"Privilege"

[Dave_LF]

Precisely, Cerin. By contrast, River's story is an example of what I consider an actual privilege. The TSA should not let just anyone breeze through security the way she was permitted to (at least not according to the parameters of their current mandate, which IMO is in need of heavy revision, but that's a different topic). Arguably, they shouldn't have let River do it either. But they saw that she was in a difficult situation and that she wasn't exactly radiating "terrorist", so they decided to extend her special treatment that is not ordinarily granted and should not be ordinary granted. That is the definition of a privilege.

[Teremia]

Reading this thread I've realized that the inside-out nature of calling what should be rights "privileges" is indeed the POINT: if you belong to the group that suffers from the bad treatment racism still produces, then what other, luckier people consider to be "rights" function for you like "privileges." To which your access is limited.

And it is good (even if upsetting) for the people who don't suffer so much from the effects of racism to be reminded that what should be "rights" are (under current imperfect circumstances) still functionally "privileges," though we all hope for better days ahead eventually.

So the use of "privilege" here is not a mistake: it's an educational twist.

[Cerin]

Reading this thread I've realized that the inside-out nature of calling what should be rights "privileges" is indeed the POINT: if you belong to the group that suffers from the bad treatment racism still produces, then what other, luckier people consider to be "rights" function for you like "privileges." To which your access is limited.

And it is good (even if upsetting) for the people who don't suffer so much from the effects of racism to be reminded that what should be "rights" are (under current imperfect circumstances) still functionally "privileges," though we all hope for better days ahead eventually.

So the use of "privilege" here is not a mistake: it's an educational twist.

I disagree that it's in the least bit educational! Deliberately perverting a meaning doesn't educate, it only confuses the issues. Basic rights are not 'functionally privileges' for either blacks or whites. Labeling them as such subverts the notion of basic human dignity and contributes nothing to understanding. I would submit, it fosters resentment and division, rather than commonality and identification.

Look at the tone of the bicycle analogy. It struck me as whiny and complaining. I suspect the effect would be to alienate the drivers who read it, and give them the impression the cyclists are spoiled prima donnas who need to get over themselves; I suspect it would make the cyclists who read it feel resentful and put upon by those inconsiderate neanderthals who have the gall to drive motor vehicles on roads designed for motor vehicles.

Certainly cyclists are going to be at a disadvantage on roads designed for motor vehicles. That doesn't make the drivers privileged! Telling the drivers they're privileged when they're not, isn't going to make them more sympathetic and considerate of cyclists. I wouldn't be surprised if it made them downright belligerent and prone to swerving toward the shoulder rather than away.

This misapplication of the word 'privilege' is serving no one.

The phrase “white privilege” is one that rubs a lot of white people the wrong way.

Yes, because it's incorrect.

It can trigger something in them that shuts down conversation or at least makes them very defensive.

Yes, because they know that being white isn't a privilege (unless they really are a racist and believe whites are superior) and doesn't in itself accord privileges.

And I’ve seen more than once where this happens and the next move in the conversation is for the person who brought up white privilege to say, “The reason you’re getting defensive is because you’re feeling the discomfort of having your privilege exposed.”

This line of reasoning exposes the writer's misconceptions. There is nothing wrong with privileges! There is no reason to be defensive about a privilege! A privilege is something people enjoy. You can't 'expose' a privilege as if it is a dirty secret to feel guilty about. A driver reading this piece isn't going to be defensive because his 'privilege' has been exposed and he feels guilty about driving a car, he is going to be defensive because someone is trying to impose their own moral construct on him. You know how we all hate it when people do that to us on this board! It sounds like this is a white person who feels guilty about being white in a country where black people have been historically hated and mistreated (putting it in the mildest terms), and he thinks all whites feel or should feel the same way.

But privilege talk is not intended to make a moral assessment or a moral claim about the privileged at all. It is about systemic imbalance.

But the concept of privilege has nothing to do with balance. Associating the notion of privilege with equality is simply ignorant and incorrect.

It is about injustices that have arisen because of the history of racism that birthed the way things are now. <snip> “The system is skewed in ways that you maybe haven’t realized or had to think about precisely because it’s skewed in YOUR favor.”

Yes. Excellent. That's exactly what this is about. Which has nothing whatever to do with the concept of privilege.

So the semi driver who rushes past throwing gravel in my face in his hot wake isn’t necessarily a bad guy. He could be sitting in his cab listening to Christian radio and thinking about nice things he can do for his wife. But the fact that “the system” allows him to do those things instead of being mindful of me is a privilege he has that I don’t. (I have to be hyper-aware of him).

This is what privilege is about.

No, this is not what privilege is about. This is what systemic advantage and systemic discrimination are about.

Nice, non-aggressive drivers that don’t do anything at all to endanger me are still privileged to pull out of their driveway each morning and know that there are roads that go all the way to their destination.

Not a privilege. A fact of life in this country. Fact of life, privilege -- not the same thing.

So when I say the semi driver is privileged, it isn’t a way of calling him a bad person or a man-slaughterer or saying he didn’t really earn his truck, but just way of acknowledging all that–infrastructure, laws, gov’t, culture–and the fact that if he and I get in a collision, I will probably die and he will just have to clean the blood off of his bumper. In the same way, talking about racial privilege isn’t a way of telling white people they are bad people or racists or that they didn’t really earn what they have.

This is just baloney. At this point, I want him to get hit by the semi. (joking)

It’s a way of trying to make visible the fact that system is not neutral, it is not a level-playing field, it’s not the same experience for everyone.

Well, it sucks as a way of trying to make visible the systemic effects of racism in this country. Because it doesn't do that. Because, in fact, words have meanings, and this isn't what 'privilege' means.

How to best make white people more aware of the disparities that result from longstanding institutional racism? I'm not sure, but I think ditching the term 'privilege' would be a good first step.

[Frelga]

No privilege is viewed as privilege by those who receive it by default. I bet CS Lewis didn't see having tea with Tolkien as privilege.

[Cerin]

Even if he didn't view it as a privilege (and I don't see why he would not), it still was a privilege, by virtue of the quality of the company and the relative rarity of the experience. A privilege is a privilege by virtue of the fact that it is not something everyone is entitled to enjoy -- unlike the basic human rights enjoyed by whites in this country and often wrongly denied to blacks. Something that should be a basic right for all doesn't become a privilege to some because it is denied to others. That is really pernicious thinking, imo. If basic rights become privileges, then they can justly be denied to some, as that is the nature of privilege.

[River]

The TSA should not let just anyone breeze through security the way she was permitted to (at least not according to the parameters of their current mandate, which IMO is in need of heavy revision, but that's a different topic).

Yeah, the whole thing re-confirmed my belief that the TSA and most airport security measures are basically just theater.

[narya]

IAWT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I also agree with Teremia.

[yovargas]

See how this conversation has got all hung up on the semantics of the word "privilege" instead of the problem itself? IMO that's proof enough that using the term is doing more harm than good. It's a pointless distraction from the actual issues at hand.

[Frelga]

IME, there is always a distraction. The focus constantly swings from the struggle for what we all agree are basic rights, and to the way those deprived of these rights present that struggle. As if the actual issue is only important as long as it doesn't upset those in possession of the rights.

And that, my friends, is privilege. To argue semantics while....

[River]

See how this conversation has got all hung up on the semantics of the word "privilege" instead of the problem itself? IMO that's proof enough that using the term is doing more harm than good. It's a pointless distraction from the actual issues at hand.

Yeah, I was thinking the same...and wondering if the distraction isn't part of the motivation for arguing about semantics. Fiddling while the city burns.

[yovargas]

No, people start arguing semantics because in most contexts saying "privilege" is simply incorrect. It's not an accurate claim so people start talking about the inaccuracy rather then the intended claim. If you want people to talk about what you actual mean, say what you actually mean. Privilege ain't it most of the time.

[axordil]

Although people to tend to get cranky when told they have privilege, they get even crankier when accused of being part of an oppressing entity, even if they're not personally participating in one-on-one oppression.

As I noted before, that's really what we're talking about: the systematic oppression by a self-perpetuating *system* set up to benefit native-born Anglo straight male Christians (in the U.S.) by labeling them the default human being, with every checkbox in that list missed another layer of reasons to be treated as less that that.

[Cerin]

It's a pointless distraction from the actual issues at hand.

Well, not quite pointless, as it points out the ineffectiveness and even counter productiveness of a particular strategy; and that is a useful thing to be aware of.

The focus constantly swings from the struggle for what we all agree are basic rights, and to the way those deprived of these rights present that struggle.

Actually, no. In this case, it wasn't someone deprived of those rights presenting the struggle. It was someone not deprived of those rights, publicly expressing his guilt about the unfair advantages he has enjoyed as a result of being white in America.


I've never understood why people dismiss semantics in a discussion like this. As if the meaning of things is unimportant. There can be no meaningful discussion without meaning.

[Inanna]

Even if he didn't view it as a privilege (and I don't see why he would not), it still was a privilege, by virtue of the quality of the company and the relative rarity of the experience. A privilege is a privilege by virtue of the fact that it is not something everyone is entitled to enjoy -- unlike the basic human rights enjoyed by whites in this country and often wrongly denied to blacks .

But if you take it from the perspective of a black person who has never enjoyed those rights - it seems like the ones who enjoy it are privileged.

There are basic issues here - unequal treatment being the foremost. Calling it rights denial for some or privilege for others should not detract from the basic issue. Which is why arguing about semantics can be a distractor.

And IAWT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[axordil]

Pondering this has flipped on a nice, bright LED bulb for me. We have things exactly backward.

The notion of "rights" is more semantically empty than "privilege." All legal and political assertions to the contrary aside, "rights" have no meaningful existence outside of the societal will to enforce them, any more than the ink in a treaty can stop a war one of the signatories still wants.

That will is extended, by society as a whole--as a privilege--to those in a society deemed eligible to be fully functional members of the society. Everyone else gets some fraction of that.

This applies to legal rights to some extent, but more so to societal expectations, which are not enforceable in a court of law, but only in the homes and streets (and hearts and minds) of the nation in question. It forms the discretionary component of much decision-making in how personal interactions are interpreted, from start to finish.

Society extends the privilege of being out past curfew without real legal complications to white kids, for example, because the baseline assumption of too many law enforcement officers is that they're "good kids" who lost track of time or otherwise had a minor lapse in judgment. This privilege is not regularly extended to black or Latino or Muslim kids in the US.

Any time you get to exercise a "right" without effort or even without thinking about the fact that there's a question about it, that's privilege. Society lets you do that. It doesn't have to. It chooses to. Society lets those with privilege claim their "rights" up front with no cover charge, while forcing the nonprivileged to jump through flaming hoops for them--and even then the results are not certain.

[narya]

I like the term "privilege" just because it is unsettling. It makes me stop and think what I am taking for granted. But I'd be willing to focus on the problem rather than the word if you would prefer some other fraught-with-meaning synonym like advantage, entitlement, immunity, birthright, class, station, perk, claim, indulgence, relaxation, power, dominance, or appanage, all of which I enjoy, to some degree, as a person of my situation.

[Cerin]

But if you take it from the perspective of a black person who has never enjoyed those rights - it seems like the ones who enjoy it are privileged.

Yes, it would seem that way, because they are routinely denied equal treatment under the law. But incorrectly educating people that what whites experience is 'privilege' helps no one.

'Privilege' is not an unethical notion. There is nothing unjust about privilege. It is wrong and unhealthy to resent and envy those who enjoy privileges we do not. However, it is perfectly right that black people resent being denied equal treatment under the law, because that is not privilege. It is something more fundamental to human dignity. Promulgating the notion that the experience of being white in America is a privilege, puts the black community in a morally unsound position.

There are basic issues here - unequal treatment being the foremost. Calling it rights denial for some or privilege for others should not detract from the basic issue.

Framing an issue incorrectly in this way does demonstrably detract from the real problem, because it creates new problems, real problems of misunderstanding and miscommunication. And as I understand it, one of the chief points of this conversation is the idea of making white people more aware of the reality faced by the black community. This is going to take understanding and communication, which will continue to be derailed when the term 'privilege' is incorrectly applied. Words matter.


ax, I believe we fell into using 'rights' as a default word to indicate something not quite defined. I agree that using 'rights' is problematic. I believe we're talking about the fundamental elements that allow for a dignified existence. I don't know what to call that, other than, the fundamental elements that allow for a dignified existence, which, in an ideal world, would be guaranteed to everyone. The fact that they are not guaranteed to everyone doesn't make them privileges. All that does is lower the bar. In your paradigm, would there be anything in life not universally experienced, that would not be regarded as privilege? You're rendering the word meaningless.

[Cerin]

narya, those are not synonyms in my book.

I remember reading about the daughter of a prominent liberal activist, who insisted on living in destitute poverty in South America because not all the world could live at the standard available to her as her father's daughter. This apparently drove him to distraction. Naturally, he hated seeing his daughter live a life of drudgery and suffering. But I guess you could say she was still privileged, as she had a choice others did not.

[axordil]

What a dignified existence entails is itself not universally agreed on, much less whether it should be universally experienced.

Let's look at a narrow but instructive example. A hundred years ago, a substantial number of Americans believed in their heart of hearts that women's dignified experience need not include voting. Fifty years or so before that, many Americans didn't believe voting needed to be part of blacks' dignified experience. Many, at that juncture, still believed "not being property" was in the same category in that regard.

Yet when you read the Constitution, it never says "women and blacks can't vote, and by the way, blacks can be property." They didn't have to say any of that, because it was understood. They were also happy to let the states do their dirty work for them, with a broad range of results--in some states women and non-whites could vote, if they owned property.

When you "grant" a "right" based on owning land? That's a privilege. When you then slowly expand that right to include more of the population, fighting (in some cases to the death) every step of the way against people perfectly happy with the status quo? That's a privilege.

If I can do something without thought, and you have to carefully consider possible negative ramifications I don't, or possibly not even consider it at all, solely because I'm X and you're Y? It doesn't matter whether everyone "should" be able to do it, or NO ONE "should" be able to do it: that's a privilege. Society is set up so what's trivial for me is problematic for you, even if on paper we're equal.

Here's why: behind the problem with the word "Rights" is the problem with the word "Guarantee." Without societal will and agency, without both a desire and a means to enforce rights, there is no guarantee: witness the number of recent and current despotic governments whose "Constitutions" pay lip service to any number of "basic human rights." Really, the remarkable thing about the US and other Western democracies is that they ever exhibit the will and agency to follow up on any of the "rights" they purport to cherish, much less do so in a fair and even-handed fashion.

In my darker moments, I suspect even when the U.S. et al manages to do the right thing, it's only because the people in charge have decided it's better for the balance sheets, and won't actually threaten their grip on power.