A while back I started a thread with a link to this article to start a debate about the validity of microaggressions. There’s another aspect that seems worthy of debate. The student in that article defines microaggressions as “statements by a person from a privileged group that belittles or isolates a member of an unprivileged group”. That assumes, of course, that there’s a clear definition of who’s privileged and who’s unprivileged, as do numerous similar statements from similar sources. Yet what exactly is the definition?
Privilege is “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most”. Of course many possible rights exist, so a person could very well have privileges in some areas but lack privileges in others. So describing one person or group as “privileged” is largely meaningless without defining what privilege you’re referring to.
One common tactic is to assert that majorities are privileged and minorities unprivileged. This leads to some bizarre conclusions. 30 years ago, whites in South Africa were a minority and Blacks a majority, yet it’s hard to accept that Blacks were privileged and Whites unprivileged by any measure. The top one percent of income earners, often just called “the one percent”, are a minority by definition, yet few would call them unprivileged. The words “majority” and “minority” are also ambiguous. Whites may be a majority in the entire United States, but they are a minority in some states and cities. They are also a minority worldwide. So whether they constitute a minority or majority depends on the frame that we’re measuring within.
More often, debate simply proceeds as if no explanation of who’s privileged is necessary. White males are often assumed to be privileged. But are they? I work once a week at a soup kitchen run by the Salvation Army. Roughly 80% of the individuals who come in to receive food are white men. Many are homeless, in terrible physical and mental health, and have inadequate clothing. I find it difficult to locate any privilege of any sort that these individuals enjoy which most people lack.
On the other end of the spectrum, to story that I linked to at the start of this post comes from a private college where the annual tuition is $40,000. Many complaints about privilege and the lack thereof come from similar institutions with equal or higher price tags. It seems to be self-evident that anyone who attends such a school is privileged, regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. Being admitted to such a school is itself a privilege which most of the human race can’t have. Those who are privileged enough to attend such a school in turn earn economic, political, and social privileges that most people will never get.
Its situational obviously, there is no such thing as universal privilege unless you’re a millionaire or billionaire.
In certain jobs or roles a woman can be hurt by being a woman, and in others it is a enormous privilege compared to being a man.
There are certain small areas of the USA where someone’s race or background grants them privilege, and outside of those it would be a hindrance.
Those homeless white men you mentioned, if you made it your goal to help one of them get employment do you think it would be easier or harder than if it was say a middle eastern immigrant who spoke broken english? Now try the same but in the immigrants home country, see what I’m saying?
Or just if you provided one of the white guys and one of the black guys with the same help and they applied for the same job, and assuming they have essentially the same resume, etc.
This particular idea of privilege comes from the recognition that social capital tends to stay within communities. To comprehend it you have to be able to look beyond the parameters of the individual.
The idea of declaring a class of people privileged or unprivileged is just dumb. Being Jewish in rural Arkansas is very, very different than being Jewish in upstate New York. Being female and on trial for murder is very different than being female and applying for a promotion to a director-level position of a large company. Want to have your desire to go into the trades taken seriously? It’s great to be a man. Want to have your report of domestic abuse by your partner taken seriously? Not so great.
The idea that we can meaningfully integrate across all these measures and come up with a score for each group is plainly and obviously specious. The world is complicated, life is complicated, and modern privilege theory is just the latest in the long line of attempts to justify why this case of discrimination is righteous.
Yes, he would be privileged if historically prior to his hiring there has been a predominance of blacks persistently being hired over whites, all other things being equal, and if the profession in question is dominated by blacks. Whether or not they use affirmative action as the reason is irrelevant.
Actually, it does no such thing. It is an assertion of a philosophical point about which we can argue interminably (as you appear to wish to do).
While that may be a “common tactic,” (although you have only asserted such a thing without actually providing evidence), it is hardly the only way in which privilege may be identified. Your own example demonstrated that if privilege is determined by political power, rather than head count, your South African example is a straw man argument. There are many situations in which power, (typically, but not limited to political power) is determined by majority/minority status. A person may refer to majority/minority situations as shorthand for political power, (and if they use it incorrectly, you are free to call them on uit), but trying to skew the entire discussion based on your own misconceptions is silly.
So? Your inability to discern privilege is hardly the measure by which we would judge it. In the situation you describe, who would be more likely to be rousted by police? One of the white men or a black man in similar situations. Your one-size-fits-all definition of privilege is false and pointless.
And here you wish to pretend that privilege is a single trait that must be identically recognized and granted regardless of station or situation. Wealth does grant certain privileges. It does not, however, prevent a wealthy black man driving a Bentley the privilege of not being harassed for Driving While Black. That man certainly does derive certain privileges from wealth, but not all privilege is identical, either in its basis or its effect.
No I’m saying that an immigrant who speaks english as a second language is at a disadvantage in the USA outside of a few enclaves in larger cities, and the white guy speaking arabic as a second language would be similarly at a disadvantage outside of some enclaves again.
My point was there is no way to classify people as privileged or unprivileged universally.
In the United States it certainly is. Speaking clear, educated non-accented English can be an enormous advantage in the hiring process in many cases.
Now, I think the entire premise of ‘microagressions’ is silly. It appears to be an attempt to tilt playing fields at almost the quantum level and that’s an impossibility. But that doesn’t mean privilege doesn’t exist. I’m a male, white, upper middle class professional in the south. I have every possible privilege there can be down here whether I want it or not. I just set up shop in a small town and the mayor - without knowing me more than an hour - just asked me to run the local merchant’s association. Now, I know there may be an element of better-him-than-me to that, but still, you think there might not be someone more plugged in than me for the role?
Anyway, I’m certainly privileged. All I can do is be aware of it and hope to stay on top of such things where I can.
Well it’s just silly. 99% of all the stuff about privilege and micro aggression is rubbish, but if it has to have any meaning at all, privilege must refer to unearned advantage. Being able to speak English, drive a car, program Javascrip, lay bricks, etc. may help you land a job and earn a salary, but are not a privileges; being a woman applying for a job at a kindergarten is a privilege because she didn’t earn being a woman.
I like the way John Scalzi puts it – it’s like video game settings: straight white male is the easiest difficulty setting, all other things being equal. But when a straight white male has an abusive father, no money, is in a poor neighborhood, with bad schools, etc., even with the “easiest difficulty setting” it can be very difficult to succeed.
But a black kid in the same circumstances has it even worse (in the US, at least).
Wealth and parenting and circumstance can certainly overcome privilege or lack of privilege, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Several years ago, I was talking with an administrator (a black woman) at Penn, and I was surprised when she said, “…we get hardly any black applicants. I can’t understand it; they could come here for free, but they don’t even try…” She also told me that my daughter could get in if she had any Native American ancestry.
The single most important kind of privilege come from wealth and income. The most privileged are people in the ownership class - people whose income comes mostly from owning things, as opposed to working. The upper middle class is privileged compared to the rest of the population. The middle class is privileged compared to the working class and poor. The working class and poor are, of course, the least privileged.
After that, gender and racial differences make a relatively small difference. Blacks - particularly black men - are the least privileged. Asians and whites enjoy relatively more privilege. Women are probably, on average, more privileged than men. Though it’s complicated, because privilege tends to fall with age for women, while the reverse is true for men.
Sez who? Obama is privileged to live in a white house, because he won some sort of election. A person has the privilege of adding “Ph.D.” to their name when they acquire a boney fido accreditation (even if they can no longer remember why they wanted to).
An advantage by birth is surely unearned, but that doesn’t mean all the rest of the world’s privileges are the same, or even most of them.
So, it’s clear you’re confused by certain terms. In the U.S., “majority” has come to mean whites, and often powerful ones as a class. But I don’t think that anyone ever has seriously said that ethnic majorities, as a general category of people, are by definition the most powerful in a given country. You have quite clearly misunderstood what knowledgeable people have been saying, or you have been listening to unknowledgeable people.
Do you know what the fallacy of composition is?
It is the erroneous belief that every component of a complex system shares the essential nature of the whole. A common example of this fallacy is to believe that the windshield wipers on a Mercedes Benz must be much more expensive than those used on a Honda Accord, because a Benz is so much more expensive. This is poor reasoning because windshield wipers usually cost about $15 at Pep Boys regardless of what car they go on. Conversely, putting $9 windshield wipers on a Benz does not make it an inexpensive car.
Would you like to try your argument again without relying on such a blatant error in your reasoning?
Privilege is never having to think about your identity.
It means never having to worry about being discriminated against for who you are.
It means never being afraid that you’re fulfilling stereotypes or low expectations.
It means never having to be told that you’re being hysterical or hypersensitive.
It means always having your opinions, your feelings, your beliefs validated by others.
It means being able to dismiss a political concept as “rubbish” just because you don’t think it affects you.
In some ways, I’m a privileged person. What this means is that when I hear about an issue that doesn’t personally affect me (like gay and lesbian stuff, fat shaming/discrimination, poverty), I recognize that my lack of understanding/ empathy has nothing to do with how valid those issues are. My opinion on the subject shouldn’t carry the same weight as someone who is personally affected by it. Because I’ll always have a blind-spot. There will always be a part of me that doesn’t really get it. If I want to participate in the discourse, I need to do more listening than pontificating and lecturing. Because I’m not an expert on the subject. And I also know that my sanctimonious advice is not wanted.
And on some things, I’m not privileged. What this means is that I’m sensitive to certain things. I may not find humor in your jokes, for instance. And it’s not because I have a chip on my shoulder or I’m just trying to give you a hard time. It’s because that I am a member of a stigmitized group, and thus I’m sensitive to negativity about my group. You may not empathize with this, and that’s fine. I’m not asking for you to emphathize. All I ask is that you try to understand and that you don’t belittle me and my feelings just because you, personally, can’t imagine yourself feeling the way I do. My sensitivities aren’t “silly”. They aren’t “rubbish”. They are just feelings that you don’t relate to because you aren’t in my shoes.