privilege as a meme

there is obv going to be a certain section - in the media but not just - of left-leaning middle class liberals whose self-image is in large part built around their sense of righteousness and they are inevitably gonna be some of the last to accept that privilege is a thing and they also possess it because they've been fighting the good fight for years and why aren't we more grateful?

also class/wealth is perhaps one of the harder privileges to recognise because at a certain income level it's easy to be surrounded by people who appear to have much more than you and not to notice those that don't, plus all the evanescent little markers/assumptions of class which in a way don't look like privilege at all to the owners thereof

xp to lex Potentially yes which is why I thought it germane to mention, I just thought I'd mitigate that by saying how the joke worked in context, as a throwaway character detail. GL's dickishness is legendary of course

Nv otm, like with the suzanne Moore thing its never a good look to assume that you have attained top level right on status & can never be called out on anything ever

'you were too close to the centre of that scene to appreciate how it looked from the outside'

oh noooooo -_-

The person who said that to me was actually on the periphery of said scene and loved it, and he's otherwise awesome, but AAAARGH!

GL is making the classic error of forgetting that his house is probably paid for several times over and he won't worry about a red bill ever again. But he's a privately educated South Dublin dude, so the latter point was probably never an issue anyway. Suzanne Moore has at least been faced with financial neediness at some point in her life.

A lot of writers who 'read' as middle-class and privileged in terms of taste and networks, and have a readership of some degree, are not feeling that privilege in terms of their finances. This is a grass-is-always-greener thing happening a lot in the discourse, but not often explicitly stated.

it occurs to me that privilege intersects here with broader issues about hierarchies and those who (claim to) speak for others - gonna indulge myself and quote Green Gartside "when representatives turn to leaders" - the tendency of political parties to hierarchize, for those who start out speaking on behalf of their community to end up telling their community what to think, what to say, how to act.

a lot of people who have acquired a measure of political power seem to find it very difficult to engage in debate without considering it dissent

xp suzy, sure, it is v. unhelpful to get into a bank balance measuring contest, but obviously there are plenty of other aspects of class privilege beyond the purely financial and one person's "scraping along" is almost always another person's "rich beyond their wildest dreams"

i mean, if class was just a question of "how much money do you have/earn?" then there would be many fewer enjoyable bunfights about what it is and how it signifies

True, but there's more to privilege than a white face and a university education.

LOL trust Green to come up with the goods, every time. I cannot imagine Green ever getting something wrong about intersectionality and the left. Have a great mental picture of him from the interview he gave me, where I taught him the Tony Blair hand jive and we sat in the pub doing this, intoning 'I say to you today..." and damn near pissing ourselves with laughter.

Sorry to rewind for a bit, but the descent of "Privilege" as both a word and an idea is almost a classic example of the decay of Prestige speech.

This is a noted Thing, in linguistics, of what happens to a word which formerly was associated with Prestige speech (i.e. used in Academia) when it becomes attached to non-Prestige people (i.e. LOL teenage girls on LOL tumblr)

It reminds me of a recent(ish) scrape, where one high profile feminist journalist (oh, let's say Laurie Penny) wrote a piece about how "Intersectionality" was a long word, but really not that complicated a concept because, look, lo, teenage girls on Tumblr are able to use it correctly, with ease. To which another high profile Woman of Colour got really, really offended, saying "OMG, did you just call WoC 'teenage girls'? You are insulting Women of Colour and our words!" Because it is that impossible to view "teenage girls on Tumblr" as anything other than a smear, rather than describing the actual behaviour of young women (some of whom are actually "Of Colour") on the internet, with regards to positively recognising their *abilities*.

A word has prestige, or not, depending on whom it is associated with, rather than an inherent quality of the word. "Privilege" has made the jump straight from Academic Prestige Speech to a group of people (women/girls, People of Colour, trans* people) who are viewed as very, very *not* Prestige, and the word, and with it the concept, has been demoted because of this.

Screw that. Privilege talk without marxism (academic or inherent) behind it is just another way to say "you smell".

i think it's already been noted but privilege discourse needed assume a Marxian world view, its roots are more closely tied to Foucault and other analysts of power relationships

needed = needn't, should type and eat breakfast at the same time

flaunting my sausage sandwich privilege

anyway i already noted possibilities why some people may resent privilege discourse this morning

Starting to respond to the rest of the thread since that turn, so apologies in advance if this x-posts.

I do think it's confusing that the concept-meme of "Privilege" grew out of a word that was already so strongly associated with wealth. Because that has obscured many of its other meanings and contexts. But, still, the most common usage, that when someone says "X came from a privileged background" what is both implied and inferred is "X has wealth and X's family has wealth."

But when talking about Privilege in the sense of "Class Privilege", that word actually refers to "all the other stuff as well as/apart from the money." The entitlement, the ease, the access, the way people treat you, the expectations that you *will* be treated a certain way. To use an example exaggerated for effect: Wealth just means having £100 to pay for lunch. Class Privilege means the *expectation* that you can turn up for lunch at the Ritz without being refused, that this is a thing that is available to you, that you will be admitted, you will be seated, you will not be challenged or refused when you order the most expensive items.

Once Privilege becomes detached from actual money, it becomes both possible to have money without having Privilege (e.g. the experience of Black professionals in America such as the college professor who was arrested for "breaking into" his own suburban home) and also it becomes possible to have Privilege without having money. (I grew up in a family intimately acquainted with exactly how many red-topped letters you get sent before the phone or heating oil gets cut off, and yet still somehow protected by having a certain accent, a certain education, a certain way of speaking, a certain appearance including but not limited to skin, hair and eye colour, having certain kinds of people as grandparents or godparents or family friends. Which was the point of the story I told a few weeks ago, of my brother and the cops. We (meaning my brother and I, before anyone accuses me of a "royal we") were still protected by Class Privilege, even in circumstances where we were not protected by money.)

When "Privilege" gets redefined as "the protective atmosphere" it can be legitimately applied to all sorts of things that are not money - to Whiteness, to Maleness, to Straightness, to Cis-ness, to Being Youthful and Able-Bodied, and many other things. But the problem is, the word itself still has this connotation of "Wealth" hanging around it, rather than "system of advantages for people closely conforming to an image of this ideal." This is not the only problem that people have with accepting this word/concept, but it is certainly a cluster of associations hanging around the word, even used in other contexts. I wish we had a different, fresh word, and also one that indicates that the nature of these things are often sliding scales of "more privileged" and "less privileged" rather than black and white scales of "on/off" - Privilege is not binary, it always happens in relation to an other. "Wealth" to some people is "£100 for lunch" but "Wealth" to other people is "There are never any red-topped bills", as discussed upthread.

I don't think that taking the word out of an academic/"Marxist" or whatever background has weakened the soundness of that *concept*, though it has de-prestiged the word. If anything, it strengthens it, by having the word picked up and used by people who did not learn about the concepts in a purely academic setting and then had to stretch their brains to see its uses, but by people who learned the experiences first, then finally picked up a word to describe those experiences. It's like the experimental real-world data that proves an arcane theory of physics. This is a good thing.

the alternative is, of course, an unchecked Academicist privilege

Haha, yes, indeed.

Am not defending the academicist position (but non-academic Foucault is the oxymoron of all oxymorons). I am saying that if you are not combining talk of privilege with revolutionary thought or action, you're just taking the piss out of people and accepting the permanence of social injustice.

And I am saying that you do not get to define what counts as "revolutionary thought or action" for groups you are not part of.

i.e. "nanny nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo". Yawn.

I don't think this conversation is going to be productive for either of us. Good day to you, sir.

I get to define whatever I want to. You get to define whatever you want to. We can think and talk about about those definitions and see if a common one is possible, or we can define ourselves as atoms and atomic clusters and feel righteous at our computer screens for having called out the privilege of the other (fuckin' Stockholm Syndrome shit), while the system keeps on keepin' on.

And seriously, call me motherfucker before you call me sir.

oh it's this tired false binary between sitting behind our computer screens and typing outrage or mockery vs ACTUAL ACTIVE ACTIONS as if one person couldn't possibly do both and as if both can't have value

boring

A lack of reading comprehension can also be boring.

...because I'm saying you are passive if you are typing loud and doing nothing, which assumes the possibility of typing and doing stuff, which I endorse.

don't give a fuck what you endorse m8

THERE we go!

i think if people are calling out power i don't really care if they've got a fully-formed political programme behind it or not. the recognition of injustice comes way before a theory of justice imo

then the road to changing yrself begins with recognising that yr sense of yrself is open to challenge and that maybe that challenge is v necessary and important

I just tell everyone I'm nouveau pauvre, that pretty much covers the situation I'm in.

The problem with just calling out power -- ending the process there -- is that power usually doesn't give a fuck. At which point it begins to look like an exercise in blowing off steam or in name-calling. I don't think either of those is going to get privileged folks to engage in earnest self-examination.

there's a core of privileged folks who are unreachable and unworth the effort imo

the rest of us shd probly not throw a hissy every time somebody questions our privilege

"Check your privilege", to me, is a phrase which both asks others to examine the power structures they are involved in, but also acknowledges power structures as pertaining to the self.

I think it's a well-intentioned and potentially powerful phrase. But I think a lot of people who find it directed at themselves completely misread an intent on the part of the person saying it, because of guilt, or fear, or projection or whatever. The phrase is saying "power exists, notice which ways it flows" with the hopes that it will lead to at least an acknowledgement, and perhaps maybe an attack on unequal power flow in itself. But then hearers choose to hear it only as an attack on them, personally, rather than as being directed at a power structure. And that misreading makes me really, really sad, because "privilege" is a way of saying "this is NOT ABOUT YOU, this is about a power structure way way bigger than either of us" but there's still this... arrogance? guilt? something? which makes a person hearing it think it's all about them.

But then, I guess one of those symptoms of that "protective shield" of privilege is the automatic assumption that any given thing is, always "all about you" and not about the power structure one is part of.

Nice post earlier, Branwell. I think that's why the word has had a rocky ride recently - people who feel that they lack class privilege have a hard time accepting that they do have privilege in other areas. It doesn't require a huge intellectual leap but I wonder if a different word without the old connotations of wealth would have been more effective. Minor point though, and I wouldn't want to dwell on semantics.

Another factor, but not excuse, re: responses to "check your privilege". The calling out often takes place on Twitter where it's inevitably reduced to buzzwords so it appears simplistic and a personal attack whereas, say, a Ta-Nehisi Coates post making essentially the same point does not.

Well, it's rude! Sometimes necessary, sometimes an appropriate response, but always rude -- and the use of the 2d person makes it not so utterly unusual that a person being spoken to would think they were being spoken to and about. If you aren't talking to me about me and my privilege, why not try different words? "Because you cannot tell a member of a group you are not a part of how to..." and so on ad infinitum.

If it is a phrase that means "shut up and here's why", it's well phrased; otherwise, it's maybe better-used talking ABOUT than TO people with. "Speaking truth ABOUT power" doesn't quite have the same ring, though.

Human nature being what it is, I think you can either (a) feel morally justified in being angry and aggressive towards Irritant X on Twitter or (b) expect Irritant X to engage in a debate with you and perhaps concede your point, but I don't think you can do both.

I know Irritant X sounds like a Nation of Islam follower who signed to Profile in 1989.

People get pissed off and calm down, but I've utterly lost track of who "you" and "Irritant X" is. I mean, there's personhood on both sides, generally.

released an album called Chekk Yo Privil-EDGE iirc

I think that Tone Policing has been a practice used to discredit and silence marginalised people since, well, forever, so criticisms of arguments based on how "rude" they sound to a privileged person are really another exercise of Privilege.

(Which makes it even more super-ironic, when privileged persons complain that "check your privilege' is falsely equated in their minds with "STFU white man" because we all know who uses silencing techniques the most, and who, exactly, usually gets silenced by them.)

whilst i am pro-civility i've said a thousand times that the birth and practice of Good Manners is inextricably rooted in exclusion

I find you completely impossible to talk to, Branwell. I would like to, but I cannot, and the words you use are all that is standing in the way (because this is the Internet, and I know you no other way). If I say that to I you, is it tone policing? Certainly not within the four walls of my head, apparently within the four walls of your head. I suspect that we my agree on more things than would at first be apparent, but I cannot avoid the feeling that our discussions are on a "I ---> it" level, rather than a "I <---> thou" level. Is it tone policing if I point that out?

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument

here's some goddamn tone policing - TWU your tone is incredibly supercilious and patronising and as such i find YOU impossible to talk to. my rudeness is indicative of my lack of interest in conversing with you. for you to tone police one of the people actually putting effort into this thread is unbelievable.

I find i police my own tone a lot in situations where i think there's a genuine chance of educating someone as to why their position is racist, sexist, etc. There are also plenty of situations where people just need to be angrily shamed into not doing something.

whilst i am pro-civility i've said a thousand times that the birth and practice of Good Manners is inextricably rooted in exclusion

indeed.

another thing i've noticed is where a Prominent Media Figure will get criticised for something they've done, and those criticisms will come in a variety of tones and degrees of rudeness, and if there's anything overtly rude, they'll seize on that as a means to discredit the entire criticism. it's just reflective of an unwillingness to engage.

Also, to be completely clear: I am not saying "don't be rude", as that would be the height of hypocrisy. I am saying that it's good to have some idea of the effects of what and how you say something have on the other party to the conversation -- unless the other party is just the Other, in which case fuck 'em but don't be surprised when they grumble.

X-post: I am familiar with the phrase. You have misunderstood my question. Shall I rephrase it?

X-x-post: Sorry you feel that way, lex.