pervading every aspect of our life
and consciousness. So, even though they are false, we must
engage meaningfully about the way they shape ourselves and
our days.
If you are having trouble determining how your social profile
breaks down, that is probably because you are a reasonable
person and you are reacting to the false and arbitrary nature of
these categories. There are two antioppressive techniques to
apply here.
First, consider there is no such thing as being a little bit Target.
We sometimes try to humanize the Agent/Target binary by
moving it into a continuum being more Agent or more Target.
Given that the Rank system is false, inhuman, and artificial to
begin with, a continuum model does little to improve its validity
and instead distracts us away from the useful focus on the

supremacy of Agent groups. We have found that many people
tend to discount their Target group membership if they have
experienced benefit in that area or if their Target group
membership is less visible. We suggest a different angle. If you
have Indigenous heritage, consider that you may be a Target in
that area. If you live with a learning disability, consider that it
makes you a Disability Target. Even though you’re not
completely sure, give it a try.
The second anti-oppressive technique is what we call “owning
your Agent Rank.” The best example where this applies is in the
area of social class culture. If you’ve had access to higher
education, we suggest that you declare yourself a social class
Agent regardless of your level of income or class of origin. (We
will go into more depth about all these categories as we go on.)
The imaginary bar code on the back of your neck symbolizes
not your “identity” (which is a function of Power at the core of
our model) but your ascribed social memberships and their
implications in regard to access, advantage, and
marginalization. It is as if, in every environment, hidden
scanners are constantly reading your code and automatically
opening or closing doors for you, causing the ground to be
uphill or downhill, making the path smooth or treacherous. This
goes on regardless of whether you or anyone else is aware of
your memberships. The Rank system categorizes people by
reading their ascribed membership in one category or the other,
Target or Agent in nine Rank categories. We’ll discuss each of
the categories and our rationale for limiting the list to these
nine in the next chapter “The ADRESSING Model.”
Not only does social Rank operate in the minds of all
individuals, it also operates institutionally in all systems and
organizations. None of us chooses to have a version of the Rank
system implanted in our minds. We never had a chance to sign
up or opt out. In the Wachowski brothers’ film The Matrix
(1999), the protagonist Neo spends the first part of the movie
wondering about something called “the Matrix.” What is it?
How can it be revealed? Who knows about it? After waking

from a series of “dreams,” he finally finds himself in a room
with the character called Morpheus who tells him that no one
can be told about the Matrix that it is everywhere: in the
television, at church, when you pay your taxes, etc. Neo, and
the audience, learn that the Matrix signifies at least two things.
First, the Matrix is a physical structure that houses the bodies of
every human being on the planet, which are being used as
batteries. Human life force is the only resource left to fuel the
world, which has been taken over by machines. Second, the
Matrix is a computer program that all human minds are plugged
into, providing each person with a virtual experience that they
perceive as real life. Neo’s mission becomes to awaken as many
people as possible to the current state of things. That is, all
minds and bodies are co- opted, subject to unconscious
participation in a system that dehumanizes and exploits. Like
the people in the Matrix, we are all born into a backdrop, which
includes supremacy. We don’t know we are in it any more than
fish know they are in water.
The Rank system goes about sorting people into two piles: those
that will be advantaged and everyone else. When confronted by
someone who doesn’t fit easily into either pile as with mixed
race people and intersexuality it resolves in favor of Target
group membership. Few people fit tidily into one or the other
category, so we talk about these categories being false, but also
real. The Rank system will exclude the largest number of people
for the smallest possible reason. This is the nature of
supremacy. One group is consistently overvalued, and to foster
the benefit of that smaller group, everyone else is devalued. The
sorting goes on both deliberately and automatically, consciously
and unconsciously. It is systematic and
institutionalized.Internalized Oppression
Internalized oppression is a feature of oppression, when Target
group members believe, act on, or enforce the dominant system
of beliefs about their own group. For example, self-talk that
reinforces negative stereotypes of one's own group, or women
enforcing standards of appearance with other women.

Sorting, Continued
The mechanisms scanning us for Target group membership are
surprisingly “accurate,” due in large part to the nature of
internalized oppression. For example, a person may identify as
heterosexual. Yet, at a later date in their life experience they
may come out as bisexual or gay or lesbian. Even during the
time when they are identifying as straight, compulsory
heterosexuality (Rich, 1994) will actively be curtailing them as
members of the Target group in the area of sexual orientation.
We’ll return to this idea later.
The social Rank machine checks closely to see if people fit in
the narrowly defined “okay” pile before it puts them there. It
looks for reasons to exclude them from the “okay” pile; often a
tiny reason will suffice. In the area of ethnicity, this is often
referred to as the one-drop rule; it can take only “one drop” of
African or Native American blood to be recognized as a Target
by the Rank machine.
Because the focus of social Rank selection is on exclusion,
Target groups tend to be larger than Agent groups. Only a
minority of people holds all Agent memberships; most of us
have one or more Target areas. So it’s ironic that the more
numerous members of Target groups are often referred to as
“minorities,” “special interests,” and “marginal groups,” This
land of language obscures the true nature of social Rank. By
defining majority groups as “special” or “marginal,” the needs
of most people are minimized and ignored.
It is useful to think of the Rank system as an impersonal
automatic process, rather than a thoughtful or personal one.
Since the categories are arbitrary, constructed and applied
inconsistently, it is possible to perceive that looking carefully at
any of the categories - subjecting them to even a small amount
of analysis - reveals their lack of validity. In fact, much of the
work in anti-oppression and social justice has been about
debunking, taking apart, and deconstructing these as valid
categories. These are not valid categories. They don’t apply

very well to anyone. Yet, the advantaging process goes on.
Social Rank has little to do with personal identities, beliefs,
values, preferences, or feelings. The Rank machine doesn’t ask
a person of mixed ethnicity which part of their family heritage
she or he identifies with; it just registers all the ways a person
isn’t a member of a dominant group, and uses anything “other”
against that person. It’s not interested in what a person actually
believes about spirituality; it simply checks if they “belong” in
Christian culture. It is not capable of examining who a person
truly is.
Rank systems are self-running and self-sustaining. The system
has successfully installed itself inside the mind of each person,
and now operates out of control. Its scope is large, with
outposts everywhere, operating at all times, making oppression
pervasive and constant.
Unlike Status play, which is momentary and has a discrete
beginning and ending in time, ascribed Rank memberships are
not situational. For the most part, Rank membership remains
stable, no matter what the immediate situation or interaction is.
Some rank membership can change under some circumstances,
for example, when a child becomes an adult (moving from
Target to Agent membership) or an adult becomes an elder
(moving from Agent to Target membership). But in most
categories, the Rank membership one starts with is the same
that one ends with.
What's Rank For?
Dominant notions of productivity are used to justify a wide
range of objectively harmful and life-destroying actions, from
polluting drinking water with industrial waste to making health
care unavailable to millions of people. The Rank machine serves
this economic system by defining which people’s needs matter.
As we go through our daily life, in areas where we are members
of Agent groups, we experience advantages that few receive, but
we perceive them as being available to everyone and do not see
ourselves as advantaged. People with predominantly or entirely

Agent memberships expect to get many of their needs met.
When we as members of Agent groups don’t have those
expectations met, we are conditioned to react with distress to
that break from the norm.
Members of Target groups will not experience those advantages
on a regular basis and will be conditioned not to expect them.
People with Target group memberships will not be conditioned
to expect to have their needs met; therefore as Target group
members our unmet needs provoke less response - at least
initially.
Both as Agent and as Target group members, we have all been
conditioned to accept this disparity as normal and not to notice
when it happens. Under oppression, those with Target group
memberships get defined as having “special interests,”
suggesting that they are receiving special advantages. This
further mystifies the reality of oppression. This social
conditioning obscures the actual situation: that some groups’
needs are made trivial and safely ignored, even when those
groups’ members constitute a majority of the population.
The term “mainstream” is another example of how the language
of Rank serves to make the needs of a majority of people seem
insignificant or irrelevant. “Mainstream” is a term applied
consistently to the Agent group members in any Rank category.
The only truly “mainstream” person could be defined as an
adult, able, culturally Christian, White, heterosexual, owning-
class, non-Indigenous, U.S.-born person who is biologically
male. Even the minority of people who do fit this definition can
expect to eventually be cast out of it by age and/or disability.
The Rank system defines almost everyone’s actual needs as
irrelevant. Although this system may be profitable for a few
privileged members of Agent groups, even those can look
forward to losing the portion of their privilege based on loss of
ability or simply age if they live long enough. Ultimately, the
actions of this system come at the expense of all of us, and of
future generations.
If social systems were set up to accommodate the needs of

everyone, instead of to exclude many people, it would be a
much better world for all of us - yet would require a massive
shift. For instance, a health care system that truly met the needs
of everyone in the U.S., including the poor, people with
disabilities, children, and elders, would require a significant
change in how resources are distributed.
The Rank system makes it possible to reduce the number of
people whose needs have to be considered to only those in the
Agent group. This focus on the Agent group only is normal. In
the context of Rank, the U.S. health care system provides
mostly for the needs of employed adults of the middle and
owning classes and their immediate families. Different social
systems, such as insurance companies, HMOs, hospitals, and
government health agencies, collaborate to make sure that the
people with the most Agent group memberships get most of
their needs met, and people with mostly Target group
memberships get few or none of their needs met.
We have been speaking here about the reality side of the truth
and reality
conundrum. If the truth is that we are all of value, why concern
ourselves with social Rank categorization? The answer: the only
way to bring about socially just change is to name and address
inequality.
In the Wachowski brothers’ film (1999), Neo must re-enter the
Matrix to be able to effect change. Similarly, we have to
acknowledge the real impact of Rank in spite of how faulty the
categories are.
Truth versus Reality
Bring out your hands in front of you, each holding the weight,
one of truth, one of reality. The truth is that human beings do
not fit into dualistic categories: we are much too complex, and
the possible categories are infinite. The reality is that people’s
lives are profoundly affected by the attribution of Rank. Hold
both truth and reality in front of you as you do the work of
anti-oppression. Rank categories are false. Take race. There is

only one human race. Racial categorization is problematic to
begin with and increasingly so as most of us are multiracial. Yet
simply knowing that this category is absurd doesn’t neutralize
the effects of racism. It is important to educate ourselves to
understand the historical roots of these categories and how they
have been used, but this intellectual knowledge doesn’t change
the reality of oppression and advantage.
Holding truth and reality at the same time is tiring. We tend to
try to resolve our exhaustion by letting go of one or the other.
On the one hand, we idealistically hold on to truth and deny
reality, saying “There’s no such thing as race. It’s not real, it
doesn’t matter, and I will not acknowledge it.” We may
advocate this version of truth when we hold privileged social
positions and don’t want to undertake the painful process of
challenging our own privilege, or conversely when we can’t
bear the implications of our own marginalization. When we take
this position, we can be hard to argue with - we have the truth
on our side - and may be avoiding the issue of oppression
because we know or sense how uncomfortable it will be to
confront. When we align with truth we’re responding to a high
impulse. It can be heart breaking when we come up against the
limitations of this idealistic approach.
On the other hand, holding tight to reality and forgetting truth is
another error - that of essentialism. It leads us to begin to
believe stereotypes and make generalizations about groups.
When we grip only reality and disregard truth, we tend to
generalize about the Black experience, the Deaf community, or
women’s reality. We might expect individual members of Target
groups to speak for everyone who shares that social
membership, or mistake a few examples of Target experience
for universal ones. When we believe that the Rank categories
are transcendent factors that bind together all members of a
group, we tend to disregard intra-group difference. When we are
advocates of the “sisterhood” of all women, we may have
difficulty recognizing or addressing the profound differences
among women. Social justice efforts that focus primarily on one

group membership as a bonding device can sabotage our efforts.
For example, we might fail to address racism within women’s
movements or ableism in LGBTIQ gatherings. The importance
of the group bonds, the shared experience of all members of the
group, must be in balance with other kinds of analysis and the
building of coalitions with Allies outside the group.
The challenge for each of us, whatever Rank memberships are
ascribed to us, is to hold both truth and reality. We must hold
our knowledge of truth: that Rank categories are arbitrary and
absurd, mechanisms for dividing humanity into binary groups.
We must also recognize the reality that these absurd categories
operate in society as if valid, causing profound harm.
If you have a preference for truth, you’re more likely to say
things like “These categories are false! Why even think about
them? Let’s get beyond this, let’s move to the point where these
categories don’t matter - since they shouldn’t matter.” While
that’s inviting, if we lean in that direction and let go of the
weight of reality, we’ll fall into minimizing the experience of
Targets’ suffering under oppression. We may tend to diminish
the impact of oppression - which means we will get co-opted by
the oppressive systems more readily.
On the other hand, if you feel more tempted by the weight of
reality, if you are occupied with how incredibly important and
forceful the role assignments are, then you might find yourself
saying something like, “For thousands of years, women have
been oppressed by patriarchy. Even though our lives look
different on the surface, as women we all share common
suffering. Until women are free, nobody will be free.” Leaning
in this direction, we can fall into hopelessness sand rage. We
might lose sight of the complexity of oppression and the way it
affects people in many different ways. We can end up feeling
certain that the way things are today is the way they will always
be. It’s important to remember that although historical gains
haven’t resulted in the ideals we have wished for, there have
been important historical evolutionary movements showing that
apparently intransigent dynamics can change across the course

of history. They can change even in our lifetimes.
The truth is that human beings do not fit into dualistic
categories: we are much too complex, and the possible
categories are infinite. The reality is that our lives are
profoundly affected by the attribution of Rank.
Anti-Racist educator Tim Wise, in response to interviewer
David Cook (2009), explored the paradox we try to expose in
the truth and reality exercise.
David Cook: What is your response to people who say race is a
social construct, an illusion, and that they don’t “see” it?
Tim Wise: It is a biological illusion, but it’s a social fact. There
were no witches in Salem in 1692, but women died because
people thought there were. There may not be separate races of
humanity, but skin color has been given social meaning that
affects people’s lives. It’s a sign of privilege for whites to say
they are going to view people of color only as people. If I don’t
see their race, I’m not going to see their lives as they really are.
I’m seeing them as abstract "human beings,” not as people
who’ve had certain experiences. Tm going to miss or
misunderstand how their experiences have shaped
them.Defining Key Terms
Power: Connection to source, wholeness, the sacred. Anyone
can be a person of Power regardless of social memberships,
roles, job, or other external markers. Our authentic center. The
person we are when we are aware of and free from the
restrictions of Rank roles. Access to true self in moments when
we are aware of Status and Rank dynamics and we are able to
operate on the anti-oppressive side of the Agent and Target
models.
Status: Style of interaction. Has two settings; high and low.
Shifts continually. Is two-directional. Anyone can play high or
low Status. Easy to observe.
Rank: System in which socially ascribed memberships result in
benefits/ privileges for some and oppression/limitations for

others, Pervasive yet can be difficult to observe.
Agents: Members of groups who experience benefits/privileges.
Socially overvalued. May hold Target group memberships as
well, Examples: males, White people, heterosexuals.
Targets: Members of groups who experience
oppression/limitations. Socially undervalued. May hold Agent
group memberships as well. Examples: females, People of
Color, gay/lesbian/bisexual people.
Oppression: (I) The overvaluing of some groups (and
overvaluing everything associated with those groups), and the
undervaluing of some groups (and undervaluing everything
associated with those groups). (2) Unnecessary suffering caused
by social inequality,
Privilege: The unconscious benefits and unearned advantages
that come with being a member of an Agent group.
Isn’t Rank about perception?
Not really. This is one of the hardest elements of our model for
people to grasp. One way to connect to the idea at the heart of
Rank is that it has to do with cost. Let’s look at a couple of
examples that may seem exaggerated.
A person who as far as they have known is European American
discovers on their 37th birthday that they have an African
American grandparent, If we base our analysis of Rank on
perception, we would surmise that the person did not experience
racism until after their 37th birthday, if at all, Under our
definition, that person would have experienced the impact of
such oppression their whole life. Why didn’t they know about
their African American roots? The secrecy and invisibility
result from White supremacy; oppression has prevented the
person from knowing the truth about their family and their own
identity.

Another example would be a person who as far as they know
does not have a disability. Sometime later in their life, they
come to consciousness about their disability. One likely reason
for their late discovery is ableism. Thus ableism has cut the
person off from self-knowledge and from access to
accommodations.
What if people don’t know or can’t tell you’re Gay or a Person
of Color?
These questions come from people’s attempts to sort out
whether social membership is a function of perception. We
propose that it is not exclusively or primarily perceptual.
In discussing what Rank is or is not in trainings it is sometimes
helpful to illuminate using these kinds of so- called "extreme”
examples. What if you’re Native and don’t know you’re Native?
What if you have a disability and don’t know you have
disability? We bring these examples up in order to highlight
that Rank is not about perception, neither others' perception of
the person or the person's own perception. This contrasts with
the widely held understanding of social memberships as purely
perceptual. Instead, we suggest that Rank dynamics are trans-
perceptual, peri-perceptual. They are related to the economy of
energy, access, and costs - the ways that Rank can limit a
person’s experience.
Why do so many people not know that they have Indigenous
heritage? Because anti-indigenous oppression forced families to
keep that ancestry secret, the shame-related associations with
Indigenous heritage lead to families "forgetting” their authentic
heritage. The descendants who don’t know their background
have been Targets of such oppression. Recognizing the costs to
a person who lost part of their ancestry is anti-oppressive.
Recognizing the benefit of “passing’’ as non-Native is also anti-
oppressive.
If the reason a person has not come out to themselves is
compulsory heterosexuality, then they have been a Target of
heterosexism and homophobia - both external and internal -

regardless of whether or not they appear gay to anyone else or
themselves. Recognizing the cost of homophobia to a person
who doesn't recognize their own sexuality until later in life - or
ever- is an anti-oppressive awareness.
FACT
Isn’t Rank about Perception?
Not really. This is one of the hardest elements of our model for
people to grasp. One way to connect to the idea at the heart of
Rank is that it has to do with cost. Let’s look at a couple of
examples that may seem exaggerated.
A person who as far as they have known is European American
discovers on their 37th birthday that they have an African
American grandparent, If we base our analysis of Rank on
perception, we would surmise that the person did not experience
racism until after their 37th birthday, if at all. Under our
definition, that person would have experienced the impact of
such oppression their whole life. Why didn’t they know about
their African American roots? The secrecy and invisibility
result from White supremacy; oppression has prevented the
person from knowing the truth about their family and their own
identity.
Another example would be a person who as far as they know
does not have a disability. Sometime later in their life, they
come to consciousness about their disability. One likely reason
for their late discovery is ableism. Thus ableism has cut the
person off from self-knowledge and from access to
accommodations.
FACT
What if people don’t know or can’t tell you’re Gay or a Person
of Color?
These questions come from people's attempts to sort out
whether social membership is a function of perception. We

propose that it is not exclusively or primarily perceptual.
In discussing what Rank is or is not in trainings it is sometimes
helpful to illuminate using these kinds of so- called "extreme"
examples. What if you’re Native and don’t know you’re Native?
What if you have a disability and don’t know you have
disability? We bring these examples up in order to highlight
that Rank is not about perception, neither others’ perception of
the person or the person’s own perception. This contrasts with
the widely held understanding of social memberships as purely
perceptual. Instead, we suggest that Rank dynamics are trans-
perceptual, peri-perceptual. They are related to the economy of
energy, access, and costs - the ways that Rank can limit a
person's experience.
Why do so many people not know that they have Indigenous
heritage? Because anti-indigenous oppression forced families to
keep that ancestry secret, the shame-related associations with
Indigenous heritage lead to families "forgetting" their authentic
heritage. The descendants who don't know their background
have been Targets of such oppression. Recognizing the costs to
a person who lost part of their ancestry is anti-oppressive.
Recognizing the benefit of “passing" as non-Native is also anti-
oppressive,
If the reason a person has not come out to themselves is
compulsory heterosexuality, then they have been a Target of
heterosexism and homophobia - both external and internal -
regardless of whether or not they appear gay to anyone else or
themselves. Recognizing the cost of homophobia to a person
who doesn’t recognize their own sexuality until later in life - or
ever - is an anti-oppressive awareness.
The ADRESSING Model
Remember that Rank is constructed, artificial, and even
arbitrary. We’ve discussed how Rank categories have real
implications for people’s lives while simultaneously being
based on false and outdated notions. It is difficult to expound
on social categories, given how problematic they are. Yet, it is
necessary to make a serious analysis nonetheless. To begin a

comprehensive examination of Rank, we will look at nine
categories for Ranking human beings that currently operate in
the United States. All societies have categories for Ranking
human beings, which vary not only by geography but also by
human era. Rank categories do change over time, but this
happens only slowly, on a scale best measured in generations or
centuries. Looking at some of the Rank category definitions that
have changed, we come face to face with how arbitrary they are.
For example, in the 19th century Irish immigrants to the United
States were not considered White, as they are now.
Nine Categories of Rank
The nine categories of Rank we identify, following the work of
Pamela Hays (2001), are; age, disability, religious culture,
ethnicity, social class culture, sexual orientation, Indigenous
heritage, national origin, and gender.
Age
The first Rank category is age. Anyone younger than 18 or older
than 64 is a member of the age Target group, while people
between age 18 and 64 carry Agent Rank. Unlike most Rank
categories, membership in this category changes; anyone who
lives long enough will experience being a member of a Target
group, an Agent group, and a Target group again. Age Target
group membership is the only Target category that everyone has
experienced, and for a small number of people will be the only
type of Target group membership they ever experience.
Childhood and adolescence don’t have to be painful. In fact, for
many, they are joyful. Even those with happy childhoods
experienced effects of ageism such as being discounted, having
less say, and being stereotyped. Much of the suffering
experienced by children and adolescents is a direct result of a
societal tendency to devalue them. Even the most privileged and
favored members of society have shared the vulnerability and
powerlessness of being a child and adolescent.
While some elements of age-privilege may begin before or after

age 18, or continue past age 64, generally 18 is the age at which
we acquire civil rights and are formally acknowledged as an
adult in society. Age 65 is generally recognized as retirement
age, and this marks a watershed in the loss of Agent group
membership.
The oppression associated with this category is ageism. It
relates to unnecessary suffering of children, adolescents, and
elders caused by societal, institutionalized, and systematic
overvaluing of adults.LaVerne Smith Quote
After fifty years as a business owner and interior designer I
have arrived at my 80th year reasonably intact. I dress neatly,
my hair is lightly graying and well styled. My hardly-
discernible hearing aids allow me to perceive sounds well. I am
socially active and able to communicate with intelligence,
courtesy and some degree of wit.
Is it a wonder then that I am astonished when tradespeople fail
to acknowledge me as being worth their attention? I seem to
have fallen into the category of “un important" without
recognizing all that much change in myself. I feel tolerated at
best, ignored at worst. I find this disconcerting though I retain a
healthy sense of my own worth through it all.
It is disturbing and bewildering to me that older people are so
often treated as almost invisible here in the United States.
If I were somehow restricted to one outing a week to shop for
food or medicine in stores where I may be treated inhumanely,
how long would it take for me to lose my self worth? How long
would it take anyone? I am truly saddened to consider this
probability.
LaVerne Smith, Age Target Group Member, Social Class Agent
Group MemberJean Swallow Quote
Loss of memory, poor concentration, fatigue, apathy, are classic
symptoms of depression in a 20 or an 80 year old. What does it
mean to be depressed because people's attitudes toward you are
so annihilating, and then to have your depression diagnosed as
hopeless senility?
Jean Swallow (1986, p. 202)

Disability
Disability and able loss can range from visible physical
limitations and sensory differences to invisible mental,
intellectual, and emotional losses. A person with no use of their
limbs is a Disability Target, and so is one with undiagnosed
dyslexia. Society is organized to exclude and to limit the
possibilities of people with disabilities, even so-called “mild”
disabilities. People with “invisible” disabilities, such as
learning disabilities, often have the experience of being a
Target without knowing why.
Disability, unlike most Rank categories, can change during a
person’s lifetime. Able loss is intrinsically a part of the human
experience; an illness, injury, or temporary medical condition
can make anyone a Disability Target, for varying periods of
time. Most people will have Target Rank in this category at
some point in their lives. People with no disability have Agent
Rank, while people with any disability are Target group
members.
Many experiences of able loss are painful in themselves.
Ableism is not associated with that pain. There are inherent
struggles in living with restricted mobility. Ableism has to do
with the compounding effect of societal devaluing on top of any
difficulties associated with the disability itself. For example,
many people within the Deaf culture make it clear that being
Deaf is not in itself undesirable to them. Hearing dominance is
what is oppressive.
The oppression associated with this category is Ableism.Why
are some things considered a “disability” while some are not?
Ableness, just like all the other ADRESSING categories, is a
construct, and a faulty one. The truth is that able loss is
intrinsically a part of the human experience. Under ableism we
ail limit our definition of what it means to be human to able-
persons. This leads to a tendency to minimize able loss and to
resist taking into consideration the needs of ableism Targets.
One symptom of this resistance is to only acknowledge visible

and pronounced able loss. An anti-oppressive position would be
to recognize that all able loss matters and that ableism affects
all who experience able loss. The goal is not to suggest that
every person's experience of able loss is equivalent, just that
able supremacy affects all ableism Targets.
Hearing-Sighted Privilege (by AJ Granda)
· Hearing-sighted people can expect not to have to deal with
non-hearing/Deaf-Blind people.
· Hearing-sighted people can expect not to be in the presence of
Deaf-Blind people most of the time.
· Hearing-sighted people expect Deaf-Blind people to be
grateful to hearing-sighted people if he or she is nice or helps
them.
· Hearing-sighted people don’t expect not to be thanked. They
will wait, linger a bit, waiting for their profuse thanks.
· Hearing-sighted people expect their personal spaces to be the
right personal space and any other definition of personal space
is wrong.
· Hearing-sighted people have the privilege to ignore messages
or points they don't like.
· Hearing-sighted people expect all of their own points or
messages to be listened to.
· Hearing-sighted people have a huge, huge privilege in
"selectiveness" - they have the most options and they have the
most privilege to select exactly what they want.
· Hearing-sighted people have the privilege to believe that they
are totally independent, even when they are dependent on
certain things.
· Hearing-sighted people can believe any alternative forms of
independence are not considered independent.
· Hearing-sighted people have the privilege of many, many
things being designed particularly for them: audio, visual
information, driving, reading, PA communications, computers,
everything - they are basically designed for hearing-sighted
people.
· Hearing-sighted people have the privilege of having the

national language and its most common medium - speech - be
accessible to them only.
· Hearing-sighted can expect Deaf-Blind people to be friendly,
yet Deaf-Blind people have many more barriers which causes a
daily frustration. If everything were Brailled, roped, wheelchair
accessible, the message would be everyone is truly welcome,
but it is not. The everyday message is exclusion, which causes
isolation, frustration, and hopelessness.
· Hearing-sighted people can have a medical emergency,
robbery, anything and expect to receive immediate help.
· Hearing-sighted people have the privilege to be an individual.
If a Deaf-Blind person arrives for work late (or does something)
they represent the entire group of Blind people ("those Deaf-
Blind people are always late”).
· Hearing-sighted people can go to any lecture, movie, and
workshop without preparation. They can just show up. A Deaf-
Blind person has to plan, arrange an interpreter and be expected
to show up because hearing-sighted people paid for the
interpreter - IF the agency even provides an interpreter.
· Hearing-sighted people can say what they want anytime,
anywhere, and they can expect to be understood.
· Hearing-sighted people do not have to explain themselves.
· Hearing-sighted people are not assumed to be dumb first and
patronized, then met with a surprised "Oh, you have a brain?"
Religious Culture
Religious culture refers not to a person’s avowed religious
faith, but to the religious culture in which they were raised
and/or participate. Religious culture is institutionalized in
social practices such as having a Christmas holiday with
sanctioned time off, but not one for Ramadan, Tet, Rosh
Hashanah, or Buddha’s birthday. We make a distinction between
the words Christendom and Christianity. Christendom refers to
the historical spread of norms and values that society has come

to associate with Christianity. Christendom is a large category
that includes faithing Christians and people raised in the United
States who do not identify with Christianity but are also not
members of another religious group. Members of Christendom
carry Agent Rank under this category, even if they are not
practicing Christians. People who grew up in families with
Christian roots are members of Christendom, even if their
family was not a church-going one. People who grow up with
exposure to Christianity and Christendom-defined values in
their family, but are also members of a religion or religious
culture outside Christendom are Target group members.
Atheists and agnostics who were raised within Christendom
hold Agent Rank. Encountering this part of the ADRESSING
model, if we identify as atheists or agnostics we may feel
inclined to debate the boundaries of this membership, based on
our experiences of exclusion. Of course, as you’ve read, the
categories are flawed.
We see the distinction between Status loss and Target Rank as
significant here. Status loss is a momentary condition that can
be delineated in time (there’s a before and an after), in which a
particular something about ourselves can be used against us. An
incident of exclusion can stand out to our consciousness
because it’s rare and not the norm for our lives. We refer to that
as a Status loss experience. For example, being teased at school
for not being a Christian, and rather for being an atheist,
constitutes a Status loss experience.
However, if that person who is an atheist or agnostic is raised
with an understanding of the cultural codes of Christendom,
they are able to participate and have access to the dominant
cultural trends, values, and ways they are advantaged by virtue
of not being a member of another religious culture. One way we
put this is “If you were born and raised in the United States and
you are agnostic or atheist, then a cultural assumption imposed
on you is that the God you don’t believe in is the Christian
God.” The exclusion felt by an atheist or agnostic who is
culturally a member of Christendom is different from the

systemic oppression which faces members of other religious
cultures, such as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, and
Indigenous religions, including dissenting and atheist members
of those traditions. Members of Christendom who participate in
other religious practices, such as meditation, yoga, chanting, or
Indigenous ceremony, maintain their Agent Rank. If this
category seems particularly ambiguous to you, consider the
possibility that you may hold Agent Rank.
This distinction can be subtle; people do change religions, and
many of us participate in elements of multiple religious cultures
at different times in our lives. We’re talking about deep
conditioning and access to cultural orientations that persist
whether or not we see ourselves as actively aligned with
Christianity. Those of us who participated in Christian cultural
activities growing up (such as having a Christmas tree, hunting
for Easter eggs), or were exposed to Christian religious doctrine
(attending church or Sunday school, reading the Bible at home)
hold Agent Rank, unless we have actively converted and
claimed a religious membership outside of Christendom.
Barbara Rogoff s (2003) way of thinking about what makes up
culture is useful here.
“Variations among participants in a community are to be
expected. Participants do not have precisely the same points of
view, practices, backgrounds, or goals. Rather, they are part of
a somewhat coordinated organization. They are often in
complementary roles, playing parts that fit together rather than
being identical, or in contested relationships with each other,
disagreeing about features of their own roles or community
direction while requiring some common ground even for the
disagreement. It is the common ways that participants in a
community share (even if they contest them) that I regard as
culture” (p. 81).
One form of oppression associated with this category is anti-
Semitism, also called anti-Jewish oppression. Corollary terms
would be anti-Muslimism, anti-Paganism, or anti-Sikhism.
Christian Supremacy is also an appropriate term.Why are

agnostic and atheist listed as Agent?
In this model, the focus is on cultural groups that carry
supremacy. In the United States, the religious group in
dominance is not only members of Christian religions but
members of Christendom. We use this term to refer to the
control group, those who have been affected and shaped in large
part by the spread of Christian religions. For example, at the
present time, individuals in the U.S. who participate culturally
in the Christian calendar are members of Christendom,
regardless of whether they identify as people of faith.
Members of the Target group under religious culture include
both active believers and people raised within other religious
faiths; Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikh- ism, Bahaii,
Paganism, Santeria, and Indigenous religions from any region of
the world. Members of the Target group may be secular or
believers; what matters is their cultural membership, not their
specific belief system, practices, or faith.Why are Catholics not
listed as Targets?
It is because Catholics are members of Christendom and
Christianity. In the history of the U.S. and the world, different
religious groups have carried dominance at different times.
Currently, Catholicism is not outside of Christendom.
In some workshops, participants have asked whether Catholics
have become Targets due to society’s response to sexual abuse
by priests, which has sometimes created a negative view of
Catholicism among non-Catholics. When negative stereotyping
and generalizing occurs against members of an Agent group, it
is a function of prejudice, ignorance, or laziness. It is harmful,
hurtful, and irresponsible and results in costs including Status
loss, but it does not change that person’s membership from
Agent to Target.
Ethnicity
You may notice that race is not one of the categories in the
Pamela Hays ADRESSING model (2001). The term “ethnicity”
refers to membership in ethnic or racial groups as they are

currently (and falsely) defined. White or European American
people are members of the Agent group under this category, and
all other people are in the Target group. The term “People of
Color” includes all ethnicity Targets.
The notion of race comes from a historical attempt to limit the
definition of "human being” to some people and to define other
people as not quite human. Many categories were invented to
classify certain people as less than human, in order to justify
inhumane practices, including slavery, genocide, removing
people from their land, and forcible conversion. The construct
of race has been used to justify these practices, which existed
before the notion of race was invented.
Few people in the United States are of entirely European,
African, Latino, Asian, Indigenous or any other single heritage.
Most of us are of mixed descent, and this is becoming more and
more apparent with each generation. The truth about race is that
it’s quite difficult to use it as a way of sorting people, because
each person comes from many ancestors, who came from many
places. But the Rank system is focused on the abstraction called
“whiteness.” It assesses for European American membership,
rather than authentic ancestry. In trainings, one way we work
with this is we say - ‘If as far as you know, you are European
American, look at yourself on the Agent side.” The phrase ‘as
far as you know’ reminds us that these are constructs and allows
for the possibility that there may be things we don’t know
which could result in a different categorization on the Agent-
Target system. The fact that we don’t know them is likely as a
function of oppression. Imagine an adult who, having lived their
life identified as European American, comes to find out that in
fact they are mixed race. The reasons for the secret are likely
connected with racism.
The oppression associated with this category is racism.Antonia
Stigali Quote
From history class to health class, I had been informed about all
of the things that White people had done to other races and how
hard the other races have worked to try to force the White

people to open their eyes and look past skin color and
accompanying stereo types and judgments.
However, not one person has ever so boldly stated to me that I
had privileges and advantages that I didn’t have to work for and
that many things were just assumed about me due to my light
skin. I had no problem getting into the college of my choice,
getting the job I wanted, or getting a house in the neighborhood
of my choosing. I assume that I can do almost whatever I want
as long as I am willing to put in the effort.
I am now learning that my preconceived notion about the
playing field being level is incorrect.
Antonia StigallHow the Irish Became White
In the early 19th Century, Irish immigrants in America were not
considered White. They were an ethnic target group, who
experienced discrimination in housing, work, and education, as
well as other forms of oppression.
Irish were identified as dirty and lazy, and "No Irish Need
Apply" signs were ubiquitous in East Coast cities. As a result of
specific historical and political processes, carried out by people
of European ancestry, and in which people of Irish descent
themselves participated, the ranking of Irish people changed.
Today, Irish immigrants and people of Irish descent in the
United States are considered "White,” and hold Agent rank in
the category of ethnicity.
For further reading: Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White
(1995).Reverse Racism Could Not Exist
An insight from our discussion for me involves the concept of
reverse racism and how it could not exist. I made sense of this
concept by using the terms situational and systemic. If I, as an
ethnicity Agent, walked into an elevator and saw a group of
ethnicity Targets inside and they closed off their body language
and clutched their purses and belongings, I may have wondered
if this action was due to my ethnicity. I may have concluded
that I was being “singled-out” by these individuals. I could have
further surmised that this group of people was being "racist”
toward me as a "White” person and may even have thought that

reverse racism had taken place. I could go through the day,
week, or even years remembering how horrible I felt in the
elevator when that group had judged me simply based on the
color of my skin. I may have referenced the situation as an
unfair injustice in my life that could have been comparable to
racism that other Targets felt when the situation was reversed. I
may have watched the movies Do the Right Thing (Lee,
S.,1989), Mi Familia (Nava, 1995), and Yes (Potter, 2004), and
drawn similarities in the vivid examples of racism with those
that I had experienced on that day. However, I would have been
severely, inaccurately portraying my experience. To even have
begun to compare my situation to that of a Target group
member, I would have had to picture every minute of my life
and the lives of the people in my family, being a continuous
elevator of people closing themselves off to me and all that I
am.
Jen KnoppTim Wise Quote
White privilege is any advantage, head start, or protection the
system grants whites but not people of color. It’s the flip side of
discrimination. If people of color are victims of housing
discrimination 3 million times a year - and that’s a safe estimate
- then that’s 3 million more opportunities for housing that
whites have. If people of color are discriminated against in
employment, then that’s more employment opportunities for
whites. The flip side of disadvantage is advantage. You can’t
have a down without an up.
Tim Wise (Cook, 2009)
Social Class Culture
The social class culture category refers to both access to
institutions and to tools of social class influence. Social class
Agent group membership is associated with fluency with social
codes. Consider what conditions result in a person
understanding and feeling comfortable with the institutional
systems of society and their “language.” Members of the Agent
group in this category are people who have access to education,

to property, and to the institutions of control. This does not
necessarily mean being wealthy, or financially comfortable, or
middle- to upper-class. It is entirely possible to have a minimal
income, yet to be a social class Agent. This applies to a person
from a middle-class background who has a college degree and
currently earns a minimal income. A working-class person who
owns their own business and is able to purchase property, or
vehicles, is also a member of an Agent group.
Members of the Target group in this category are people who
cannot own property, and lack access to education. More than
simply money, they lack access and influence over social
institutions, Social class Target group members are likely to
have difficulty gaining access to health care or legal
representation, and if they have a problem with an institution
they may find their grievances are ignored.
For social class culture Targets, much time is spent on
subsistence necessities. To give a superficial example, class
culture Targets, who need to take the bus to a laundromat and
pay a fortune in quarters to do the wash, spend much more time,
money, and energy on laundry than social class Agents, who
usually have a washing machine in their own home or apartment
building. This is the economy of energy at work. To make time
available to take classes, invest in self-care, participate in
community action, or resolve disputes with public agencies
represents significant hardship. Classism refers to both
conditions that promote and maintain economic inequality and
the attitudes and systems that devalue and blame social class
Targets.
Classism in the U.S. is linked to capitalism, privatization of
social resources, and free market structures and policies.
Classism can be seen in tax breaks for corporations, CEO pay
levels, lack of health insurance for working people, and income
gaps.
In addition, social class Targets are likely to have been kept
unfamiliar with the communication and behavior codes of
institutional control. Members of the class Target group who

enroll in college classes may be faced with the added stress of
an unfamiliar environment, which may or may not be welcoming
and may or may not be responsive to their needs; these
challenges can add to the difficulties of staying in school.
Having access to higher education means not only that you can
begin attending college, but that conditions of the environment
permit you to participate successfully.
It is possible, though difficult and unusual, to change from
Target to Agent group membership in this area. Making such a
transition requires not only access to higher education and
accumulating property, but also learning the behavior codes,
and especially the communication codes, of the middle- and
owning-class. Although the social pressures against it are
enormous, a few class Targets are able to succeed in business,
or gain access to higher education, and to leverage themselves
into Agent group membership in this category. Those who
believe that “anyone can make it in America” often hold up
these few as examples.
The oppression associated with this category is classism.Why
are low-income college students considered middle class/social
class Agent group members?
Our focus here is on access, rather than attempting to define
what all members of a particular Agent group have in common.
College students have access to higher education (when the
conditions of the environment permit them to participate
successfully) and this represents access to the systems of
control and influence in the culture. Looking only at what
members of Agent groups or Target groups have in common
serves to keep the status quo in place. It keeps the attention off
of access and supremacy.HEADING DESTROYED BY
SCANNING PROCESS
The truth is that Agent-normed views of resources are that they
are economic and financial, but there are other kinds of
resources both material and abstract. Working- class and poor
communities have resources that are related to interdependence,
sustainability, creativity, and cooperation. The reality is that

members of working-class and poor communities often have to
choose between going to the doctor and paying their rent.
Did you grow up in rented apartments? Do you own a house?
Did your family own a home or a business? Are you among the
first in your family to attend college? Does your family own a
summer home? Have you had to rely on public transportation
exclusively because you could not afford a car? Have you
traveled internationally? Have you shopped with food stamps?
Are you a second (or more) generation college graduate? The
answers to these questions may help you to get a sense of your
social class culture.What happens to my earlier experiences as a
poor or working class person when I later jump to Agent Rank?
Agent conditioning is so potent, insidious, and self-
perpetuating, that having the experience of access in the
middle-class or owning-class can alter the Target group
conditioning we had if our class of origin was poor or working
class.
Think of it like this: Often we are struck by how even a very
vivid dream will be forgotten in the process of waking up. The
movement of muscles, especially large muscles in the legs, is
part of what washes away the images of our dreams - so that we
feel as though we can’t bring back something that just seconds
ago was right there.
Agent conditioning has a similar effect. Having had tangible
experience of the world as a member of a Target group seems
like a dream we would never forget. Yet, relatively soon after
gaining access as members of the middle or owning class - once
we started to use the major muscles of Agent group membership
— our worldview as historical members of the Target group can
wash away.
We may imagine that having experienced life as members of the
Target group continues to inform our lived experience and
disposition in the world, but that is often not the case.
Sexual Orientation
The Rank system is binary; human beings are not. Elsewhere in

this book we discuss how gender may not be as binary a
proposition as once believed. If gender is not binary, sexual
orientation certainly cannot be. The sexual orientation category
of the Rank system relates to affectional and sexual realms
ranging from leanings and attractions to preferences and choice.
The gender category of the Rank system relates to the ascribed
membership in one of two genders. Please notice these two
categories are distinct and less related to each other than they
appear to be.
We are not binary, yet the Rank system classifies us into one
group called heterosexuals and another group encompassing
everyone else. Research into people’s actual sexual behavior,
affectional desire, and erotic imagination makes it clear that the
majority of people are, to some degree, bisexual. A few are
purely homosexual, a few purely heterosexual. But the Rank
system organizes “heterosexual” people as members of the
normative Agent group, and bisexual, gay, lesbian, queer, and
questioning orientations as members of the Target group.
Society is organized to favor heterosexual living patterns and
the assumptions that go with them.
Under the Rank system, heterosexuality is compulsory. It is the
only acceptable way of expressing one’s sexual and affectional
self. We are all assumed and expected to be heterosexual in the
absence of direct evidence to the contrary. So, if we are gay,
lesbian, bisexual, queer, or questioning, we are likely to face a
steeper path to authentic sexual and affectional expression.
Sexual orientation Targets have to expend additional energy to
claim and assert our space.
As we’ve mentioned, Rank membership is ascribed. Yet, it is
not exactly about how we are perceived or even how we
perceive ourselves. This makes conversations about Rank
difficult. In our trainings it’s common for a participant to raise
this question: 'If someone is gay, but they don’t know they are
gay and have lived their whole life as a heterosexual person,
receiving the benefits and advantages granted straight people,
than they have not been affected by heterosexism and

homophobia, right?’ Our response is, of course they have been
affected under compulsory heterosexuality. The reasons why a
person would not know they are gay have everything to do with
socialization that includes the message of compulsory
heterosexuality and the overvaluing of heterosexual norms to
the exclusion of even the possibility of any alternatives.
Again, if the usual notions of gender are inaccurate, then what
happens to the idea of sexual orientation? As with the other
Rank categories, looking deeply at this category reveals its
essentially arbitrary nature. Oppressions associated with this
category are heterosexism and homophobia.An Example of
Internalized Heterosexism
During an advanced training, participants were caught up in
delineating the definitions of sexual orientation membership and
discussing an imaginary case. They were arguing about whether
or not a person who had lived as a sexual orientation Target but
then entered a heterosexual relationship would still be
considered a Target. One person suggested that the individual in
question was defining him/herself as a sexual orientation Agent
because of being in a heterosexual relationship. The facilitator
asked the group "why would that person not identify themselves
as bisexual?” This was an important teaching moment because it
gave the participants an opportunity to notice that oppression
results in erasing whole decades of life experience in order to
fit into heterosexuality.Why LGBTIQ?
While transgender and intersex are gender categories, the
reluctance on the part of the women's movement to recognize
transgender and intersex people as fellow gender Targets,
resulted in the need for lesbian, gay, bisexual initiatives to
include intersex and transgender communities.
Q is for questioning, which applies to both sexual orientation
and gender Target group membership. Q is also used for the re-
claimed word Queer.Some of the ways we are taught to be
heterosexual
Think about your childhood and the images and ideas you were
exposed to regarding romantic long-term relationships. Many of

us recall games such as "wedding” where we were corrected if,
in our play, we played the roles “incorrectly.” Growing up in a
Spanish-speaking environment, when singing love songs, we
were encouraged to change the gender of the love object in the
song to be sure it was a heterosexual sentiment. Anything from
playing house to playing with Barbies® to fairy tales can be
considered heterosexist content. All of the elements that orient
our sexuality for us in the direction of the opposite sex result in
compulsory heterosexuality. Regardless of your views on sexual
orientation, consider how the societal landscape might look
different if more choices were presented from early in our
lives.Sex, Gender and Sexual Orientation
Expression of our sexuality changes during the course of our
lives. Expressions of gender and sexual orientation differ
significantly from one historical era to another. Think about
fashion and the way different eras have emphasized different
body parts - what is considered attractive is not static. In the
course of our lifetimes, our affectional and sexual preferences
shift and change. We may go through seasons of our lives when
we’re most comfort able being connected with people of our
same gender and times when we are drawn to those of other
gender(s). People’s sexual experience varies significantly from
person to person, and even for one person over time. The
aspects of human experience encompassed in words like sex,
gender, and sexual orientation are unfathomably fluid and
changeable. Yet within the Rank system these elements are
encoded in binary and restrictive ways. While related, the
dimensions of gender and sexual orientation are less
determinant than they seem.
Consider this non-exhaustive list of possibilities, for example:
· A transgender person who is not involved in transitioning on
the gender binary may express same-sex or heterosexual
preference or both.
· A transgender person may express a heterosexual preference
while carrying one gender identification and again a
heterosexual preference after transitioning to another gender.

· A transgender person may express preference for another
transgender person.
· A transgender person may express a heterosexual preference in
one gender and, after transitioning, may express a same-sex
preference.
· A transgender person may express a same-sex preference prior
to transitioning and a heterosexual preference after
transitioning.
· A transgender person may express a same-sex preference prior
to transitioning and a same-sex preference after transitioning.
· A transgender person may express bisexual preference before
and after transitioning.
Questioning Winter 1996, by Laurel Collier Smith
She was a punk and equestrian with an angular jaw.
I felt round and nerdy - trying hard to appear interesting.
Resolved I would kiss her
Right there in the field.
I leaned in and put my mouth to her stunned mouth.
Then, blurting "I'm not gay" almost made it so.
With that I buried my first kiss
in so much hay and ice.
Indigenous Heritage
Because we are in the United States, the term Indigenous
heritage refers to people whose ancestors are native to the
Americas. It is a Rank category- distinct from ethnicity. We see
colonization as ongoing. People of Indigenous heritage are still
subject to colonization, which is a current event rather than a
purely historical one. While the notion of race is a historical
artifact that seems in the process of becoming less significant
(albeit a slow process), Indigenous people in the United States
face an ongoing campaign of invasion, physical removal from

land, cultural and religious appropriation, and denial of legal
existence.
This is not an artifact of the past, but a continued policy.
Although Native Americans have been depicted as “vanishing”
people since the 17th century, the campaign against Native
rights and Native people continues today. Examples of
colonization continuing into the 21st century include denial of
tribal recognition; Indigenous people being relocated from their
traditional or reservation lands; traditional and reservation
lands being used in ways that significantly damage the
environment and human health, such as nuclear testing and
waste storage; the denial of treaty rights; the destruction of
natural resources resulting in the loss of traditional use for
Native people; and destruction of cultural resources including
languages and religious practices. Historically, American
Indians have been subject to displacement, genocide, and
colonization caused by the conquest of North America by
European people. In addition, removal from traditional lands
and the degradation of natural resources have made it necessary
for Indian people to leave their traditional and/or reservation
lands to survive economically. The accumulated impacts of
colonization have devastating consequences for surviving
Indigenous people.
Our focus here is on the Indigenous people of the Americas.
Indigenous peoples exist on other continents as well (such as
Indigenous Australians, Sami and Basque Europeans, and Ainu
people of Hokkaido), and they often face similar issues within
the dominant societies that surround them.
Several different terms are currently used to refer to Indigenous
people. “Indigenous” is a term for the original inhabitants of a
place, and can be used for people from any place on earth.
Scholars commonly use “Native American,” and federal law
uses the term “American Indians.” Indigenous people
themselves often use the terms “American Indian,” or “Indian.”
Some groups have advocated the terms “Native People” and
"First Peoples.” The term “First Nations” is commonly used in

Canada. When speaking of specific tribes, the tribal name is
often used, e.g. Nisqually Tribe. Individuals are often identified
by tribal membership, e.g. Sherman Alexie (Spokane/Coeur
d’Alene).
Non-Indigenous people who were born and grew up in the U.S.
have internalized supremacy over Native people, and have often
been conditioned to believe that Indigenous people no longer
exist. American Indians carry a double burden: ethnicity Targets
as People of Color and Indigenous heritage Targets as well.
This is one reason that Native peoples’ concerns are often left
out of discussions of ethnic diversity, social justice, and multi-
culturalism.
Anti-Indigenous oppression is the clearest term we’ve found for
this category of Rank.
Little Bighorn Battlefield Cemetery, by Carmen Hoover
The parking lot is puddled with oil
and shadows of oil, there is the slash
of the flagpole, white against horizons.
Graves from the Indian Wars
stand still here.
We read as many markers as we can,
strangers moving in and out
between us, quiet.
This is a church, a prairie,
a place where children died.
Their stones are lambs with ribbons,
verses, some without names.
We cup our hands over the lambs’
heads, look into their worn
faces, drag our fingers
down their nappy marble bodies.James Luna Quote
America, likes to say her Indians...
American doesn't like to see us poor but doesn’t like rich
either...
Performance artist James Luna (2008)Why does Indigenous

Heritage get its own category?
The idea of Indigenous group membership having its own
category puzzles some people. We address the question by
bringing up the idea of ongoing imperialism and invasion
processes that have a compounding effect when added to
dynamics of race, racism, and ethnic Targetship.
Legal slavery is not currently in force in the U.S.; racism is,
Anti-Indigenous oppression and colonialism are ongoing,
current realities. The treaties made between Indian tribes and
the U.S., which in principle have the force of federal law, have
never been fully honored. They have been consistently violated,
over decades and centuries.
There is refusal to honor Indigenous membership as its own
separate category. News articles discussing issues of racism will
often leave out Native Americans. Even when racism is
explicitly being addressed, anti-indigenous oppression will be
left out. Recognizing that Indigenous people face oppression
specifically because of their Indigenous heritage, in addition to
the experience of racism they share with other People of Color,
helps us recognize the complexity of the Rank system.
Border Patrol, by Carmen Hoover
I was also here
first, before myself.
So I know things
that I don’t know,
that I shouldn't know.
This involves not knowing
things that I do know.
Perhaps there is no one
“tree of knowledge.”
There is no resolution
for this dilemma
of information. It appears/disappears
on a circle, but under a slow,
drifting spotlight.

Time has lost its authority,
as has motion.
This is the problem
with having a mixed genetic
memory; are the wires
conjoined or just crossed?
I I’d be happy
to disagree with any right answer.
Does this mean that I do know
what I’m talking about or that I don’t?
Some days I’d trade in
every solution I ever thought up
just for a nap.
Part of me
is always not-American, no
matter how I look at it.
In this, I am
very American.
When I’m feeling down I dress up as Chief Joseph and read the
U.S. Constitution. I am Chief Joseph, but I never really knew
him.Leticia Nieto Poem
Afternoons grow longer. Mountains wait.
Winds are hot with news of other struggles.
The north world listens and learns.
Migrant birds of all species, even grounded ones,
live to tell the story.
National Origin
In the category of national origin, those born in the United
States are assigned Agent group membership and those born
anywhere else are assigned Target group membership.
Documented and undocumented immigrants, international
students, refugees, and others born outside the United States
face serious legal and bureaucratic issues, from heavy burdens

of paperwork to the possibility of being deported without
warning or detained without due process. The oppression
associated with national origin is reinforced, for many, by
restricted access to legalization and legitimization.
Undocumented immigrants may be incarcerated or deported
without due process; they may be unable to access medical care
or to attend school. National origin Targets’ access to basic
rights as workers or human beings is constrained.
Even when national origin Targets have legal documented
standing or naturalized citizenship, they do not share in all of
the rights granted to people born in the U.S. In recent years, for
example with the passage of the PATRIOT Act (2001), we have
seen changes that highlight that distinction. For example,
people born outside the United States encounter extra
paperwork if they leave the country and may have difficulty re-
entering the U.S., they can be detained and/or deported without
due process, and naturalized citizenship can be revoked. In the
political climate of the early 21st century, these issues are
critical. The safety and personal freedom of persons born
outside the U.S. are threatened daily.
Anti-immigrant oppression is the clearest term we’ve found for
this category of Rank.Aren’t naturalized citizens and legal
residents free of Anti-Immigrant oppression?
Questions such as this one arise because of the confounding
questions about oppression versus overt discrimination, and
because of the challenging task of sorting out the impact of
various Target group memberships such as ethnicity, social
class, Indigenous heritage, and national origin.
Being born in the U.S. grants individuals rights that are not
shared by those born outside of the United States, even when
those national origin Targets have legal, documented standing
or naturalized citizenship. National Origin Target group
members are vulnerable, legally, economically, and socially, in
ways that U.S.-born Rank Agents are not.Leticia Nieto Poem 1
“Where are you from?”
"How long have you been in the U.S.?”

Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx

Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx

Similar to Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx (7)

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rank and Rank RolesIf Status dynamics are the easiest layer of the.docx