But "privilege" isn't well-defined, and we are sometimes told that only members of marginalized groups are allowed to define it, which also begs the question: Who are the marginalized groups? Why is their definition given presumptive validity?
Most of history is written by the winners of battle, no? Because of this, much of society is defined by those who hold these advantages. The Bible was written by men who saw women in a very disparaging way, and therefore defined our value according to how they saw us.
We have to define ourselves at some point by our own terms. Take back the terms "*****", "whore", and "****" and empower these words rather than allow the advantaged to utilize them to define our value based on a behavior or dress or speech that places us outside the gender norm.
There has to be ownership of value somewhere. Again, it's not perfect, but it has to start somewhere. I'm open to newer terms if it's pragmatic and ethical to all.
Clearly, members of historically marginalized groups are capable of explaining what is meant by "privilege." And privilege is not at all obvious; in fact the whole point of the concept is that privilege is largely invisible to the "privileged."
Agreed.
But let me give you an example of something that is identified as "white privilege" that is not wholly explained by white indifference or animus: the crack ("cocaine base") and cocaine powder sentencing disparity. In fact, many black politicians in Congress (including the Congressional Black Caucus) supported the sentencing disparity, and they also sought more funding for law enforcement activities within their districts. At the time it was unclear what the long term consequences of these actions would be.
My point here is not to condemn the Congressional Black Caucus or to suggest that the disparate impact is insignificant; it is a terrible injustice. But does "white privilege" explain this disparity, or is the actual explanation more nuanced?
I'd call that phenomenon an example of internalized racism. People have been known before to loathe their own genetic makeup. And blacks and women are no different. Take Phyllis Schlafly, for example.
It is not intended as an attack when you use it, but there are people who use it as an attack. The phrase "check your privilege" may not always be intended as an attack, but it can just as easily convey the message of "shut your mouth ignorant fool" as it conveys "please take a moment to reflect on how your social status impacts your own perspective."
The terms "perspective" and "status" are just as likely to convey that, though; so why is privilege preferred?
LOL I've been on both ends of this IRL so I can give my anecdotes fwiw.
"Check your privilege is rarely rarely ever used at the beginning of these conversations. One example is that at a feminist group locally there was an issue brought up about women being sexually harassed at the gym, and so we began discussing solutions for creating other fitness programs and locations for alleviating the problem.
One guy butted in and said, "Look. I'm a man. I like to look at women. Admit that you like being looked at, because otherwise why would you be working out and wearing what you wear? I don't care what you say, I'm not gonna stop staring. If you're uncomfortable, when does it start being YOUR problem? Why do *I* have to change being a normal red-blooded man?"
So for a long long time, gay men, trans women, trans men, and women in the group used this exact same language you suggested. Every single response was met with an accusation that we as women weren't facing the truth.
There was no - and I mean NO - acknowledgement that he was speaking for himself. He broadened his POV to all of humanity. AND he began telling us that if we were real feminists, we would agree with him because science, or something.
The arguments and accusations got bigger. Louder. More aggressive. Nothing was helping. It was finally said calmly, "Dude, look. Check your privilege or leave the conversation. You aren't helping women solve the problem of sexual harassment at the gym. You're trying to speak for all men. Not cool."
De-escalation techniques weren't working. Humor wasn't working. Evidence wasn't working. This man was becoming more and more aggressive at all other methods.
So in this sense, it IS considered harsh. But he calmed down and stopped telling everybody they weren't seeing the truth.
Presumably, because it is a qualifier: "privileged perspective" and "privileged status." But that also makes the refusal to include the class category completely inexplicable. Moreover, "privilege" is used to imply some sort of moral quality, when the actual examples of privilege have nothing to do with the actions of particular individuals. You have privilege because of your social status, not based on anything that you have done, not because of any sins of omission or commission. How does one "check" this privilege in conversation? Revisiting assumptions? Then why not simply explain how a certain status confers a certain perspective?
As exemplified above, I think it's best use as a defense mechanism against aggressive "truth-speakers" who believe they know what is best for all of us. Especially those who are more advantaged speaking to those who are less advantaged.
Socially advantageous status. Or alternatively, socially disadvantaged status. Or better yet, just explain.
Well been there, done that, got the t-shirt to prove it. Let me know if it works for you. I haven't yet.
