Food for thought

[Pragma]

---

Members don't see this ad.

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.

I absolutely agree. I must admit, when we are in discussions like this (talking about things like oppression), I don't think that everyone always keeps that in mind - as that applies to everyone involved in the discussion.

I'm not sure what everyone else's experience has been like, but I don't think that these discussions are as useful when people start to try to quantify their level of oppression (e.g., "I'm quadruple-oppressed, because I'm a lesbian black female atheist"). I mean, at least for me, I listen and acknowledge the systemic oppression. But what seems to come along with that is a silencing/minimizing of any barriers I (as a hetero white male Christian) may or may not have come across. I think it is hugely important to talk at length about systemic oppression. But as bell hooks always put it - these movements ought to be inclusive and aimed towards ending all oppression. What's the point of just picking and choosing?

Awhile back I might have mentioned this, but I recall leaving a diversity training where people were talking a lot about how oppressed they were. I walked out with an African-American female colleague who bid me farewell (as she was vacationing in Europe for the summer with her parents), hopped in her BMW, and took off. It was a lasting image for me as I had become accustomed to being called an oppressor/privileged, but couldn't help but make comparisons (e.g., as someone who was waiting for public transportation, and working two jobs over the summer to make enough money to send some home to help my single parent out). Obviously the point is that SES circumstances were hugely different between me and this woman, and any barriers that perhaps were there for me and not for her couldn't be discussed (remember, I'm a white hetero male Christian).

Now, I'll go spend many more days at events like this one addressing systemic oppression of minorities. But I can't help but think that an inclusive attitude and an acknowledgement of the widespread barriers that are out there wouldn't be helpful to the cause - because picking/choosing/quantifying does not seem to accomplish a lot. When we talk about "privilege" it can be difficult to accept the term, especially when someone tells me that I was born with a silver spoon (figuratively) and they (literally) have silver spoons in their kitchen drawer at home. I am perfectly capable of looking beyond this comparison and acknowledging systemic oppression, but I am not sure that others always take the "walk a mile in their shoes" concept to heart. Which makes terms like "privilege" interesting to discuss, IMO.

 

[PHD12]

There are individual minorities that are doing very well and you can come up with anecdotal evidence. However, as a society, we have a long way to go. White men are a very small proportion of the population in this country (somewhere around 30% of the population), yet they overwhelmingly hold the majority of resources and powerful positions in congress and as CEOs of companies. We are incredibly diverse as a whole, but the people at the top are usually composed of one race and gender (and i believe one religion). Have you seen members of congress? What about Fortune 500 CEO's? Only 3% of Fortune 500 CEO's are women and a similar percentage are minorities. Vast majority of congress are white and male even though white men are only 34% of the voters. These are the people that are making all the decisions in this country and hold the majority of resources. So when you guys say that SES is more important, who do you think makes up the top 1% in this country? What about the top 10%. It is overwhelmingly white and male. What about the bottom 10%

 

[Pragma]

There are individual minorities that are doing very well and you can come up with anecdotal evidence. However, as a society, we have a long way to go. White men are a very small proportion of the population in this country (somewhere around 30% of the population), yet they overwhelmingly hold the majority of resources and powerful positions in congress and as CEOs of companies. We are incredibly diverse as a whole, but the people at the top are usually composed of one race and gender (and i believe one religion). Have you seen members of congress? What about Fortune 500 CEO's? Only 3% of Fortune 500 CEO's are women and a similar percentage are minorities. Vast majority of congress are white and male even though white men are only 34% of the voters. These are the people that are making all the decisions in this country and hold the majority of resources. So when you guys say that SES is more important, who do you think makes up the top 1% in this country? What about the top 10%. It is overwhelmingly white and male. What about the bottom 10%

There is absolutely underrepresentation of women and minorities in the upper echelon of economic and political power. I think that's absolutely a systemic form of oppression that needs to change. There is no denying that minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty.

It doesn't make any difference in my point though. SES is one factor, and there are plenty of other ones as well. Yes, my example was an anecdote, but it represents part of why I think you might not get people on board with the concept that they have some kind of "bonus" or silver spoon compared to other people. Peoples' places in society/combination of various barriers in their lives are so much more complicated than skin color.

But if one really wants to get people on board with ending oppression and have a dialogue, how things are framed do matter. Saying that the deck is stacked against someone is probably easy for most people to accept and want to eliminate such injustice. Calling a large proportion of the population (white people) "privileged" without regard for the fact that many (most?) of them deal with oppression themselves seems like a much taller order.

 

[PHD12]

There is absolutely underrepresentation of women and minorities in the upper echelon of economic and political power. I think that's absolutely a systemic form of oppression that needs to change. There is no denying that minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty.

It doesn't make any difference in my point though. SES is one factor, and there are plenty of other ones as well. Yes, my example was an anecdote, but it represents part of why I think you might not get people on board with the concept that they have some kind of "bonus" or silver spoon compared to other people. Peoples' places in society/combination of various barriers in their lives are so much more complicated than skin color.

But if one really wants to get people on board with ending oppression and have a dialogue, how things are framed do matter. Saying that the deck is stacked against someone is probably easy for most people to accept and want to eliminate such injustice. Calling a large proportion of the population (white people) "privileged" without regard for the fact that many (most?) of them deal with oppression themselves seems like a much taller order.

I think your anecdote is very valuable and highlights why we shouldn't generalize and jump to conclusions about entire groups of people or assume that white people as a whole are privileged.

I think the overall data is also important to keep in mind. If I'm the CEO of a major company and I find that only 2% of minorities are being promoted. After doing some research, I may want to implement a mentoring program that may help remove barriers from groups. The data is useful for policy decisions/programs.

 

[KillerDiller]

I think your anecdote is very valuable and highlights why we shouldn't generalize and jump to conclusions about entire groups of people or assume that white people as a whole are privileged.

I don't think the privilege movement is trying to say that privilege is an all or none issue--that either a person is wholly privileged or wholly unprivileged. However, it does come back to how we define "privilege". It seems like some posters on this thread want to define it as having access to positions of power or having an overall lack of barriers and lack of discrimination. My view of privilege is much more in line with what Cara was articulating. It's not outright discrimination, it's subtle shades that color a person's experience (no pun intended). White people are privileged in the American culture because we don't have to search very far in the media before encountering people of the same color as we are. If someone cuts in line in front of us at Starbucks, we typically don't wonder if it's because they secretly hate our skin color. Theists and heterosexuals and males have other sets of privileges, and it's certainly fair to point those out too.

 

[Pragma]

Theists and heterosexuals and males have other sets of privileges, and it's certainly fair to point those out too.

Do you consider that a privilege though? Or a lack of discrimination? I get the relative difference between what some people encounter and other people don't, but is that a "privilege"?

BTW, people cut in front of me in line all the time - lol, I guess I never considered that a racial issue.

 

[KillerDiller]

Do you consider that a privilege though? Or a lack of discrimination? I get the relative difference between what some people encounter and other people don't, but is that a "privilege"?

BTW, people cut in front of me in line all the time - lol, I guess I never considered that a racial issue.

It's usually not a racial issue, but isn't it nice not to have to wonder?

Yeah, as far as that goes, I don't see anything really wrong with using the term "privilege" to describe that. It may not be the word I would have chosen were I in charge, but I also don't think a word that just means "different experience" would do the concept justice. It's broader than a lack of discrimination, because privilege doesn't necessitate anyone actively meaning to create a negative environment.

 

[MBellows]

It's usually not a racial issue, but isn't it nice not to have to wonder?

I usually assume that they're probably just like me and other people just aren't on their radar until the first or second cup.

 

[Pragma]

It's usually not a racial issue, but isn't it nice not to have to wonder?

No one has to wonder. Perhaps I should start wondering?

 

[KillerDiller]

No one has to wonder. Perhaps I should start wondering?

People do wonder, whether or not they have to. The reason I put that up as an example is because a professor of mine shared that that is what crosses her mind when she is ignored by salespeople or otherwise experiences rude behavior in public. Does she jump to this conclusion? No, not really. But she does wonder.

 

[cara susanna]

I know that some of the subtle privilege that we females think males have:
- Being able to go about your day without engaging in safety behaviors (bringing a friend with you to a party, not setting down your drink, etc)
- Being able to look in a magazine or watch TV and see your gender portrayed as powerful, and not as sex objects
- Seeing characters of your gender being portrayed with agency and as actual people
- Being able to show interests in certain topics without being accused of feigning interest to get male attention (female gamers experience this a lot)

One defining moment of it was when I was watching the Super Bowl with some male friends. The minute that David Beckham underwear ad showed, they all groaned about how gross it was. Meanwhile, I had just watched dozens of commercials featuring women in lingerie (this was also the year of that charming Fiat commercial where the woman is literally a car).

 

[JeyRo]

- Being able to show interests in certain topics without being accused of feigning interest to get male attention (female gamers experience this a lot)

You've never heard of the phenomenon of guys supposedly feigning interest in movies like Fried Green Tomatoes and the like (so-called "chick movies")? Plenty of dudes get blubbery about relationship films (I'm one of them) but the prevailing assumption seems to be that guys only show interest in those kind of films so they can go on dates.

 

[JeyRo]

Again, are we talking about privilege = not having to deal with these types of problems? Or privilege = silver spoon?

http://tinyurl.com/ccl5fr3

"A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people."

Does it fit or doesn't it?

 

[Pragma]

http://tinyurl.com/ccl5fr3

"A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people."

Does it fit or doesn't it?

The immunity part of the definition is debatable, but as with many words, the connotation is really what I find "problematic" (to borrow a term from earlier in the thread). Of course, as I mentioned early in the thread, the general construct of oppression is not something I am denying. I see that all the time, and do view the deck as stacked against many subgroups.

 

[MBellows]

- Being able to go about your day without engaging in safety behaviors (bringing a friend with you to a party, not setting down your drink, etc)

Heh. Guys only think they don't have to watch their drinks until something happens that makes them think otherwise.

- Being able to show interests in certain topics without being accused of feigning interest to get male attention (female gamers experience this a lot)

Some of the best gamers I know are female and my guild is over half female. I think this stereotype is shrinking as gaming becomes more and more mainstream. That said, I'm sorry if you've had negative experiences, any gamer who acts like a dick just doesn't see the point.

One defining moment of it was when I was watching the Super Bowl with some male friends. The minute that David Beckham underwear ad showed, they all groaned about how gross it was. Meanwhile, I had just watched dozens of commercials featuring women in lingerie (this was also the year of that charming Fiat commercial where the woman is literally a car).

I'm going to have to agree with you. Advertisements today are enough to make someone who doesn't like gender stereotypes or the out of context hypersexualization that mass media puts out. If anyone wants to see something in a sexualized context, I think they should pick up a magazine/movie devoted to that or go to an establishment built around meeting those needs. I'll stop ranting before I get too far off topic.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

One of the things that bugs me most about the concept of "privilege" or "oppression" is that it is often presented in more "liberal" situations as an established, uncontested construct, when in fact it is very fluid and constantly changing. I agree with Jon and others that it is highly political. I say this as a so-called feminist who has a lot of issues with feminism these days and it took me a long time to evolve and see that the "other side" can be just as rigid in the name of holding on to a belief system (which becomes status quo). There is no doubt in my mind that women and other minorities use these ideas as ammunition in many circumstances in order to gain more power for themselves. It's a classic game of playing the victim--it benefits them. The problem is when people hold ANY idea so rigidly that they are unwilling to have an honest, objective debate about reality. People get very emotional and selfish. It's hard to let go of the idea that your reality has been constructed as a victim and that you may not actually be a victim anymore. Things change and they can change rapidly, and you know it's a problem when people won't actually admit that fact and submit to it--for example (to use the feminist perspective), that men are actually objectified widely as well, as uncaring breadwinners and dopey stiffs, for example.

 

[cara susanna]

Right, I know that it's not black and white. I'm just saying that those are some examples of subtle privilege that people talk about.

I'm kind of finding myself agreeing with Pragma and Jon about not liking the term "privilege" for it, though.

 

[Pragma]

that men are actually objectified widely as well, as uncaring breadwinners and dopey stiffs, for example.

Guilty as charged 😉

Thanks for your post.

Right, I know that it's not black and white. I'm just saying that those are some examples of subtle privilege that people talk about.

I'm kind of finding myself agreeing with Pragma and Jon about not liking the term "privilege" for it, though.

Well I can't speak for Jon Snow and what he thinks about oppression, but I think you and I agree about the problem of oppression that happens to women and minorities at the systemic level. I guess I am saying that if you want some buy in from more people in the (shrinking) majority, there is probably a better way to go about it than pointing at them and calling the privileged. A large proportion of them won't identify with that term. You could probably convince a lot of people about the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences in how they are treated vs. others, but I just think the term "privilege" is going to get poor reactions.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Guilty as charged 😉

Thanks for your post.



Well I can't speak for Jon Snow and what he thinks about oppression, but I think you and I agree about the problem of oppression that happens to women and minorities at the systemic level. I guess I am saying that if you want some buy in from more people in the (shrinking) majority, there is probably a better way to go about it than pointing at them and calling the privileged. A large proportion of them won't identify with that term. You could probably convince a lot of people about the subtle (and not-so-subtle) differences in how they are treated vs. others, but I just think the term "privilege" is going to get poor reactions.

That'd probably be my main thought regarding the use of the term privilege vs. something else as well. Is it a set of privileges? In some ways, sure. I can understand the idea behind wanting to use a possibly charged term to invoke emotion and draw attention to the subject and its inherent unfairness, and I can also at least somewhat understand the frustration that must be experienced when someone refutes the existence of such privilege. But at the same time, I think the knee-jerk reaction of pretty much anyone to being called privileged would be to shut down, dig their heels in, and debate against any point you're attempting to make, regardless of how valid it might be. This is where Jon and Pragma's talk on inclusionary vs. exclusionary language becomes important.

 

[KillerDiller]

But at the same time, I think the knee-jerk reaction of pretty much anyone to being called privileged would be to shut down, dig their heels in, and debate against any point you're attempting to make, regardless of how valid it might be.

Yeah, and this just prompts the other side to dig in themselves. Few things are less validating then pointing out a "privilege" that you don't get to experience, and having the other side go on a rant about all the ways they are oppressed. This is especially true if it takes on the form of "well, once this person said X to me and it made me feel that way" when the person bringing up the privilege experiences that every day of their lives. It prompts a knee-jerk reaction to start explaining how they just don't understand what it's like. It's a bad cycle, though I'm still not sure the solution needs to be to change the language, since what we are talking about does fit the definition of privilege.

For sake of argument, what else would we call it? I think the phenomenon is deserving of a parsimonious term.

 

[CoreConcept]

I've been sort of shocked and disappointed at some of the comments on this thread. I've meaning to comment on this topic for a few days, but SmoothJams and KillerDiller have done a great job of articulating the importance of White Privilege as both a valid concept and real phenomena.

I am a White male who grew up in the "inner city". It was clear to me, even as child, that I had opportunities that my friends did not have, that I was given the benefit of the doubt where my friends were not. This is to say that I don't really understand how anyone who has been exposed to and interacted with people of different races and has a basic self-awareness could deny the existence of White Privilege.

I have difficulty wrapping my head around the objections to both the term and the concept.

"(For example, among the objections to the idea of white privilege, there is one which deserves some consideration here. Given the fact of a systematically unjust society, such as is the case in the U.S., the differential possession of basic human and political rights becomes a privilege. Yes, every person by virtue of being a person has the right to enjoy and possess certain rights. But, in fact, over the long course of U.S. history only white people have enjoyed and possessed the rights which they loudly proclaimed were fundamentally human rights. I think it is fitting and accurate, in such an unjust situation, to call the racially differential possession and enjoyment of human rights a privilege arising out of particular social relations.)"

I think this quote effectively describes the appropriateness of using "privilege" in this discussion.

"To sum up, (1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested; (2) that contestation is itself racialized, (3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones.

We define it in order to make it a problem for white people, to show that it is an unjust, historical creation. Whatever has been made by human hands can be unmade by others."

http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=387:whiteness05a&catid=69&Itemid=165


One of the reasons for calling this concept "White Privilege" is to make people, especially white people, uncomfortable. Understanding of this concept should lead to cognitive dissonance. This resolution to this dissonance should be to act in ways which acknowledge and reduce the differential treatment and opportunities between White People and People of Color.

I think some of the resistance to the term, both here and elsewhere, is the notion that as a White people we should feel guilty or ashamed for our "Privilege", that we should feel bad about our accomplishments and stature. It is somewhat understandable, then to be defensive, minimize the impact of or attempt to dismantle the concept as some have done on this thread. But the purpose is not to be ashamed of having the privilege, but to be upset that others don't have it and to try to do something about it. It is a call to action not a scolding.

 

[KillerDiller]

I am not sure the "phenomenon" is a cohesive construct necessitating a separate category.

From your previous posts, I've gleaned that you've seen disparities on the opportunities people have based on their SES. If economic privilege exists, why could there not also be White privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc.? Or are you contending that economic privilege supersedes all these other categories?

 

[PHD12]

men are actually objectified widely as well, as uncaring breadwinners and dopey stiffs, for example.

What are the consequences of these stereotypes economically for men and in the workforce? Either way, this stereotype is harmful. I'm just trying to figure out how stereotypes of men impact their opportunities and interactions with the political and economic systems.

 

[roubs]

One of the reasons for calling this concept "White Privilege" is to make people, especially white people, uncomfortable. Understanding of this concept should lead to cognitive dissonance. This resolution to this dissonance should be to act in ways which acknowledge and reduce the differential treatment and opportunities between White People and People of Color.

This! (side note: read 2 pages of thread, wanted to respond w/ the above paragraph the entire time, CoreConcept beat me to it.)

I think this gets to how the term bothers Jon because of its political connotations. Of course it has political connotations. Why shouldn't it? I get that political solutions will divide people, but they should each be given their time and be debated. Acknowledging privilege or advantage is step #1.

Someone can disagree with how affirmative action is implemented at a school and still be in favor of changing police policies on stop & frisk. Another example: residual lead pollution is concentrated in many areas that are predominately black; cleaning it up should be a no-brainer, but it is a deeply political issue because clean up would be expensive. What is wrong with a provocative word when many of us need to stretch to realize we've benefited from growing up in a relatively clean environment? How often would we think about that?

 

[roubs]

Also, I think getting hung up on the word privilege implies that there is not much we need to do to fix the institutional barriers that a particular group faces. If a majority group doesn't gain a privilege or advantage from membership, then the minority group should just bootstrap themselves up to the high life, right?

 

[MBellows]

I think some of the resistance to the term, both here and elsewhere, is the notion that as a White people we should feel guilty or ashamed for our “Privilege”, that we should feel bad about our accomplishments and stature. It is somewhat understandable, then to be defensive, minimize the impact of or attempt to dismantle the concept as some have done on this thread. But the purpose is not to be ashamed of having the privilege, but to be upset that others don’t have it and to try to do something about it. It is a call to action not a scolding.

I don't think that conceptualizing something as a "Privilege" makes anyone want to really get out there and do something to reverse it. After all, I'm sure that the top 5% in this country feel privileged every day, but they aren't racing out to stand up for income equality.

However, you do raise an excellent question here. Even if someone doesn't want to accept the term "Privilege" for its notable concerns, how would you suggest that they or anyone else take steps to correct the injustices that they see in the world? I don't mean to say that it can't be fixed, I'm sure that many of them can, and probably will with the gradual browning of America and the more favorable views towards multicultural diversity that are seen in younger generations. I just want to know what others would have the people in the majority group do to help.

 

[Goobernut]

Do you consider that a privilege though? Or a lack of discrimination? I get the relative difference between what some people encounter and other people don't, but is that a "privilege"?

BTW, people cut in front of me in line all the time - lol, I guess I never considered that a racial issue.

The use of the term privilege here doesn't bother me. I agree with Jon, being equal should be the baseline! The problem is that it isn't. There is an obvious slant towards one particular race and gender. The nuance that I think is being missed here is it isn't just the out-group negative bias (to go with Jon's example of in-group/out group), but that you also have in-group positive bias. Not just that those on the outside are eschewed, but that favoritism is displayed toward others of the same in-group. The fact that majority (whites in the US) display a favoritism towards other members of the majority seems to be accurately defined by the term "white privilege" in my opinion. Being a member of the majority sometimes *in general* affords you access to things that *in general* members of the minorities do not have access to. This is especially easy to point out with LGBTQ and marriage rights.

I don't feel like its over-reaching to call those who have a "lack of discrimination" privileged. I think I understand what you and Jon are getting at, and if the world were ideal -- I'd agree with you. However, since discrimination is common and regular, I think it is very fair and understandable to refer to those who have a "lack of discrimination" as privileged. Lack of discrimination should be a right, and the norm, but unfortunately it's not. I think the use of the word privilege was specifically used to draw one's attention to the imbalance of what we think is proper vs. what is actually happening.

** I replied on my iPad after getting distracted and missed a few points being posted. Sorry if this was a bit redundant 🙂

Also, I just don't see how a white person using the term White privilege is much different than someone who identifies as queer calling themselves that. Would you also advise that person not to use the term because it is politically charged?

 

[Pragma]

"To sum up, (1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested; (2) that contestation is itself racialized, (3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones.

One of the reasons for calling this concept "White Privilege" is to make people, especially white people, uncomfortable. Understanding of this concept should lead to cognitive dissonance. This resolution to this dissonance should be to act in ways which acknowledge and reduce the differential treatment and opportunities between White People and People of Color.

Also, I think getting hung up on the word privilege implies that there is not much we need to do to fix the institutional barriers that a particular group faces. If a majority group doesn't gain a privilege or advantage from membership, then the minority group should just bootstrap themselves up to the high life, right?

I actually get disappointed in discussions like this because of comments like these. They are loaded with all types of assumptions and don't reflect flexibility in thinking that I usually expect from people.

For instance, I wouldn't consider my own comments to be any denial of the "phenomenon" and if you check out my first comment in the thread, I say white privilege was real. But what I found interesting was some open dialogue about the language used to describe the phenomenon, and have tried to pursue that in this thread.

What that seems to elicit is accusations of denial, or that perhaps someone not liking the word itself is not engaged in wanting to remove institutional barriers. Basically, it says "if you disagree with this concept, then you are [personal insult inserted here]."

A lot of the ideology/language that emerged in an effort to engage white people was based on things like the silent majority and not perpetuating stigma via inaction. I'm not saying that some of those things aren't relevant today - but I do think that our society has evolved a great deal and that the issue of oppression is more multifaceted than it has been in the past. At least for me, I don't need to hear the term "privilege" to experience cognitive dissonance because of the fact that I am treated much differently than other people.

One of the things that bugs me most about the concept of "privilege" or "oppression" is that it is often presented in more "liberal" situations as an established, uncontested construct, when in fact it is very fluid and constantly changing. I agree with Jon and others that it is highly political. I say this as a so-called feminist who has a lot of issues with feminism these days and it took me a long time to evolve and see that the "other side" can be just as rigid in the name of holding on to a belief system (which becomes status quo). There is no doubt in my mind that women and other minorities use these ideas as ammunition in many circumstances in order to gain more power for themselves. It's a classic game of playing the victim--it benefits them. The problem is when people hold ANY idea so rigidly that they are unwilling to have an honest, objective debate about reality. People get very emotional and selfish. It's hard to let go of the idea that your reality has been constructed as a victim and that you may not actually be a victim anymore. Things change and they can change rapidly, and you know it's a problem when people won't actually admit that fact and submit to it--for example (to use the feminist perspective), that men are actually objectified widely as well, as uncaring breadwinners and dopey stiffs, for example.

This comment summed up some of the things I have been thinking when I consider how these discussions go in an academic context. Kind of Freudian, right? If you don't agree with us entirely, then you are in denial. I mean, for someone that acknowledges institutional oppression and fancies themselves a partner in trying to end injustice, it is a tough pill to swallow just because I don't like the choice of one word because of its connotation.

 

[Pragma]

Also, I just don't see how a white person using the term White privilege is much different than someone who identifies as queer calling themselves that. Would you also advise that person not to use the term because it is politically charged?

Generally speaking, I don't like the idea of labeling other people based on arbitrary features. I understand the heuristics of it, but I'd much rather let people self-label than create them for other people. Particularly when they have a negative connotation (which can be very subjective).

 

[Pragma]

“To sum up, (1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested; (2) that contestation is itself racialized, (3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones.

When you use logic like this, you realize that you label someone immediately just for disagreeing with your premise, right?

 

[Pragma]

From wikipedia - I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to some of what is being presented here:

The notion of white privilege raises the question of the difference between rights and privileges. Lewis Gordon rejects the idea of white privilege, arguing that the privileges from which whites as a group are supposed to benefit are, in fact, social goods to which all people aspire. As such, he writes, they are not privileges:
"A privilege is something that not everyone needs, but a right is the opposite. Given this distinction, an insidious dimension of the white-privilege argument emerges. It requires condemning whites for possessing, in the concrete, features of contemporary life that should be available to all, and if this is correct, how can whites be expected to give up such things? Yes, there is the case of the reality of whites being the majority population in all the sites of actual privilege from prestigious universities to golf clubs and boards of directors for most high-powered corporations. But even among whites as a group, how many whites have those opportunities?"[43]

Viewing whites as universally privileged constructs "a reality that has nothing to do with [the] lived experience" of the majority of whites, who themselves do not have access to elite institutions.[43] Their "daily, means-to-means subsistence" is a right, of which it makes no sense to feel guilty.[43] Naomi Zack similarly criticizes the term white privilege as a misunderstanding of the difference between privileges and rights. Discrimination against nonwhites does not create a privilege in the normal sense of the term, a "specifically granted absolute advantage," a "prerogative or exception granted to an individual or special group."[44] In the United States, Zack writes, discussion of "white privilege" distracts from the discussion of social exclusion of nonwhites, which is the origin of racial disparities.[44]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege#Privileges_vs._Rights

 

[Pragma]

I guess I'm on a roll in my effort to avoid grading papers. I'll post one more excerpt that I found interesting related to this topic:

According to James Forrest and Kevin Dunn, the privileges of being white might accrue largely to certain white ethnic and cultural groups, as opposed to white people as a whole.[5] Adam A. Powell, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Michael T. Schmitt argue that people in the least successful white ethnic and cultural groups are often the ones that are disadvantaged the most from any affirmative action that attempts to take into account white privilege.[45]

Lawrence Blum, Professor of Philosophy writes that white privilege analysis has been too narrow in its focus. Specifically it has failed to acknowledge important ethnic differences, especially among whites. And it has not adequately distinguished between "spared injustice, unjust enrichment and non-injustice-related" privileges.[6]

The idea that white privilege has functioned as a social tool to divide white and black workers has proved particularly controversial. A Marxist critique of this perspective argues that racial differences are secondary to economic difference, and that white privilege is therefore secondary to class privilege. According to this view, analyzing white privilege is misguided because it distracts from class struggle.[46] Historian Eric Arnesen has challenged this understanding of "whiteness" as ill-constructed historical revisionism. Arnesen calls whiteness a "moving target" in historical studies, writing: "Whiteness is, variously, a metaphor for power, a proxy for racially distributed material benefits, a synonym for “white supremacy,” an epistemological stance defined by power, a position of invisibility or ignorance, and a set of beliefs about racial “Others” and oneself that can be rejected through “treason” to a racial category." Arnesen disagrees with the idea that white privilege divided the labor movement, as well as with the underlying concept of inherent labor unity, arguing that many types of difference have divided the working class.[7]

Arnesen's arguments about race and organized labor form the basis for a larger argument about "white privilege" as a concept in the social sciences. Arnesen also rejects the idea of a basic connection between the identity of whiteness and the ideology of white supremacy.[7] The "white privilege" concept creates the image of a person so favored by society that they are unaware of unfairness and domination—yet this may not be the experience of all people with "white skin".[47]

The label "white trash", in particular, has been described as marking off a lower limit of white privilege in the social hierarchy. In the words of anthropologist John Hartigan: "White trash, a lurid stereotype and debasing racial epithet, applies to poor whites whose subordination by class is extreme. This charged label is a reminder that there are important class dimensions to whiteness and that whites are not uniformly privileged and powerful."[8] Hartigan also cites "hillbilly" and "redneck" as contemporary terms that connote whiteness but not privilege.[48] Conversely, there is discussion about whether members of a “model minority”, such as Asian Americans can enjoy “white privilege”, or something like it, despite their non-European ancestry.[10] Arnesen has also argued that some claims about the psychology of whiteness and white privilege are difficult to prove—or even wrong. He compares whiteness studies with Freudian psychoanalysis because of its rigid pre-determined structure.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege#Limitations

 

[PHD12]

I am procrastinating as well....found a white privilege checklist of all the various ways in which being white is advantageous on a daily basis.

http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/white_privilege_checklist.pdf

I wonder if people agree with these?

 

[CoreConcept]

Pragma,

(1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested - This entire thread points for the need to do this.

(2) that contestation is itself racialized - Here is something you stated earlier in the thread

Awhile back I might have mentioned this, but I recall leaving a diversity training where people were talking a lot about how oppressed they were. I walked out with an African-American female colleague who bid me farewell (as she was vacationing in Europe for the summer with her parents), hopped in her BMW, and took off. It was a lasting image for me as I had become accustomed to being called an oppressor/privileged, but couldn't help but make comparisons (e.g., as someone who was waiting for public transportation, and working two jobs over the summer to make enough money to send some home to help my single parent out). Obviously the point is that SES circumstances were hugely different between me and this woman, and any barriers that perhaps were there for me and not for her couldn't be discussed (remember, I'm a white hetero male Christian).

Also this: "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?"

These responses are really what prompted me to engage in this discussion. This comment is nothing if not racialized (which is different from racism -which I am not implying at all) . You say that you recognize White Privilege, but this comment tells me you don't really understand it. Just because a Black woman is more successful than you financially doesn't mean you aren't still privileged in many ways that she is not, mostly based on the color of your skin. Now you are oppressed because if you were to engage with her about barriers you have faced, you would be dismissed (as you should be). This way of thinking only minimizes the importance of the inequity and diffuses the need to do anything about it.

(3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones. - The point is awareness. The more aware we are of inequities and how they're maintained, the better we are equipped to make changes. How we do this, I think, is where the discussion needs to go.

 

[Pragma]

Pragma,

(1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested - This entire thread points for the need to do this.

(2) that contestation is itself racialized - Here is something you stated earlier in the thread



Also this: "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?"

These responses are really what prompted me to engage in this discussion. This comment is nothing if not racialized (which is different from racism -which I am not implying at all) . You say that you recognize White Privilege, but this comment tells me you don't really understand it. Just because a Black woman is more successful than you financially doesn't mean you aren't still privileged in many ways that she is not, mostly based on the color of your skin. Now you are oppressed because if you were to engage with her about barriers you have faced, you would be dismissed (as you should be). This way of thinking only minimizes the importance of the inequity and diffuses the need to do anything about it.

(3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones. - The point is awareness. The more aware we are of inequities and how they're maintained, the better we are equipped to make changes. How we do this, I think, is where the discussion needs to go.

The entire point of my participation in this thread has been out of intrigue when it comes to the concept of using the term privilege. My African American female colleague no doubt encountered barriers that I didn't encounter. But I was pointing out that it appeared I had barriers that she didn't either, and the impact that calling someone "privileged" under those circumstances might have. While you may see that as dismissing or minimizing other barriers - it isn't. Sorry. It is quite possible for two things to be simultaneously true, and for someone to engage in trying to end racial inequality while still acknowledging other inequalities. ETA: Some other food for thought - there are folks that would accuse people who are so invested in the term of "white privilege" as ineffectively addressing racial disparities, and diverting attention away from the actual disparities because of the choice of language. Heh - maybe I can accuse someone too in a dogmatic fashion 🙂

Telling me that I don't understand institutional oppression because I question some of the language used (which is controversial) seems highly dogmatic, IMO. As I've noted before, I don't think the typical connotation of "privilege" really reflects the experience of most white people.

 

[CoreConcept]

I don't think that conceptualizing something as a "Privilege" makes anyone want to really get out there and do something to reverse it. After all, I'm sure that the top 5% in this country feel privileged every day, but they aren't racing out to stand up for income equality.

However, you do raise an excellent question here. Even if someone doesn't want to accept the term "Privilege" for its notable concerns, how would you suggest that they or anyone else take steps to correct the injustices that they see in the world? I don't mean to say that it can't be fixed, I'm sure that many of them can, and probably will with the gradual browning of America and the more favorable views towards multicultural diversity that are seen in younger generations. I just want to know what others would have the people in the majority group do to help.

Again, the point of using "privilege" is to create dissonance and discomfort . I think you are correct that there are probably a lot of people who will not accept the concept based on the the term, but I don't think any other term would actually change these people's minds or get them to act either. Social inertia is hard to overcome.

I think there are a lot of things that can be done on both an institutional/societal level and personal level. I think the personal level is arguably the place where impact can be more immediate. Being aware of one's privilege goes hand-in-hand with being aware of other's lack of privilege. With that awareness comes responsibility to help create more awareness within the Majority group, to be sensitive to the oppression/discrimination/barriers minority groups face, and to step in when discrimination or inequity is apparent, among others. This a pretty vague description, but I think it is worth discussing what this would actually look like in practice.

 

[cara susanna]

I just had to get this out of my system:

"What part of this aren't you getting?"
"Obviously the core concept, Lana!"

 

[Pragma]

Again, the point of using "privilege" is to create dissonance and discomfort . I think you are correct that there are probably a lot of people who will not accept the concept based on the the term, but I don't think any other term would actually change these people's minds or get them to act either. Social inertia is hard to overcome.

I think there are a lot of things that can be done on both an institutional/societal level and personal level. I think the personal level is arguably the place where impact can be more immediate. Being aware of one's privilege goes hand-in-hand with being aware of other's lack of privilege. With that awareness comes responsibility to help create more awareness within the Majority group, to be sensitive to the oppression/discrimination/barriers minority groups face, and to step in when discrimination or inequity is apparent, among others. This a pretty vague description, but I think it is worth discussing what this would actually look like in practice.

What I find interesting here is that I think it is entirely possible to do all of these things (bolded) but still take issue with the label of privilege. I'd hope that any psychologist out there is well-versed in the nature of systemic oppression, reflective of how they interact with others in society, and active in seeking to eliminate oppression - both in subtle and explicit ways. I am in full agreement with you that awareness is critical. I guess we disagree about the nature of that awareness - i.e., identifying as a privileged member of society vs. identifying as someone who has not experienced the systemic injustices that a person of color has.

But hey, we all have opinions. I think what people do in their day to day life is a lot more important than what someone says on an internet message board. I think your assumptions about people that reject the notion of "privilege" and the connotation it brings is problematic and dismissive. But perhaps people with a little bit different perspective on the term but still acknowledge systemic oppression might be more effective at reaching out in those cases. Complicated social issues often require multiple perspectives in order to achieve progress. I say that without any intention of minimizing racial oppression. I just think what we call people has direct relevance to how they will respond to our message, and that dismissing anyone who won't accept your label (for some legitimate reasons) is very short sighted.

 

[CoreConcept]

I am not intending to be dismissive or dogmatic. I acknowledge that the term is apparently controversial - an opinion that I have not come across until this thread - but just because it is controversial doesn't mean that it is inappropriate or doesn't serve it's intended purpose. I would contend that the concept of "White Privilege" is important. If you want to talk about the concept without using the term, I guess I am fine with that. I think the argument over the semantics and vocabulary of the concept here effectively serves to obscure its importance and how it can be utilized to promote equality. (See, it becomes hard to talk about when we don't call it something).

I guess I still don't understand what is problematic or dismissive about the term or it's connotation, though.

Obviously, different groups of White people benefit differently from "the concept that shall not be named", but I think at least some of the items on the checklist PHD12 linked to are applicable to most White Americans (even the most disadvantaged).

 

[CoreConcept]

I just had to get this out of my system:

"What part of this aren't you getting?"
"Obviously the core concept, Lana!"

There do seem to be quite a few Archers on this forum 😉

 

[Pragma]

I think the argument over the semantics and vocabulary of the concept here effectively serves to obscure its importance and how it can be utilized to promote equality. (See, it becomes hard to talk about when we don't call it something).

I disagree that it obscures the importance of how it can be utilized to promote equality. You noted before that it is a term that is meant to create cognitive dissonance in white people and to engage them into action. It certainly has for a lot of people - in my own studies at the graduate level, acknowledgement of the concept definitely led to a lot of self-reflection and awareness. But I also think that sticking too rigidly to the term obscures progress and alienates rather than unites.

I guess I still don't understand what is problematic or dismissive about the term or it's connotation, though.

As we've been discussing, the term is a loaded term. A lot of people would view privilege as a term associated with people of elite social status (silver spoons and what not). Whether that is a completely accurate connotation for the term is debatable, but the fact that many do view it that way means that its use in the context of "white privilege" serves to alienate (as opposed to foster self-reflection) among a large proportion of the white population.

By then telling people who don't accept the term that they are in denial and lack awareness, one further alienates people. I am only arguing that some flexibility with regard to how we label a very large group of people could help to get a more inclusive message out with regard to ending social injustices. In my view, that is a more practical and useful ideology than just beating the same drum over and over and then making comments to the effect of "well those people won't get it anyways" and assuming their continued social inertia, as you put it. That's judgemental, IMO, even if there is a history of social inertia.

By contrast, an engaging discussion about injustices, oppression, and lack of racial oppression experienced by white people without labeling them as privileged would perhaps accomplish more social awareness among this group of people in the long term.

We live in interesting times, and as Psychadelic said earlier, some of these constructs are fluid/evolving. An inclusive attitude towards coalition-building seems a much more pragmatic way to spread the word than dogmatically remaining attached to a very loaded label that can alienate people who may lack plenty of "privileges" in their lives.

 

[MBellows]

Pragma,

(1) white privilege should be defined carefully because it is contested - This entire thread points for the need to do this.

(2) that contestation is itself racialized - Here is something you stated earlier in the thread



Also this: "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?"

These responses are really what prompted me to engage in this discussion. This comment is nothing if not racialized (which is different from racism -which I am not implying at all) . You say that you recognize White Privilege, but this comment tells me you don't really understand it. Just because a Black woman is more successful than you financially doesn't mean you aren't still privileged in many ways that she is not, mostly based on the color of your skin. Now you are oppressed because if you were to engage with her about barriers you have faced, you would be dismissed (as you should be). This way of thinking only minimizes the importance of the inequity and diffuses the need to do anything about it.

(3) which is what we should expect, since (4) socially invisible structures of oppression are more effective and enduring than socially visible ones. - The point is awareness. The more aware we are of inequities and how they're maintained, the better we are equipped to make changes. How we do this, I think, is where the discussion needs to go.

I was struck by this comment. How much do you know about Pragma? Pragma could be a person with a disability or a facial deformity. I think that assuming that someone's barriers should be dismissed based off of race is insulting.

 

[roubs]

Basically I think we just need a more pithy phrase to describe the

lack of racial oppression experienced by white people

I don't think white people should feel shamed by the state of affairs, but they should feel like they are part of this issue and can contribute to a solution. Is 'white advantage' better?

 

[Pragma]

I was struck by this comment. How much do you know about Pragma? Pragma could be a person with a disability or a facial deformity. I think that assuming that someone's barriers should be dismissed based off of race is insulting.

I appreciate the sentiment.

I won't say I know what core concept was saying for sure, but I think the basic premise was that pointing to some other form of disadvantage while also discussing race somehow minimizes the reality of race-related oppression.

While I think there is some validity to that argument if the comment is brought up with poor intentions (e.g., to deny race-related oppression), I think it is yet another manifestation of inflexible thinking. Why can't we talk about race-related oppression as a real construct and other forms of disadvantage as well? The existence of one does not need to minimize the impact of the other.

 

[PHD12]

Taken from this blog: http://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/05/25/the-real-reason-the-term-white-privilege-is-a-load-of-crap/

"When the phrase “white privilege” is spoken, most minorities hear, “a pattern of treating white people better than non-white people.” However, I and, based on every conversation I’ve ever witnessed, most white people hear, “white people have it too easy. They have no problems. The world gets handed to them on a silver platter.” And the conversation stops right there. A lot of times the response by white people is to tell their own stories of being poor, overcoming enormous obstacles, being mistreated etc. Privilege belongs to the rich, the powerful, celebrities, politicians, royalty. Not white share croppers or immigrants or a white kids with an alcoholic father.

At which point, people of color say, “but you don’t have to deal with racism! You don’t have to deal with people following you through stores or refusing to hire you or housing discrimination. The cops don’t pull you over for ‘driving while white’! You don’t get stopped and frisked walking down the street in New York city! Don’t you see how privileged you are?”

 

[MBellows]

I appreciate the sentiment.

I'm sure you know that I meant that in only the best ways. About 20% of people in the US live with a disability, disabilities that have both physical and social barriers to completing even daily life activities.

 

[Pragma]

Taken from this blog: http://theupsidedownworld.com/2012/05/25/the-real-reason-the-term-white-privilege-is-a-load-of-crap/

"When the phrase “white privilege” is spoken, most minorities hear, “a pattern of treating white people better than non-white people.” However, I and, based on every conversation I’ve ever witnessed, most white people hear, “white people have it too easy. They have no problems. The world gets handed to them on a silver platter.” And the conversation stops right there. A lot of times the response by white people is to tell their own stories of being poor, overcoming enormous obstacles, being mistreated etc. Privilege belongs to the rich, the powerful, celebrities, politicians, royalty. Not white share croppers or immigrants or a white kids with an alcoholic father.

At which point, people of color say, “but you don’t have to deal with racism! You don’t have to deal with people following you through stores or refusing to hire you or housing discrimination. The cops don’t pull you over for ‘driving while white’! You don’t get stopped and frisked walking down the street in New York city! Don’t you see how privileged you are?”

Great post, and I think one highlighting the crux of it. I'd argue that how we conceptualize the second paragraph here has a lot to do with what white people ultimately take from these conversations if they aren't already on board with ending oppression.

Imagine the conversation starting with a discussion about these injustices facing racial minorities. I think leaving out "privilege" might accomplish more in the long run, although we certainly still need to address any ambivalence people may have regarding the fact that they aren't treated in the same way as oppressed groups, who experience these injustices.

 

[Pragma]

I don't think white people should feel shamed by the state of affairs, but they should feel like they are part of this issue and can contribute to a solution. Is 'white advantage' better?

Well, I guess I'll deviate from Jon Snow here, even though I think he makes a good point about how context-specific oppression can be.

I think addressing "relative disparity" might be one way to frame it. It is broad enough to encompass differential treatment without slapping the label "privilege" on someone. Perhaps it is broad enough to capture what some people would consider to be "privilege" as well.

Really, I agree with JS that the injustices we are talking about are that - injustices - and a lack of injustice doesn't necessarily mean privilege.

When I think back to some discussions I have had with some elderly family members from my wife's side of the family with some more "dated" views on race (to use a euphemism), I recall having some success when talking about how white people don't have to deal with racial injustices, and how some of the slurs I had heard would be construed as insulting and oppressive. I don't think the conversations would have gone as well had I opened up with the concept of white privilege, and I think people underestimate how much that term might interfere with these kinds of discussions.

 

[MBellows]

No. We are individuals. There is a distribution, many distributions. Race is a somewhat loose construct. The whole debate is misframed.

Do you think all of those are normal distributions? And do you feel the same way about ethnicity as you do about race?

 

[CoreConcept]

I was struck by this comment. How much do you know about Pragma? Pragma could be a person with a disability or a facial deformity. I think that assuming that someone's barriers should be dismissed based off of race is insulting.

To be fair he stated, "any barriers that perhaps were there for me and not for her couldn't be discussed (remember, I'm a white hetero male Christian)". This is what irked me because it sounded like he was minimizing the barriers his colleague probably faced (and still faces) by bemoaning his perceived inability to shares his barriers or oppression because of race.

Like others have posted previously, there is nothing a someone of minority status likes to hear more than how bad someone of the majority status it. Perhaps Pragma has a disability or belongs to some other minority group and was merely trying to empathize or commiserate with his colleague, but I was only going on what he emphasized. I don't think the discussion of privilege should be verboten based on race or any other demographic, but the topic should be well considered before it is initiated by someone in the majority because of the sensitive nature of the topic.

I don't think I'm being inflexible, but this is an issue I feel strongly about and this feeling has only increased after being in grad school in a very White conservative area of the country, where I often hear the argument PHD12 quoted above. So it is quite possible I'm being too assertive with my stance.

Privilege is a relative concept which boils down to one person/group having something or access to that others don't- I think that applies in this situation. I think Roubs might be on to something with using "Advantage" instead of "privilege". Does anyone have any knee-jerk reactions to using that term?