Peerness clarified
I’ve written a lot about supremism (distinct from supremacism) in contrast to peerness.
Until now, I’ve been operating on an intuitive sense of “peerness” — therefore a vague one — and trusted that mine overlaps with my readers’ well enough for now, based on our shared understanding of what constitutes a peer.
Today I got some great clarification on what I mean by “peerness” from the field of education, thanks to an article by Beth Godbee:
Alice Gillam similarly critiques peerness when she suggests that factors other than status equality account for collaborative relationships. She poses the question: “is . . . ‘intimacy’ and rapport a result of . . . ‘status equality’ or a product of chance factors—shared gender, ethnicity, class background, and investment in academic success?”
Beth suggests that peerness (as it’s used in the lingo of education) would better be thought of as mutual recognition of each other as people with the intent of developing friendship.
And there it is.
Peerness: a presumption of status equality with the intention to create rapport.
We will never be “peers” in the sense that many writing center theorists might describe us because our school and writing experiences create divisions. It is in life experience and our basic humanity that we find equality. Rather than striving for peerness (sameness), we should get to know writers as people and work toward friendship.
I think that’s great, but it’s also confusing.
A peer isn’t necessarily an equal. A peer isn’t necessarily someone who is the same.
A jury of my peers will consist of people who are like me in that they don’t regard themselves of a different status and (hopefully) share a mutual feeling of recognition, commonality, and connection with me. But they might not be equals in specific ways: socio-economic privilege of birth and upbringing, traumatic events, education, life experiences, etc. They likely are not friends (or else one lawyer or the other would excuse them from duty.)
I agree with Beth in that status equality is necessary but insufficient to establish peerness. I disagree that peerness requires equality or sameness.
I also disagree that differences are tantamount to divisions. In fact, divisions are precisely what peerness enables us to avoid when there are differences.
This is why supremism is so pernicious and deadly — it is the commitment/obsession to avoid and oppose the separation of difference from division.
Why?
Because supremists cannot tolerate differences. Differences threaten them.
So, presumed status equality plus intent to create rapport does nicely as a definition of what I mean by “peerness”.
We can’t be supremists and pursue peerness at the same time. They are direct and diametrical opposites bent on the eradication of each other.
This is the struggle. This is the “spiritual warfare” that Paul the apostle wrote about:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the unseen.
— Ephesians 6:12, New American Standard Bible, 1995
Our struggle is against supremism and supremist mentalities.
Peerness annihilates supremism.
Good riddance.