Corylus wrote:[spoiler]
Aurelian wrote:I've been wondering what an actual definition for the FTB/Skepchick/A+ triumvirate's favourite hobby horse, privilege, would actually be, beyond that of being a white, straight, cisgendered man.
A suggestion from me to start: a person of privilege is someone who, not having the necessary intelligence or work ethic, is able to exercise influence through being born into a certain position (monarchy, aristocracy), through the use of wealth, or both. Examples would include the British royal family, or the Bush and Clinton families in America. Thoughts? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
I think a little :)
However, it is a stick that has been poked in everyone's face for a while so it is almost impossible to not get the wrong end of it. Privilege generally refers to people
being unaware of the lack of possible disadvantages that they encounter (well it used to). It is meant to be conceptualized as a ‘consciousness raising’ concept whereby no blame is attributed to the “privilegeeâ€, but instead the understanding of general disadvantage increased. Such situations are accordingly highlighted with the aim of informing intellectual and societal change. In this model the notion of considering one's own privilege (I utterly refuse to use the word 'check') is just an instruction to consider whether other people have barriers against them that you yourself do not.
For example, I became aware of a lack of barriers for me when I recently accompanied a wheelchair-using friend on a trip involving lots of public transport and a flight. Yes, we could access the services, in that many physical barriers were removed for us, but the emotional barriers were still very much in place. For example, there was the general impression that we were too-much-bother; that is was OK to talk down to us like children; to think it was appropriate to marshal us into roped off areas, and to generally forget about us. It was "no fun" even if vicarious "no fun". Do I now feel guilty for having the full use of my legs? No of course not. Do I have some suggestions for travel companies and their staff? You betcha. Did the whole experience do me good? Why, yes. Yes it did. I was utterly exhausted by the end of it, and I now understand my friend better.
Privilege therefore can be useful tool for exploring issues of disparity and reduced access to employment/services/power etc. These disparities can be the result of historical and cultural artefacts, urban myths, emotionally conditioned reactions, or sheer bloody laziness on the part of service providers. A discussion of 'privilege can be a helpful and enlightening way to talk about reduced access. However, the way that the term is being currently mangled (as you rightly identify as exclusively about white, straight, cisgendered men) is destroying its' utility rather than increasing it. Sigh, to the extent that I actually fear the term is now irrevocably "fooked".
The hijacked notion of privilege that is currently being hawked is actually a great example of ‘essentialist’ thinking (aka ‘you is what you is’). This thinking tends to be rather lazy, and those prone to it seem to like the water of their thought to flow immediately downhill ... rather like those who dislike gay marriage for it is all about “a man and a woman†or those who dislike trans women because they can never understand the pain of those born female.
‘Privilege' itself is actually much more often context-specific as opposed to essentialist. In fact, it
must be if we wish to talk about lack of barriers, because different barriers can be raised by different people (I am completely agreeing with
Altair here). For example, I am privileged in class terms in that I use standard English pronunciation (with a few additional soft southern inflections). This not an essential part of me though, in that I could change my accent (with training) if I wished, and it is also completely context-specific in that there are areas of the country in which my speech could lead to my encountering problems with others. E.g. Those extreme frozen wastes are are “oop†from North London.
Of course if you fall into essentialist thinking it is very easy to go from noting that experiencing lack of barriers is
more common in some parts of the populace ... to assuming that some parts of he populace are the
only ones capable of being privilege ... to assuming that those with privilege are
obviously part of the mechanisms of discrimination. This is very dangerous in that moral blame gets assigned without justification. It is stupid in that as we get the effortless; oft missed; move from the descriptive to prescriptive. (Oh noes!!) Lastly, and most importantly, it is also a mistaken classification in that when - what is called commonly called “privilege†- becomes essentialist in nature it is actually something better described as ‘discrimination’.
For example, I am discriminated against as a female in terms of my likelihood of access to a certain reserved seats in the upper chamber of British Parliament (the House of Lords) insofar as I am excluded from ever taking up a job as a “Lord Spiritual’. Women cannot be bishops in the Church of England. (OK, I don’t want the job, but that is not the point). This discrimination is enshrined in law, so this is not about privilege. This is not about a context specific barrier - this is about deliberate exclusion. This is thus separate from discussions on privilege.
Of course, discrimination does - and should - annoy us a very great deal, waaay more than privilege does. The above is an example of the law messing with my democratic engagement. This is an outsourcing of my concerns (bishops are very fond of talking about things that actually impact upon me more than them) to people that I have not voted for and who do not represent me. I reserve my true anger for cases like these. I do wish others could do the same.
Now, of course, you can get cases where
both privilege and discrimination are present (let’s make it really complicated!). For example, I discovered, to my surprise, that I was more ‘privileged’ as a female than a male when seeking rental accommodation as a student. Landlords (unofficially but consistently) were more likely to take on groups of all females, or mixed gender groups, than they were to take on groups of all males. The rationale was that females were tidier; a civilizing influence, and were overall less likely to trash the house: the actual evidence for this position being distinctly mixed. However, housing discrimination is also explicitly codified against (aka, illegal) – which is why landlords are covert about their choices. So this is both privilege
and discrimination.
So where to go from here? The major distinction between ‘privilege’ and ‘discrimination’ is what you do when faced with it. With discrimination you can codify against it and watch for people flouting the law, with privilege you become aware of the process, foster evidence about the intrinsic irrationality of certain positions, and generally make an effort to be equitable in all of your dealings. Sometimes you need to do both - in cases where both privilege and discrimination are present. However, laws and actions seeking to reduce privilege alone are often superfluous at best and ludicrous – or even repressive – at worst. Let's not go there.
Now, back to my example of speech patterns and how this is about privilege alone. There is no reason for me to feel guilty about my speech patterns; seek to change them, or (heaven forfend!) seek to outlaw them. I simply need to be aware that other accents are common and have a care to treat people in response to what they say, rather than the geographical/societal background that their intonation conveys. Privilege and moral condemnation should only go together when people seek to ignore the former in order to avoid the latter.
Of course, it is possible that some moral condemnation is based in an inchoate understanding that a feeling of guilt
would actually be appropriate ....
Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves. Thus when the frustrated congregate in a mass movement, the air is heavy-laden with suspicion. There is prying and spying, tense watching and a sense of being watched. The surprising thing is that this pathological mistrust within the ranks leads not to dissension but to strict conformity. Knowing themselves continually watched, the faithful strive to escape suspicion by adhering zealously to prescribed behavior and opinion.
Eric Hoffer, 1951.
[/spoiler]
Oh dear, I am sorry if I have whittered on a bit! Thank you very much if you have stayed with me so far. However, this really is the only way that I can adequately explain this.
As I say, I fear that the term is now no longer useful.
