Those of us who are both in academia and sensitive to the diverse lifestyles and intellectual perspectives of those around us know that there are some terms and ideas one doesn't just throw out there into non-academic society, at least not haphazardly.
Academic ideas, no matter how prosaic they may seem to us ("Imagined Communities" still gets people riled up? Seriously?), rub some in the "general" populace the wrong way.
They are often denounced as pretentious, out-of-touch, pie-in the-sky (hence, the enormous popularity of politicians who indulge in and are rewarded for hokey, folksy populism).
Case in point:
I belong to a number of online/email communities in which I share a minority of characteristics with other members. On one majority-woman email list to which I belong, the women tend to be extremely heteronormative, praising their husbands as "Prince Charming's," using the terms "hubbies/DH," to refer to partners, "moms" to refer to mothers, "little princesses" to refer to daughters, and "babies" to refer to all children, etc. There is one retired English professor in the group but other than her, I'm the only person in academia.
A member sent out an email that used a phrase I felt could be offensive to some. For purposes of illustration, let's call say it was the cringe-worthy "those people." I was concerned that other community members of that group, or future people with whom this member would come into contact, would be hurt by his/her unthinking use of the term.
Against my usually sound judgment, I "went there." I posted what others probably might think was a sermon but which was certainly not meant to be didactic. I gently pointed out to the member that the term could be offensive to some, and explained the term is couched in "privilege." I specified that I believed he/she was NOT meaning to be offensive, and that "privilege" is a thorny word because some people hear it as meaning "charmed life," "silver spoon," and "trust fund baby" and that it emphatically does not mean that.
Predictably, outrage erupted.
Several community members whom I had been happy to count as "online friends" reacted extremely defensively and heaped scorn and anger on me. "Political Correctness" was derided, loudly and often. The phrases "freedom of speech" and "stifling PC" were bandied about. (to which I responded quite cordially that the benefit to non-normative society members and to society in general of doing away with hurtful language far outweighs the "discomfort" we feel when having to choose our words more carefully).
Interestingly, the person I initially addressed never responded to my comment or to the ensuing uproar.
I remain convinced that the community member needed to hear this, from a friendly person, in a non-charged atmosphere. I've had privileges pointed out to me in the past, and was grateful to the people who told me; who wants to remain happily oblivious to something that generates language hurtful to others? That's where hurtful, offensive language most often comes from--not from the outright racists and oppressors but from people who believe they are moderate, sensible, open-minded, while all the while unaware of their own privilege.
Do we have a better word than privilege? All words have multiple layers, but the potential for misunderstanding seems especially pernicious with "privilege," which prompts a hearty "Not me!" from many members of the population. The idea of social privilege is far more subtle than its more popular meaning of pampered Rockefeller-type.
What word can gently clue in men to the systemic benefits afforded males, clue in majority-ethnicities or middle-income or average-weight people to the systemic power structure set up for them, etc, yet still not alienate people unused to thinking of themselves as advantaged?
How do we offer analyses in good faith and cheer, without coming off as insufferable know-it-all "academics"?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Do we have a better word than "privilege"?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11740
I have come across similar situations. The most prominent one I remember occurred in a women's studies class where we were asked to participate in an activity that centered around privilege and all the "invisible" signs of one having it. I use quotation marks because they are only invisible to those who have them, but much more evident and obvious to those who don't. Anyway, at the end of the exercise a young woman, who was born into and grew up with many characteristics that led one to be privileged in her community (i.e. she was caucasian, able-bodied, middle-class and heterosexual) got really fired up and went on a rant about how no body knew what her life had been like and she had lived through some really difficult and scaring experiences and this activity didn't tell anything about anyone's actual life, etc. This is where our professor went on to explain how privilege is not something we talk about in order to analyze a person's life and therefore categorize them as victors or victims in life, nor should we assume anything about the events that have taken place in a person's life based on it.
Before that day I never really understood privilege myself. But now I realize that there are so many tiny little details in my life that I take for granted, because they ARE invisible to me, and those are signs of privilege (for a very small example, I don't have to look for a specific store that caters to my specific hair type to worry about getting the hair products I need.) On the other hand, the areas where I lack privilege are a huge deal to me (my heterosexual girlfriends can openly discuss their relationship and their boyfriends in any almost any setting, with any of their coworkers, they family, the store clerk, etc. without fearing a negative reaction or a hateful comment, whereas I still censor who I disclose my homosexual relationship to, and I still can't bring my long-term girlfriend to visit my family.)
So I guess my point is that yes, privilege is a heavy-laden term that a lot of people don't want to adopt when discussing themselves, but does that mean we should change it? I have friends who share the same values as me but won't identify as feminists because they say the term carries too may negative connotations, to which I agree, but I still wear that label with pride and try to patiently explain myself when it insults somebody.
OK sorry that was a long rant and I'm trying to race the clock before going to work, but that's my two cents. I'd love to see what other people have to say about it and I think this is a great discussion topic!
One of the biggest academic problems I have with 'privilege' when it is used to describe a seen behavior is that there may be rival plausible explanations for behavior is being exhibited.
Take participating in class conversation in school/college. There is a white guy in class doing alot of the talking. You think he is doing so becuase of privledge.
Why? As a white male he has been socialized that his thoughts are important and deserve to be heard. Other member of the class, (not the white straight males) have had to deal with constant social pressure and ridicule, often at the hands of white males, so they are put off class conversation by the white dude.
But what if the white dude is talking for reasons other than being privileged?
-maybe he was a first child and is use to the position of attention
-maybe he is a middle child and strives for attention and does not want to be left out converations
-maybe all the way through high school he never felt like he could express himself b/c he was not in the in-crownd so he is making up for lost time
-maybe he has a lot of comfort in talking coming from his work experiences
-maybe he really enjoys the subject matter or he did the reading
-maybe when the teacher asks a question and the awkward silence settles in among the class he tried to break it.
-he suffers from florid megalomania
So, if you were to do a factor analysis on this dude and create a model why he behaves the way he does, all of the rival plausible explanations could be controlling, and not privileged.
Very well said. 'Privilege' often grossly oversimplifies things.
This is a very good point, but in this context "privilege" isn't intended to be understood as the only (or even main) contributing factor to your hypothetical person's behaviour. It's just another layer. To make myself clearer...if you're part of a privileged class, that privilege follows you wherever you go.
Also, white male privilege doesn't necessarily act as a motivator for behaviour, but it colours the way the speaker's audience perceives him (e.g. they're more likely to listen to him, think his ideas are good, etc); it also increases the likelihood of his speaking up in the first place, because in every instance of him volunteering an opinion people have been more inclined to listen to him than others who don't possess white male privilege.
Also, white male privilege doesn't necessarily act as a motivator for behaviour, but it colours the way the speaker's audience perceives him
But it also colors his perception of both himself and others. Growing up in a position of privilege inevitable influences a person's outlook and worldview.
Yes, this is true. I should have made that clearer, but I was more concerned with pointing out that it doesn't _matter_ if male privilege isn't a motivating factor for a person's behaviour, or if other motivations are more prominent: the privilege still exists.
This is a very good point, but in this context "privilege" isn't intended to be understood as the only (or even main) contributing factor to your hypothetical person's behaviour. It's just another layer. To make myself clearer...if you're part of a privileged class, that privilege follows you wherever you go.
But that isn't really how 'Privilege is used' - I've never seen someone say "White Male privilege, forming one part of your personality shaped by innumerate other factors may lead to you being more assertive", It's normally more on the lines of "You're assertive because you have White Male Privilege and you should tone it down", while ignoring that there are many people out there who are neither White, nor Male who manage to be equally assertive.
In the ways I've commonly seen it used it's used to define a persons actions through as few facets of their identity as possible - it ignores their unique experiences to explain their behavior, often, (IMO) for questionable ends, from silencing opinion to justifying hatred of Transsexuals.
I agree, and this is why I sometimes have trouble invoking the term. "Privilege" can often be a means to shutting down a constructive dialogue, a cop-out answer -- like "don't blame me, I'm just privileged."
Another problem with asserting that privilege is responsible for someone's actions is that you may be making assumptions about the person that are wrong (especially if you don't know the person well). To take the vocal white male student example, he may be a trans man and thus not have enjoyed male privilege growing up. Or he may come from an orthodox Jewish family and have experienced discrimination because of that growing up, and so may not have had much white privilege. Etc. So while he might (to some extent) have white male privilege now, that might not have been the case and might not be influencing his actions.
This is an excellent article and I commend the author for sticking out her neck in order to make a point on that email list. I think the word "materially privileged" is most useful because, many of us who are white, able-bodied, heterosexual and well-fed, suffer oppression and abuse; the important distinction is that it is not structural in the same way that minorities experience it.
I always thought about the concept that privlege is trying to get at it like this:
I don't have male privilege, women have female disadvantage
I don't have white privilege, minorities suffer from from minority disadvantage.
Why is restating the concept important? Because privilege is something most people think you execute, and does not happen passivly.
Remember back in the day, when you were going through the airport to to grab a flight and the flight crew did not have to be searched? They were executing their privileged.
By pointing out the disadvantage of groups you do several things.
1) You are not using a someone esoteric term
2) You point out there are systematic issues/forces at play.
3) People who don't feel privilege will acknowledge that others are disadvantaged.
4) Calling someone privileged may not acknowledge how shitty someones life as been in other respects. Friends and family dying. Abusive family members, problems with drugs. So the hypothetical white male you tell is prevailed could get pretty angry when he is dealing with his PTSD.
Finally, telling someone that they should watch what they say becuase they sound privileged... would insensitive be a better term? They are insensitive to the disadvantage of of whatever group?
I think Steven just proved how difficult it is to get someone to acknowledge their privilege.
I'm going to let someone else have first crack at the "female disadvantage" comment.
Maybe I've been listening to too much about the theory of relativity, but I think saying "Group A has privilege" is logically equivalent to saying "All people except group A have a disadvantage."
I think what Steven said is actually quite accurate, if maybe worded a little funny. Each trait is like a seesaw, with the privileged on one end and the non-privileged on the other end. You can describe one side in its relationship to the other side, and vice versa, which is what I believe Steven was trying to do. So rather than defining the imbalance as someone having an advantage over another person ("privilege"), he is defining it as someone having a disadvantage compared to the another person. Am I right, Steven?
Thank you Wax ghost.
Steven thoughts are to often fragmented.... and expressed with poor writing skills.
Nah, your writing skills are fine. It took me a little while to figure out how else to say what you were saying too.
I still cannot understand most of Steven's writing due to his incoherence.
Dawg, you got it out for me. We disagreed recently a few threads over (and prior to that a few months ago, I think) and it is spilling over.
I think we are a bit alike in that we are tenacious in trying to make our points. Tension is going to occur.
Bra, it's you magination. Chill g. Word!
I thought it made perfectly good sense. I agree with pretty much everything Steven has written in this thread. (Sorry about the comment about the MBA example, I was in a hurry and didn't explain what I meant).
No worries, I clarified.
I think Steven does a good job of defending his points without being jargony and esoteric - always a breath of fresh air these days.
I'm inclined to agree with wiccaman. the language of "privilege" isn't supposed to encompass a person's entire being, but to acknowledge that certain groups of people have advantages / power over others that they did not earn. Framing the issue around people's "disadvantages" rather than "privileges" subtly excuses people from privileged classes from needing to change. It allows the privileged person to eschew responsibility for their complicity in others' oppression. Calling things "disadvantages" instead puts the onus of responsibility on the disadvantaged class to change, and it allows privileged people to think they are fine the way they are - and so the privileged continue on their merry way, and systems of oppression remain in place.
What is so difficult about admitting privilege? It doesn't mean you don't also suffer hardship.
The way I see it, the "privileges" are often the same as basic human rights. No human being should be judged by the shade of one's skin, for instance, but currently only white people have that privilege. In that sense, I think it is actually very useful to say it the way Steven said it.
Neither way to say it is wrong. But if you approach it from the point of the disadvantage, and get people to admit to that, you can likely (hopefully) then get them to follow the logic of realizing that they are one of the people with an unearned advantage, like Okra is trying to do.
Thank you, thank you, thank you pcwhite! Your response is spot-on.
I think people would probably perceive "insensitive" in a similar way though.
I do like the idea of emphasizing that being from a privileged group does not mean that you yourself have actively done anything to oppress others or that your life is all wonderful. I think that's the connotation attached to "privilege" that often motivates a defensive response.
Steven, the problem with asserting that everybody but you has disadvantage is that it completely frees you from having to address your privilege. If you believe that the problem only effects other people, then you won't do a thing to try and change your passively acted out expressions of privilege.
For example, if you don't understand that you have been trained to talk more than everybody else and that this sometimes makes you interrupt people, you won't make an effort to stop interrupting people. Instead you will tell yourself that the problem is that everybody else doesn't talk enough.
As a woman with a very soft voice, this is the easiest example of privilege I see acted out on a regular basis in the activist groups I'm part of. While it's true that lots of people interrupt me, almost all of them are men. And almost all of them also interrupt other women. Men don't get interrupted as much at these meetings.
And the scary thing is that every man in the room will tell you he's a feminist. He just hasn't addressed the things he does without meaning to.
Please note that I don't know you and have no idea whether you interrupt, but I can pretty much guarantee that you engage in some equally annoying, completely unintentional behavior that won't be addressed until you can tell yourself that you are privileged.
I think we're not forcing ourselves to define privilege precisely enough. Privilege is the social reward of conforming to a set of guidelines in the social hierarchy with regard to gender, race, sexuality, class and religion. It manifests as a set of assumptions and judgements we immediately make about everyone around us, and the behaviors these create to subtly enforce it.
White male privilege consists of being perceived as strong, competent, trustworthy, honest and worthy of respect. White men's ideas are taken seriously, they are listened to when they speak, and they expect their grievances to be addressed. Gay men who are straight-looking and acting will garner more privilege than their more flaming fellows- feminine expression in men, whether gay or straight, results in a loss of privilege and respect.
There's also such a thing as white female privilege, you participate in it when you hold open a door or give up a seat on the bus. I reap the rewards of my white female privilege when people are nice to me for no reason, and when they assume that I'm harmless. Some of the side effects of that privilege can seem like a disadvantage to me personally, like when strangers feel emboldened to tell me to smile on the street, but more often than not, I find that I'm socially conditioned to rely on my privilege, and I have gotten away with a lot because of it. But I also think it's important to challenge oneself not to take privilege for granted, and to work to treat all people with genuine courtesy and respect.
Privilege is arbitrarily bestowed by society, unlike personal gifts and tragedies which are bestowed on the privileged and the unprivileged alike. It is much bigger than the details of any one person's life; it's the water we're made to swim in all our lives. That's the most terrible thing about privilege- gifts like talent and fame seem to transcend it, but in the end they can't overcome its power. An unprivileged person of tremendous gifts will not be afforded high-status privilege unless they're recognized as an individual and even then they must conform to the status quo as much as possible. Their privilege can't be relied on; it can be invalidated, squandered or lost.
As long as the privileged deny their privilege, whether by trying to reframe the problem as "disadvantage" (and tell me, how exactly should the "disadvantaged" get everyone else to stop treating them as such- for these are the people for whom privilege, or lack of it, is the problem, be they women, LBGT folks, poor, ethnic or religious groups that may be unpopular or anyone else who has been made to feel that they aren't welcome, trusted, or can play an important, starring role in our society), we won't be able to challenge its exclusivity, and in the end, extend it to everyone.
I'm sure some people are ready to jump all over him (if wiccaman's comment is any evidence) but I think Steven has an excellent point.
And when people have worked very, very hard for something, or have problems in other areas of life (like steven pointed out) being told that they are privileged rubs them the wrong way.
see, I always assume that if there is something you have to work very very hard at, it wasn't a privilege you had to begin with. it's a privilege for those who already have it, often without realizing that there was ever any other option. No?
Not necessarily. While Person A might have to work hard to obtain something, his/her privilege might mean that s/he doesn't have to work quite as hard at it as Person B, who doesn't have the same privilege. There's hard work in both cases, but the person without privilege still ends up having to work harder.
thanks Okra, for posting such an interesting discussion point! good stuff.
I think that by re-stating the concept in the manner suggested by steven, we shirk responsibility for our own role within the system. If i were to say, "I don't have hetero privilege, gay people just suffer from queer disadvantage", I disown any personal responsibility for my role in (intentionally or unintentionally) perpetuating the systemic discrimination faced by queer-identified people. It essentially distances yourself from that disadvantage - as though you're not implicated in the system that seeks to maintain power differences for ideological reasons. I think people need to realize that 'privilege' is not necessarily a value judgment of who you are as an individual. It is an acknowledgment of your place within social/cultural/economic/political power structures that bolster the oppression/advantage of particular groups.
I guess that doesn't really answer Okra's initial question though. Looking forward to more talk on this one...
Here is one reason I favor terming things in terms of disadvantage rather than privilege.
My first thought upon hearing someone is disadvantaged is there are unjust roadblocks in that persons way, and they should be removed.
My first thought upon hearing someone is privileged is that they should be pulled down.
So saying that I am privileged sounds like I should be pulled down, rather than everyone else lifted up.
That's also a very good point.
I was about to write why I prefer the term underprivileged, as when referring to certain groups of people with a history of being explicitly excluded or held down, such as people of color in the US.
I like what you said in your earlier comment. But in this one, you are demonstrating why it is necessary for some people to acknowledge that they are indeed being lifted up by privilege, as opposed to others being held down - this concept that something is being taken away and given to someone else. If job hunting becomes harder for young white men, it's not because women, people of color, foreigners, or older people are "taking" "their" jobs or opportunities. Those are opportunities that should be equally available to those who qualify. Job hunting (particularly now) is harder, because times are hard and there are more people looking, period.
Don't even get me started on people "taking" "your" tax money, because the concept that entire classes of people deserve substandard of health care or education, or that entire classes of people consciously choose to be poor and do not deserve assistance, reeks of privilege.
I have to admit I don't exactly follow what you are saying.
I think what you are getting at is someone who loses their privilege perceives it as they are losing something that they were entitled too.
(As an aside, I am having a shitty time in this job market. I blame all the overqualified people who are trying to get my entry-level job. Jerks).
You statement seems to be more geared to my other comment about discussing equality of opportunities versus equality of opportunity...?
Realistically Steven, you do need to be pulled down.
Wait, don't explode. I swear I'm not trying to insult you.
But a lot of your high status is based on hurting others in very real ways. In order for them to be pulled up, you may very well have to be pulled down. To continue with the example I used about speaking at meetings, the right of women like me to contribute to conversations might be contingent on some louder men shutting up sometimes.
But I promise it will be good for all of us.
I don't know. The way people here seem to be using the word privilege, it seems like something out of your control. If I'm born as a white person, or a heterosexual, or my parents went to college, I have "privilege." But its all relative. There are people with even more "privilege" than me-- according to this definition, it seems like that would include men, as well as people whose parents have more money, etc. So I guess compared to men, or upper class people, I'm disadvantaged and their privileged.
So I guess my point is that it seems pretty much out of my control whether I'm "privileged." Its good to recognize that you are and that not everyone else has those same advantages, but I don't see why I should claim to be responsible for the family I was born into, which was clearly out of my control. There's a difference between how you choose to accept or change a system as an adult, and feeling guilty about what you were given as a child.
Anyway, I don't see any real difference between saying that I was born with privilege and saying that others were born with disadvantage. Those statements mean the same thing, since those are both relative words.
Just like "A is shorter than B" means the same thing as "B is taller than A"
Its good to recognize that you are and that not everyone else has those same advantages
But I don't think this is quite strong enough. If you wish to bring about socail change, it's essential that you recognize your privilege and understand that it informs your perception and your experiences. And recognizing this makes you far more likely to STFU and listen, which is crucial for constructive dialogue and for truly bringing about change.
Right, because nothing says "constructive dialogue" better than "STFU and listen."
But seriously, I get what you're saying. Really, I do. I just don't care for the concept. Basically, like other posters have said, it oversimplifies and castigates.
I know that many people don't get that listening, really listening (which does require shutting one's mouth) is necessary for constructive dialogue. I'm not saying that this is all that's required, but it is the starting point.
I think that often times it's a matter of ego, other times people feel defensive and are afraid of the changes in their worldview that may come about if they truly listened to people who's experiences and opportunities are radically different from their own. Whatever the case may be, people who are unwilling to shut up and listen sometimes should leave off with the posturing and claiming that they care about social justice, ending systemic racism and sexism, etc. If you're not willing to set your ego aside and really engage with people, then you're not really invested in bringing about change.
I agree Rachel. But both sides need to listen.
- So I guess my point is that it seems pretty much out of my control whether I'm "privileged."
You are absolutely correct. It is not your fault or your choice that you were born (maybe) American, or that you are white and heterosexual, or that you grew up in a family of a certain economic class. Perhaps you were explicitly encouraged to attend university (my mother MADE me go), and know no different. Others are not like you.
But one can take the same advice as men are given when on a feminist blog: to be sensitive to how they have been affected by privilege instead of going off and being defensive or in denial about it. Yes, I myself go on about how difficult my life is relocating and job hunting cold in a new career at 40 with a family. I have sleepless nights. Just today I burst into tears visiting my mother because sometimes I can't see a way out.*
There are some people who do not need to face this challenge. But I sure as hell am aware that there are people on the streets in my own community and people are losing their jobs and homes, even as I expect to improve my own life. I am aware that easily 90% of the rest of humanity does not live as comfortably as I do even with no job.
* My mother has a different set of challenges. For example, her doctor has told her that because of her condition, if she simply tripped and fell, she could break her hip, be immediately bedridden, and dead within two years of complications (I am sure he had a more sensitive way of phrasing it). If my mother squats down to pick something up, she needs assistance to stand. There has been a day where she was literally trapped lying on the sofa because she couldn't get up, and was perhaps too proud to shout out to a neighbor or use her cell phone.
********* Related to your comment about your mother, not the thread***************************
Hey there A male, you might want to talk to your mother about one of those Life Alert (or whatever else they are called) bracelets or necklaces with the call button. That way, if she is ever in a situation again and cannot call for help, she has a backup plan. (That's all it is - a back up, nothing more, not a substitute for family and neighbors, etc.) How frightening that must have been for you both.
I thank you for your concern. My mother has made sure to give a copy of her house key to a trusted neighbor, and she keeps her cell phone on her.
Otherwise, she is simply too proud to ask for help or allow herself to be perceived as less independent, commonly seen in the elderly (I am a nurse in long term care). Recently, she planned to spend DAYS sawing about ten small branches/roots behind the house, which I was able to do in a handful of minutes simply because I am able to squat or bend over. A cane, walker, hand rails, side rails on furniture and other aids would also improve her life, keep her more safe, and keep her out of a nursing home longer, but she refuses. Frustrating. She would also prefer to sell her house (none of this Medicare loophole signing it over to her kids and pretending to be needy) and go to a nursing home, rather than live together or have her own children care for her.
1. Acknowledging your privilege means that you can address the ways in which you've been programmed to be rude/disempowering to others. If you tell yourself that the problem is their lack of privilege and they just need to learn to act like you... you're missing out on an opportunity to address your own behavior.
2. While you can't help your privileged background, nobody is asking you to. We're not saying "apologize for being from another family." We're saying "please stop making vast generalizations about the minority I belong to without even realizing you're doing it."
Yes. Exactly.
Isn't the point of acknowledging your privilege that it changes your attitude and makes you more likely to understand the struggles and obstacles that others face? I don't think anyone has tried to argue that it's about claiming responsibility for your family or apologizing or anything like that.
The difficulty with a concept such as privilege is its relativity. I think it would be safe to say that everyone who posts on this blog is privileged (I know I am). I also think one would have to look pretty far to find a person in this world who does not have privilege over someone else in some degree.
The other difficulty with the concept of privilege is that, yes, some people have worked very hard to ensure that others are not granted the same entitlements as they are. Just as it is no accident that white middle class westerners have privilege over a great many people, it is no coincidence that women have a "disadvantage." It is because men have worked very hard over millennia at establishing and enforcing privilege over women. And people who possess privilege seem extraordinarily adept at denying its existence, through the use of language which places the burden of "disadvantage" onto the very people they have themselves robbed of privilege.
Perhaps Steven is once again being chleyasmotic; it is difficult to tell in print media. And because we do not have sarcasm where I live, it is even more difficult to identify.
Where I am from the government is financing a billion dollar condo for a multi-billion dollar corporation, which pays no taxes, in a city in which it is illegal to sit on a park bench and watch the birds. And they assure us our taxes will not be increased as a result of this. So, as you can see, people here have given up on the concept of sarcasm. Luckily, we still have our privilege.
Men, in general, over the last couple thousand years, may have worked to keep women down. But most men that I know now have never done anything of the sort. That's the problem with applying a concept like privilege that might work in general for broad groups of people, to individuals.
So, saying that white people in general have an advantage over black people, or black people have a disadvantage over white people (in the US at least) seems accurate and either way you say it seems fair to me. And I think we should all work to change that.
But pick a specific person, and who knows if that assesment will be accurate. Who is more advantaged-- Barack Obama's children, or a white person who never had a chance to go to college?
Its like how you can say that men in general have more upper body strength than women, but telling a specific woman she's weak is offensive.
"Men, in general, over the last couple thousand years, may have worked to keep women down."
I see what you are saying but you don't have to be actively working to "keep women down" or to maintain the status quo. Sometimes all you have to do is to do nothing.
Let's look at the reluctance for example, for men to share in the role of sexual gatekeeper. While I don't expect 50/50 because of the biological realities of pregnancy, I do expect forward thinking men to be more vocal about tearing down the cultural aspects that not only put women at a definite disadvantage when it comes to date rape, the politics of birth control, street harassment, etc., but that also foster a constant adversarial climate between men and women.
While I certainly do find ample support among male feminist allies (love y'all), I must say in the general population, I feel like a lot of men are simply silent on this.
I and think this is the very essence of privilege---essentially having the power to do nothing. And of course we all have this privilege to some degree, myself included.
To say that individual persons have not done anything to keep others down does not mean they have not benefitted from privilege.
Sure, but it means it isn't their fault if they were born with privilege.
But if they refuse to acknowledge it or to try to adjust their views and behavior to account for it, then it becomes their fault. Going along with an oppressive system and doing nothing to change it is a form of collusion.
Like I said further down, this is EXACTLY the problem I have with the word. It's used both to describe something the person has no control over and as a judgement of their character.
Nobody is judging your character. Please explain how it is a judgment of your character to point out that your personality has been effected by decades of society valuing you more.
If anything, I think most of us would say that it's proof that you're human.
Who's supposed to be judging my character?
I tend to think of privilege as encompassing the factors beyond a person's control -- you're born straight, white, male, able-bodied, etc. and that gives you an advantage in this society. This is what I mean when use the word "privilege." I do think people need to be aware of their privilege. If someone refuses to acknowledge their privilege, or just doesn't think about it, it's completely fine to call them on it.
But too often I see it used as a character description, and it's always negative. "This person is privileged" gets used to mean "this person is a bad person."
Rachel said: "But if they refuse to acknowledge it or to try to adjust their views and behavior to account for it, then it becomes their fault." That doesn't fit with the way I define privilege, because it makes it sound like being born white is something you do on purpose. I'm sure that's not what she means. Because the definition of "privilege" is vague at best it gets used to describe some very different situations. People are too lazy to use it in the right way, and instead just use it as an insult because it sounds legit enough that no one will argue it.
Refusing to acknowledge your privilege amounts to taking credit for things you didn't work for. I've known many, many people who come from a similar background to mine (upper middle class, white, college-educated parents, able-bodied, etc) who totally lack empathy for people who didn't start with the advantages we started with. Because grad school and getting tenured does involve a lot of hard work, they think that all of their success is a direct result of their work alone. I'm sorry, but that's an ignorant perspective. When I acknowledge that the fact that I had as many opportunities as I've had in my life, I'm not apologizing for it, or pretending like I had some kind of control over it. I am, however, acknowledging that others did not start from the same position as I did, and that enables me to be aware of and empathetic to the situations of others. I still really can't see why this is problematic, and nobody has really explained it clearly yet. We live in a culture which systematically privileges some people at the expense of others. It's a reality, and denying it or pretending that it isn't there doesn't change it.
Of course someone who refuses to acknowledge their privilege has a problem. But refusing to acknowledge one's privilege is very, very different from HAVING privilege. One is douchebaggy and the other just happens. Using the exact same word to describe both situations is asking for a mess.
I thought she was pretty clear about the distinction between having privilege and refusing to acknowledge it.
You said that expecting people to acknowledge their privilege and adjust their attitude "makes it sound like being born white is something you do on purpose," but she was clearly referring to the attitude of denial that many people take. That is something you can control, and Rachel is right that in this case being able to point out somebody's privilege can be useful and constructive.
She wasn't being at all clear, but other than that I agree with you. The (unclear) way she used the word is the way I hear it used a lot, which is why I think a different word would be more effective.
This is what I said:
Refusing to acknowledge your privilege amounts to taking credit for things you didn't work for.
How is that equating privilege with douchebaggery? The privilege itself is morally neutral (as far as the privileged person is concerned) because it's not something you control. Your attitude toward it is not morally neutral, as it is something you can control. I don't get how this is unclear.
you said that the concept of privilege is used to judge people's character
It's not the concept. It's the the word. The concept makes lots of sense, but the word is used and misused in so many ways. Finding a new word to describe the concept would be helpful.
I think the judgement of their character only comes in when they refuse to acknowledge their privilege. Accepting the advantages that an unjust system bestows upon you without being willing to acknowledge the unjustness of it or work to change it is offensive. It amounts to endorsing and supporting the system.
Funny. Because most men I know have DEFINITELY made sexist comments at one point or another, or treated a girlfriend badly, or something.
Which doesn't necessarily mean they're overall bad people, but it DOES mean they play some small role in actively perpetuating patriarchy.
I have no problem with calling men priviliged. Nope.
Er, I think it's much safer to say that most men you know have never done anything that you would perceive as keeping women down while within earshot of you. You may feel different about these same mens' actions in retrospect, and I'd probably feel different about at least some of their actions now.
Moreover, men talk VERY differently when they think none of the women they care about are around. Your friends and lovers have a lot of incentive to hide any sexism from you, so the odds are very low that you would know about it.
"And people who possess privilege seem extraordinarily adept at denying its existence, through the use of language which places the burden of "disadvantage" onto the very people they have themselves robbed of privilege."
Thank you. You have identified the biggest privilege of them all, more eloquently than I could have done.
As for the rest of the discussion:
If someone is so self-centered to infer that their hard work erases the concept of privilege---work which frankly, for hundreds of millions of people on the planet guarantees only a life of subsistence---then I have to say, you might just be privileged.
If you are afraid that relinquishing privilege means "being dragging down", then you might be privileged.
If you take serious pride in things that you have had absolutely no control over, then friend, you might be privileged.
There is simply no better word.
ps. Once again another great post from Okra!
See, THIS is why I don't like the word "privilege." It gets used like this.
You're making some good points, but you're using the word as a value-judgement of a person. "If you do X, you are privileged, and THAT MAKES YOU A BAD PERSON."
There's nothing wrong with saying that X is a bad thing, but saying that someone is a bad person for having privilege is a problem. You can't control being born straight or white or male.
I'm uncomfortable with the word because it muddles judgement of a person with judgement of the way certain traits the person cannot control have affected the person's life.
This is why we need a new word.
I agree with you but I'm not sure if a new word will change the concept at all.
see, again I think this is where our inherent definitions of privilege are going in two different directions. yes, to many, the word holds negative connotations, and so of course those people would want to change it. But those to whom is does not hold that negative weight and it is a word we use to define our place in society and accept that we may or may not have been born into certain advantageous circumstances that are not shared equally by all.
I am privileged in that I caucasian, middle class, college-educated, and able-bodied, and living in a society that caters most efficiently to those traits. That same society is also vastly heteronormative and homophobic and so in that sense my sexuality does not give me the same privilege status as my heterosexual friends share.
I don't think privilege is a YES YOU ARE or a NOT YOU'RE NOT sort of thing. It's relative, it's fluid and it's complex. But it's not a label to shame or guilt anyone, it's just a way of taking a look at our peers and realizing that this society does not treat, react to or offer the same opportunities to everyone, equally.
"It's relative, it's fluid and it's complex"
All too often, this translates in practice to, 'I can use it as an insult against people whose ideas/politics/buck-toothed faces I don't like, precisely because its definition is fluid and relative enough that it can encompass just about anything I can twist it into encompassing'
Democracy is based on commonly agreed upon rules, people-of the clearly demarcated kind, not the fluid, complex, relative, or otherwise fuzzy.
But some things in life just are fluid and complex, and trying to force them into static, clearly demarcated catagories doesn't help.
Yes! in fact, I think most things in life are fluid and complex, and that's why communication is so essential in our quest to shape a world where everyone's needs are met.
Democracy is based on commonly agreed upon rules
um, not really. and how exactly is democracy relevant here?
Wiccaman, I couldn't find the word "chleyasmotic" in any dictionary. Please explain?
I think people need to realize that 'privilege' is not necessarily a value judgment of who you are as an individual.
One of the things about calling someone stance or behavior is it is dismissive of that stance or behavior. It is also used quite frequently as an ad hominem.
I know someone who is getting their MBA. That persons family is loaded, and is requiring the person get the MBA so they can work in the family business. That person has been working there for years and feels that s/he work their butts off and has earned all of their promotions.
If you just tell them "your privileged" the effect is not as affective as telling them how expensive an MBA is for the vast majority of people, how hard it is to get a job, how competitive promotions can be.
The term 'privilege' is to esoteric, and to overly applied
And it completly ignores the fact that the person in the example may NOT want to get an MBA and work in the family business, and how they are doing it out of familial obligation. They could view situation as being chained by obligation.
Steven, being chained by obligation to do something that many people would kill for in order to attain a level of security that most people will never have is privilege. Sorry, but it is. Even if it makes you anguish over your foie gras.
And again, I have yet to see anybody insulting anybody with the term privilege; it's just a shorthand way of explaining these longer concepts (like MBAs are expensive). If you deny people the right to use a word to label the position of having it better due to social status, you put a huge handicap on anti-oppressive efforts.
I've not seen anybody use privilege as an insult. I have seen a lot of obviously privileged people take it as an insult. Do you really think that people are calling you out on your buck teeth when they complain about your weird "disadvantage" rants?
If people are really this fickle, pretty much anything could be used as an unfair insult. Should we get rid of descriptive-but-negative words like pedantic just because they might be misused?
To teh original poster-- its hard to really assess this situation without knowing what the original offensive comment was.
"Those people" in the midst of a paragraph asserting that "those people" (a historically besieged religious group) want to be treated "special" and differently compared to Catholic Polish-Americans(the poster's own group).
The term 'privilege' is too esoteric, and too overly applied
How is being privileged over-applied? Most people who you're going to get into these discussions with ARE privileged. You're privileged, I'm privileged, like wiccaman said,
one would have to look pretty far to find a person in this world who does not have privilege over someone else in some degree.
And to your other point:
And it completly ignores the fact that the person in the example may NOT want to get an MBA and work in the family business, and how they are doing it out of familial obligation. They could view situation as being chained by obligation.
The fact that they might not WANT to get an MBA and are doing it out of familiar obligation is a perfect sign of privilege. Yes, it might suck to feel burdened by the family to go do career path X instead of Y, etc., etc. However, that person has the option to turn down. If it's a choice between not eating or going into a MBA program, then that's a different story, but something like that seems so ridiculously absurd (although not impossible) that is generally going to be the exception to the case.
They are provided the means (whether that be student loans, parents paying for it, savings, whatever) that allows for them to go to a MBA program. This is unfortunately not the reality for many people. Yes, there are many ways to make higher education (a privileged term in itself) affordable, but you have to look at the larger, historical picture that influences the wide-reaching sociological forces that cause the disadvantaged people to be disadvantaged and the privileged people to be privileged.
It's harder to get student loans if you or your parents have bad credit. It's harder to get scholarships if you have to work while in high school to help put food on the table, or if you have a child at 16. These things don't make it impossible, but they do stack the odds against someone in these circumstances.
And while I'm sure you mean well and want to help out the disadvantaged, the honest truth is that before us privileged folks get all "let's help these poor people"-y, we have to examine ourselves and realize that yes, some of our behaviors and actions are DIRECTLY influencing the disadvantage of others, so we need to OWN UP to our own privilege and deal with it.
To go back to the original question, I can't think up a better term that doesn't either offend the privileged people more, or puts the weight on the underprivileged people.
Is underprivileged different than disadvantaged?
I agree the MBA example is not the best.
It may not be the best, but what I was trying to get at is one person's privilege can be another person's burden.
What you see as a great opportunity is to another is being forced into a soul-crushing existence.
Quoting RISK
The fact that they might not WANT to get an MBA and are doing it out of familiar obligation is a perfect sign of privilege. Yes, it might suck to feel burdened by the family to go do career path X instead of Y, etc., etc. However, that person has the option to turn down.
This confuses me a bit. With all the feminist ideas about people conforming to social norms, 'doing gender' and so forth I would think you would understand the intense pressure a family member can place on a young adult with no job, income or other support.
Yeah, I get what you mean there, and it is a good point. I guess I was just thinking of a slightly different point-- that for almost anyone, you can think of someone who is more highly privileged than them. Someone getting an MBA might be privileged compared to many people, but on the other hand, there are going to be people up higher than them. Its hard to find anyone who that is not true of-- maybe actual royalty in countries that still have it. (Although then, of course, back to your point-- royalty involves giving up a lot of other aspects of your life, like privacy).
This is a very relative term. Its like arguing over whether its better to use the word short or the word tall. You can admit that you're taller than some people and shorter than others, and be clear on your place in the scale of height compared to everyone else, but what does it really matter which way you say it?
I think the concept of privilege has to rely less on personal circumstances and more on cultural assumptions. That is, what is different about the way a white woman is treated in a certain situation compared to a black woman? In a neutral situation, perhaps while shopping or dining out or driving, the chances of unpleasant assumptions being made about the black woman will be much, much higher, she's more likely to be insulted, ignored, stopped by the police, followed in a store by employees, given attitude by a waiter, than if her skin was white, all other things being equal. That's the pain of privilege: it depersonalizes you and subjects you to a code of standards that the whole society is more or less following, whether you support it or not. Privilege is much. much deeper than just being spoiled or having advantages in life.
This is like the word "theory" all over again...
I like the idea of using "disadvantage" rather than "privilege."
As someone stated upthread, there are very few marks of privilege you can control. You don't choose to be born a white, heterosexual male with a rich family. When you tell someone they have privilege -- particularly someone who is unfamiliar with the concept -- it sounds like an accusation, even though it's not meant that way.
The word "privilege" has a lot of negative connotations. When you hear "privilege" you think rich and spoiled, needs to be brought down a notch. Because of those connotations, saying someone has privilege can sound a lot like insulting them for something they can't control. Blaming someone for being a straight white male is ridiculous. Obviously, that's not what you're doing, but it's easy to understand how someone could interpret it that way.
I've also seen "privilege" used as a way to shut down discussions. This is not at all constructive. I've had a few experiences, reading through the comments on a post about sex or romance or something, and stumbling across a random comment telling everyone they are DRIPPING WITH PRIVILEGE and need to talk about more important things because some people can't date. This sort of thing would be impossible if "privilege" didn't have negative connotations, and that alone is a good argument for finding a new descriptor and retiring "privilege" all together.
I'd rather own up to legitimate negative connotation than to try to tame the linguistic beast.
I don't begrudge others for pointing out my privilege as an American citizen in the context of a meaningful conversation, for example.
It just doesn't sit right for me to discount legitimate criticism of American privilege because I don't like the word. In fact, it's sickening in this context for me to even think about calling others "disadvantaged".
Privilege is not about taking responsibility for everything or being personally judged. But in keeping with my example, it takes real gall to tell non-American folks that they are simply "disadvantaged" by say the Global Gag Rule or the war, when these folks had absolutely no say in the matter, no vote, and who would likely be turned away should they show up on our shore. I mean the idea of relating to someone like this is stomach turning.
Then maybe don't use disadvantaged. I do think it would be a good idea to find a synonym for privilege that doesn't sound like a bratty rich kid.
've also seen "privilege" used as a way to shut down discussions.
Absolutley. When someone says "Your privilege is showing" it is basically a "I'm right, your wrong" statement, irregardless sort of framework/arguement the other person is operating in.
I agree. I've seen this many times. Some people refuse to have any constructive argument about privilege.
I disagree. I've said that myself before and I never meant it as "you just need to shut the hell up." I meant it as, "you should probably take some time to examine a lot of the assumptions that you are making because a lot of them are based in your position in society, not reality." That's how I have always seen it used.
Unfortunately, it comes across as the former rather than the latter. And I think Okra is trying to get around that by exploring other possible ways to say the same thing that will come across the way that we mean it.
While you may not intend it as such or not notice it, the privilege argument as a sword, IMO, is common in feminist blogs. Especially in rad fem.
Even in just this thread...the initial comments of wiccaman and spike the cat are essentially a 'stfu'.
....but nonetheless, i've enjoyed reading this.
Which comments are you talking about specifically?
this comment by spike the cat- "Thank you. You have identified the biggest privilege of them all, more eloquently than I could have done........
and this one by wiccaman -"I think steven just proved.....
I don't read those as "essentially stfu" at all. Spikethecat was merely engaging in conversation and wiccaman's comment seemed to be just an expression of exasperation - which is easy to experience when you've been trying repeatedly to explain any concept that another person doesn't understand.
If those are truly your examples, according to you pointing out someone's privilege to them at all is telling someone to stfu. But the "stfu"ing is something that you yourself are interpreting in it, not something that is already there.
Nobody is saying to STFU. The privilege being displayed is real, and it's objectionable.
"Your privilege is showing" only shuts down an argument if you walk away in a huff rather than asking exactly what that means.
If you walk away in a huff every time someone implies that your life experience might be colored by having wads of cash/white skin/working legs, you're not just privileged, you're in denial and it's making you a jerk.
If you have a problem with the nasty habit people have of mentioning sexism in feminist blogs (OMG ESPECIALLY RADICAL ONES!!!!!!11), then why are you here?
There definitely are times when the "privilege" theme is used to shut down dialogue, but there are many, many other times when it's useful and necessary in a conversation. It's just simply the case that many people are incapable of understanding or empathizing with the situations of others because they are so firmly entrenched in their worldview, which is deeply informed by their privilege. There has to be some way to point that out to them. It may be that "privilege" has acquired too many negative connotations to be useful in this way anymore, but that doesn't mean that everytime somebody points out the ways that the privilege of others is influencing their perception and their opinions, they're being offensive or trying to shut down constructive dialogue.
Hi, Okra. This is a fabulous post.
I don't know that there is an answer for your problem. It does continually astound me how much people FREAK OUT when you call them out on their privilege...is it because that truth is undeniable and also frightening in some way? IME, defensiveness is proportionate to both the harshness of the critique, and the likelihood that the critique is true. Maybe the answer is to pad the 'accusation' of privilege with a ton of coddling and assurance that the privileged suffer, too, but that might make your writing so bloated as to be unreadable and / or anaemic. Hmm. It might also backfire because the newly-bloated prose might be interpreted as 'wimpy' (a characteristic of 'political correctness') and then nobody will take you seriously.
The whole idea of pointing out privilege, no matter which word you select to describe it, may be so much of a poisoned well that there is no ideal way to broach the subject. We live in a climate where the designation of 'politically incorrect' is customarily worn as a smug badge of edginess, despite the fact that it takes no courage at all to act as a tool of the status quo. Much more so than 'privilege,' 'politically correct' is a tool to shut down discussion.
In my experience, I've had much more success pointing out privilege to people in real-life conversations than through written language. I'm guessing that's because the act of talking through screens makes it easier to lose sympathy for the person towards whom you're casting your vitriol...people are more inclined to listen when they can see each other's reactions. Too, as with a lot of difficult conversation topics, it's a real handicap to communication if you're deprived of the nuances of facial expression / body language. You can also correct false assumptions immediately, rather than wait until the falsehood has generated an entire rant of angriness.
I dunno...this is really rambly already, but it might help to acknowledge that there isn't really a good way to foster a more productive discussion. *shrug*
It does continually astound me how much people FREAK OUT when you call them out on their privilege
I think its a natural reaction for people who are new to the concept of privilege, especially non-academic types who are encountering discussion of it for the first time. If you were to ask my folks or siblings about privilege, they'd have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of privilege is threatening to some people because it suggests that one who is privileged receives certain advantages not because they are earned, but simply because of those qualities that make them privileged.
The belief that upward social mobility can be achieved with mere hard work and determination is as American a value as Mom's apple pie. No one wants to admit that what they have was simply handed to them; most like to think that what they have today is the result of hard work and dedication. It's the class Horatio Alger "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" kind of mentality. The idea of privilege is threatening because it makes people confront this illusion and suggests that perhaps what they have wasn't entirely self-initiated or earned on its own merits.
For example, I like to think that the fact that I am the first in my family to get a college degree and the fact that I now have a job I love is the result of hard work on my part. I came from a working poor family that could not contribute to my education and have been financially independent since the age of 19. I've had to work full-time throughout my entire college career, often at menial jobs that I've hated with a passion. At the time, I was morbidly obese and this affected the jobs/positions available to me and how I was treated by society in general (i.e. studies show that less fat girls attend college than their thin counterparts). Because I have ADD, depression and am eating disorder recovered, I've had to overcome struggles and obstacles others didn't have. I would say that I'm relatively cute (it's the curse of the round face and dimples to be perpetually cute), but my looks alone have never opened doors for me.
But although my family was poor, I had the benefit of a stable two-parent household (and while we were poor by government standards, my cousins who were much worse off considered us rich in comparison). I lived in a safe suburban community with a decent public school system in which college attendance was encouraged. I'm white, so although I worked in low-paying jobs that I hated, I've never been denied a job because of my race. My college has a fairly diverse student body, but when I walk into a classroom, I don't worry if I might be the only one. My campus is situated on hilly terrain which makes navigating a bike up hills and staircases difficult, but because I'm able-bodied, I don't have to worry about accessibility issues and I've always been relatively physically healthy.
Am I proud of what I'm accomplished? Absolutely. Do I think that what I've achieved is achievable by everyone if they only work for it? Absolutely not. What I have achieved is the result of hard work and dedication, but it would have been much, much harder had I not benefited from certain privileges that have come with my race, home life, social standing, citizenship, geography, etc... It is this, I think, the perception that admitting your privileges somehow negates from what you've accomplished is what puts people on the defensive.
As for the original question: Is there a better word than privilege? I honestly don't know. Maybe its not the word that needs to be changed, but the context in which it's discussed. I often see a tendency to discuss privilege somewhat myopically in terms of just race and gender, neglecting that many people can lay claim to being underprivileged in a way that may not be readily apparent or visible. Race and gender are the big ones and they're also the most immutable, but I think that issues like class are just as significant (realizing that racial privilege also contributes, to a degree, in class privilege).
Tim Wise has a good article on how to explain white privilege to the "deniers and haters."
It does continually astound me how much people FREAK OUT when you call them out on their privilege
Telling someone in conversation that they are privileged is just like telling them they are ignorant.
(imaginary conversation)
What? You don't know Calculus? You don't understand Nietzsche? You don't understand how black holes are created?Your ignorant!What? Why don't you like being called ignorant? We are all ignorant of something. I am ignorant of economics and the mating habits of European swallows. Don't worry about your ignorance, even if you learn something else you will be ignorant of other stuff.You can't stop being ignorant.
Compare that to pointing out that someone is privileged. The conversation usually follows the same track.
"Compare that to pointing out that someone is privileged. The conversation usually follows the same track."
I must have a radically different experience from you, because it really doesn't. The only way I could see this happening is if the privileged person is obstinate enough to deny the fact that s/he even has privilege at all.
I'll say it again...admitting you have privilege is NOT. DIFFICULT. I literally do it all the time. The reason I'm not beaten down by this realization is that I understand that privilege is not my fault, and I can be privileged and oppressed in different areas. Short example...
I am white. I have unjust and unearned advantages over people of colour. These advantages exist whether I want them to or not. Therefore, I have white privilege.
I am female-bodied. Men have unjust and unearned advantages over me. These advantages exist whether men want them to or not. Therefore, I am oppressed - and men have male privilege.
You see?
Why is that offensive? I take it as fact that I am ignorant of a whole hell of a lot of things (not just the myriad ways in which I am privileged) and actually like to have my ignorance pointed out to me so that I can learn. I do my best to approach my privileges the same way, and I would hope that's all anyone would ever expect.
I'm like you , wax_ghost, in being pleased--grateful, in fact--when someone points out my privilege.
But if you look at my post below (12:50 AM), I believe it has to do with the fact that we each have powerful, visible DIS-advantages that, I think, act as a buffer of sorts. You are a woman (and perhaps have other historically disfavored facets). I am a woman, a non-Euro of immigrant birth and a *very* "exotic" (hate that word) cultural background. Perhaps it's thus easier for us to acknowledge our own privileges in other spheres...after all, our disadvantaged-ness attuned us early on to OTHERS' privilege.
Let my try and give an example of "Your privilege is showing" being used to shut down an arguement.
Lets say a person has certain beliefs about economics and capitalism and they don't think parents should get federally mandated paid maternal or parental leave. That person is operating in the realm of economics and political science.
When they get a "privilege is showing" that does not address their arguments, it is more of an ad hominem. If you think they need to expand their analysis, tell them that. Tell them why paid maternity/paternity leave should be federally mandated.
Another example. I know a manager whose idea of motivation is based on incentive, both positive and negative. That included performance pay In conversation with some of the women he supervises they state they believe in salaried pay. Everyone gets paid the same regardless of performance.
Obviously the women there are focusing on the wage-gap and he is focusing on getting employees to work harder. If they hit him with a "Your privilege is showing" that is another conversation stopper that doe not address the different frameworks they are operating in.
But their beliefs on economics and capitalism may very well be informed by their privilege. You might notice that most people who believe that everyone should be able to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" never actually had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. If they had, they might realize how difficult it can be, especially when you're facing systemic forces that are not working in your favor.
But in your example that is the perfect thing to say, not "privilege."
The arguement is then about the other person's credentials to even pursue the conversation. Not only do they have to make their arguement, but they have to do it while addressing the privilege claim. And of course, THey could always return with claim that the 'unprivileged' have tunnel vision from their experiences and the discourse has gone nuclear.
But in conversations of economics/political science/justice the starting premises are two conflicting visions
1) equality of results.
2) equality of opportunity (or equal starting point in the race of life).
And that is a better place to take alot of these conversations than saying the other side is privileged so their thinking is all fucked up on the issue.
But it's a vast overgeneralization to say that all conversations in which privilege is invoked are instances where one person is trying to silence the other person. That does happen at times, but not always.
And I was suggesting that a person might favor one theory or hold certain beliefs because they mesh with the way things have turned out for that particular person in his/her life. That's different from calling the logic or structure of the theory into question because of the person who espouses it. That would be an example of ad hominem argumentation.
Here's an example from an exchange in one of my classes. A well-intended male student from a middle-class background was commenting on the situation of a black teenage girl in a documentary on trafficking we had watched. She told the filmmakers that prostitution was one of the only viable ways to make money in her community that didn't require her to keep a set schedule or have a way to clean a uniform every night, etc. My student commented that when he was 16 he went and got a job at Starbucks, and wondered aloud why she couldn't do the same. After a few (friendly and gentle) questions from his classmates, it was revealed that he had a stable home, clean clothes (and a mother who would launder his Starbucks uniform every night...), and a car provided by his parents to use to drive to work. Further, there actually was a Starbucks in the community he lived in. In contrast, the girl in the movie did not have a stable home, didn't know from one day to the next where her family would be sleeping, or where her stuff was, or if she could get her hands on clean clothes, or if she would have money to take the bus out of her neighborhood to a part of town where they would have a Starbucks... In this case, gently pointing out the privileged position my student started from is not claiming that he's in no position to make an argument, or that he's ignorant and malicious, or anything remotely like that. It is, however, a way to help people try to relate to those who are in very different circumstances and understand that there is a lot of privilege built into their lives that they've never noticed before.
This is one reason why I think that painting all scenarios with the same broad brush is not helpful here. The concept of privilege can be misused in conversations, but that doesn't mean it always is, or that it can't be a useful concept.
I think part of the problem is people don't remember neutral events as well as they positive or negative.
The vast majority of the mail is delivered on time, but people remember the one time that it took forever to get check (and it really was only 2 days late anyway).
That is why the ad hominem sticks in people's brains. And even if it is not intended as ad hemimem, sometimes that's how it comes across
So then we should ask people to be more clear about what they mean by privilege, and point out when they're using it to silence people, etc. But the misuse of a word hasn't routinely been a reason for banishing words from our collective vocabulary before.
Who said anything about banishing?
One of the things I was trying to get at with the 'ignorant' example is that some words are loaded with meaning so they have to be used judiciously.
Its the politically correct thing to do (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Still can't).
Then it's unclear to me why in so many of your comments above you insist that pointing out somebody's privilege is a harsh and judgmental thing to do.
You're probably right, Okra.
Though that makes me think that a lot more people should understand privilege since there are so few on the top of the heap.
That seems a little extreme. I've been in many conversations where privilege was pointed out, but the tone was very different from what you describe. I agree that at times "privilege" is used this way, but to claim that it always is is an inaccurate over-generalization.
And if somebody is anaccurately lecturing you on one of the finer points in Calculus, pointing out their ignorance of Calculus is appropriate, no?
Steven, "ignorant" is intended as an insult and "privileged" is not. Moreover, "ignorant" doesn't describe committing actual hurtful actions against others, whereas privilege often is embodied in these actions. That's why "ignorant" is pointless name-calling and "privilege" is a request that you stop hurting others.
The metaphor doesn't hold.
pcwhite
Also, white male privilege doesn't necessarily act as a motivator for behaviour, but it colours the way the speaker's audience perceives him (e.g. they're more likely to listen to him, think his ideas are good, etc); it also increases the likelihood of his speaking up in the first place, because in every instance of him volunteering an opinion people have been more inclined to listen to him than others who don't possess white male privilege.
That aspect or dimension of privilege always seemed to me to be more of a 'social capital' dimention (of course, the term social capital has its own pitfalls and I am using one of the wider definitions).
So there are social capital aspects to being white or male or just about any other demographic indicator. And the social capital of being a white male in one situation would not be useful in another.
I absolutely hate the term "white privilege." I understand the concept, but the fact remains that it is a term conceived by white academics who seem to be ignorant of working-class or lower class whites who bust their asses everyday to make a living. But of course I'm told that I'm just defensive. Yet no one can give me a good enough reason why I shouldn't get defensive.
But don't you realize that a lower class white person who busts their ass everyday to make a living has less obstacles than a black person in that same position?
Well, that depends on what kind of obstacles you're talking about. But even so, having less obstacles doesn't make one feel privileged. That is my problem with the term. Privilege implies this idea that everything is handed to you. Yes, there are cases when blacks have disadvantages, but to apply privilege to whites makes it seem like they're just skirting through life without a care in the world.
I don't think privilege implies that, personally.
Well it's not the Webster's definition. But that's why I said "implies."
There are so many terms being used that have fuzzy definitions, especially in feminist discourse, because a lot of the ideas are not readily accepted.
You can't find cis-gender in an authoritative (Merriam-Webster, OED, so forth) dictionary. Is a gay person cis-gendered? Some might say "no" becuase of hetero-normativty, a gay person does not 'meet societal expectations of sex'. Other would say that is a ridiculous definition of cis-gender (to be clear, I don't care how the word is used, I just think its a fuzzy word).
A search for privilege in dictionaries is not going to find the nuances it will in gender discourse either.
The distinction between gender and sex is another gender studies distinction that has not really been accepted in other discourses.
The dictionary always lags behind language usage.
Steven, cisgender is never a fuzzy word. I have never ever heard anybody use it to mean anything other than "not trans or genderqueer." Where on earth have you found any use of cisgendered but this? You realize that the precise definition is widely available via Google, with little variation?
My 'google define' lead me to two definitions, both wikipedia based.
Take the 'social expectation' aspect of gender, then smack that concept against heteronormativity (I have never been able to spell that right), and you get the above conceptualization as cisgender.
It is kinda a cisgender plus.
I'm afraid that you're reading something into it which isn't there.
I should also add that a slight majority of my friends are queer in some way and that every single one of them uses cisgender the same way I do, as does every single other queer person I have ever met.
The word I think you are looking for is "queer," which many people use to describe non-normative sexuality or gender presentation.
Being privileged and feeling privileged are two distinct things.
Yes, but they probably have more obstacles than a Black person from a better background - however the blunt tool of 'privilege' ignores this. If they do better than a Black person who got a better start in life the idea of 'white privilege' says it is because they are White, and many here given only the end result would come to the same conclusion, dismissing many other factors that may have played a part.
You might want to start by refraining from calling non-academics or those whose politics and ideas you disapprove of as 'the populace'. It sounds rather irritatingly snobbish, and quite frankly disgustingly privileged, since you're so bloody fond of the term. In fact, you pretty much lost me right when you used the phrase - ironic, since I am myself rather academically-minded and motivated, but I don't understand scholarly curiosity to mean snobbery and exclusion.
And while we're onto language, you might want to cut on the waffle a wee bit. For instance, try replacing 'members of the population' with 'people'. If you'd tried it here, your text might have been half as short with twice the substance, which after all is the mark of the really wise (which, I understand, is what you're really thinking when you use 'academic', only the word doesn't sound fancy enough for you). Nothing wrong with writing lots, but if you're using it for waffle, it's a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.
Plain bloody english anyone? It's a wonderful language, quick, lively, and amazingly concise in the right hands, so kindly refrain from bollocking it to death.
Has anybody ever said anything you approved of here on Feministing? Since we're all such losers with such piss-poor attitudes, you'd think you would have given up on us by now and stopped hanging around. You must be a glutton for punishment, forcing yourself to put up with us day in and day out like that.
I think it's not necessarily the term itself, but how it's used.
When you use it to describe a person or action in specific, it gets less accurate because there are a myriad of reasons why one would do something or a person would have an advantage over another. Personal motivations out-do sociological power on an individual basis (which is why soc and psych are two fields). What's going to drive me, as a white male, is going to drive me to do what I want regardless of how "easy" it is to do that -- unless I choose to self-victimize.
On a larger scale, you can look at the ease of groups of people moving around or groups of people on the whole and identify privilege. It's much easier to do and, I think, much more accurate because privilege doesn't define an individual so much as a group of individuals. White, upper class men has more lubrication in society as a whole however that one guy there who fits that description may be an outcast from those circles or for whatever reason can't do that.
Rephrasing what Steven had said a few posts up -- privilege is also used to describe those who don't have those things. Most of the time, we think of privilege as an ease of social fluidity. You can as easily be in control as not, listened as unheard, elected as lost, etc. Privilege is seen as a weapon and not a tool. If you can get groups with privilege to support you who does not have that privilege, then your group wins out. Society is a system like anything else; you've got to learn how to game it to your advantage.
Rambliness aside (I've been running around all weekend and am therefor very tired), I don't think there's a problem with the word itself, just the way the untrained use it as a weapon against others. Which, consequently, is how you unintentionally used it.
How can a system act on a large scale without having some form of action on a small scale? How can a machine function if it's individual parts don't? That doesn't even make any sense.
Also, the problem with "learning how to game the system" when it comes to privilege is that 1) this is yet another place where those without privilege are forced to put in more effort to get the same things as those who are privileged, and 2) it still does not give the group without privilege any power of their own, thus forcing them to depend on the whims of those who still hold the power.
Something can easily make sense on a large scale and not on a small scale. I can say most men are taller than most women, but it certainly doesn't mean any particular man is going to be taller than any particular woman.
Except that it means more individual men will be taller than most individual women. You will still see those height differences in the majority of individuals because that is exactly what you are describing. Same with privilege.
Not to mention that's not a great comparison, since for instance male privilege is like all men being at least slightly taller than all women by simple virtue of their being men.
Personal motivations out-do sociological power on an individual basis (which is why soc and psych are two fields). What's going to drive me, as a white male, is going to drive me to do what I want regardless of how "easy" it is to do that -- unless I choose to self-victimize.
But if you're a part of an oppressed group, your personal motivations may be much less relevant to your success than if you're from a privileged group. And having the choice to "self-victimize," as opposed to being a victim in countless subtle ways, is a privilege.
And while it's true that oppression is large-scale and systemic, the realities of it come through in concrete particular ways on a daily basis. My sister-in-law is a well-educated engineer who makes good money, but she's Ethiopian, and wears her hair in dredlocks. On a number of occasions she's been practically refused service at upscale restaurants, challenged on her ability to pay at medical clinics, and followed around stores by security guards based on her appearance. All of this changes if her husband, a white male, is with her. How is this not a case of systemic oppression taking particular form? And how is not having to face these kinds of cultural attitudes not a privilege (and an advantage) for my brother?
Thank you to everyone who has responded thus far. I'm just catching up on the all the comments now and have been edified by the back-and-forth discussion. I apologize that I cannot respond at this time to each one, but they are all appreciated.
I remain of two minds.
On the one hand, as I stated in the original post, I regret that someone unaccustomed to thinking in terms of "privilege" feels backed up against a wall or accused in any way, as the poster darby indicates. As pcwhite's testimony illustrates, people who *are* accustomed to thinking in terms of latent privileges seem to have less trouble acknowledging the privileges from which they themselves benefit. Too, as Steven and nattles_thing and others suggest, the word itself really does seem irredeemably "tainted" in the minds of people who don't regularly use the concept (silver spoon, etc.).
Yet I can't discount spikethecat's point, either: Are we to throw in the rubbish every analytic concept/tool because it does not meet with pleasure in other ideological perspectives?
When Benedict Anderson first published his book ,there was a fair bit of uproar amongst people who said "imagined community" was a slight to the idea of nation and country as something real and worth dying for. The term has proved very useful, however; in fact, it's entered the non-academic world and been widely disseminated. (Yes, Mona, the academy, like the government, the court of law, and any other specialized institution, has some features in common with other enterprises, but others distinct from it, too. The very point of my post, which you ignore, is that there are terms in our language that in of themselves are merely descriptive--"privilege," "academia," etc.--but which are, in practice, received by listeners in emotionally charged and divergent ways. Note my quotes around the term "academic;" to me, it means, literally, the academy, the profession. To Rush Limbaugh, say, it means another thing entirely.)
I agree with the idea offered that everyone is privileged--and non-privileged--in some way. I emphasized this in my email to the individual. Everyone is both part of a majority and a minority at the same time. For example, I was decidedly at a disadvantage growing up because of my non-European ethnicity, the language my family spoke at home, our immigrant status, and a world of other things. On the other hand, I have "Education Privilege;" Socio-economic Privilege; even "Relationship Privilege" if you consider it a privilege to have been raised in an emotionally supportive family environment.
I think perhaps this is WHY it's easier for me to admit my privileges: Because most people see me and see my name/family and immediately see my "disadvantages" (a term I don't love, for the same reason I don't love handicapped), I am freed to own up to my many privileges.
Same goes for Pcwhite: Because she has such a strong, visible "disadvantage"--the body of a group of people oppressed for 5,000 years of human/world history--she can more easily admit her privileges (European ancestry and, perhaps, phenotype).
Perhaps, thus, it's the people who feel the most removed from their disadvatanges who have the hardest time owning to their privileges.
But how that helps us come up with a new term...I don't know.
Are we to throw in the rubbish every analytic concept/tool because it does not meet with pleasure in other ideological perspectives?
Of course the idea is not to "throw away" concepts or tools. But if the idea behind identifying these concepts is to fix the problem then the activist needs to use persuasive language. Its pragmatic, catching flies with honey instead of vinegar and all that.
I think it would be useful to separate the active dimensions of privilege from the passive.
There is sexism, but then there is institutional sexism. There is racism, but there is institutional racism.
That dichotomy may not be perfect. Especially when you get into some of the other 'privileges.' But I think the psychological impact of telling someone they suffer from 'institutional privilege' is more tactful and, I believe, more precise.
(when I mentioned above I thought the term was over-applied, I was also getting at the fact that it is overly broad. Of course, if you like the fact that 'privilege' has both active and passive dimensions, then you don't want the term split).
Aha...now we're getting somewhere.
This, I like.
"Institutional Privilege."
Everyone: thoughts?
There are 65 comments at the writing of this comment, if you want a people to focus on the question you may want to summarize points made on both sides of this conversation to write a new post.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll hold off for a little while to let a few new posters add their views to the mix.
This is an intriguing idea. Although, I might call it "systemic privilege" rather than "institutional", because "institutional" kind of eclipses the abundance of instances in everyday life where people experience privilege (e.g. men being able to walk around topless, hetero couples feeling safe enough to hold hands in public, white people feeling safe from racial epithets, etc.) that do not occur within easily conceptualized institutions.
There's always the problem of deflecting responsibility away from the privileged person in question - "I'm fine the way I am; it's society that needs to change!" - but in instances like those in your original post a phrase like "systemic privilege" may be a decent compromise.
I know there is a rich discourse in naming things institutional this, and systematic that, and here are my 2 cents.
A systemic male privilege implies that being male is a priviliege everywhere through-out the system, and it assumes that there is no place within the system a woman has the privilege.
"Institutional' privilege is not limiting privilege to stone and brick institutions, but social institutions. With the understanding that there are various social institutions out there the stage is set for the gender studies folk to take a critical eye at the 'institutional' privilege in each social institution.
Now of course there has already been gender theorist looking at social institutions, but that was with the 'old' definition of privilege, now we have split the term, more precise evaluation can go forward.
I think we might have to agree to disagree over that quibble. If the point is for us to reach people who aren't already familiar with the concept of "privilege", then those people are likely to conflate "institution" only with institutions like law, education, policy (government or within a place of work), prisons, etc. Implying that privilege is confined to "institutions" leaves out interactions on the individual level, and in informal settings.
I don't think there are many privileged groups who are privileged in some areas and oppressed enough in other areas to invalidate the designation of "systemic." For example, misogyny is systemic, but there are some instances where men are considered less competent than women (like childcare) or are considered more dangerous (example, a woman crossing the street to avoid a man at night). But this fact doesn't invalidate male privilege, and it doesn't change the fact that the privilege is systemic: a privilege doesn't have to be universal to be systemic.
(also, in a lot of the areas where a privileged group is seen as inferior to the oppressed group, the disparity is used to justify dumping the work on the people who "do it better" - for example, I've seen men excuse themselves from total disinterest in raising their own children by insisting that women are better at parenting, anyway. Yes, the generalization really was that sweeping.)
True enough.
Eh, I would agree that you should separate the active definition of privilege from the passive, but I think people already do this. I think it's pretty obvious in conversation which they mean.
And given the very defensive way you've been writing throughout this discussion, part of me suspects that you just want a way to avoid owning up to the active (though unconscious and unintentional) parts.
"The very point of my post, which you ignore"
Aw. Two points:
1) I didn't (ignore it). I addressed it, but it seems like you missed it. Here's where:
"You might want to start..." "It sounds rather ... exclusion." "And while we're ... cut on the waffle a wee bit." "For instance,...' "If you'd ... bandwidth."
"Plain bloody english anyone? ... to death."
2) I didn't elaborate lengthily on what other term could be used instead of privilege for two reasons:
a) there were already lots of other ideas that I liked in previous comments, and I clicked on Liked a few times accordingly (Steven's suggestions come to mind)
b) I wanted to make the point of how you managed to put me off your post by the end of the second sentence with your use of the snobbish term 'the populace' for people with whom you disagree and whom you perceive to be lesser than yourself in terms of academic prowess and 'sensitivity' to 'diverse lifestyles and intellectual perspectives'. A sensitivity and prowess which you obviously consider present company to have, which sends the whole thing over into smug mutual-back-patting territory, which tends to get on my tits in a very big, bad way.
Is all.
Mona,
Your response illustrates the very point of my post. (Which, I maintain, you have NOT addressed. Agree to disagree then, hmm?)
To me, terms like "academic," and "general populace" have a netural, even clinical meaning. Recognizing that not everyone shares my perspective, however, I put the words in quotation marks in my original post. I also pointed out how conversations about privilege invariably end up making the speaker seem "insufferable," and, further, solicited advice in that respect (point of the post, and all that).
Your ignoring of all of these things suggests you're looking for reasons to find "smugness" and "snobbery" in the post. The same way that when Rush hears the words "academic," and "privilege" and "cultural sensitivity," he has a whole preconceived set of notions that he brings to the table. We all do. That's the point of language, and the point of us parsing it.
And, sorry, but "it's too long!!" has never been a trenchant observation, not on this community forum nor on any other. If it's too long for your reading tastes (as opposed to your writing tastes, as you frequently post longer, more emotionally fraught comments), you are welcome to ignore the thread and stop the assault on your eyes/mind.
Now that we've beaten the issue of tone to death (and disagreed on it), I encourage you to comment--at length--on anything else about the post that piques your interest.
Off topic
But when I think of academics I think about people who are so lost in theory that when they see real data they think "this doesn't fit the model, it must be wrong" rather than thinking "we should update the model."
Some academics become rigid in their thinking. Sociologist refuse to acknowledge psychology, and so on.
The academics that go straight from high-school to university, then straight into a masters, then a ph.d program can be the worst.
It gets even worse when you hear them regurgitate second hand analysis of primary documents that completely ignores the message of the primary author. I want to shake them and ask them if they have ever read the original, or if they did, did they do any original f&*^ing thinking on it themselves.
definitely off topic.
Heh, there's an example of what Okra was just talking about to mona.
When I think of academics, I think of myself (smart person who tries to be humble) and my professors (also smart and thoughtful, with long and dignified careers making some incremental but amazing contributions to their fields, and willing to not make as much money as they could in order to cultivate minds like mine).
Caveat: None of this means that there aren't other people who can fulfill these roles, because I've been lucky enough to have a lot of smart, wonderful mentors who weren't academics or even in a position of authority to me.
But for both of us, that's our own preconceived notions coming through in the way we interpret what she said.
Ah yes, but "academic" has indeed become a dirty word. See for example "academic feminism," i.e. exclusive, white, upper-class, totally out of touch with the real lives of women... This, of course, overlooks the fact that most academic feminists I've known (which is a lot, as I'm a bit of a campus-hopper) are women who have real lives. In fact, they're more likely to be single mothers, non-white, not heterosexual, or to have come from lower-class backgrounds than to conform to the caricature that's always bandied about. They're also less likely to be tenured, or to be tenured as quickly, as their male counterparts. But hey, they're academics, so they must be snobby and out-of-touch...
Full disclosure: I occasionally teach classes on Feminist Theory, and always include feminist and non-western perspectives in the Philosophy courses I teach, so I am, in fact one of those horrible "academic feminists" you hear so much about. Best be careful...
Could you give some historical or cultural context explaining why "the populace" is offensive? And if it is, why not suggest a word that's less offensive so that Okra can avoid "getting on your oh-so-sensitive tits" in the future?
"Could you give some historical or cultural context explaining why "the populace" is offensive?"
the dead giveaway here is the suffix "-ace"--a pejorative suffix in most languages with a latin 'ancestor' (including to some extent english). The suffix qualifies the term by lending the idea of unidentified masses--anything that denies people their individuality and lumps them into one group is pretty derogatory. Synonyms for 'populace' include the masses, the unwashed, the rabble, the mob, the common people, the vulgar, the riff-raff. When you use populace to designate people without including yourself, there's a definite sense that you are setting yourself not only apart, but most definitely as their better (in the classic sense of 'shut your mouth and listen to your elders and betters!'). See this example, from Pope:
"The common people; the vulgar; the multitude, ... comprehending all persons not distinguished by rank, office, education, or profession.
The part in italics I find is especially relevant to what we have here. Essentially, Okra came off as saying 'those dumbass people who unlike me, the academic and all-round smart, superior person, don't have the cultural sensitivity etc etc'. Not saying she meant it mind, just saying what things sound like based on her choice of words.
Here are some definitions for populace:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populace
--------------
1. the common people of a community, nation, etc., as distinguished from the higher classes.
Origin:
1565–75; (Random House dictionary)
--------------
Populace
Pop"u*lace\, n. [F. populace, fr. It. popolaccio, popolazzo, fr. popolo people, L. populus. See People.] The common people; the vulgar; the multitude, -- comprehending all persons not distinguished by rank, office, education, or profession. --Pope.
To . . . calm the peers and please the populace. --Daniel.
They . . . call us Britain's barbarous populaces. --Tennyson.
Syn: Mob; people; commonalty.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
--------------
populace
1572, from M.Fr. populace, from It. popolaccio "riffraff, rabble," from popolo "people" (from L. populus "people") + pejorative suffix -accio.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
--------------
This dictionary site contains lots of examples of the word used in sentences; you'll note that most of the uses range from the somewhat sniffy to the heavily pejorative:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/populace
This is not an issue of "historical or cultural context", though. It's just the language and its usage. It's certainly not historical in the sense of obsolete, as you might see using this example on wired:
http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2007/12/burning-british.html
Neither is it obscure in the sense of it being regional usage or anything like that.
A better word, like I said, would simply be 'people'. 'People' is a neutral term to designate groups of individuals. A neutral and slightly positive would be 'folks'-it has a friendlier ring to it, while still staying neutral.
I gotta say though, I'm a bit disappointed that it'd be needful to explain that to people who say they are academics--if academics don't have a good enough sense of language to know that 'populace' has some distinct negative connotations, when language is their most important tool particularly for those academics in the humanities, who would? That said though, I do believe Okra knew (or at least had a good sense of it) - that's why she used quote marks in her initial post, and that's also why she went on to give an apologetic explanation when I pointed it out to her. If this had been the first she'd heard of it, she'd just have gone 'what? I've never heard that!'. Why she did this, I have no idea *shrug* But it makes her sound just awfully arrogant, and I thought she might like to know that since she's asking 'n all :-)
Well, that pretty much disqualifies any term that refers to large groups of people. I'm surprised that you tolerate "women","feminists," and the like. After all, any term like this "denies people their individuality and lumps them into one group." And I spent a few years studying (ancient) Greek and Latin, and I don't recall any reference to words with the "ace" suffix as being derogatory. If your claim is that referring to any group of people as a group is negative and offensive, then that puts a severe limit on what we can talk about. Sociology and anthropology, for instance, go out the window.
And regarding the contrast of "the populace" with those who are differentiated by education (your second or third definition), that seems pretty consistent with the way Okra was using it. If you're looking for a contrast with "academics," "people" seems a bit vague and inaccurate, as I've always thought that "academics" were a subgroup of "people."
Rachel in WY, I appreciate you putting the time into your responses, but I believe, after several interactions with mona, that your words will fall on deaf ears. A cursory review of her past posts indicates she is searching for something to dislike in most feministing posts and comments.
I'm glad you found at least Steven's posts of interest to you, mona. I'm sorry there was nothing else in my post or ensuing comments that could prompt you to analysis, save for the words "academic" and "populace" (which you have now posted about no less than four times, and which I have gamely addressed. No more.).
By the way: I advise you to take a graduate-level class in Demography if you have not already done so. It might answer a few of your questions.
I know. I totally know it, but sometimes just can't help myself.
Excellent post as usual, Okra!
Erm... has anyone else made the point that by calling other groups 'disadvantaged' that inherently means that your group is, well, ADVANTAGED? Is this so different to "privileged"?
It just depends which group you're talking about. Personally I feel like focussing on "the disadvantaged" makes it sound like the other group are all victims or are all downtrodden, whereas the truth is less obvious than that. It's not (usually) people ACTIVELY working to keep a certain group down, it's about a system which inherently preferences one group/trait over another.
If I say "Black people are disadvantaged" then I feel that puts the onus and focus on black people and leaves us whites out of the equation. Whereas the fact is that the above sentence is only half complete, because whites are part of the equation leading to black oppression. Just like how saying "Women are disadvantaged" doesn't take note of the role that men (consciously or subconsciously) play in the oppression of women. Both of those sentences need a qualifier: "because X GROUP is priveleged/advantaged in our society". You can't acknowledge the disadvantage on its own. The disadvantage results from the advantage of the other group.
Men aren't advantaged BECAUSE women are disadvantaged, it's because men are advantaged that women get left behind. Men hold the 'privelege'.
Honestly if you can't understand why it's important to note your own privelege/advantages in life, then acknowledging others' disadvantage is an un-fulfilled equation.
Erm... has anyone else made the point that by calling other groups 'disadvantaged' that inherently means that your group is, well, ADVANTAGED?Is this so different to "privileged"?
Imagine a spectrum. On one end you have the 'truly' privileged. In the middle you have the ordinarily advantaged. At the other end you have the disadvantaged.
Of course, to the disadvantage, everybody has more advantage.
If I say "Black people are disadvantaged" then I feel that puts the onus and focus on black people and leaves us whites out of the equation.
For me, that puts the onus on who has created/benefit the disadvantage.
Take an example of institutional racism. Medical schools are more likely to take an applicant who's parent was a doctor. Who where all the doctors in the olden days? White folk. This institutionalized racism mean the profession of doctor is skewed towards white.
And it should be un-done.
You can expand the principle as needed.
But that's exactly my point. By JUST saying "Black people are disadvantaged" you're not stating what needs to be said. YOU may feel that this statement implies (and makes obvious) that white people are therefore part of the problem. But a lot of (very ignorant) people would just be like "Ohh yes those poor blacks with their poverty and drugs and such" and not really be willing to look at their own role. Stating the privelege/advantage of whites is ESSENTIAL in exploring ways of progressing toward an egalitarian and humanist society. It NEEDS to be pointed out to people that they are INHERENTLY priveleged in ways they might not even realise from the moment they are born (and before!) so that they can understand that racism/sexism/homophobia isn't just a one-way street.. it's not just POC/women/queers who are being oppressed, it's also the PNOC/men/heteronormative folk who are being given priveleges by the rest of society. Just saying "X is disadvantaged" doesn't give the whole picture, privelege needs to be highligted and made obvious. People need to be aware of that. Nobody's saying they'll have a perfect life because of that privelege, just that the privelege exists for them which doesn't exist for others.
Just because someone has a shit life or gets a bad run of luck, that doesn't mean that they don't still have those priveleges. Privelege is about society's attitudes towards a certain group vs another group, not about the actual course of an individual life.
Privelege is about society's attitudes towards a certain group vs another group, not about the actual course of an individual life.
Well said.
I think privilege is actually quite good word to describe some experiences (or lack of them). I'm not going to go into the privilege vs. disadvantaged debate here because I think good points have been made (although I do favor talking of privilege - because, as has bene argued, it shifts responsibility to those who have it to refute the argument, rather than the other way round).
I always like to think of privilege not really in terms of the characteristics of a person per se - because then it may be quite hard to indeed make a point that despite all kind of suffering, this person is still privileged.
What it does mean, I think, is that people, by virtue of being raised in a certain environment (a poor or rich background, a white or black background) and by virtue of one's gender or sexuality, simply cannot see or feel the things others, less privileged people can see and feel. The structure of their experiences is fundamentally different.
A certain racial group feels the what-it-is-like aspects of being discriminated against, day in day out - people may not want to look them in the eye, or react fearfully when they ask the time late at night on the streets. The privilege of belonging to the non-othered racial group does not become apparent to those averting their eyes or walking a bit faster when asked the time - they are just reacting with 'common sense', or quite probably in an unconscious way.
I've had some discussions in which men told me the old and tired 'you're just saying that because you're a woman'. I always reply: exactly, and that's why I'm telling you - I can't expect you to know what it is like to be a woman, so here goes. Privilege is there to shield people from diffferent experiences of reality - and making those explicit is fundamental, I believe.
anyway.
hi all, i just read through all the comments (eyes are bleeding a bit)
I have an argument that probably gonna get me some flak, but I have a death wish today so here goes,
A few of the comments said that privilege was invisible to those that have it, couldn't it be argued that women have (in theory) just as much privilege as men but as women have no idea they have it and men have no idea how it measures up to the privilege they supposidly have that we have wound up with a "grass is greener" thing going on with every group/division believing that the other has it made
On the main point of a different word for privilege I don't think there is just one word as there are many different types of privilege, can it really be called privilege if two parents work hard to provide their kids with a better life than they had thus giving the kids access to more because of their hard work.
If you could just explain how being perceived (and constructed as) being irrational, less intelligent, over-emotional, weak, and frivolous is an advantage I'd be right there with ya.
And to clarify, privilege is the kind of thing that's invisible until you gain the self-awareness to see it. Then it's perfectly visible. Hence the value of pointing out privilege where we see it - if everyone was aware of it and concerned about the effects of systemic privilege (trying out the new term, here) then much progress could be made.
I think what DV might be getting at is men are viewed aggressive, unfeeling, impulsive, crime-prone individuals.
So that colors people perception of them and their perception of themselves and then the guys get smooshed into a gender role that does not fit them.
I am working on an MPA and there have been some introduction into 'feminist' theories of behavior/leadership. Basically male leadership is a thing of the past b/c it is to rigid and authoritative> Leadership today is more collaborative, which is woman's strong point, so soon glass ceiling will keep out men.
So that would be doing shifting some notions of privilege around it happens.
Hmm, I'll believe the glass ceiling has shifted to keep out men when I see it. For now, men still occupy most management jobs, in almost every field.
And I cringe at the whole idea that certain characteristics "belong" to men and other belong to women. Why not just give up the whole gendering of characteristics and stop trying to socialize people to fit into these gendered characteristics and move on already? I think it's great that there's a re-valuing of management styles, but I don't see why the collaborative one has to belong to women and the authoritative one to men.