privilege as a meme

Right but what I'm saying is that "What's worse here?" is not the question that privilege is answering - privilege isn't that lens, that binary.

i don't understand, LG, are you thinking about privilege as the accrual of various advantages with a common denominator? as if you tally your score and find your numerical score on the 'privilege' axis? it doesn't work that way!

the poor just aren't involved in these discussions at all as far as i can tell.

"the poor" is doing a bit of work here, though - the poor in Bolivia are, the poor a few decades back are - the fact that the Bethnal Green poor are largely (though not entirely) disinclined to think of things this way is more an effect of 25 years of Tory rags pitching them against "others" than anything else.

I mean, obviously one of the ways that modern capitalism works is keeping the people with the least to lose busy and hungry all the time, but that's not the fault of the conversations that they're not having.

What I guess I was asking was, "who's priveleged and who's not priveleged" to call into question the very idea of using the concept.

hillary clinton was used as an example of someone who falls under the "underpriveleged" for being a women, and based on stereotypes, straight white men are by nature more priveleged than her. but if you look at things more closely, does that really hold up? what are we even trying to get at here?

so it's like, hillary clinton, one of the most powerful people who has ever lived, has to deal with certain nuisances of being a woman. and women out there face far worse than being patronized by the media. but then you have the same priveleged straight white men who live and die miserable lives with no hope of escape because of circumstances that are generally ignored because they have priveleges, which is completely and utterly kooky to me. and I'm just taking this stuff from the debates had here. why ignore so many things about peoples' lives just to fit things into this narrative?

"privelege" here is starting to seem like to me to be a tool for interest groups to alleviate legitimate greviances particular to their interests, rather than a tool to better help and understand other human beings. which isn't wrong or anything, but there's this moral weight put behind the concept when it's really more pragmatic than that.

xpost elmo that's the point i'm making if you read the last few posts. i'm only stressing class because i'm being told "that's not comparable" which seems to suggest a system like you describe.

i'm not suggesting comparison or tallies, just that maybe in a thread about privilege we might want to discuss how class/social status affects it and how class/social status mean the shorthand of "straight white male" doesn't work particularly well as a catch all for the ignorant and powerful.

not to mention disability.

hillary clinton was used as an example of someone who falls under the "underpriveleged" for being a women, and based on stereotypes, straight white men are by nature more priveleged than her.

Dude no this is not what was happening! Hillary Clinton is obviously massively privileged in many ways - Dayo is just pointing out that even with that she still gets shit that she wouldn't if she was a man.

class and disability ARE included in discussions of privilege

not this one

the disingenuousness and pedantry on display itt is just wilful at this point and is also like EVERY OTHER DERAILMENT OF THE SUBJECT EVER, it's so fucking DONE. no wonder social justice tumblr is full of people being assholes about it. no fucking wonder.

^ showing his 'previous internet discussions of privilege' privilege imo

oddly enough i don't really consider this thread a full and thorough delineation of the entire subject of privilege, why not go read some actual material on it before you dismiss the concept based on a fucking ilx thread

it's not fair or justified to accuse people of being disingenuous or pedantic. if you can't argue a cogent point, don't. this thread is pretty civil.

xpost

oddly enough i don't really consider this thread a full and thorough delineation of the entire subject of privilege, why not go read some actual material on it before you dismiss the concept based on a fucking ilx thread

i'm actually trying to challenge my own views and in the process maybe i challenge those of others.

lol @ "IT'S NOT FAIR"

i'm not being disingenuous or pedantic

There's a pretty neat article by John Scalzi which I wish I'd brought up yesterday - I don't think it will bring peace to the tribes of LG and dayo - and which goes into the money/class thing in its response posts. It looks like it might be a US / rest of world thing whether you consider money and class to be essential attributes on the level of sex/race/sexuality?

don't rly see what your point is LG, one of the points of 'privilege' is that power imbalances are manifest in a lot of ways and intersect in a lot of ways, and honing in on any particular thread of it (e.g. 'that's racist') is going to fail to get to the heart of the power differential at work. This means that it isn't easy and people aren't always going to get it quite right, but that's not the fault of the concept, it's much more reflective of the fact that it's just something that's always going to be very difficult to deal with adequately.

there is peace as far as i'm concerned... xpost

one of the points of 'privilege' is that power imbalances are manifest in a lot of ways and intersect in a lot of ways, and honing in on any particular thread of it (e.g. 'that's racist') is going to fail to get to the heart of the power differential at work. This means that it isn't easy and people aren't always going to get it quite right, but that's not the fault of the concept, it's much more reflective of the fact that it's just something that's always going to be very difficult to deal with adequately.

i'm not sure how this contradicts what i've said. i mean, i don't even think this is some gigantically polarised me v everyone debate.

i'm actually trying to challenge my own views and in the process maybe i challenge those of others.

this is either hugely disingenuousness or ridiculously self-important, take your pick

i'm very good at grammar

you dropped in to the thread and made a point which i was actually making, not sure why you're on the insult train now.

terribly sorry, am i being UNFAIR?

just disingenuous

nah, that was just facetious.

fair enough

Oh my god, you people.

Can I just pop in and throw out the idea that it's not surprising that the privilege concept seems to revolve around the middle-class and up since they're generally the ones with the privilege of having enough education and spare time to come up with the concept? Or has someone said this already?

That was sort of my point from the off.

tbh I think that's one of the most useful aspects of the concept of privilege; the basic idea can be used to examine/interrogate itself

Good morning! Yeah, Dan, I was going to say: that's undoubtedly true but also not a count against the validity of the practice. Those who have the knowledge also have cause to use it.

LG, here's the thing: you're making it pretty clear that you think the discussion itt should follow a certain path, and you want to direct it there. fine.

the discussion is incomplete. of course. it's not a comprehensive account of the concept and as lex sort of hinted at, you could easily find plenty of thoughtful material elsewhere about the intersection of class & other sets of privileges. you could even link to those things here itt if you found them.

but the insistence that you're somehow doing us all a favor by "challenging our views" and not just grinding a rhetorical axe is just a bit too much for me to take seriously.

nobody talks about them because their grievances aren't deemed legitimate by society

People talk about the poor! This includes straight white male poor people! Your statement is flat out wrong. People work very hard every day to help straight white male poor people! Many of the people who are working hard to help straight white male poor people do not belong to all or any of those categories.

If I talk about how economically underprivileged people have roadblocks to material improvement in their lives, I'm talking about straight white males who are economically underprivileged! Clearly, they're included in that class.

Is your complaint that they're being held back because they're male, white or straight? If so, fuck you. Is your complaint that they're being held back because their born into a disadvantaged economic and social class? Then, yes we're in agreement, so what's you're beef? We're addressing the problem, which is their poverty, not their maleness, whiteness, or straightness.

I understand how reasonable people can get trapped into this weird line of thinking, but can you see how aggravating this complaint is, and how it is nearly indistinguishable from the racist resentment? Indistinguishable from the absurd complaint that the white man is being persecuted and that the minorities and women are a bunch of lucky duckies? Indistinguishable, regardless of how you arrived there, or whatever your original intent!

damn, one of my they'res became a their

I think it is interresting than in some european countries, speaking of privilege is a big social no-no. Those european countries (I'm thinking of France mainly) are known for having extensive welfare but little or no means of social elevation. It is a broad generalisation of course, but I felt that discussing other culture's view of privilege could be enlightening for this (great) conversation.

xp Holy crap! You just filled my mouth with all sorts of bullshit. I already agree with the basic ideas of privelege. I am well aware of my own privilege in these terms, I've reflected on it on my own without even being aware of the concept.

I wasn't even referring to the poor when I said "deemed legitimate by society". Maybe I'm being a little mealy mouthed here because I have my own axe to grind ... and realizing that, I think I'll exit the debate.

european countries (I'm thinking of France mainly) are known for having extensive welfare but little or no means of social elevation.

Isn't social mobility higher in France than in the US (it's certainly higher than the UK)?

it seems like there's a 'privilege of the underprivileged' in even having their voices heard. there are people out there who live and die lives of quiet hell, and nobody talks about them because their grievances aren't deemed legitimate by society. which is why I think "privileged" is such an unhelpful way to frame debates like these because it's such a relative term that uses stereotypes to understand very complex issues and ends up in finger pointing, axe grinding, shaming, and guilt, all the while ignoring a multitude of nuanced issues that can only be understood through peoples' limited, individual perceptions and experiences.

so you have a woman like hillary clinton tut-tutted because she's a woman, yet was one of the most powerful women in the world. then you have millions of straight white men who don't have a chance in hell of climbing out of abject poverty. what's worse here? i think the very idea of "privelege" here is in itself a product of privlege that people are unaware of.

― Spectrum, Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:39 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Who are the people who aren't being talked about and why aren't they being talked about? And what does this have to do with the conversation about privilege?

xposts

I hate to speak without stats backing my claims, so take it with a grain of salt: I'd say that the average frenchman lives in better conditions. However, it seems to me that a (too) little percentage of the middle and lower classes is able to work his way up in the scales, whereas in France your surname is confined to the same economic strata forever. I might be wrong.

That is beside the topic, tbf.

What I think happens in countries with a stronger welfare state is that since the privilege of one is the access to university to others, so that privilege resentment is muted by the whole idea of 'I'm paying for you'/'He's paying for me'.

(talk about walking on eggs)

I still can't get over the idea that a great advantage of being underprivileged is that you get to have your voice heard!

lol

yeah that is some nonsense. gayatri spivak to thread.

oh man, that is so far away from the point I was trying to make it's absurd. maybe I didn't express it right.

yea

Do you mean that privilege is not that straight vertical line and that the discourse about privileges should adapt to the complexities? For example, how do we frame the privilege of a homosexual kid in a very rich, religious and homophobic family?

but the insistence that you're somehow doing us all a favor by "challenging our views" and not just grinding a rhetorical axe is just a bit too much for me to take seriously.

challenge is a verb, anyone in an argument is challenging someone else's views. i never said i'm doing anyone a favour. you can read more into the word "challenge" to try and insult me but that's up to you.

it's not a comprehensive account of the concept and as lex sort of hinted at, you could easily find plenty of thoughtful material elsewhere about the intersection of class & other sets of privileges. you could even link to those things here itt if you found them.

i'm not denying that material exists, but i'm only as ignorant of it as many other people in this thread, seemingly.

and yes i brought the topic up, but a lot of my subsequent posts were simply justifying even bringing up class, including my rebuttal to you whereby you had assumed i was creating a hierarchy of discrimination when that's precisely the opposite to my entire position throughout the thread.

I agree that the discourse about privilege shouldn't be this horrible thing that you guys have obviously experienced in some sort of cartoon hell.

some sort of cartoon hell

new ile description

yeah it's not a hierarchy - it's just that some experiences of oppression are gonna be more universal than others

I posted this Postone quote in another thread recently but I think it's relevant here too:

In Marx's mature works, then, the notion of the centrality of labor to social life is not a transhistorical proposition. It does not refer to the fact that material production is always a precondition of social life. Nor should it be taken as meaning that material production is the most essential dimension of social life in general, of even of capitalism in particular. Rather, it refers to the historically specific constitution by labor in capitalism of the social relations that fundamentally characterize that society. In other words, Marx analyzes labor in capitalism as constituting a historically determinate form of social mediation which is the ultimate social ground of the basic features of modernity -- in particular, its overarching historical dynamic. Rather than positing the social primacy of material production, Marx's mature theory seeks to show the primacy in capitalism of a form of social mediation (constituted by "abstract labor") that molds both the process of material production ("concrete labor") and consumption.

Labor in capitalism, then, is not only labor as we transhistorically and commonsensically understand it, according to Marx, but is a historically specific socially-mediating activity. Hence its products -- commodity, capital -- are both concrete labor products and objectified forms of social mediation. According to this analysis, the social relations that most basically characterize capitalist society are very different from the qualitatively specific, overt social relations -- such as kinship relations or relations of personal or direct domination -- which characterize non-capitalist societies. Although the latter kind of social relations continue to exist in capitalism, what ultimately structures that society is a new, underlying level of social relations that is constituted by labor. Those relations have a peculiar quasi-objective, formal character and are dualistic -- they are characterized by the opposition of an abstract, general, homogeneous dimension and a concrete, particular, material dimension, both of which appear to be "natural," rather than social, and condition social conceptions of natural reality.

The abstract character of the social mediation underlying capitalism is also expressed in the form of wealth dominant in that society.

Which is to say that the social relations (kinship/domination) that are most commonly associated w/ privilege are, acc to a Marxist reading of contemporary Capitalism, secondary or sublimated by this exploitive superstructure. After a long time thinking about privilege and how it's used online (particularly in the context of social justice/tumblr communities) I think that forms my main objection (tho objection is stating things a bit strongly); I don't think 'privilege' does an adequate job of exposing Capitalism (I don't even think that's really the point of the *meme*) and like most objects of resistance in society can be completely co-opted by the economic structure. I wonder if that's a major faultline in this conversation - a purer Marxist approach v. a more social justice/civil rights approach (that may be compatible w/ Capitalism - in fact, Capitalism often does a great job at erasing gender/racial divisions since those things can be obstacles to fully exploiting labor - we're all equal before Nike etc).

this mostly to local garda & spectrum:

one of the reasons that class (by which i guess american mean wealth?) has mostly remained to the side in this discussion is that wealth is widely understood to confer privilege. i mean, come on. everybody knows that rich people are privileged and that the poor are not. we even have a special word for wealth-lack: "underprivileged".

the kind of privilege we're talking about in this thread is not privilege in general, but rather the special, semi-invisible sort that is conferred by membership in a culturally dominant, supposedly "normal" group. the privilege of not being "different". the privilege of not being constantly demeaned, exploited, suspected and condescended to simply because of who you were born to be. i say "semi-invisible" because one of the most troubling characteristics of this type of privilege is how blind many of those who benefit from it are to its very existence.

of course a one-word, bullet point concept like "privilege" cannot begin to account for "a complex, scattered life of amorphous values and experiences", but it's not trying to do anything like that. it's simply attempting to call attention to and draw connections between the unearned benefits granted (in american society) to, for instance: men, white people, heterosexuals and the able-bodied. in the process, it also highlights the corollary penalization of those who don't belong to one or more of those groups. this isn't a myopic lens that ignores other realities or individual experience. it isn't a means of fudging around some other, more relevant or specific accusation. it isn't a blunt instrument for use in smacking straight white males around (though perhaps it gets put to that use sometimes). instead, it's a good, simple way to begin addressing a real, complex problem.