The Subtle Control of Choice

Oppressive systems, whether they be patriarchal, colonial, or caste-based, are often upheld not just by brute force or overt policies, but by subtle mechanisms that shape behavior, dictate societal norms, and control individual freedom through "allowances." These systems offer a small number of options and then present themselves as benign, allowing freedom within well-defined bounds, rather than merely imposing constraints. One of the most pernicious methods of preserving power is the illusion of choice, where the oppressed are "allowed" to do things but only under very specific restrictions.

The establishment of an artificial framework that restricts individual autonomy and upholds inequity lies at the heart of oppressive systems. The people in charge only need to specify which freedoms can be enjoyed, how, and to what degree; they don't necessarily need to take away all freedoms. These systems reinforce the power dynamic by conditioning people to accept their lack of agency through allowances rather than categorical bans.

The world of women's fashion is home to one of the most notable instances of tyranny through allowances. Women are "allowed" to dress provocatively or in short dresses in many societies. There are several restrictions attached to this license, though. Specific requirements must be met by the apparel: it must be considered “appropriate,” “modest,” or “respectable” according to institutional or societal definitions, which are heavily influenced by patriarchal standards.

A lady might be allowed to wear a short dress, for instance, but only if it doesn't cause discomfort to other people or draw "inappropriate" attention.

A lady might be allowed to wear a short dress, for instance, but only if it doesn't cause discomfort to other people or draw "inappropriate" attention. There is a thin line between scandalous and stylish, and an authoritarian system that determines what is appropriate is always drawing that line. Crossing these lines can have a variety of negative effects, from public humiliation to more extreme measures of control, such as harassment, or even legal action.

This is where the oppressive system's nuance becomes relevant. Women are "allowed" to dress in stylish or empowering apparel, but only if it complies with socially prescribed criteria of modesty. This creates the appearance of freedom, but in practice, it controls women and makes them self-police their decisions.

The idea of free speech is another instance of subjugation through permissions. People are "allowed" to express themselves in many authoritarian regimes, but only within certain parameters. The right to free speech is granted by the government or ruling class, but it is subject to strong limitations, such as the censoring of particular subjects, words, or viewpoints.

If you criticize political figures by your freedom of speech in a way that is considered inappropriate, you could face fines, jail time, or even exile.

In many nations, for example, citizens are allowed to discuss their government, but only under specific restrictions. If you criticize political figures or views in a way that is considered inappropriate, you could face fines, jail time, or even exile. In certain situations, the right to free speech is accompanied by a pervasive dread of reprisals. Although people are free to voice their ideas, saying the "wrong" thing can have serious repercussions.

True freedom of speech does not exist here. It's a privilege that serves to stifle and regulate opposition. The system allows for some discussion, but only if it doesn't jeopardize the established hierarchies of power. Consequently, people are compelled to follow these imperceptible guidelines of what is "safe" to say and what is not, which stifles genuine, unrestrained expression.

Employees are frequently "allowed" some work-life balance flexibilities in contemporary capitalist countries, such as remote work or flexible scheduling. This seems like a measure that empowers employees by giving them more control over their time. Nevertheless, the allowance is frequently subject to achieving particular company objectives or performance measures.

In many workplaces, employees who are allowed to work from home or have flexible hours are under the condition that they always be available, meet deadlines, and show productivity. Stress, burnout, and the loss of true autonomy result from the frequent blurring of the lines between work and personal life. Here, the allowance system quietly upholds the capitalist goal, whereby workers are "allowed" a certain amount of autonomy, but always at the expense of increased control and demands.

Furthermore, remote labor frequently reinforces gender and class gaps, despite the fact that it may appear to be a step toward greater equality. For instance, women may be granted the "permission" to work from home, but they are still expected to manage household duties without any extra help or payment. This "freedom" can turn into a burden, especially for women who are expected to work and care for others without getting paid for it.

women may be granted the "permission" to work from home, but they are still expected to manage household duties without any extra help or payment.

Particularly when it comes to access to higher education, the educational system frequently functions as an entitlement system. Although there are strict restrictions, students are "allowed" to attend schools and universities in numerous countries. Only those who can afford it, belong to a particular class, or achieve particular performance standards, such as results on standardized tests, are frequently granted access to education.

Some students are given "permission" to pursue higher education in countries where caste, class, or race-based discrimination is prevalent, but only if they fulfill specific institutional or societal requirements. This can show up as biased hiring practices that uphold the status quo of privilege, entrance examinations, or admissions procedures. For instance, even if a kid has the aptitude to succeed academically, they might not be able to do well on these tests if they are from a lower caste or are not able to attend coaching sessions.

As a result, education turns into an allowance that the system only grants to those who are seen "worthy." Although the system erects obstacles that effectively limit who can achieve, it does not necessarily forbid people from obtaining an education. By placing marginalized populations on the margins and allowing access to only those who already have means or status, this perpetuates systemic inequity.

Only those who can afford it, belong to a particular class, or achieve particular performance standards, such as results on standardized tests, are frequently granted access to education.

Social mobility is "allowed" in many civilizations, but it is typically restricted by racial, caste, or gender-based constraints. Although there is the appearance of upward mobility, it is frequently managed by certain means. A person from a marginalized background, for example, might be "allowed" to join a certain class or profession, but only after overcoming major obstacles such as centuries of historical discrimination, oppression, and unequal access to resources.

Although the system permits mobility, it operates inside an intrinsically unfair and prejudiced framework. For instance, a Dalit student may pursue a career in medicine or engineering, but their accomplishments are frequently viewed with suspicion or contempt by society. Furthermore, prejudice prevents them from properly assimilating into upper strata of society, limiting their social mobility.

The examples given demonstrate how the allowances are used to control and uphold the status quo rather than to provide freedom. Dismantling oppressive structures and enabling people to make real decisions free from the threat of control are necessary for achieving actual freedom. The true difficulty is in establishing societies in which the "allowances" are viewed as opportunities for equality, empowerment, and true self-expression rather than as instruments of oppression.

About the Author

I am Sanchari Mukherjee, a student doing a Master's in English from the reputed Presidency University, Calcutta. I love writing and appreciate art in all forms. Being a literature major, I have learned to critically comment on situations and contexts of various kinds. Glad that you came across my blog, I hope you found it informative!