privilege as a meme

In a half time team-talk Pulis bawled out his team for their heteronormative cisgendered male privilege and pointed out that not everyone in the Arsenal team could share that.

ha

basically the idea seems to be "experience matters, refer to it"

― infirm neophytic child (zachlyon), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:30 AM (2 hours ago)

zachylon otm. that's a big part of what i get from it, anyway. it's perhaps tempting to think that intellect, logic and common sense working in concert enable anyone to render their own verdict on any subject, so long as they're willing to put in some information-gathering time. when it comes to certain subjects, however, it may be best to render less and listen more - especially when talking to actual people about their actual experiences.

^ ...to the extent that we recognizes our own privilege and the way it shapes our perceptions. but also good advice in general.

There's a lot of point-missing going on here.

I, of course, blame the patriarchy.

Anyone who tries to tell me to check anything is going to have another kind of check coming to them, if you take my meaning, which if you're priviledged, you probably will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ4UFZmeenE

There's a lot of point-missing going on here.

if you disagree with people you should be specific.

I'm confused by who some of you are hanging out with who deploy "privilege" so relentlessly that you can't get a word in edgewise until you've built up this resentment of it for keeping you down and un-listened-to.

Oh LG, please. This is turning into every thread about gender ever, in which dudes demand to have it proven to their satisfaction that the thing you're talking about even exists while they deny it and try to argue you away.

i don't think that's fair really. saying that the word "privilege" is used mainly by a select few is not akin to saying that privilege itself does not exist.

Yes but what you end up with is, it's okay when it's really necessary but *I* get to decide when that is. If it doesn't bore me, if it's not too obtrusive, if it's used by the right people, if it's against an injustice that seems egregious *to me*, if it's not "taken too far" (whatever that means). The fact that a person with lots of kinds of advantages DOESN'T GET TO DECIDE THOSE THINGS is the point? Not that someone who knows a fancy theory term speaks for everyone, which I don't even know where you got.

could you elaborate more about this privilege cabal, LG

xpost when you quote "taken too far" are you just telling someone they said that or did someone actually say it?

could you elaborate more about this privilege cabal, LG

i don't think it's a cabal, i just think it's used mainly by relatively well-educated people to attack each other.

OESN'T GET TO DECIDE THOSE THINGS

there is no deciding going on whatsoever. i'm just curious about the use of this specific word, not questioning the need for people's views to be questioned or the prevalence of ignorance from people in positions of privilege.

Yes but what you end up with is, it's okay when it's really necessary but *I* get to decide when that is. If it doesn't bore me, if it's not too obtrusive, if it's used by the right people, if it's against an injustice that seems egregious *to me*, if it's not "taken too far" (whatever that means).

happy enough with this. what criteria do you use yourself? we've all got our own backgrounds/experience that feed into what we think, do and say.

i don't think it's a cabal, i just think it's used mainly by relatively well-educated people to attack each other.

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:18 AM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

are you saying that "well-educated" people dont get to invoke privilege? why not?

i'm actually questioning the validity of people invoking it when to me i don't think its use in this way exists for the most underprivileged in society...

at the very least surely that means it's not a particularly effective word? i'm not against the concept itself at all, feel like that's been attributed to me but it's not what i'm saying.

i just sort of feel "privilege" is too vague to actually have real power - i completely agree with orbit's earlier post:

I mean I understand why it seems like a race to be the bottommost person in the pile but a) I don't think that actually happens in a well-meaning discussion where ppl want to come closer together or closer to a goal together, and b) I think that conception shows that the person characterizing it doesn't understand what intersectionality is, for one thing, or what the whole awareness-increasing work is for.

isn't this kind of a problem with the word itself? i mean doesn't this mean words like "racist" or "sexist" or "prejudice" are more effective in specifically targeting somebody's views or what they say and why it's misguided or based on their own blind spots?

dayo on fire itt, a few others otm too, other than that reading this was the usual dispiriting experience of str8 white dudes acting wilfully disingenuously and trying to pick apart what is a very basic and useful concept w/pedantry, attacks on the more egregiously obnoxious people who use it etc in order to avoid actually saying that they find acknowledging it uncomfortable because it would shake how they act in the world or because they're stuck on privilege as a thing that leads to someone "losing" or "winning"

""racist" or "sexist" or "prejudice""

hahahah you think that discussions would be more productive if people dropped these words instead?

like, the quickest way to shut down a discussion is exactly to start talking about racism and sexism and watch people head for the exits

of course they wouldn't be more productive but it would be a more accurate way criticising, wouldn't it? "prejudice" isn't quite as incendiary.

xpost i see that point, but do you think that's why we need the word "privilege" - cos as i see it it'd spark discussion but surely it leads to more confused discussion.

i'm genuinely curious about the case for it - cos it does seem really problematic when everyone has a different set or lack of privileges

it does seem really problematic when everyone has a different set or lack of privileges

this is why it's HELPFUL

for starters i think you're working off a concept of privilege that's really... limited? correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be thinking solely in terms of material privilege, money, access to resources?

i guess what i'm getting at is the confidence to use the word - when can someone feel safe doing so?

i don't mean that i intend to start employing it myself, just like - surely invoking "privilege" risks all sorts of assumptions about somebody else, you'd maybe need to know them quite well or their background?

for starters i think you're working off a concept of privilege that's really... limited? correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be thinking solely in terms of material privilege, money, access to resources?

not at all.

if you disagree with people you should be specific.

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:01 AM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark

why would anyone not be able to use the word? it's a pretty simple concept.

http://smartassradio.com/wp-content/gallery/site-images/checkyourhead.jpg

why would anyone not be able to use the word? it's a pretty simple concept.

well, if you're a white straight male for instance...

dayo, race, sexuality, gender, social class, religion, upbringing, schooling, i'm sure there are plenty other reasons somebody can be privileged over another person. i'm trying not to be restrictive about my definition at all.

that's sort of my point above, you can't know many of these things about people instantly, and there are probably other privileges that are invisible at face value - it does seem hard to be totally confident then in using it to assess people, perhaps not just for white straight people?

when people seem so fixated on dismissing the usefulness of the word "privilege" i am reminded of committed anti-feminists are among the creepiest people alive imo

well, if you're a white straight male for instance...

what about this prevents you from being able to eg acknowledge your privilege, or discuss it in relation to others?

what about this prevents you from being able to eg acknowledge your privilege, or discuss it in relation to others?

i meant that i would not use the word to denounce others because i'm obv privileged.

this is sort of what i'm querying - who has the right to use the word "privileged" - it's a lot more complicated than "racist" or "sexist" in this regard. i don't know the answer there, i'm just interested to hear what people think.

Hahaha who has the right to use it? Hopefully everyone, while they give it some careful consideration?

i don't think the right to use a word comes into this, it's a way of getting people to look at the underlying prejudices they bring to a conversation - we all bring underlying prejudices - and recognizing that beliefs and ways of thinking about the world aren't natural or inevitable but a product of who we are, and that these differences make us less qualified to talk about some forms of oppression, no matter how important we think our opinions might be - e.g. i will never experience racial prejudice so my opinions on it are kind of limited

it reminds me of my old man's endless "i'm entitled to my opinion" mantra - well yeah sure dad as long as you realize that means not much

Everyone can use it. It depends on the context of the situation. LG could legitimately question the privilege of a British person who dismisses the reality of prejudice against Irish people, for example.

Invoking racism or sexism is necessary at times but privilege as a concept has a wider and, to some extent, less confrontational use. You don't have to be racist or sexist to hold problematic or controversial ideas that have been shaped by the advantage your social or personal status brings. Interrogating the source of those ideas is important.

yeah it's not about the right to use it because it's not supposed to be a pointed takedown, but is better standing as a demand for self-critique from every individual within a group.

if you think its use is a tool of denunciation you really, really, fundamentally don't understand the concept

(obviously there are people who DO use it aggressively, as there are everywhere)

some ppl even used gender/racial terms like str8 white dudes as denunciations, lex, it's a strange and ever-shifting world out there huh

yeah it's not about the right to use it because it's not supposed to be a pointed takedown, but is better standing as a demand for self-critique from every individual within a group.

I agree with this, but this is often how it's employed, that was sort of my initial point. this goes on lex's xpost too, i agree, lex, i'm not trying to antagonise here, i do think that misuse is quite common though and is damaging.

Everyone can use it. It depends on the context of the situation. LG could legitimately question the privilege of a British person who dismisses the reality of prejudice against Irish people, for example.

Of course, but these contexts aren't always clear, and it's used online quite a lot which seems even more risky.

Also it seems hard to put all prejudices together under one banner of "privilege" - surely the reasons for these prejudices or views are all potentially quite different?

yeah it's not about the right to use it because it's not supposed to be a pointed takedown, but is better standing as a demand for self-critique from every individual within a group.

This is the most succinct and best way of putting it that I've seen so far.

if this usage has academic roots i would say that's at least in part a result of more diversity within Higher Education, i.e. non white middle class dudes having to challenge long-ingrained modes of thought/speech

Also it seems hard to put all prejudices together under one banner of "privilege"

because privilege isn't so much a thing as a relation. it comes directly out of the work of people like Foucault arguing that power relationships are never monolothic but always the product of these sliding scales.

i guess that's always going to be vulnerable to simplification because real life is v. complex whereas pontificating on Facebook is pretty simple

^ (re: foucault)

isn't this kind of a problem with the word itself? i mean doesn't this mean words like "racist" or "sexist" or "prejudice" are more effective in specifically targeting somebody's views or what they say and why it's misguided or based on their own blind spots?

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:36 AM (1 minute ago)

i think privilege does have the kind of specificity you ascribe to words like "racist" and "sexist". it just describes a somewhat different thing. i mean, one of the most insidious forms of privilege is that which considers itself not special, but normal - the privilege to see one's own culture and views as ordinary to the point of universality, and to see any deviation from that as notable "difference". this encourages a sort of blindness among those so privileged, a blindness to the limited (and rather special) circumstances that shape their perceptions and understandings. it may be useful to call attention to this when the privileged seem to forget that they can't really speak for "people in general".

also, privilege is frequently expressed in a sense of entitlement. in conversation, the privileged often feel entitled to chip in with their two cents, even when they have much less actual experience with the issue in question than others. they are reassured by their privilege (and the license it so often grants them) that their ideas will be useful and should be heard. it may be useful to check this tendency, especially when certain voices threaten to drown out all others.

Also it seems hard to put all prejudices together under one banner of "privilege" - surely the reasons for these prejudices or views are all potentially quite different?

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:09 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

privilege more describes how power is always relational and context dependent based on the parties. privilege describes the differentials inherent in relationships between people

I remember in college I had to take a race and feminism class to get my degree and it was pretty eye opening. I always thought I was a good progressive liberal, but never really thought hard about what life was like for people not white or male. It wasn't really built around "white privilege" though, more like, here's how life can be different for other people in our society.

I feel like pointing fingers at people for being priveleged isn't really all that helpful, as in people generally don't like being made into some sort of "booger man" for all the ills in society when the privileges they do have is as much an uncontrollable circumstance of birth as being discriminated against. It's hard to figure out without talking to people (pretty intimately) about how their lives are different, and those types of conversations don't happen all that often. Screaming PRIVILEGED! kills an important potential dialogue imo.

Of course, but these contexts aren't always clear, and it's used online quite a lot which seems even more risky.

― Tioc Norris (LocalGarda), Wednesday, April 10, 2013 9:09 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

i don't think it's as risky as you make it out to be, frankly! especially on a place like ilx where it's a core of posters who do share a lot from their personal lives and about whom we all know a great deal. but even outside of ilx, i think you can glean a lot about a person posting on the internet just by the /way/ they're framing something, the language they use, the hidden assumptions present in their text