"Privilege"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Nobody is talking about "condemning" anyone, or at least I am not. I'm not sure where you got that idea, or the idea that I or anyone is interested in telling anyone off, grinding anyone into dust, or winning anything. The goal is to better understand the reality that other people experience, whether it is people of color being far more likely to be stopped (or shot) by police, or women being far more likely to be subject to sexual attacks. Raising awareness is the first step towards ending these descrepancies. In my opinion.

[narya]

Raising awareness of inequities, getting the unaffected people to understand the personal pain caused by institutionalized inequities, and then questioning the morality of standing by and doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

And when we find that loaded terms like "privilege" - a term filled with negative connotations towards the privileged - doesn't create awareness and understanding but instead causes resentment and divisiveness, why continue using it?

[nerdanel]

And when we find that loaded terms like "privilege" - a term filled with negative connotations towards the privileged - doesn't create awareness and understanding but instead causes resentment and divisiveness, why continue using it?

Actually, I don't think that those who have expressed their dislike for the term "privilege" in this thread speak for the privileged masses. In fact, most of us enjoy some privileges and lack some privileges, and many of the people who have expressed the view that the term privilege is helpful are themselves the beneficiaries of some privileges. For instance, certain heterosexual white women in this thread - who possess straight privilege and white privilege - have spoken favorably of the term and the ways they have found it helpful.

I find the term very helpful myself, both in discussing and learning about the privileges that I do not have and those I do. I absolutely think it creates awareness and understanding. When I am told that I have a privilege that someone else lacks, it places the onus on me to understand and process the unfair disparity from which I benefit. It makes me a part of the unequal social reality that is harming other people, and it reminds me that even though I may be blameless as to the fact that the inequality first exists (for instance, where the inequality existed before I was born), I - and other privileged members of society - have a responsibility to address the disparity. Being aware of privilege as something I benefit from on a daily basis makes me keenly aware of the issues that need addressing in society, whereas talking in the abstract about a bias that still exists in society is less effective: it does not implicate or engage me, even if I think it is unfortunate that the bias exists.

Thus, for instance, when I date a man, I am aware that I benefit from (assumed) heterosexual privilege when I am able to walk down the street and hold his hand or engage in public displays of affection, without fearing heterophobic violence in return. And this is something that I am actively aware of when I hold hands with a guy (possibly because, having dated women, I have also experienced the lack of this privilege and the associated fear of experiencing homophobic violence.) In my experience, sincere, genuine awareness of privilege reflects a heightened level of engagement with the unfair disparity relative to simply saying, "Group X faces bias. That's wrong." If Group X faces bias and I don't belong to Group X, while I may regret their experience, it does not implicate my daily life. But if via privilege, I understand with particularity that I enjoy benefits from which Group X is excluded based on an arbitrary attribute that they possess or lack, this concept implicates me much more directly.

I believe that it is this idea - being implicated in a societal wrong and becoming (needlessly) defensive about it - that is causing some minority of people who are privileged across many key categories to object to the term. This does not, however, mean that we should stop using the term, and I have no plans to do so whatsoever. For one thing, I am not entirely sure that the discomfort that the term apparently causes them is wholly unproductive, because I think that discomfort strikes at something important. But also, even if these people are not within reach, they are not the only people whose understanding and awareness are important. At a minimum, for those of us who have privilege in some key categories and lack it in others, I think the privilege construct is useful in understanding both our unfair advantages and disadvantages. And given this, I would be reluctant to allow a minority of particularly privileged people to attempt to veto or silence our use of the term.

[yovargas]

Thing is, in my experience, it only has that potential effect with people who are already "in" on the lingo and tend to actively discuss this kind of stuff anyway. If you use it with people who don't know the lingo, it tends to lead to confusion and misunderstanding as it did in this thread. That's simply because the word - if not being an outright incorrect use of the word as Cerin and I believe it is - is at least being used in a way very different from its normal use. The problem is that frankly the term comes off like an accusation making it sound like simply being white (or male or straight or ect) is a sin and I really, really, really don't think that making people feel guilty for being whatever they are is a valuable approach. If guilt is not the intention then I believe this is the wrong way to talk about this.

[nerdanel]

The first definition of "privilege" in M-W online is: "a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others."

The third is: "the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society."

(The second, not relevant here, is "a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud.")

Given that two of the three definitions of the word "privilege" in a commonly accepted dictionary are directly on point to the usage of the word "privilege" in this thread, I think that your contention that it is being used "outright incorrect[ly]" is, well, incorrect.

It is not an accusation directed to the attribute in question - "How dare you be white!" doesn't exactly make a lot of sense. But I agree that the term "privilege" is intended to create some degree of discomfort, to make the recipient understand that they unjustly enjoy advantages on preferential terms not related to their merit or hard work, that should be available to all. This is not the same thing as "guilt," and anyone who thinks that use of the term privilege is meant to say that straight people, men, whites, etc. should feel guilty for being what they are has simply misunderstood the term.

[yovargas]

The first definition of "privilege" in M-W online is: "a right or benefit that is given to some people and not to others."

The third is: "the advantage that wealthy and powerful people have over other people in a society."

(The second, not relevant here, is "a special opportunity to do something that makes you proud.")

Given that two of the three definitions of the word "privilege" in a commonly accepted dictionary are directly on point to the usage of the word "privilege" in this thread, I think that your contention that it is being used "outright incorrect[ly]" is, well, incorrect.

Odd, I'd looked up the word a few times during this discussion and hadn't seen that 3rd one listed. Given that it's there, I'll concede that point but I will contest the first - we are mostly not talking about things "given to some people and not to others", we're talking about things taken from some people and not from others. I do think the difference is important.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not sure I see the distinction. The key is that some people do not have the privilege. In many cases it can't have been "taken from them," because they've never had it.

[yovargas]

My point is that when a black kid is unfairly targeted by cops, nothing has been "given" to whites. Theft from one group is not a gift towards the other. Violence against blacks is not a gift to whites and thinking of it that way - which is what the word privilege implies - is perverse, IMO.

[axordil]

All right, against my better judgment, I'm going to post one more thing on the topic, because I found it clarifying. YMMV.

Privilege isn't the fact that a group isn't oppressed, or isn't discriminated against, or doesn't have to jump through hoops to do "normal" things. Those are all bad things, but as noted, those are societal and political inequalities, not privilege.

Privilege is the fact that one can be a member of that group, enjoy all the benefits everyone in society should have but don't, and happily live one's life without ever having to think about it. Ignorance is not only a workable choice for the privileged, but the default.

Privilege is the ability to live a life of personal and collective cluelessness regarding the nonprivileged without a single negative repercussion. It's the protective bubble that insulates those with it from having to experience real, uncomfortable empathy with anyone outside it. It's the self-serving, self-perpetuating inability to conceive of a life experience fundamentally more constrained than one's own, with the result that any claim that such exists is discounted or dismissed, often on the subconscious level. And it's the reflexive defensiveness when the possibility is brought up that there might be a problem with the status quo, because privilege is the status quo's immune system.

Thus it really *isn't* something that can (or should) be available to everyone, or something that can be legislated out of existence, or something the nonprivileged can get on their own, but something that must be consciously acknowledged and abandoned by those possessing it.

[Frelga]

IAWA
I am hesitant to cross threads, but the conversation in the Osgiliation thread (for which I don't have time during work) is a pretty good example of this application of the term.

[Faramond]

And given this, I would be reluctant to allow a minority of particularly privileged people to attempt to veto or silence our use of the term.

I believe that arguing that a term is ineffective is not the same as trying to veto or silence the use of a term. I would try to silence or veto the use of racial epithets. I would argue against the use of the term "privilege" in most circumstances because I think it's counter-productive. I don't think this is the same thing.

[narya]

Frelga, I agree and disagree. In the osgilliation thread we are talking about the inherent power that most men possess, whether they use it or not - the power to physically overpower others. All weaker people (in most cases, women) who have been attacked or have heard of attacks limit their activities to avoid being hurt (again). In this way, the weak cede power to the strong. This has been the way of life ever since there have been groups of people. We can censure it, we can punish a small portion of it, but we cannot make it go away. There will always be men who take advantage of women, regardless of weapons, protection, punishment, etc.

The privilege we are speaking of in this thread is ordained by the dominant culture of the day, and it could change tomorrow. And we can change it. The first step is to choose not be "above it all".

[Griffon64]

ax - I think that is a very insightful interpretation of the phrase, well worth mulling over.

[Cerin]

But I agree that the term "privilege" is intended to create some degree of discomfort, to make the recipient understand that they unjustly enjoy advantages on preferential terms not related to their merit or hard work, that should be available to all.

This is incorrect in two ways. First, something is defined as privilege precisely because it is the exception rather than the rule. A privilege is a privilege because it is not something that can be identified as a thing that should be available to all. Something that should be available to all cannot be labeled privilege without undermining the core meaning of the word. Universality and privilege are oxymoronic concepts. If you are talking about experiences you believe should be universally enjoyed, you immediately negate the concept by calling the experience privilege. It is Orwellian. It is like saying, 'I love my wife, therefore I cut off her head.' It makes no sense.

Second, there is no connotation attached to 'privilege' involving either presence or absence of merit or hard work. A privilege may be an earned benefit, or it may be a matter of chance. On the other hand, we are talking about unfair advantages that are expressly the result of injustice, ignorance and hatred. Associating the concept of privilege with these negative concepts is perverse. It corrupts both an understanding of the concept of privilege, and an understanding of the nature of the origin of the disadvantages faced by blacks and other minorities.

<snip> - we are mostly not talking about things "given to some people and not to others", we're talking about things taken from some people and not from others. I do think the difference is important.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. The key is that some people do not have the privilege.

Precisely. This is as it should be, if we're talking about privilege. This is the nature of privilege -- that a few have it, and most do not, and that is fine. It is the reality the word describes.

If we're talking about universal experiences that some enjoy based simply on the chance of their ethnicity, or gender, or orientation rather than on their merit or hard work, which we believe everyone should enjoy, we also need a word to describe that, if we want to talk about it.

In the quote below, leaving ax's words in parentheses in the original color, I've substituted words that I believe actually mean what he is talking about:

(Privilege) The reality of discrimination is the fact that one can be a member of (that) the favored group, enjoy all the benefits everyone in society should have but don't, and happily live one's life without ever having to think about it. Ignorance is not only a workable choice for the (privileged) favored, but the default.

(Privilege) Reality without discrimination is the ability to live a life of personal and collective cluelessness regarding (the nonprivileged) disadvantaged without a single negative repercussion. It's the protective bubble that insulates (those with it) them from having to experience real, uncomfortable empathy with (anyone outside it) the disadvantaged. It's the self-serving, self-perpetuating inability to conceive of a life experience fundamentally more constrained than one's own, with the result that any claim that such exists is discounted or dismissed, often on the subconscious level. And it's the reflexive defensiveness when the possibility is brought up that there might be a problem with the status quo, because (privilege) ignorance is the status quo's immune system.

Thus it really *isn't* something that can (or should) be available to everyone, or something that can be legislated out of existence, or something the (nonprivileged) disadvantaged can get on their own, but something that must be consciously acknowledged and abandoned by those possessing it.

There is nothing innately wrong, immoral or unethical in the concept of privilege (speaking of the real meaning, not this perverse usage). Rather than being abandoned by those possessing it, privilege should be enjoyed and celebrated as the gift it can be. Injustice, however, is another matter. That should be acknowledged and abandoned by those abetting it.

Why am I making such a fuss about this? Because I think corrupting the language to serve a political agenda is an insidiously terrible thing to do. The reality blacks face in this country is not a function of privilege; it is a function of racism, hatred, injustice and ignorance.

[Cerin]

So, ax, how do you propose that a white person in this country could/should 'abandon' the unfair advantage that comes from being white?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not Ax, but I would say that to do so one would need to do everything in his or her power to eliminate the discrepancies that exist, starting with acknowledging the existence of the privilege that they enjoy.

Why am I making such a fuss about this? Because I think corrupting the language to serve a political agenda is an insidiously terrible thing to do.

It is only corrupting the language in your mind, as nel conclusively demonstrated above by simply quoting the dictionary definitions of the word. Or are you suggesting that Merriam-Webster has been corrupted by serving a political agenda?

[axordil]

I've substituted words that I believe actually mean what he is talking about:

When I want an editor, I'll go hire one. Until then, kindly avoid attempting to fulfill that role.

As to the question: an individual is hard pressed to divest themselves of what comes with being what they are, but they are not incapable of acknowledging a dominant frame of reference exists nor of working to free themselves and those around them from blindness to it.

And it's not limited to being white. The Han people of China, for example, are in a similar position with regards to the other ethnicities there (and to foreigners generally).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The same concept extends to simply being male.

[Cerin]

It is only corrupting the language in your mind, as nel conclusively demonstrated above by simply quoting the dictionary definitions of the word.

nel quoted the dictionary definitions of the word, and then proceeded to define privilege in her own words as something that should be universal, and something unmerited (the former being directly opposed to the actual meaning of the word (peculiar and exclusive), and the latter not necessarily being a characteristic of privilege). I have no argument with Webster.

I'm not Ax, but I would say that to do so one would need to do everything in his or her power to eliminate the discrepancies that exist, starting with acknowledging the existence of the privilege that they enjoy.

Could you state this more practically, say, from your own perspective? How, in your own life, could you/do you eliminate the discrepancies between your life and the life a black person leads? Do you try to isolate the things in your life that can specifically be attributed to your being white, and renounce them? How would you/do you acknowledge the existence of the unfair advantages you enjoy because of being white? Do you mean, in your daily conversation? I'm trying to put some real meaning to these words, because I don't see how unfair advantage based on something immutable like skin color, can be 'abandoned'. People will continue to interact with you as a white person, so your daily life will continue to reflect your whiteness. Or perhaps you weren't speaking on a personal level, but in the context of working for public policy changes?

When I want an editor, I'll go hire one. Until then, kindly avoid attempting to fulfill that role.

I was not attempting to edit you. I changed the term objectionable to me so that I could engage with your ideas about what needs to be done. I don't believe there is any disagreement on the idea that the people who enjoy unfair advantage based on skin color need to be more urgently aware of this reality if it is to change.

How can a white person 'abandon' the unfair advantages that come from being white? I don't see how that can be done, so I think I am probably misinterpreting that comment.

So far, it seems to me we are entirely in the realm of theory in this discussion. What is practically to be done, apart from working for the candidates and public policy changes that we think will positively impact the situation? Perhaps that is the extent of it? In that case, I don't see how 'abandon' describes that process.

edit: I see this question was answered. Thank you.