Food for thought

[futureapppsy2]

All with empirical evidence to support their validity and reality. The examples are all around you if you really care or have a need to recognize them.

But I guess that doesn't matter because you know, the fact that these are things that white individuals disproportionally don't really have to be concerned with is a "political tool".

Again, I say this not to be snarky, but to point out the absurdity of denial-based points of view that refuse to acknowledge the limits of their own perspective when the evidence of what they are working so hard to deny is all around them.

I never said privilege doesn't exist or have real impacts. It clearly does, and while I experience white privilege (and straight and cis privilege), I definitely see it pretty much everyday with my lack of able-bodied privilege, including the constant need to "prove myself" to others (and about a million other things). It definitely makes things harder, as I can only assume lacking white/cis/straight privileges does. I'm just not sure of the practical value of focusing on that lack of privilege all the time. For example, it sucks that I have to walk to another building to use the bathroom or that if the lift is broken and I need to ride the bus, I have to wait thirty minutes for them to send a new one out (if they feel like it). All that sucks, but that's my hand of cards in life, and I have had to learn to adapt to my lack of privilege. I have couple of friends with disabilities who get very upset when they face barriers (physical, attitudinal, etc), and while that's certainly within their right, it seems emotionally exhausting, tbh. That's not to say that I don't get very annoyed with the barriers sometimes (I do), but if I spent my time analyzing all the able-bodied privilege I see, I'd never get anything done and I would probably feel miserable. Me being miserable isn't going to help anyone, and it isn't going to erase the fact that society favors able-bodied people, either. I very much take a "pick your battles" approach to privilege and injustice, I guess.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MBellows]

Future,

I agree. A big reason for this in my opinion is the external locus of control that language promotes.

http://www.inclusionproject.org/nip_userfiles/file/People%20First%20Chart.pdf

In case anyone here hasn't been exposed to this and other resources on the topic. I know a recent graduate from a reputable program (although she is an older adult) in clinical psychology who refers to children as "******ed," so I felt that this may be a necessary thing to post here.

Did anyone on there stop to think that all of the people on this board are beneficiaries of the "Not living in China or North Korea where the internet is either non-existent or a joke" privilege?

 

[futureapppsy2]

http://www.inclusionproject.org/nip_userfiles/file/People%20First%20Chart.pdf

In case anyone here hasn't been exposed to this and other resources on the topic. I know a recent graduate from a reputable program (although she is an older adult) in clinical psychology who refers to children as "******ed," so I felt that this may be a necessary thing to post here.

Did anyone on there stop to think that all of the people on this board are beneficiaries of the "Not living in China or North Korea where the internet is either non-existent or a joke" privilege?

FWIW, there's actually a sizable group in the disability community that dislikes person-first language because they find it stigmatizing. I don't care either way, personally, but of course, I use person first-language as a default in professional writing and conversations because it is the standard and is less likely to offend. We've actually run in this issue when doing participatory research with disabled people who very much do NOT want to be referred to as "people with disabilities" in our manuscripts and reviewers who insist that we uses pewrson-first language nevertheless.

 

[PHD12]

http://redroom.com/member/tim-wise/blog/this-is-your-nation-on-white-privilege-updated

See my point?

"White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter"

This is quite misleading. Sarah Palin was constantly berated by the media for being from Alaska and everyone questioned her intelligence. I don't recall a politician being a source of so many jokes before.

 

[Ollie123]

I thought about typing an even more extensive reply to this, but feel like my views have already been summarized through an amalgamation of other posters. Privilege in its most general sense unquestionably exists, though I think how it is best operationalized and framed is a much more difficult question to answer, as is the "most accurate" and "most useful" (as these are not necessarily synonymous) term used to label it. I see clear utility from a societal/community/political/etc. perspective, but I do question its utility at an individual level. I think what Jon is essentially getting at is that is many types of privilege exists. Depending on how loosely we are going to define it, I'd argue virtually everyone could be described as both having certain privileges and lacking others. Certain privileges may have a more profound influence than others on certain people's day-to-day lives (though I do feel this is very dangerous territory to get into...think "is it harder to be black or gay?" - not really a useful discussion).

Really much of this boils down to the age old adage of nomothetic versus idiographic approaches to understanding humankind. Privilege, while certainly carrying idiographic implications, is generally understood, analyzed and considered from a nomothetic perspective. A supervisor once told me one of the greatest "sins" of multicultural conceptualizations in therapy is failure to recognize the often extreme variation "within" any given category (be it race, gender, religion, etc.) and this really stuck with me. From a clinical perspective, demographic characteristics may offer some hypotheses to explore, but not much more than that. I've seen therapists get caught up in "forcing" these concepts into situations where they aren't necessarily germane to a particular case (e.g. assuming a black individual's psychological distress is derived partly or wholly from their experiences with racism, assuming an unmarried, sexually active, devout Catholic must be experiencing distress due to this conflict). At this level of analysis, privilege seems to have much less utility for understanding an individual's scenario (and indeed, should be treated cautiously). It can lead or mislead to an appropriate and clinically useful conceptualization (sorry, realize this is not necessarily a discussion of clinical work but it seems relevant).

Edit: One final point I do want to make since I've seen some hints of it in this thread, relates generally to discussions surrounding privilege (here and elsewhere). I fully understand SmoothJams point that individuals of a majority group are not well-poised to argue their privilege does not exist. However, I've noticed this is often abused in discussions of privilege (and I'm not just referring to this board) in order to shut down potentially valid criticisms. Perhaps this is just the scientist in me, but accuracy in these discussions is important. We do not need to stretch the truth to identify the profound impact that race, gender, etc. can have on an individual's experiences, nor should we. Individuals who do this, "fudge the numbers", etc., should be called out for doing so - regardless of what side of the argument they fall on. I've done so in the past and essentially been told criticism or challenge of any kind to the concept is "privilege". To my mind, anything that cannot be debated/criticized/challenged is not a legitimate concept. Perhaps even more crucial though is that I think it has the opposite effect intended...it shuts down conversation of privilege and leads to it not being taken seriously, instead of pushing it to the forefront of the discussion. Its an obviously sensitive concept, something I think we all need to keep in mind in these conversations, but I also think that its important that everyone (regardless of race/gender/etc.) feel comfortable offering challenges/etc. if real progress is to be made in understanding and figuring out how to deal with these issues as a society.

 

[MBellows]

FWIW, there's actually a sizable group in the disability community that dislikes person-first language because they find it stigmatizing. I don't care either way, personally, but of course, I use person first-language as a default in professional writing and conversations because it is the standard and is less likely to offend. We've actually run in this issue when doing participatory research with disabled people who very much do NOT want to be referred to as "people with disabilities" in our manuscripts and reviewers who insist that we uses pewrson-first language nevertheless.

What do they prefer? When I have to use my cane I usually self identify (jokingly) as a cripple.

 

[cara susanna]

PHD12: Sarah Palin's looks were also constantly brought up and the stereotypes of her often played into harmful views on women (she was considered ditzy etc).

MBellows: Hahaha, good point (on certain people considering us privileged because we can access the internet).

 

[MBellows]

PHD12: Sarah Palin's looks were also constantly brought up and the stereotypes of her often played into harmful views on women (she was considered ditzy etc).

Lets not forget that they also generalized that poking fun to include Down's Syndrome Girl. Though I'm still laughing about the interview where the actress (who has Down's) basically said that Sarah Palin must be too stupid to get humor.

 

[futureapppsy2]

What do they prefer? When I have to use my cane I usually self identify (jokingly) as a cripple.

Usually, autistic/Autistic people or Autistics (the community it's most common in, other than the Deaf/HOH community). On a broader scale, we sometimes get requests for disabled/Disabled people, although a fair amount of people do prefer person-first language.

I've called myself a cripple before, actually, and one of my best friends in high school had an injured knee/arthritis and called herself a gimp, although I've never heard anyone request that those terms be used formally.

 

[futureapppsy2]

A supervisor once told me one of the greatest "sins" of multicultural conceptualizations in therapy is failure to recognize the often extreme variation "within" any given category (be it race, gender, religion, etc.) and this really stuck with me. From a clinical perspective, demographic characteristics may offer some hypotheses to explore, but not much more than that. I've seen therapists get caught up in "forcing" these concepts into situations where they aren't necessarily germane to a particular case (e.g. assuming a black individual's psychological distress is derived partly or wholly from their experiences with racism, assuming an unmarried, sexually active, devout Catholic must be experiencing distress due to this conflict). At this level of analysis, privilege seems to have much less utility for understanding an individual's scenario (and indeed, should be treated cautiously). It can lead or mislead to an appropriate and clinically useful conceptualization (sorry, realize this is not necessarily a discussion of clinical work but it seems relevant).

FWIW, I had a professor who said he believed that much of the "multicultural education" programs traditionally do comes down to teaching stereotypes and that more emphasis should be placed on understanding each client's individual cultural identity and not assuming things because they belong to X group. It's definitely a tricky topic.

 

[phillydave]

FWIW, I had a professor who said he believed that much of the "multicultural education" programs traditionally do comes down to teaching stereotypes and that more emphasis should be placed on understanding each client's individual cultural identity and not assuming things because they belong to X group. It's definitely a tricky topic.

Any program that teaches students to conceptualize clients based solely on race and their stereotypical treatment issues is certainly doing their students (and students' clients) a disservice. Hopefully programs are teaching that cross sections of diversity (race, gender, religion, etc.) and other individual factors (concession to Jon's point) should be considered.

 

[SmoothJams]

Of course there are lots of minorities who thrive, but when I compare myself, a white male to a black male, for example, with the same level of education, income, employment, etc., I know that my road to attain all of that was an easier one simply because of my skin color. That's the privilege that I have, and I think it's important to acknowledge it.

Thank you for that honesty and acknowledgment phillydave. This is really the root of my issue with the majority of responses on this thread. The overwhelming majority of responses to this topic had not acknowledged or accepted this very basic fact of American culture in such a direct and substantive way. If they have, that aspect of the response has quickly been followed up with a series of really quite weak arguments designed to invalidate or minimize the concept. It is this obvious attempt at minimizing this concept that is very troubling and needs to be illuminated. More on this later…

"although I have no way of knowing for sure because being white makes me not realize when I have it"

I don't agree with this. I understand that being male yields many social and economic benefits, and I am a male.

I totally feel you here phillyd and you are right. You appear to be much more willing to simply accept this very real and simple social concept without all of the resistance to the idea (transparently masked as intellectual deconstruction) shown by many of the (assumed) Caucasian responders to this thread. My goal with highlighting this statement was to signal what I saw to be individuals responding from the unconscious mindset Cara was describing. I know there are folks like you, and know that folks like me appreciate you “keeping it real”. Truth be told, as a minority, your simple acknowledgement of the concept without all of the culturally insensitive resistance (and yes, it can easily be perceived as culturally insensitive) actually makes me more inclined to respect your criticisms, point of view, etc… And yes, even intellectually based resistance to this basic concept can look really bad (racist) to minorities; especially those of us who are intelligent enough to recognize the unspoken and unconscious assumptions behind it. I can’t respect those who attempt to argue without fully acknowledging and accepting basic fact. Nor do I believe anyone else should.

At the end of the day, it’s not that complex of an issue. All of the intellectual posturing and pontification isn’t going to change that…at least not for those of us who aren’t so obviously threatened or troubled by the concept. What I think is interesting, from a psychological standpoint, is that most of the responders who seem to demonstrate the most resistance to the concept (no matter how well it’s framed), are almost definitely beneficiaries. In my opinion, that’s the REAL “food for thought.”

…to be continued…

 

[Pragma]

Just to throw this out there smooth jams - is it fair for you to make assumptions about a construct that supposedly describes the experience of white people when you are not a white person?

I don't think anyone is minimizing the concept of differential treatment, racism, sexism, etc. I think it is the term "privilege" that trips people up. I'm intrigued by the concept of "lack of barriers = privilege" and can see Jon's issues with the statement.

So are we talking about "privilege" as just a relative term to describe fewer obstacles to white people compared to people of color in the United States? Because Jon seems to be framing it more as a "lack of obstacles such as racism" as opposed to "privilege." Privilege seems to connote being born with a silver spoon in your mouth of sorts. I think Jon is suggesting that everyone ought to be born with that spoon (if the spoon means lack of discrimination against you, and not some kind of "bonus"). Since we are on the concept of spoons, perhaps I ought to say "there is no spoon" (can't resist because of your avatar).

If you see my earlier post in this thread, I acknowledged my own experiences with what is typically called "white privilege." But I find the discussion intriguing, to be sure.

 

[MBellows]

If you see my earlier post in this thread, I acknowledged my own experiences with what is typically called "white privilege." But I find the discussion intriguing, to be sure.

Sometimes when I hear about someone talking about a particular type of -ism and I try to take a step back to analyze the situation, it's often genuine -ism, but sometimes I'm struck by the idea that perhaps when you're a nail, every threat looks like a hammer.

 

[Pragma]

Sometimes when I hear about someone talking about a particular type of -ism and I try to take a step back to analyze the situation, it's often genuine -ism, but sometimes I'm struck by the idea that perhaps when you're a nail, every threat looks like a hammer.

I guess I am not sure how to decode your statement.

But what I will say is that I have absolutely been treated differently than my non-white colleagues (see my earlier post). The conceptual/semantic issue seems to be whether that suggests I am privileged or am receiving some kind of "bonus" treatment, or if that means that I am shielded from the racist treatment that people of color experience.

In practice, I don't see how it matters much. Oppression is there and many of us were taught that we ought to try to end oppression. I guess I wonder if somehow oppression is ended, would privilege still be there? Or are they one and the same?

 

[MBellows]

I guess I am not sure how to decode your statement.

But what I will say is that I have absolutely been treated differently than my non-white colleagues (see my earlier post). The conceptual/semantic issue seems to be whether that suggests I am privileged or am receiving some kind of "bonus" treatment, or if that means that I am shielded from the racist treatment that people of color experience.

In practice, I don't see how it matters much. Oppression is there and many of us were taught that we ought to try to end oppression. I guess I wonder if somehow oppression is ended, would privilege still be there? Or are they one and the same?

I say -isms because what we're referring to as "privilege" is otherwise defined as institutional racism/sexism/etc.

What I was trying to get at while I was still in my post-cake stupor was that a lot of what can be considered priviledge or institutional racism isn't conscious on any level, and I would argue that often what people may describe as such isn't that at all, but that they have been exposed to so much "privilege" that they now see it everywhere.

 

[SmoothJams]

Just to throw this out there smooth jams - is it fair for you to make assumptions about a construct that supposedly describes the experience of white people when you are not a white person?

Great question Pragma. First, we should be clear on what assumptions you think I am making. In general, I believe some assumptions in debates are quite reasonable, others not so much. I can’t really answer your question without specific examples. I don’t think any assumptions I have expressed are related to the “experience” of white people. My comments have mainly focused their behavior in response to the discussion of a culturally sensitive issue in this thread.

Now, if by assumptions you mean “white people benefit from white privilege regardless if they accept that idea or not” then yeah, I am TOTALLY making that assumption and stand by the fact that it is totally reasonable. Or you may be referring to my assumptions about the underlying thoughts of some of the commenters, but I also believe those assumptions are also quite reasonable looking at the contest of many of the responses. But like I said, I can’t really address that question without specific examples.

In terms of not being a white person:
Let’s say we were discussing sexism or gender disparities. I think it would be quite reasonable for one to suggest that women suffer negative effects from “male privilege” and that men are direct beneficiaries. I don’t believe that kind of discussion would result in a similar public display of resistance. THIS is an assumption of mine that I admit may be wrong. However, if that did occur, I would find it as equally inappropriate, disturbing, and inaccurate as I have many of the responses to this topic. I would also challenge it...because it would be ridiculous.

I don’t have to be a woman to make assumptions about sexism. But if my assumptions or arguments are rooted in the denial of the legitimacy of the overall concept, I definitely deserved to be challenged for them. And I probably shouldn’t be expect to be respected or taken too seriously…especially by women.

I’ve never raised issue with a white person commenting on the concept of white privilege. I have judged those who attempt to discredit, minimize, or take issue with the existence of the concept or the semantics of the term. That’s just absurd. Which I think is a pretty reasonable assumption…

 

[Pragma]

Great question Pragma. First, we should be clear on what assumptions you think I am making. In general, I believe some assumptions in debates are quite reasonable, others not so much. I can't really answer your question without specific examples. I don't think any assumptions I have expressed are related to the "experience" of white people. My comments have mainly focused their behavior in response to the discussion of a culturally sensitive issue in this thread.

Now, if by assumptions you mean "white people benefit from white privilege regardless if they accept that idea or not" then yeah, I am TOTALLY making that assumption and stand by the fact that it is totally reasonable. Or you may be referring to my assumptions about the underlying thoughts of some of the commenters, but I also believe those assumptions are also quite reasonable looking at the contest of many of the responses. But like I said, I can't really address that question without specific examples.

In terms of not being a white person:
Let's say we were discussing sexism or gender disparities. I think it would be quite reasonable for one to suggest that women suffer negative effects from "male privilege" and that men are direct beneficiaries. I don't believe that kind of discussion would result in a similar public display of resistance. THIS is an assumption of mine that I admit may be wrong. However, if that did occur, I would find it as equally inappropriate, disturbing, and inaccurate as I have many of the responses to this topic. I would also challenge it...because it would be ridiculous.

I don't have to be a woman to make assumptions about sexism. But if my assumptions or arguments are rooted in the denial of the legitimacy of the overall concept, I definitely deserved to be challenged for them. And I probably shouldn't be expect to be respected or taken too seriously…especially by women.

I've never raised issue with a white person commenting on the concept of white privilege. I have judged those who attempt to discredit, minimize, or take issue with the existence of the concept or the semantics of the term. That's just absurd. Which I think is a pretty reasonable assumption…

It is the semantics that seem to be in question. I don't see anyone minimizing the existence of oppression of minorities. I think the question is about how appropriate the use of the term "privilege" is. I guess that is what I am asking you to explain, since you are stating it is a fact and not debatable (and have dismissed the opinions of those who disagree with you). Does white privilege = oppression of minorities? Because if that is what you mean, then I don't disagree - but there probably could be a better word for it (like oppression). If that isn't what you mean - well that is what I have been asking for clarification about.

 

[PHD12]

It is the semantics that seem to be in question. I don't see anyone minimizing the existence of oppression of minorities. I think the question is about how appropriate the use of the term "privilege" is. I guess that is what I am asking you to explain, since you are stating it is a fact and not debatable (and have dismissed the opinions of those who disagree with you). Does white privilege = oppression of minorities? Because if that is what you mean, then I don't disagree - but there probably could be a better word for it (like oppression). If that isn't what you mean - well that is what I have been asking for clarification about.

Edit: jon just answered my question.

 

[SmoothJams]

It is the semantics that seem to be in question.

Yes, the semantics have been in question, but so has the validity of the concept in general. The objections to this idea presented in this thread have not at all just been based on semantics.

But…the fact that there has been so much focus on the semantics of the term is something that I think is another glaring issue. Someone in an earlier post eluded to the idea of a "useful discussion". What is so sad to me is that when someone presents a topic about something as real and as serious as this - the majority response is to debate the semantics of the term???!!! Wouldn't a more "useful discussion" be to discuss the psychological ramifications of this on minority populations? Or perhaps discussing how to increase equality? Even the comments related to clinical issues regarding this issue have been attempted to frame the concept in a short-sighted and weakly positioned negative way. That "external locus of control" comment comes to mind.

From my perspective, if the semantics of the term are what someone gets hung up on, you are REALLY missing the mark. Even worse, a bunch of white people start discussing the concept and focus on the semantics? I shouldn't have to point out how bad that looks, especially from a minority perspective.

I think the question is about how appropriate the use of the term "privilege" is... but there probably could be a better word for it.

Again, a focus on semantics that frankly, only serves those who are uncomfortable with the concept. If that is the question, it is a REALLY shallow question to focus on. So let's look at the definition of privilege:

"A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office."

So what is the "position or office" for the sake of our discussion? Being white
What advantages or favors? In reference to my examples in an earlier post:

1. Less likely to get harassed by the police
2. More likely to get hired for a job or called for an interview
3. Less likely to be discriminated against for housing
Etc…etc…

I'm pretty confident in saying that the term is quite accurate.

Since you are stating it is a fact and not debatable (and have dismissed the opinions of those who disagree with you)

Well, because it is a fact. It is a very real social construct. The fact that this idea (whatever you want to call it) exists, really isn't debatable. Again, to suggest in any way that this doesn't exist is totally absurd.

Does white privilege = oppression of minorities?

Not for the terms of this discussion, no. I believe that white privilege is a manifestation and an effect of the oppression or minorities; while simultaneously acting as a method for continued oppression. I haven't suggested that anyone has challenged the idea of minority oppression, just the particular aspect of white privilege.

I think Jon is suggesting that everyone ought to be born with that spoon (if the spoon means lack of discrimination against you.

First, Jon has and is suggesting all kinds of problematic things. Again, much respect in terms of psychology field related things, but on this…oh man!

Second, yes that is a wonderful idea, but it is in no way our current reality. If the crux of Jon's or anyone else's arguments had been "everyone deserved not to be discriminated against", I wouldn't have had much to say.

 

[MBellows]

What is so sad to me is that when someone presents a topic about something as real and as serious as this - the majority response is to debate the semantics of the term???!!!

Welcome to academia!

 

[Pragma]

Yes, the semantics have been in question, but so has the validity of the concept in general. The objections to this idea presented in this thread have not at all just been based on semantics.

But…the fact that there has been so much focus on the semantics of the term is something that I think is another glaring issue. Someone in an earlier post eluded to the idea of a "useful discussion". What is so sad to me is that when someone presents a topic about something as real and as serious as this - the majority response is to debate the semantics of the term???!!! Wouldn't a more "useful discussion" be to discuss the psychological ramifications of this on minority populations? Or perhaps discussing how to increase equality? Even the comments related to clinical issues regarding this issue have been attempted to frame the concept in a short-sighted and weakly positioned negative way. That "external locus of control" comment comes to mind.

From my perspective, if the semantics of the term are what someone gets hung up on, you are REALLY missing the mark. Even worse, a bunch of white people start discussing the concept and focus on the semantics? I shouldn't have to point out how bad that looks, especially from a minority perspective.



Again, a focus on semantics that frankly, only serves those who are uncomfortable with the concept. If that is the question, it is a REALLY shallow question to focus on. So let's look at the definition of privilege:

"A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office."

So what is the "position or office" for the sake of our discussion? Being white
What advantages or favors? In reference to my examples in an earlier post:

1. Less likely to get harassed by the police
2. More likely to get hired for a job or called for an interview
3. Less likely to be discriminated against for housing
Etc…etc…

I'm pretty confident in saying that the term is quite accurate.



Well, because it is a fact. It is a very real social construct. The fact that this idea (whatever you want to call it) exists, really isn't debatable. Again, to suggest in any way that this doesn't exist is totally absurd.



Not for the terms of this discussion, no. I believe that white privilege is a manifestation and an effect of the oppression or minorities; while simultaneously acting as a method for continued oppression. I haven't suggested that anyone has challenged the idea of minority oppression, just the particular aspect of white privilege.



First, Jon has and is suggesting all kinds of problematic things. Again, much respect in terms of psychology field related things, but on this…oh man!

Second, yes that is a wonderful idea, but it is in no way our current reality. If the crux of Jon's or anyone else's arguments had been "everyone deserved not to be discriminated against", I wouldn't have had much to say.

I guess I am not entirely convinced by your application of the definition of privilege.

As for perseverating on semantics...some of us never had a chance to. In our field and in my training program, we constantly discuss the effects of oppression on minorities. Really, we spent very little time discussing white people. So, I found Jon's statements to be quite intriguing, even if you are quick to dismiss them. I come to this board to have interesting discussions.

For the record, I am pretty sure Jon said that everyone ought to not be discriminated against, or at least that seemed like the crux of it to me. The rest has to do more with sociopolitical framing. I do believe oppression is there and is still quite observable. But I also question the utility of the concept. Uncomfortable? Not really...just trying to dive deeper into the concept. I do appreciate the discussion.

 

[PHD12]

Welcome to academia!

 

[Pragma]

Yes, the semantics have been in question, but so has the validity of the concept in general. The objections to this idea presented in this thread have not at all just been based on semantics.

But…the fact that there has been so much focus on the semantics of the term is something that I think is another glaring issue. Someone in an earlier post eluded to the idea of a “useful discussion”. What is so sad to me is that when someone presents a topic about something as real and as serious as this - the majority response is to debate the semantics of the term???!!! Wouldn’t a more "useful discussion" be to discuss the psychological ramifications of this on minority populations? Or perhaps discussing how to increase equality? Even the comments related to clinical issues regarding this issue have been attempted to frame the concept in a short-sighted and weakly positioned negative way. That "external locus of control" comment comes to mind.

From my perspective, if the semantics of the term are what someone gets hung up on, you are REALLY missing the mark. Even worse, a bunch of white people start discussing the concept and focus on the semantics? I shouldn’t have to point out how bad that looks, especially from a minority perspective.



Again, a focus on semantics that frankly, only serves those who are uncomfortable with the concept. If that is the question, it is a REALLY shallow question to focus on. So let’s look at the definition of privilege:

“A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor: prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office.”

So what is the “position or office” for the sake of our discussion? Being white
What advantages or favors? In reference to my examples in an earlier post:

1. Less likely to get harassed by the police
2. More likely to get hired for a job or called for an interview
3. Less likely to be discriminated against for housing
Etc…etc…

I’m pretty confident in saying that the term is quite accurate.



Well, because it is a fact. It is a very real social construct. The fact that this idea (whatever you want to call it) exists, really isn’t debatable. Again, to suggest in any way that this doesn’t exist is totally absurd.



Not for the terms of this discussion, no. I believe that white privilege is a manifestation and an effect of the oppression or minorities; while simultaneously acting as a method for continued oppression. I haven’t suggested that anyone has challenged the idea of minority oppression, just the particular aspect of white privilege.



First, Jon has and is suggesting all kinds of problematic things. Again, much respect in terms of psychology field related things, but on this…oh man!

Second, yes that is a wonderful idea, but it is in no way our current reality. If the crux of Jon’s or anyone else’s arguments had been “everyone deserved not to be discriminated against”, I wouldn’t have had much to say.

I guess I am not entirely convinced by your application of the definiton of privilege.

As for perseverating on semantics...some of us never had a chance to. In our field and in my training program, we constantly discuss the effects of oppression on minorities. Really, we spent very little time discussing white people. So, I found Jon's statements to be quite intriguing, even if you are quick to dismiss them. I come to this board to have interesting discussions.

For the record, I am pretty sure Jon said that everyone ought to not be discriminated against, or at least that seemed like the crux of it to me. The rest has to do more with sociopolitical framing. I do believe oppression is there and is still quite observable. But I also question the utility of the concept of privilege, which as Jon noted, might work against the cause of ending oppression. Uncomfortable? Not really...just trying to dive deeper into the concept. I do appreciate the discussion.

 

[SmoothJams]

This is not about a race. This is about majority and minority in-group/out-group exclusion. The problem is not white privilege. The problem is in-group/out-group exclusion. In America, whites are the biggest group, right now. Thus, they have, on average, advantages over other groups.

I almost don't even have to point out all the obvious issues with this statement. There is so much you are denying and not acknowledging in this conclusion. It's very disturbing to me that someone of your obvious intellect and wisdom could say such things. Seriously. No one has suggested the whole problem is about white privilege. Again, my whole basic point has been.

1. White privilege is real,
2. If you are white you benefit from it, and
3. To deny that is absurd.

Your increasingly unrealistic and inaccurate responses to these simple ideas are starting to appear to be indicative...of something...

In America, one of the most, if not the, biggest type of "in-group/out-group exclusion" is based on race. And yes, white privilege is a race related issue. Whites absolutely do not just have advantages because they are the biggest group. Slavery ring a bell? (Yes, a Black Man brought up slavery, don't pass out.) Again, only part of the issue and kind of another absurd, reductionist statement.

I am really starting to question what universe I am in.

 

[Pragma]

I almost don't even have to point out all the obvious issues with this statement. There is so much you are denying and not acknowledging in this conclusion. It's very disturbing to me that someone of your obvious intellect and wisdom could say such things. Seriously. No one has suggested the whole problem is about white privilege. Again, my whole basic point has been.

1. White privilege is real,
2. If you are white you benefit from it, and
3. To deny that is absurd.

Your increasingly unrealistic and inaccurate responses to these simple ideas are starting to appear to be indicative...of something...

In America, one of the most, if not the, biggest type of "in-group/out-group exclusion" is based on race. And yes, white privilege is a race related issue. Whites absolutely do not just have advantages because they are the biggest group. Slavery ring a bell? (Yes, a Black Man brought up slavery, don't pass out.) Again, only part of the issue and kind of another absurd, reductionist statement.

I am really starting to question what universe I am in.

No offense here smooth jams, but the rigidity seems pretty one sided to me. Weren't you just preaching about not making inflammatory statements in another thread? Because I sense a lot of "silencing" happening. Fortunately, this isn't a quiet crowd. But really, the underhanded comments accusing people of racism aren't very productive, IMO.

 

[MBellows]

1. White privilege is real,
2. If you are white you benefit from it, and
3. To deny that is absurd.

While we're on the topic of semantics and what you insist are "real things," how are you operationalizing "race?" I've studied race from several perspectives. In psychology, there are obvious factors that are affected by self designated "race," but in more socially minded or holistic fields (anthropology for instance) "race" is an incredibly fluid term and is entirely not useful in academic conversations because it's generally not a well definable term.

 

[SmoothJams]

I guess I am not entirely convinced by your application of the definition of privilege.

That’s okay. I’m not trying to convince you. That would be pointless. You don’t have to be convinced for my statements to be accurate. I’m just trying to inject a different and perhaps more "diverse" perspective into this debate.

…we constantly discuss the effects of oppression on minorities. Really, we spent very little time discussing white people.

Again, the lack of perspective here exposes itself. That’s problematic as a comprehensive education into multicultural issues should involve some self-examination of your own culture/ethnic group and how you contribute to race related problems.

For the record, I am pretty sure Jon said that everyone ought to not be discriminated against, or at least that seemed like the crux of it to me.

I’ll agree to disagree on this because, while that sentiment has been included in his statements, to suggest that his entire position has been centered on that is grossly incorrect. You must be reading something else.

I also question the utility of the concept of privilege, which as Jon noted, might work against the cause of ending oppression..

Ahh…I see. So, repeatedly attempting to deny and accept an important (and quite obvious) racial construct with insignificant arguments will help stop oppression? Got it.

 

[Pragma]

That's okay. I'm not trying to convince you. That would be pointless. You don't have to be convinced for my statements to be accurate. I'm just trying to inject a different and perhaps more "diverse" perspective into this debate. .

In the grand scheme of things, your perspective doesn't seem very diverse.

Again, the lack of perspective here exposes itself. That's problematic as a comprehensive education into multicultural issues should involve some self-examination of your own culture/ethnic group and how you contribute to race related problems. .

Here you go assuming again. Of course we talked about how white people contribute to race-related problems - almost ad nauseum. My training in multicultural issues related to mental health was pretty comprehensive - aside from learning much about things like white identity. I think multicultural competence goes a lot further than just learning about oppression.

i love bell hooks, BTW.

I'll agree to disagree on this because, while that sentiment has been included in his statements, to suggest that his entire position has been centered on that is grossly incorrect. You must be reading something else. .

I guess we all are prone to confirmation bias at times.

Ahh…I see. So, repeatedly attempting to deny and accept an important (and quite obvious) racial construct with insignificant arguments will help stop oppression? Got it.

I haven't denied anything - that seems to be your interpretation of anything short of fully agreeing with you. Personally, I think discussions like this actually can move us towards stopping oppression. The black and white, my way or the highway stuff is what I think some people don't respond well to.

 

[SmoothJams]

No offense here smooth jams, but the rigidity seems pretty one sided to me. Weren't you just preaching about not making inflammatory statements in another thread? Because I sense a lot of "silencing" happening. Fortunately, this isn't a quiet crowd. But really, the underhanded comments accusing people of racism aren't very productive, IMO.

You are right. I am quite rigid in my primary points. Yup.

I'm not sure how I can be silencing anyone when I seem to be the only person arguing my position in opposition to several others. Just because I am able to effectively counter your statements doesn't mean I'm trying to silence you.

And my point in the other thread was that you can't tell someone to do something and punish them for it at the same time. You seem to be consistently be demonstrating this issue with reading and interpreting fairly clear statements I have made.

I never suggested or insinuated this was a quiet crowd. I'm clearly not quiet either. I'm happy to keep discussing the issue. I'm also happy to continue to call a duck and duck and point it out when people say ridiculous things. It happens here on this board all the time. It's not a quiet crowd...

I never accused anyone of being a racist. I'm can't be sure what Jon's reactions may be indicative of. Which is why I said "something". if I wanted to call him a racist, I would have.

Your responses are beginning to substantively devolve. That may be indicative...of something...

 

[Pragma]

Your responses are beginning to substantively devolve. That may be indicative...of something...

Dang, there goes my ego...

It is interesting that you see me as devolving and Jon as increasingly unrealistic and inaccurate. I wonder what the formula is for rates of change of those constructs on an internet message board. Maybe I'll say something about Hitler and then MBellows could provide the punchline.

I suppose I could spend awhile trying to figure out what you mean by "something" and other statements throughout the thread. But I also could finally finish grading the papers I don't want to grade. Oh, the dilemmas.

 

[MBellows]

Maybe I'll say something about Hitler and then MBellows could provide the punchline.

I clearly know what is expected of me.

Anyways, more on race. http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/index.html

 

[cara susanna]

I don't agree with this. I understand that being male yields many social and economic benefits, and I am a male.

But you don't have the experiences and know which specific situations it applies to. The reason that I acknowledge white privilege (or whatever Jon Snow would call it) is because as a woman, the only way that I can really explain male privilege is to say that you have to be a woman to understand what we go through. Although I can acknowledge that being white gives me advantages, I can't say specifically what they are because I don't really know what it's like being an ethnic minority.

Edit: Let me clarify: I understand specific advantages that being white gives me, but probably not all of them. And a lot of privilege is supposedly very subtle things that I'm likely not aware of because I don't experience them.

The closest I've gotten to understanding is when I attended a cultural event for an ethnic minority of which I am not a part, and felt very conscious of being white and not a member of that culture--like a fish out of water, really. I realized that this probably how the other people in the room felt out in the world most of the time. But also, maybe not, I have no way of knowing.

 

[Pragma]

The closest I've gotten to understanding is when I attended a cultural event for an ethnic minority of which I am not a part, and felt very conscious of being white and not a member of that culture--like a fish out of water, really. I realized that this probably how the other people in the room felt out in the world most of the time. But also, maybe not, I have no way of knowing.

I spent a significant amount of time in a foreign country where there were hardly any white people at all. While I certainly empathize with your "fish out of water" comment, I am not sure I would consider the non-white majority where I was to have been "privileged."

Of course, it is more complicated than just that. I wasn't applying for a bank loan or a job there. Perhaps I would have been discriminated against in more than the subtle ways I was. But I am still not certain I would have considered the majority there "privileged" just because my status was different, albeit temporarily. Maybe if I lived there for a long time I would have thought that? Who knows. But I tend to agree with Jon Snow's conceptualization of not experiencing oppression = what the default ought to be. Calling that "privilege" doesn't seem very clear to me.

 

[futureapppsy2]

But you don't have the experiences and know which specific situations it applies to. The reason that I acknowledge white privilege (or whatever Jon Snow would call it) is because as a woman, the only way that I can really explain male privilege is to say that you have to be a woman to understand what we go through. Although I can acknowledge that being white gives me advantages, I can't say specifically what they are because I don't really know what it's like being an ethnic minority.

Edit: Let me clarify: I understand specific advantages that being white gives me, but probably not all of them. And a lot of privilege is supposedly very subtle things that I'm likely not aware of because I don't experience them.

The closest I've gotten to understanding is when I attended a cultural event for an ethnic minority of which I am not a part, and felt very conscious of being white and not a member of that culture--like a fish out of water, really. I realized that this probably how the other people in the room felt out in the world most of the time. But also, maybe not, I have no way of knowing.

Great post--I totally agree.

My question about privilege is still a practical one--what do we do about/how can we use this knowledge effectively? Or can we, given that privilege is, by definition, unearned and unearnable?

Making people feel bad about their privilege or lack of privilege (or both) doesn't accomplish anything positive in and of itself, especially if they can't change that situation (which is kind of the definition of privilege, right?--that you don't have any power over it). So, where do we go from here?

 

[cara susanna]

I spent a significant amount of time in a foreign country where there were hardly any white people at all. While I certainly empathize with your "fish out of water" comment, I am not sure I would consider the non-white majority where I was to have been "privileged."

Of course, it is more complicated than just that. I wasn't applying for a bank loan or a job there. Perhaps I would have been discriminated against in more than the subtle ways I was. But I am still not certain I would have considered the majority there "privileged" just because my status was different, albeit temporarily. Maybe if I lived there for a long time I would have thought that? Who knows. But I tend to agree with Jon Snow's conceptualization of not experiencing oppression = what the default ought to be. Calling that "privilege" doesn't seem very clear to me.

I dunno, I think of privilege as more subtle than straight oppression. Like being able to go into a grocery store and not feel like you don't belong there. But maybe that's what Jon is trying to get at--any minority in the majority culture would feel that way (like you did in that foreign country).

 

[MBellows]

Is it? I would have thought religion. But, demographically, maybe so.

I guess it depends on what the privilege is. IIRC sexual orientation, not race, was the largest determinant of teen homelessness. So if that privilege is a roof over your head as a child... Though you may be right, there's probably a huge factor of parental religiosity involved in that demographic.

Also, when it comes to being trusted with children, atheists weighed in higher on the "we don't want them around our kids" and the "they don't belong in my america" scales over LGBTQ, Muslims, and other ethnic minorities.

 

[phillydave]

Also, when it comes to being trusted with children, atheists weighed in higher on the "we don't want them around our kids" and the "they don't belong in my america" scales over LGBTQ, Muslims, and other ethnic minorities.

Something feels different to me about being an atheist and being black. I'm an atheist, but it's not worn on my sleeve, or my skin. I have the option of limiting that knowledge to others if I choose.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I wish I had more time to contribute. Keeping up with it when I can.

 

[Pragma]

Making people feel bad about their privilege or lack of privilege (or both) doesn't accomplish anything positive in and of itself, especially if they can't change that situation (which is kind of the definition of privilege, right?--that you don't have any power over it). So, where do we go from here?

In my experience, feeling guilt because of the existence of oppression isn't necessarily a bad thing - it does promote self-reflection.

But what I do find troubling is the inconsistency of application of the principle. People can be disadvantaged for a variety of reasons. If someone objectively looked at my childhood, for instance, they'd probably view some of my circumstances to have been unfortunate. There are barriers that I had to deal with that some individuals never did have to deal with. When you look at other factors like SES, parenting/single parenting, exposure to violence, etc (all the stuff we study that influences mental health for many people), they are discounted. We don't walk around saying that little Johnny is privileged because he has two sober parents, that Wanda is privileged because she doesn't have a physical disability, that Jose is privileged because he doesn't have a mental health disorder,or that Gina is privileged because she wasn't victimized by sexual violence. Nor should we, IMO.

The term gets applied to this specific racial issue, which I agree is a huge issue. I just don't see how this particular type of oppression warrants the term "privilege" when there are plenty of other types of oppression. The connotation of the term doesn't seem to accomplish what it is intended to accomplish, particularly if people are already self-reflective about their cultural identity and how they interact with others.

I always did appreciate bell hooks' perspective on feminism as really a movement towards ending all oppression. Even if I didn't agree with every point she made, I did like the inclusive message. I think discussions like this can propel us towards common goals.

 

[MBellows]

Something feels different to me about being an atheist and being black. I'm an atheist, but it's not worn on my sleeve, or my skin. I have the option of limiting that knowledge to others if I choose.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I wish I had more time to contribute. Keeping up with it when I can.

This is true. But atheists and other religions don't get the privilege of automatically getting their holidays off or getting to have their religious symbols broadcast around towns on city squares and on every news organization on television. They're constantly reminded that because they aren't in the majority, their holidays are rarely even mentioned in the mainstream.

They are constantly surrounded by messages and idioms about characters from another group's mythology and and constantly berated in public, told that they don't belong, and even told by some municipalities that they can't build their places of gathering or worship on certain streets, districts, etc.

All of this in a place where religion or the lack thereof is meant to be free.

 

[01234567]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversa...-too-many/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

 

[SmoothJams]

Welcome to academia!

Thank you! An alternate universe indeed

Lots more good stuff to chew on today. And also, some more problematic statements.

I will respond depending on how my day goes. Fun times!

 

[SmoothJams]

Something feels different to me about being an atheist and being black. I'm an atheist, but it's not worn on my sleeve, or my skin. I have the option of limiting that knowledge to others if I choose.

I'm really enjoying this discussion. I wish I had more time to contribute. Keeping up with it when I can.

Well DANG! Help a brother out here!

The "man" (Jon Snow) is trying to keep me down! My minority voice is being oppressed! I'm drowning in sea of white privilege (which is just a political tool so I must be drowning in my own imagination).

OK, I'm sorry. TOTALLY JOKING...I just couldn't resist... Back later with something of actual value to contribute. Thanks to all for keeping this going. I think it's valuable. Even the stuff I don't agree with.

 

[Pragma]

Lots more good stuff to chew on today. And also, some more problematic statements.

It is always good to start your day off being told your statements are problematic. Sets the bar nice and low.

 

[MBellows]

Thank you! An alternate universe indeed:thumbup

I think you miss the point. When having conversations about a topic, it is necessary to first have a mutually agreeable definition for the terms used in that discussion. This is why, if you've ever read an academic paper, there is a good deal of discussion before you ever get to the point. This is absolutely necessary to avoid confusion, mismeasurement, or other methodological "accidents." Debates on semantics and operationalization are at the core of preliminary discussion of any topic, and that is as it should be.

 

[PHD12]

This is true. But atheists and other religions don't get the privilege of automatically getting their holidays off or getting to have their religious symbols broadcast around towns on city squares and on every news organization on television. They're constantly reminded that because they aren't in the majority, their holidays are rarely even mentioned in the mainstream.

I agree that atheists get treated differently. However, I don't practice any religion either and I have never considered myself in a powerless or disadvantaged position from being non-religious. I have never heard of anyone being passed over for a job for being an atheist, less likely to be promoted or more likely to be harassed by the police or profiled. These are issues that minorities deal with in this country (and some of them apply to women as well).

 

[MBellows]

Yep. The average person will not assume you are an atheist. Though, in certain segments of the population, atheists are very distrusted. IT would be hard to be openly atheist and be elected to political office. I personally find religion to be a difficult issue. I am an atheist, a so-called weak atheist. I do not pretend to know the nature of the universe or existence. To me, religion is ideas. So, the idea of not being able to attack religion seems kind of odd. Why can't we attack ideas? We have freedom of religion in the US and that's great. But, it seems like when religious ideas become intertwined in government that freedoms start to erode. Some religions appear to be more rigid than others. But, I digress. Bottom-line, I agree, in general religion and sexuality are not as obvious as race.

I agree that atheists get treated differently. However, I don't practice any religion either and I have never considered myself in a powerless or disadvantaged position from being non-religious. I have never heard of anyone being passed over for a job for being an atheist, less likely to be promoted or more likely to be harassed by the police or profiled. These are issues that minorities deal with in this country (and some of them apply to women as well).

Privilege of actually receiving things paid for? http://www.atheistberlin.com/study

Privilege of not having a president say you shouldn't be a citizen? Privilege of not being legally barred from a profession? Privilege of not being banned from an organization still valued in certain academic and political areas? Privilege of not having your place as a teacher questioned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

Does the relatively minor extent of this disparity make it okay? Does it not pass some arbitrary line by which we should measure what is and is not acceptable? Or does it not pass a level of significance for which we are to judge the idea of privilege?

 

[PHD12]

Privilege of actually receiving things paid for? http://www.atheistberlin.com/study

Privilege of not having a president say you shouldn't be a citizen? Privilege of not being legally barred from a profession? Privilege of not being banned from an organization still valued in certain academic and political areas? Privilege of not having your place as a teacher questioned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

Does the relatively minor extent of this disparity make it okay? Does it not pass some arbitrary line by which we should measure what is and is not acceptable? Or does it not pass a level of significance for which we are to judge the idea of privilege?

This is definitely an area that is traditionally neglected in discussions. I haven't had any bad experiences since I live in a very tolerant part of the country.

 

[MBellows]

This is definitely an area that is traditionally neglected in discussions. I haven't had any bad experiences since I live in a very tolerant part of the country.

That post was also meant to serve the purpose of introducing the concept of levels of significance of this "privilege" concept. I have to say that in terms of religious discrimination, there are few things that make me more irritated than the recent (past 12 years) treatment of the Islamic communities in the United States.

 

[Goobernut]

This thread has been a great read.

But while we are talking about atheism, I just wanted to bring up that there are several studies establishing anti-atheist bias in the US. This is actually what my thesis was on. Any time you compare or rank anyone to atheists, the atheists are scored significantly lower. One study even showed that in some circumstances rapists were rated as more trustworthy than atheists.

I think MBellows linked to an article months ago that had a lot of the above research in it (in scientific American if I recall?)

I just wanna say kudos to Cara for her well worded post. That's just exactly about how I see things. Sometimes, you can get a glimpse of what it's like to be in the out group, and I can empathize, but its not like the actual experience of it. I do like to think I'm good at extrapolating because of the experiences I've had. Several experiences I've had taught me that its not enough to "walk in someone else's shoes." Sometimes the only way to fully understand is to live it.