privilege as a meme

i'd advocate abandoning "privilege" as a term for critical theory simply because it represents a lot of baggage that's best left behind (ie, the notion of "priviledge" seems to import a position of "non-privilege" which has, as it were, a privileged observational stance in regard to whichever problem/situation is being observed.

what we'd need, by contrast, is a concept that adopts something along the lines of the universality of interpretation, perspective, and most of all observational blind-spots.

"you should check your bootysmell"

now does that mean spotchecking your bootysmell or coatchecking your bootysmell

Great, now I'm imagining a bunch of people in vigorous debate stopping to hunch over and sniff between their legs.

All I know is if you're coatchecking your bootysmell, that tip had better be very generous.

what we'd need, by contrast, is a concept that adopts something along the lines of the universality of interpretation, perspective, and most of all observational blind-spots.

haha what

sorry, that's... not helpful

i remember it from my driving test but

I thought the conversation above about how it requires a certain level of educational (ahem) "privilege" to discuss privilege was interesting bc it seems to mirror the Marxist discourse about the ruling class joining + even leading the revolution:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

In social justice terms this has become the 'ally,' but whereas Marx sees the educated bourgeoisie as the necessary voice to articulating the class struggle, the privilege discourse asks him to cede his position of prominence to more marginalized voices. On one hand I kinda love that- it always bothered me that even during the revolution the former bourgeoise maintain their position of leadership (I think you could argue that they are giving up much more than they are getting by joining the revolution). On the other hand isn't this pragmatic of Marx? The ppl who can comprehend the historical movement as a whole need to speak up to organize the revolution (and this might be a huge paradox in social justice - the ppl running it are privileged, disavowing that privilege, and yet its that privilege that allows the movement to grow). Maybe.

marxist talk always makes me feel as though i'm listening to greedo

i like that way of looking at it (i also like just about everyone else's way, lots of good discussion itt) but i do wonder, and have been, how does one individual disavow their privilege?

kill yourself and hope for a less privileged reincarnation

will report back, if there are computers

disavow here means 'deny'.

What if much of your privilege is experienced passively?

haha what

if you're curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics

in any case the essential problem seems to be that in order for one to say anything or observe anything one must at the same time claim privilege. my problem with marxism is that it always takes the "side" (so to speak) of totality (even if disavowing any specific articulation of it) instead of acknowledging its own partiality.

If you give it to me, I might forget I found you.

i think if you accept that the concept of "privilege" is designed as a rhetorical tool to describe the speaker/observer as contingent, limited, constructed, then you have to take the next step towards a concept that is able to in turn acknowledge its own privilege (ie, it's own contingency and limitedness). people put their privilege up front and center when speaking, and this is perhaps an honest and ethical way to go about it, but at the same time one has to be comfortable with the fact that this makes you quite vulnerable--acknowledging privilege all you want doesn't ever make your point of view have access to totality or objectivity.

haha when can one have access to totality or objectivity

Right, and the problem is most of the old categories of critical theory still claim it despite protestations otherwise.

http://www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/pictures/thunderpants2.jpg

in order for one to say anything or observe anything one must at the same time claim privilege

uh

wait, ryan, can you unpack that claim about critical theory "claiming" access to objectivity or totality? it seems to me that the main theme of critical theory -- esp. french-derived deconstruction and foucauldian power analyses -- is that there is no subject position outside the hegemonic discourse, no objective standpoint, and so resistance needs to take place within a given field of power. that is exactly what these conversations about privilege are, i think... constant pushbacks against unsubstantiated truth-claims, assertions that recognizing the limits of one's perspective does not entail that one should stop pushing forward, and questioning, and working toward the interminable goal of justice.

there is no subject position outside the hegemonic discourse, no objective standpoint, and so resistance needs to take place within a given field of power. that is exactly what these conversations about privilege are, i think.

Yeah this is true--then you gotta theorize how it's possible to say all these things without objectivity. That's the rub and that's what I mean about making yourself vulnerable as a condition of speaking.

and I'd argue that too often acknowledging one's one privilege and even the contingency of your theoretical discourse amounts to no more than a rhetorical affectation designed to accomplish the opposite of making oneself vulnerable.

sorry I meant "own privilege"

a cis-yphean task

oof

this is what I keep in my invisible knapsack

lol @ cis-yphean task. but xpost to ryan, i couldn't agree more with the fact that acknowledging one's privilege upfront can be a rhetorical sleight of hand, designed to protect oneself from certain kinds of critiques, not unlike the old "in my personal experience..." and that goes along with the idea that "privilege" as it is employed on tumblr or whatever is an abuse of critical theory. i feel like part of the reason derrida's texts are so difficult to follow is that he is trying to evade precisely that conundrum... he is always doubling back and recognizing the binary logic that is at work structuring his own arguments, which are themselves attacks on the binary logic structuring the texts he is criticizing. so, yeah, i think that critical theory in its more academic manifestations takes the problem you are mentioning seriously, even if tumblr identity politics conversations do not. the rub with that is that more sophisticated theory convos are not accessible to many people, and are themselves a discourse whose very jargon is a mark of privilege.

yeah absolutely. We could argue about better or worse ways to handle these problems (and Derrida is a good example, as is Luhmann imo) but it remains to be seen how its gonna filter into general use. For now Derrida in most people's minds seems to mean relativism full stop.

Where Derrida is invested in troubling hierarchies and showing how dichotomies participate in one another, "privilege as a meme" seems to reaffirm these modes of domination. Derrida would likely push back on the notion of 'checking your privilege' since privilege participates in the absence of privilege and vice-versa. Maybe you could ask whether your discourse is coming from a place of privilege or a place without privilege acc to Derrida, but even that seems too rigid.

i agree mordy -- talking about "privilege" as a thing one manifestly "has" is not derridean. derrida sees privilege at work on the level of discourse, with certain concepts, or values, privileged over others in a subtle, but very real way that has the effect of silencing certain kinds of voices, or rendering them unrecognizable within the terms of a given discourse. part of my issue of how "privilege" is used in Internet discussions is that it is too simplistic. that is, i agree that people think a certain way because they have certain experiences and should be aware of the limits of their own vantage, but i think it is quite another thing to, in the blunt and totalizing way I see too often, attribute one's perspective to their identity "as a man" or "as a transgendered person" or whatever. that, in fact, is a kind of thinking that works to reify these forms of identity,and it also sort of depressingly closes off the possibility for people to think creatively about themselves, their world, etc. i don't know, i'd have to think more about this.

One thing I always loved about Queer Studies in grad school was that a large part of the discipline looked to 'queer' normative experiences and demonstrate how things that seem most normative actually resisted themselves, or possessed elements that troubled their own assertions of cis-hood/straightness/etc. This is something I haven't really seen outside the academy - how language undermines its own presentation of self.

I don't know if I follow this line of critique. It seems to me that privilege is a fairly humble concept. Checking your privilege just means reminding yourself that society values and ratifies some perspectives over others. To be aware of that is to gain a small increase in objectivity. You can become self-satisfied with that awareness, or use it as moral license to cease further self-examination, or treat it as a marker of distinction, but these are all basic human failings, and you can't fault a concept for how it's misused.

otm

I think the argument point is over whether objectivity exists

Yes, but I think it's also over whether the act of assessing or identifying privilege is a move towards objectivity, and as such, what are the pitfalls of assuming greater objectivity

I haven't read through this whole thread, but one thing that has become evident is that discussing privilege requires a certain amount of it. The only sort of priv checking I ever need to remind people to do is related to educational backgrounds. I remember very clearly talking with a close friend who was poking fun at her sister in law because the SiL said she had to turn in a rough draft of a paper the next day. My friend (who is otherwise VERY aware of all of this priv checking) was like LOL who turns in rough drafts?! Who even WRITES rough drafts? And I had to be like "well, my students do."

Just an observation, carry on.

Pat and Mordy's above posts sort of remind me of the word "construction" and how it gets or used to get misused to mean something like "thing that doesn't actually exist and is just made up to oppress us."

sorry I meant to write "construct"

I think objectivity exists contrastively--one perspective can be more objective than another by virtue of being more disinterested. I don't think that total objectivity is possible. But I don't think that privilege analysis is about attaining total objectivity.

attaining some degree of objectivity requires a lot of self-knowledge, which involves brutal, soul-searing honesty and hard work, so I don't think it's out of line to just expect a lack of it in any particular debate. even the most disinterested party still has their own values, experience, and perspective to bring bias to the table.

I see talking about privilege as more of an attempt to strip away the illusion of something static, normative, and disinterested and replace it with something more dynamic and relational. By understanding that your point-of-view isn't objective, you actually move towards greater objectivity.

yeah, i definitely agree with that, it's a way of making people recognize that they are a person in society, not a disembodied consciousness. my fear is that the way it is used -- either to qualify one's own position, or to discredit someone else's -- doesn't always do much to actually counter peoples' actual perspectives, but just affects a "knowing" recognition of the perceived origin of this perspective, a "you would think that..." kind of thing. so in that way it can have the effect of erasing complexities because, for instance, it is not always the case that an institutionally privileged person will be the one, in any given debate, putting forth the privileged perspective. who people are, and what they think, are different things, and though they inform one another they do so in complex ways that are not always immediately perceptible.

or maybe a better way to put this is that i don't think it's useful for "calling out privilege" to be seen as an end in itself, but rather, as the basis for a more searching, critical discussion about how harmful race/gender/class paradigms can be overturned. jezebel sometimes just sees calling out privilege as, in itself, a worthy goal, such as when they defended this one tumblr that posted pictures of nerdy guys' okcupid profiles in order to ridicule them for the sexist logic that underlie their self-designation as "nice guys." this kind of thing doesn't strike me as advancing the cause of feminism. http://jezebel.com/5972788/no-one-is-entitled-to-sex-why-we-should-mock-the-nice-guys-of-okcupid

so to recap, calling out peoples' privilege can be a great tool but it is not itself a substitute for actual analyses of intersectionality. not that anyone here is claiming that, but i felt that it should be said anyway.

ftr nothing hugo schwyzer says ever matters

what gave you the impression that that tumblr's goal was to advance the cause of feminism

or another question, why is feminism and other "social justice" movements always seen as a single cause rather than an ideology with multiple purposes

i don't think that is the goal of the tumblr but the jezebel article strongly implied that mocking those people would help spur a conversation about privilege and entitlement. i just used that as an example of how the rhetoric of privilege can be abused to justify abject bullying. but to your second point, your right, there are many feminisms as there are many feminists and all other social justice movements are the same.

xp to myself, i should really jsut write bigger posts huh

why is it not feminist for women to enjoy those sorts of takedown exercises regardless of their global impact on women's issues, why is the individual always shunted away in favor of the movement, etc

everything being relegated to a massive "movement" just makes it that much easier for capitalist forces to swoop in and control, monetize it