The Concept of Privilege

[carpedm9587]

Haven't read through the thread yet, so excuse me if it's already been mentioned, but as I recall, Lewis bemoans this fact, and is actually making (what appears to me) MM's point,

People ask: "Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?": or "May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?" Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - "Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

One can bemoan reality all one wishes, but the fact is that words do change over time, aand have done so as far back as we have written records. Languages evolve, die out, give rise to new languages, and change. Words are an entirely human construct, and they are no more or less fixed than humanity itself. As Leon noted - that is the entire world of etymology.

They SHOULD not change so rapidly, or at the whims of an individual, or communication will cease to be possible. But they should nto be so fixed that they cannot reflect the changes society itself undergoes. Not too long ago, "google" meant a decimal number with 100 zeroes behind it. Today, most have forgotten that meaning (though it is still there), and associated the word with Internet searches, or the company. As long as we all agree on the meanings of the words we use, change is not a problem. That is why disctionaries don't add or alter meanings until widespread use is shown.

[Adrift]

One can bemoan reality all one wishes, but the fact is that words do change over time, aand have done so as far back as we have written records. Languages evolve, die out, give rise to new languages, and change. Words are an entirely human construct, and they are no more or less fixed than humanity itself. As Leon noted - that is the entire world of etymology.

They SHOULD not change so rapidly, or at the whims of an individual, or communication will cease to be possible. But they should nto be so fixed that they cannot reflect the changes society itself undergoes. Not too long ago, "google" meant a decimal number with 100 zeroes behind it. Today, most have forgotten that meaning (though it is still there), and associated the word with Internet searches, or the company. As long as we all agree on the meanings of the words we use, change is not a problem. That is why disctionaries don't add or alter meanings until widespread use is shown.

Uh...What? I'm not certain what this reply has to do with my post. I haven't debated whether words change meaning, I'm merely pointing out to Leon that I think he may have misread/forgotten Lewis' point.

[carpedm9587]

Uh...What? I'm not certain what this reply has to do with my post. I haven't debated whether words change meaning, I'm merely pointing out to Leon that I think he may have misread/forgotten Lewis' point.

Ohh... then I misunderstood you. My bad.

[Joel]

But apparently people have their shorts in a knot because I used the word "privilege" and upset their sensibilities. If you don't like the word, suggest another one. Benefits? Advantages? Enhancements?

Which word would make it possible to actually discuss the issue, rather than the freaking word? I'll be happy to switch to it.

My suggestion was to instead talk about the problem, rather than not-the-problem.
Like, is not being tortured a "privilege"? or "benefit"? or "advantage" etc. No, it should be the norm. And if people are unjustly being tortured then that would be the problem and the thing to be discussed. There is no need to talk of a "privilege" of non-victims of injustice. It is sufficient to deal with the injustice.

I suspect that many people insist on talking about not-the-problem ("privilege", "advantage", etc.) because they mistakenly are thinking of the inequality as a/the problem. The problem is not inequality. If it were, then inequality in torture could be remedied by torturing everyone equally. If some people are being tortured and others are not, then the we would need to work to end torture. If someone is unjustly tortured, the injustice does not lie in the inequality. The injustice of it does not depend on whether there exists others who are not being unjustly tortured.

[carpedm9587]

My suggestion was to instead talk about the problem, rather than not-the-problem.
Like, is not being tortured a "privilege"? or "benefit"? or "advantage" etc. No, it should be the norm. And if people are unjustly being tortured then that would be the problem and the thing to be discussed. There is no need to talk of a "privilege" of non-victims of injustice. It is sufficient to deal with the injustice.

I suspect that many people insist on talking about not-the-problem ("privilege", "advantage", etc.) because they mistakenly are thinking of the inequality as a/the problem. The problem is not inequality. If it were, then inequality in torture could be remedied by torturing everyone equally. If some people are being tortured and others are not, then the we would need to work to end torture. If someone is unjustly tortured, the injustice does not lie in the inequality. The injustice of it does not depend on whether there exists others who are not being unjustly tortured.

I understand the distinction, but I'm not sure it ultimately makes a difference. In my experience, pointing to how some people are "disadvantaged" is rejected by the right as much as pointing to how others are being "advantaged." To me, the shift to "advantaged" is an attempt to bring it home. If we talk about disadvantaged, we're talking about "them" and the response is often that "they" should just suck up and deal with it. If we talk about advantages, we are talking about things we get to experience every day, and how others are barred from it in some respect. I have to admit that does not seem to change the response very often, but that is why I take that approach.

Another example of a systemic advantage/disadvantage, this being one we have actually taken steps to address, is the issue of access. We went around for years building curbs, sidewalks, escalators, and a variety of things that those of us with two functioning legs simply took for granted. We had the "privilege" of being able to go pretty much anywhere we wanted, blind to the fact that people in wheelchairs were being systematically denied access to many things the rest of us could get to. Early attempts to address this issue met the same kind of resistance from many of the same cast of characters. We heard about "sucking it up." We heard about "are you going to go out and re-engineer all of nature?" It took a while before we saw laws passed that essentially said, "if you're going to build something, you have to keep in mind that not all people have two working legs." If you look at the debate about the ADA, the objections came from the right. If you look at the vote, while it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, all of the nays came from the right. Today, fortunately, this has now become commonplace. That doesn't mean we're all equal. There are still places people in wheelchairs cannot go. But we no longer design the things we build in such a way as to explicitly exclude these people.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to, but now not along physical/ability lines, but along racial, gender, ethnic, religion, sexual orientation, etc. lines. Addressing these systemic problems is not going to make us all equal, or all the same. What it will do is eliminate unjust differentiations that we are creating, and don't need to - like the curb that cannot allow a wheelchair-bound person to cross the street from one sidewalk to another. What I do not understand, is why there is such a consistent resistance from the right to look at these issues, identify the ones that need addressing, and address them. I am seeing that resistance in this discussion again, and I do not understand it. To me, this is simply common sense: you do not let injustice linger - you address it.

[Sparko]

I understand the distinction, but I'm not sure it ultimately makes a difference. In my experience, pointing to how some people are "disadvantaged" is rejected by the right as much as pointing to how others are being "advantaged." To me, the shift to "advantaged" is an attempt to bring it home. If we talk about disadvantaged, we're talking about "them" and the response is often that "they" should just suck up and deal with it. If we talk about advantages, we are talking about things we get to experience every day, and how others are barred from it in some respect. I have to admit that does not seem to change the response very often, but that is why I take that approach.

Another example of a systemic advantage/disadvantage, this being one we have actually taken steps to address, is the issue of access. We went around for years building curbs, sidewalks, escalators, and a variety of things that those of us with two functioning legs simply took for granted. We had the "privilege" of being able to go pretty much anywhere we wanted, blind to the fact that people in wheelchairs were being systematically denied access to many things the rest of us could get to. Early attempts to address this issue met the same kind of resistance from many of the same cast of characters. We heard about "sucking it up." We heard about "are you going to go out and re-engineer all of nature?" It took a while before we saw laws passed that essentially said, "if you're going to build something, you have to keep in mind that not all people have two working legs." Today, fortunately, this has now become commonplace. That doesn't mean we're all equal. There are still places people in wheelchairs cannot go. But we no longer design the things we build in such a way as to explicitly exclude these people.

This is the kind of thing I am referring to, but now not along physical/ability lines, but along racial, gender, ethnic, religion, sexual orientation, etc. lines. Addressing these systemic problems is not going to make us all equal, or all the same. What it will do is eliminate unjust differentiations that we are creating, and don't need to - like the curb that cannot allow a wheelchair-bound person to cross the street from one sidewalk to another.

I think if people would concentrate on actual racial problems instead of making up a bunch of arbitrary "privileges" like the post Roy made (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post514201) then people might take the problem more seriously.

[carpedm9587]

I think if people would concentrate on actual racial problems instead of making up a bunch of arbitrary "privileges" like the post Roy made (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post514201) then people might take the problem more seriously.

I have said nothing about Roy's list. I think the examples I used were "real racial/gender/ethnic/etc. problems." There are more we could discuss. But my experience is they are simply dismissed as actual problems, and those impacted by the problem are told to "suck it up." Then the conversation is shifted to focus on whether or not we're using the right word to talk about the problem(s).

[Sparko]

I have said nothing about Roy's list. I think the examples I used were "real racial/gender/ethnic/etc. problems." There are more we could discuss. But my experience is they are simply dismissed as actual problems, and those impacted by the problem are told to "suck it up." Then the conversation is shifted to focus on whether or not we're using the right word to talk about the problem(s).

I didn't say you did I was speaking more of the public. Whenever I read articles about White Privilege and Male Privilege, it almost always revolves around basically trivial things. like in the list:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

Those are so contrived. And a black person could do those things too.

Nobody is going to take stuff like that seriously. It trivializes the problems that are probably truly important to racial relations.

[carpedm9587]

I didn't say you did I was speaking more of the public. Whenever I read articles about White Privilege and Male Privilege, it almost always revolves around basically trivial things. like in the list:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.
2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

Those are so contrived. And a black person could do those things too.

Nobody is going to take stuff like that seriously. It trivializes the problems that are probably truly important to racial relations.

I agree, your two examples are most definitely contrived. And people who spend their time on such things are not doing a service to anyone. Indeed, since the outgrowth of such things is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I see here, and little forward progress an REAL issues that need attention, they do an enormous disservice to the cause. And that includes, IMO, the Yoga article referenced earlier. As I said, in the great list of "things that need attention, if that even made the list, it would be so far down as to never be tackled in my lifetime.

[Sparko]

I agree, your two examples are most definitely contrived. And people who spend their time on such things are not doing a service to anyone. Indeed, since the outgrowth of such things is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I see here, and little forward progress an REAL issues that need attention, they do an enormous disservice to the cause. And that includes, IMO, the Yoga article referenced earlier. As I said, in the great list of "things that need attention, if that even made the list, it would be so far down as to never be tackled in my lifetime.

Which is why I was saying you are not "using" the term the way the liberal SJWs use it. I have no problem with wanting to make sure everyone is treated well and without prejudice. Like I said, that's what Jesus told us to do: love our neighbors! MY problem is with the SJWs who came up with the term and use it as a club and guilt trip.

So maybe you should avoid that stigma and not talk about "privilege" when you actually mean loving your neighbor and wanting everyone to be treated equally. Especially when talking to conservative Christians. Talk to your audience using their terms if you want to get them to listen to you.

[carpedm9587]

Which is why I was saying you are not "using" the term the way the liberal SJWs use it. I have no problem with wanting to make sure everyone is treated well and without prejudice. Like I said, that's what Jesus told us to do: love our neighbors! MY problem is with the SJWs who came up with the term and use it as a club and guilt trip.

So maybe you should avoid that stigma and not talk about "privilege" when you actually mean loving your neighbor and wanting everyone to be treated equally. Especially when talking to conservative Christians. Talk to your audience using their terms if you want to get them to listen to you.

So what are "their terms?" Clearly it is not "wanting everyone to be treated equally," because even THAT term got hackles raised. And I completely avoided "white privilege" in my OP, and the reaction was not all that different. So do you really think a change of language is going to change anything?

[Charles]

So what are "their terms?" Clearly it is not "wanting everyone to be treated equally," because even THAT term got hackles raised.

That is very well put.

[Sparko]

So what are "their terms?" Clearly it is not "wanting everyone to be treated equally," because even THAT term got hackles raised. And I completely avoided "white privilege" in my OP, and the reaction was not all that different. So do you really think a change of language is going to change anything?

I think Joel was trying to tell you the same thing. You seem to want the same thing that Christians want: to help the unfortunate, to love our neighbors and to treat others like we would like them to treat us. The Golden Rule. That about covers it right?

Instead of pointing out how privileged someone is, talk about how we can help someone who is less fortunate, how we can treat others. we are not privileged, we are blessed. we should bless others.

[carpedm9587]

I think Joel was trying to tell you the same thing. You seem to want the same thing that Christians want: to help the unfortunate, to love our neighbors and to treat others like we would like them to treat us. The Golden Rule. That about covers it right?

Instead of pointing out how privileged someone is, talk about how we can help someone who is less fortunate, how we can treat others. we are not privileged, we are blessed. we should bless others.

I don't think that is actually what I AM saying, though, Sparko. This is not just about "giving to the less fortunate." This is about identifying and correcting systemic injustices that we have created or inherited, and that we are somewhat blind to because they are, for us, "the norm."

So let me tell you what I think, at the risk of triggering an massive reaction from the right. Much of our nation practiced/endorsed slavery for several centuries, even before we were a nation, formally ending in the 1860s. During that era, our ancestors ripped apart a massive number of black families and destroyed a great deal of their culture. When blacks were freed from slavery in the 1860s, what followed was the era of Jim Crow, which lasted until the 1960s. In many places in our country, black people could not use the same facilities, eat in the same restaurants, or even occupy seats at the front of the bus. That was within my lifetime, and I believe probably yours. So for almost 400 years, black people were not truly permited to "get started" (yes, there were some exceptions, but they were relatively rare). Then for the next 100 years, they were theoretically allowed to "get started," but massive obstacles were thrown in their way. Finally, in the 1960s, a truer sense of "getting started" was achieved. But even if that were true universally in the U.S. (and it clearly is not), that means those of us who were born white had, culturally, a 500 year head start on "getting somewhere." Not everyone did, obviously, so we have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. But the black community is, in many respects, just getting started. Much has been achieved since the 1960s. Enormous progress has been made. But it's only been 60 years. If we imagine for one second that the field is level and the damages of the past undone, I think we are kidding ourselves.

Does that mean I feel guilty? Absolutely not. I never put anyone in slavery. These are not things I did - they were done by the people that went before us. But I HAVE inherited many of the benefits of the deeds they did, and the black community has inherited many of the ills. Again, NOT universally, but widely. You cannot undo 500 years of racism in a handful of decades. The attitudes carry forward, sometimes subtly. The social structures carry forward, sometimes subtly. That does not mean all white people have benefited equally - nor does it mean all black people have been harmed equally. But the harm carries forward. So how do we address it?

I don't think we go on a guilt trip - and I don't think we go on a pity party either. I think the best thing we can do is look for and identify those places in our culture and our societiy where we are perpetuating things that keep the playing field unequal (e.g., the resume situation, the AirB&B and Uber situation) and seek to correct them through education and awareness. I think we do NOT target programs based on race, because a racist solution does not solve a race-based problem. Instead, we target the effects. What is the effect of so many years of obstacles? One effect is that the poverty rate among black communities is significantly higher than white ones. So lets look for solutions to poverty. If we can solve THAT problem, we will help all people who need that help. We will probably help more black people than white, because the problem is more acute there. We KNOW that poverty is linked to violent crime. There is also a higher incidence of violent crime in the black community than the white. Solve poverty and I have to believe that changes too. Crime and poverty are linked to education. There is a higher incidence of under-funded and poorly staffed schools in black communities. Let's look at and solve that problem - bringing ALL schools up to a common base level. Then the needs of both white and black will be addressed.

These are the kinds of things I am talking about. The other, more subtle things, are harder. What do you do about the constantly repeated experience of white people crossing the street out of fear of the approaching black man? Well, if crime is reduced, perhaps the perception of black people as "dangerous" that so many people have will diminish. Perhaps we need to find ways to educate and raise awareness. I frankly don't know what the answer is, but we can't even begin to look for one if people refuse to acknowledge there is even a problem. And this post is about the dynamics between two races. We see similar things in gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

OK - I guess I'll sit back and wait for the axes to fly...

[Joel]

I understand the distinction, but I'm not sure it ultimately makes a difference. In my experience, pointing to how some people are "disadvantaged" is rejected by the right as much as pointing to how others are being "advantaged."

Well at least by focusing all efforts on the former, then one's efforts are not split between the former and the pointless latter. It would increase the chance of success.

To me, the shift to "advantaged" is an attempt to bring it home. If we talk about disadvantaged, we're talking about "them" and the response is often that "they" should just suck up and deal with it. If we talk about advantages, we are talking about things we get to experience every day, and how others are barred from it in some respect.

Sure, when we teach our children not to wrong others, we often employ the golden rule, and ask them to consider what it would be like if someone did the same to them. Empathy. But then the end point is that the bad thing is bad, and not about how it is a "privilege" to not be hit or solen from, etc.

What it will do is eliminate unjust differentiations that we are creating

As I said, it does not seem to me that the differentiation is the problem. And this terminology may be related to that mistake.


As I think more about the "privilege" concept, the more perverse it seems to me. You said in an earlier post that if an injustice were to cease entirely, then the non-victims would then cease to be called "privileged" (in that respect). Non-victims are thus said to be "privileged" if and only if there exists victims. Thus we say people are "privileged" only because others are victims. But that seems sick and twisted. Wouldn't it be better instead to point to the ways people are worse off if their fellow-men are allowed to be victims of injustice?