“ I need a gaming chair cause I got back problems.” Hmmm.
“ I need the iPhone 12 or people are gonna make fun of me.” Hmmmmm.
“ I’d rather starve than eat school food.” Hmmmmmmm.
What the difference between a privileged issue and a valid issue? If asked on a liberal platform, the general agreement would be that all issues that weren’t based on hate towards anyone are valid, and comparing is wrong. If asked on a conservative platform, the general agreement would be that any personal issue that's unrelated to providing for society would be a privileged issue. If you were to ask me, my answer would be, I don’t know. Hence why I chose to interpret my own understanding of Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Friere to define the line between a privileged issue and a valid issue.
Although the book, specifically chapter 2, might have nothing related to the issue at hand, there is a correlation between the banking concept and privilege or valid issues. The banking concept is the privilege of the oppressor, the educator, whose issue is that they must maintain the knowledgeable image through validation of the ignorant. So by gifting the ignorant with knowledge and“changing the consciousness of the oppressed,” their validation is fulfilled. On the other hand, the oppressed student is a “welfare recipient” whose issue revolves around absorbing the educator's knowledge. They need to absorb the knowledge bestowed on them as knowledge from an educator is a privilege. Two issues on different sides of the same coin, the banking concept. The oppressor uses privilege to seek a valid reason behind it. Oppressed uses a valid reason to seek the use of privilege. From this, I derived the conclusion that what defines something as a valid issue is if it has a valid reason behind it that doesn’t require the search for one.
The oppressor’s privilege issue within the banking concept is that it seeks out the oppressed's validation because, without it, it becomes irrational. However, as an educator, irrationality is equivalent to insanity. So, educators seeking out validation see it as a mandatory need to do so, or else they contradict their belief by becoming insane. The only way to escape their own contradiction is if they admitted to their desire for oppression. Then the reason becomes valid, although unethical. However, the oppressors, especially ones benefiting from that privilege, would most of the time deny it, hence remain insane while seeking for that valid reason.
The oppressed’s valid issue within the banking concept seeks a privilege that oppressors have—the privilege of knowing. From knowledge, one can’t seek a reason because the reason for seeking that knowledge is already known. A person would only seek privilege if they had a reason. Compared to that, a person would only seek a reason because they didn’t have one. Overall, the oppressed’s issue within the banking concept is valid, while the oppressor’s issue is a privilege.
If I were to apply this concept practically, issues can only happen if there is logical reasoning behind it rather than it requiring logical reasoning to be an issue. Issues such as the top quotes in this article I put, are privileges, but not from an oppressor, merely from my spoiled sister.