The lack of context of this article has been bugging me all night. It's not hard to dig into the empirical grab bag of facts and figures related to race in order to come up with countless concrete examples as to how and why white men have it easier than everyone else. I've done it countless times. These conversations are usually not about "privilege" per se, they're about equality and justice and they usually devolve when "what can be done about it" comes up. A semi-reasonable person can look at the socioeconomic status of minorities vs. the socioeconomic status of us evil white oppressors at the top and acknowledge that we've got a leg up. But "white privilege" rarely comes up in those discussions until someone uses it to nullify the arguments of someone else. "You lack the moral authority to have an opinion" because white privilege. "I don't have to listen to your facts" because white privilege. "Your argument is invalid" because white privilege. "White privilege" is a shorthand for dismissing another person based on their gender and skin color. Once you use the phrase, you're no longer debating the facts, you're debating the moral authority of the combatants and an argument of logic should be immune to its participants. I first encountered the phrase "white privilege" in '98. I was putting my girlfriend at the time through grad school to be a social worker. Her instructor was decrying the persecution he faced because of his religion and the tribulations his guru, Osho, experienced at the hands of the patriarchy. He began to describe the stunted life of a poor immigrant, forced to wander the seas after his philosophy of love and universal understanding was disregarded in Oregon and he was persecuted in the courts... My girlfriend raised her hand and said "You mean Rajneesh? That guy who collected Rolls Royces and poisoned a salad bar to swing an election so they could take over a town?" The teacher immediately decried her position as one of "white privilege" because obviously someone with such lily-white skin couldn't understand the tribulations of minorities in the United States. My hair is a bird. Your argument is invalid. That was going on 20 years and I have yet to see a discussion of "white privilege" not used as some form of "I don't have to listen to what you're saying, you're white." Which, let's be honest, changes nothing. I'm never going to stop being white. I'm never going to stop having white privilege. But every time someone decides that not only are my thoughts and opinions irrelevant because of it but that I somehow haven't been responsible for the things that are right in my life, I care a little less about people without white privilege. I still believe everything I wrote here. I'm all up in the concept of white privilege and why it should be reduced. Unfortunately everyone I've ever discussed "white privilege" with wants to use it as a rhetorical wild card for "STFU." And that's never going to change anything.
That's weird because I've had the exact opposite experience, where I've never seen it used as a way to shut someone up or tell them that they shouldn't have an opinion. I've seen white people who have had their white privilege pointed out claim that the descriptor was used to tell them to shut up but usually when I read the discussion it becomes clear that it wasn't the case. The problem is that the term is usually used in the sense of "check your privilege" (not always using those words but the meaning is the same) and people on the defensive tend to interpret this as a: "Shut up, you're not welcome to speak on this topic". When in reality CYP is pretty much only used to say that the person is missing vital data that can inform their position and only if they took the time to learn and listen about what they're missing then they'd have a fuller basis to work their opinion from. If anything, it's an invitation to talk on the topic, once they understand enough about the topic to talk meaningfully about it. I don't doubt that there are people who have used it in the way you say but in my experience it's far from the majority. Usually the term is used in the scientific sense and is just describing a very specific phenomenon. I've always wondered why privileged people got so defensive over the concept of privilege and originally I thought it was the terminology, but if you use "advantage" and "disadvantage" you get the same problems (just see some of the comments in this thread). Now I tend to think that the problem is that being privileged means that they are often sheltered from ever being lumped within a specific group, especially one that has negative traits associated with it and is so fundamental to their person, so when they hear "white privilege" they think, "Fuck that, I'm an individual, you can't lump me in with all other white people". For most minorities being seen as a "representative" of your group is a daily experience so they can't see why privileged people would be so hostile to it, unless they were actively bigoted. So we end up with a bit of a mess where people are defensive, upset and angry, and arguing over semantics rather than accepting the privilege they have and working to improve society.That was going on 20 years and I have yet to see a discussion of "white privilege" not used as some form of "I don't have to listen to what you're saying, you're white." Which, let's be honest, changes nothing. I'm never going to stop being white. I'm never going to stop having white privilege. But every time someone decides that not only are my thoughts and opinions irrelevant because of it but that I somehow haven't been responsible for the things that are right in my life, I care a little less about people without white privilege.
Do you see what you just did? I, as an individual, said "This is my individual experience." You, as an individual, said "statistically, your individual experience is invalid." In other words, you're arguing that things I have personally experienced do not matter because your generalization of the subject disagrees. Every argument you make deprecates my experience. You aren't even putting up data - you're effectively saying "your experience is a corner case, stop talking about it because it's not valid because the preponderance of truth is on my side, trust me on this." You're doing exactly what I said has been my experience. And here you are, not even acknowledging me or my experience, but choosing instead to have a debate about a straw man. You aren't talking to me, you aren't talking about me, you're saying "here's this construct that I'd prefer to discuss so that I can disregard your opinion." Effectively, you've taken an individual, discussing an individual experience, and sweeping it up into the exact same broad "STFU white boy" conversation that I opened my point by decrying. Do you see why you can't do that and have a reasonable discussion?Now I tend to think that the problem is that being privileged means that they are often sheltered from ever being lumped within a specific group, especially one that has negative traits associated with it and is so fundamental to their person, so when they hear "white privilege" they think, "Fuck that, I'm an individual, you can't lump me in with all other white people".
No, I simply described my own experiences and tried to start a discussion on why we might have had such different experiences. And don't forget that this whole topic started with someone describing their experiences and understanding of privilege, which your post set up to "invalidate" (to use your understanding), and when my own experiences aligned with the author's, you "invalidated" mine by saying that yours are more important and relevant, and that I should just shut up. However, I'd argue that a better approach would be to just accept that nobody here has "invalidated" any one else's experience. Different experiences have been presented and a more productive way forward would be to discuss it and figure out why there is a discrepancy. I'm simply saying that I agree with the author, which is that the concept of privilege causes people to become defensive and can often lead to a misunderstanding of how the term is being used. Again, I've done nothing at all to reject your experience. I'm simply saying that my experience disagrees with yours and it would be interesting to figure out why. I'm beginning to see that my comment about people who claimed to have been told to "shut up" in discussions of privilege are usually misrepresenting the discussion is once again confirmed, and I agree that it makes reasonable discussion difficult but I suspect that's not what you meant. And just to be clear, since we're intent on throwing about terminology specific to a certain context without concern for that context (like "invalidating" and "experience"), there is no universal rule that says experiences should be valued and never questioned. The reason why we are supposed to be careful not to invalidate the experiences of minorities is because they live in a world where they are told and forced to shut up, where they don't have a representative voice in major decisions that affect them, and because we have a history of making very bad choices "for" them. If a racist comes along and says that their experience of black people is that they are stupid and thieves, then damn fucking right we should be "invalidating" that experience by pointing out that their views are incorrect, misunderstandings, that reality disagrees with them, etc etc.In other words, you're arguing that things I have personally experienced do not matter because your generalization of the subject disagrees. Every argument you make deprecates my experience. You aren't even putting up data - you're effectively saying "your experience is a corner case, stop talking about it because it's not valid because the preponderance of truth is on my side, trust me on this."
You're doing exactly what I said has been my experience.
And here you are, not even acknowledging me or my experience, but choosing instead to have a debate about a straw man. You aren't talking to me, you aren't talking about me, you're saying "here's this construct that I'd prefer to discuss so that I can disregard your opinion."
Effectively, you've taken an individual, discussing an individual experience, and sweeping it up into the exact same broad "STFU white boy" conversation that I opened my point by decrying.
Do you see why you can't do that and have a reasonable discussion?
kleinbl00 blocked me but still wanted to reply to me comment, so I guess I'll have to respond by replying to my own comment. Except no silencing of dissent occurred - I disagreed with the content of your dissent by presenting my own perspective. You then "silenced my dissent". Except no dismissal occurred. I don't think you can rewrite events, especially when they are still visible to everyone just above. I disagreed with you, presented my reasons why and gave an explanation as to why we might have had different experiences. Instead of pursuing the discussion, you started co-opting terminology to try to silence disagreement and then literally silenced disagreement by blocking me. At no point have I argued you deny the ideas behind privilege or anything like that, so I'm not sure what you rant at the beginning is about. The only explanation seems to be that you're feeling really defensive and so you're re-asserting that you're basically "not a racist" in hopes that that means everything else you say gets accepted. It doesn't. It's cool that you're not a racist and that you accept the scientific fact of privilege, etc etc, but it doesn't mean your understanding of how "privilege" is used in common discussion is correct. This exact discussion cements further the fact that people aren't telling you to "shut up" because I quite clearly didn't say or imply such a thing, yet it's the message you got. I haven't "struck a blow" for anything because that's not the purpose of Hubski. The appealing aspect of this community was supposed to be that it entertains discussion and intelligent responses, and that's why I presented my perspective. I honestly was not expecting such a defensive response from you. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I presented a disagreement of experiences and thought I'd present my reasoning as to why that was the case. I didn't realise this was supposed to be a competition where we "win" points in a "debate" for making certain points. I was just hoping to learn more about the common attitude that you expressed. What is your argument here? That "invalidation" is always bad even in extreme circumstances? I'll wager a guess - I didn't expect you to be so defensive and if I had known I would have accounted for it in my response. As such, you're going to claim that I had either accused you of being a racist or drawn an equivalence between your position and that of a racist's? If so, no, that's not how analogies work. I was criticising the general claim that 'experiences shouldn't be invalidated' by presenting a case where it should be, and arguing that there is no reason to think your "experience" shouldn't be "invalidated" either (I'm continuing to use your co-opting of the terms there for continuity but it's getting a little silly to draw parallels between your uninformed opinion on an issue and the discriminatory life experiences of minorities).Let's be clear: I argued (not with you) that my personal experience about the discussion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is used to silence dissent, not improve dialogue. You responded by silencing my dissent. When I pointed out that you were silencing my dissent, your response is to say we should just agree that my dissent should be silenced.
I stated up front that white privilege exists, and that white privilege is a problem, and that the way people who discuss "white privilege" is doing nothing to resolve the issue. In other words, we're about 90% in agreement on the basic issue, our sole point of dissent is in the couching of the discussion. However, since you couldn't dismiss that with Pat Answer #2, you chose to dismiss everything I had to say.
The white privilege is mine. It will continue to be mine. As a white male I hold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up. Rhetorically, you can convince yourself you've struck a blow for good here. Realistically you're reminding me why people who want to talk about "white privilege" shouldn't be entertained. In other words, you destroyed a discussion in order to reinforce your own dogma.
Race relations are changed one person at a time. I don't know your race or gender and I don't care to guess. I'm a white male. Your rhetorical style might (might) win points with people who already agree with you but they aren't the ones who need convincing. Me? we already agreed about the basic problem and I'm about to mute you because of your patronizing attitude.
wow.
Let's be clear: I argued (not with you) that my personal experience about the discussion of "white privilege" is that the phrase is used to silence dissent, not improve dialogue. You responded by silencing my dissent. When I pointed out that you were silencing my dissent, your response is to say we should just agree that my dissent should be silenced. Did you ask? Did you read my linked discussion? Did you even so much as ask a question of me? HERE'S WHY IT MATTERS I stated up front that white privilege exists, and that white privilege is a problem, and that the way people who discuss "white privilege" is doing nothing to resolve the issue. In other words, we're about 90% in agreement on the basic issue, our sole point of dissent is in the couching of the discussion. However, since you couldn't dismiss that with Pat Answer #2, you chose to dismiss everything I had to say. Which is fine. I'm sure you feel justified in your actions, I'm sure you're satisfied at your rhetorical skill, and I'm sure that you're pleased to strike another small incremental blow against injustice. BUT. The white privilege is mine. It will continue to be mine. As a white male I hold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up. Rhetorically, you can convince yourself you've struck a blow for good here. Realistically you're reminding me why people who want to talk about "white privilege" shouldn't be entertained. In other words, you destroyed a discussion in order to reinforce your own dogma. Race relations are changed one person at a time. I don't know your race or gender and I don't care to guess. I'm a white male. Your rhetorical style might (might) win points with people who already agree with you but they aren't the ones who need convincing. Me? we already agreed about the basic problem and I'm about to mute you because of your patronizing attitude. wow.However, I'd argue that a better approach would be to just accept that nobody here has "invalidated" any one else's experience.
Again, I've done nothing at all to reject your experience. I'm simply saying that my experience disagrees with yours and it would be interesting to figure out why.
If a racist comes along and says that their experience of black people is that they are stupid and thieves, then damn fucking right we should be "invalidating" that experience by pointing out that their views are incorrect, misunderstandings, that reality disagrees with them, etc etc.
Says you, soon we'll have all the mixed babies and they're all gonna be super hot and everyone is going to look like they're somewhere near the equator and race problems will be over and the world will be, like, 25% sexier whether white males want it or not, KBhold all the cards and will continue to do so until the overwhelming majority of us white males choose to give it up
That seems to be the problem with intersectionality in general. People pay lipservice to class, but in practice they're mostly focusing on other forms of identity politics. Instead of focusing primarily on the most unifying vector of intersectional privilege the more divisive demographics are emphasized, even those that don't have the same impact. Especially gender. I always find it mind-blowing that the same exact statistics we use to demonstrate that black people are oppressed or at least disproportionately impoverished, when viewed in terms of gender, are portrayed to mean exactly the opposite. Increased incarceration rates and prison sentences for men indicates inherent or socially imposed male violence rather than a system that discriminates against men, but when they're black it's the opposite. This is clearly insane because they're for the most part literally the same people. So a black man is discriminated against as a black person but not as a man? Even though it's mostly black men that wind up in prison or get shot by the police or turn to crime because of lack of other prospects, that demographic conveniently disappears from the narrative. I can't help but suspect ulterior motives when the same people that ignore class completely in their arguments also insist on moving the goalposts for what constitutes oppression based on what fits the proposed axis of privilege that the model is based around. Personally, I would think that an increased focus on class would be more beneficial to racial equality than focusing more on race. Having racially biased categories for permissible activity, behavior, and expression is what got us into this whole mess in the first place.
I shared it because I thought it was an interesting perspective on the topic from someone who's seen little in the way of tangible privilege. And she even gives criticism that I can relate to as a poor, working white person. Apparently mentioning the topic becomes a referendum on its merits though. I'm not saying this to you specifically because I don't agree with you or whatever, I'm just disappointed with the replies as a whole and I'm tacking this onto the last one that seemed reasonable.
It's a worthwhile discussion and one that we, as a culture, need to learn how to have. Unfortunately "you don't agree with my argument" doesn't mean "you don't understand my argument" and most of the discussions around the phrase "white privilege" conflate the two. I know I certainly thought I understood prejudice as a "disadvantaged" ethnicity. It wasn't until spending time amongst African Americans that I realized that while I might have a better idea than most middle class white men my understanding was woefully incomplete. Unfortunately the whole "white privilege" discussion is usually some form of "you lack the moral authority to have an opinion" rather than "here's a perspective you haven't considered" and the Internet isn't helping that. Even perspectives like the one linked above tend to deprecate any individual experience by demonstrating that on average, white people have it better. End result? Whoever deploys the argument is saying "I hereby nullify your individual experience through averaged demographics."
Bringing up privilege shouldn't completely shut down a discussion, but rather give context to it. The context is important, because when people are making an entire argument related to a pretty big issue based completely on their own experience... well, anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much. Even when you get a room full of people who decide to make an argument based on a collection of personal experiences... the plural of anecdote is not data. Data, though, provides a much better basis for large-scale decision making when stakes are high. I'm not trying to defend the rhetorical strategies of people on tumblr or buzzfeed (or anywhere else on the internet)- I'd tend to disagree with comments about people using and framing discussions of privilege/intersectionality for their own pre-determined ends.
I agree with you here. Additionally, I think one heuristic that could help people get on board with the idea of privilege is to look at race/class/gender/ethnicity in another country. Take just about any East Asian country, for example. Often, Americans interested in social justice will immediately try to overlay American race relations on places like Japan or Korea, pointing out that Hollywood actors are popular there and the US military presence. Upon a closer look, though, it becomes really apparent that the ethnic majority straight males in those countries run the show and have a great deal of privilege; Western whites just tend to be on top of the minority heap but are still disadvantaged in those societies. From there, you can see that white privilege isn't a universal inherent to being white, but depends on the environment you're in. There is in fact Han privilege in China, and it's just as problematic for minorities there. I think a lot of the resistance to the idea of white privilege is the innateness that seems to come along with it- people don't want to believe that they are inherently "bad" or in living an unfair life.But that's just the point - if the whole argument is that individuals can't see their privilege, and they answer with a personal anecdote, you're not going to advance the argument by taking the individual experiences of the person entirely off the table. The appropriate tactic is to relate the individual experience to the demographic, not dismiss it.
But that's just the point - if the whole argument is that individuals can't see their privilege, and they answer with a personal anecdote, you're not going to advance the argument by taking the individual experiences of the person entirely off the table. The appropriate tactic is to relate the individual experience to the demographic, not dismiss it. Data, as you're using it, is ample and abundant. It's pretty much impossible to dismiss and the people who are arguing the data are not going to be swayed by an argument of privilege; they tend to be the ones arguing that black men go to prison more often because blacks are inherently more violent and that discussion requires an entirely different strategy. The whole problem with "white privilege" discussions is that they are wielded by people who want to say "the plural of anecdote is not data" rather than "I hear what you're saying, but here are the problems you didn't face growing up regardless of how shitty your life was."