All around us we are bombarded by messages and insistences that oppression is active, rampant, and even institutionalized. The conviction that minorities are inherently oppressed due to the sole fact that they are minorities is an underlying presupposition in nearly every liberal social position geared on “solving” what they perceive to be an instance of inequality. The idea that because someone other than you has more power than you, therefore you are somehow being cheated finds its roots in Stalinist bolshevism, an ideology that bases social issues solely on one’s gender, racial, sexual, or religious identity. No external factors are taken into account other than the staunch conviction that insofar that there happens to be a dominant party wielding the majority of socio-political power, there will always be an oppressed people group.
This interpretation of social issues began, of course, with the enigma of Jacques Derrida, a 20th century French philosopher. As it applies to literary interpretation, Derrida taught that every possible situation predicates an infinite amount of interpretations, which is true. In this case, which interpretation is to be upheld, or even paralleled? There is no objective interpretation in Derrida’s worldview because texts possess more meaning than their authors may have initially intended, and social structures unknown or misunderstood by a college student today may have been in place during the time of its writing may influence how one interprets any given text.
If one follows this methodology (if it can even be labelled as such) to its logical conclusion, then there is no “wrong” interpretation when it comes to literary studies. Because of this, Derrida spawned a rigorous interest in schools of thought such as LGBT studies, feminist theory, and sociology. These schools are generally not so much concerned with unveiling the “proper” interpretation of a text as they are about understanding historical, religious, and mythical literature through the lens of their immediate social context. In giving birth to the interpretive rule of permissible chaos, Derrida inadvertently gave birth to schools of thought that began to reflect extremely postmodern cultural trends in academia.
So, to put the above two paragraphs in a concise manner, the popular school of social theory today asserts that all interpretations of any given scenario are equally permissible and that there is no singular take on a situation. If, therefore, one claims to be oppressed, then they must be oppressed and there is no basis upon which one could contradict the claim. Any contradiction is then nonsensical from that point onward, because there is no basis to deny an interpretation of a situation: it is interpretative chaos.
So, when does oppression end? Speaking literarily, it may never end. The permissibility of asserting nonsensical statements divorced from reality leads to a never-ending series of irrationality in the name of tolerance and equality. There are those who believe that equality means that every individual possesses a static equity, possessing no individual traits that might assert one over the other. Oppression can never end, according to postmodernists and Marxists, because there will always be a group of people socially superior to the rest, which means that there will always be inferiority.
And inferiority = oppression.
So is there no end to the insistence that white, cisgender, heterosexual Christian men are inherently oppressive? No, there is not. There is no goal, no finish line, and no endgame. The progressivist claim that minorities are oppressed because there exists a group in power will never cease until those in power are wholly dismantled from their positions of social superiority.
So what is the verdict, according to leftists? Oppression will never end.