The Prejudice of Implicit Privilege

[Audie]

Often though, the purpose is not to convince others, but to bask in a sense of self-righteousness. This is an unfortunate characteristic of modern political discourse for many people of all persuasions.

Exactly so. Same with all who rush to find a way to claim victim status.

My current fav bit of correctness is the one about
"cultural appropriation".

 

[Augustus]

My current fav bit of correctness is the one about
"cultural appropriation".

Especially when it is applied to food.

How twisted does someone's mind have to get before they find it problematic that someone is 'appropriating' a burrito

 

[ADigitalArtist]

b) Convince people that they should be ashamed of some unearned privilege they have based on an accident of birth and that, implicitly, they are collectively responsible for oppressing everyone else

I have never, ever, heard any sociologists or psychologists frame privilege as something to be ashamed of. Quite the opposite. They're not stupid, they know that when facing privilege with shame you're likely to get a defensive reaction and that just stymies the dialogue. But instead of just discontinuing the term, they just patiently explain that's not what it means. The same way I have to patiently explain how I am both an agnostic and an atheist. Or that atheist doesn't mean anti-theist. Or that feminism doesn't means matriarchy and man-hating.

As for responsibility, it's really no different than when people ask moderate or liberal Muslims to condemn Islamic extremism, because the power to change from within is much bigger than changing without. It will take collective responsibility of the privileged to moderate the discrimination of the oppressors because they have all the power in that system. If I said "Straight allys are important. It's in large part up to us to overthrow anti-LGBT legislation because it was us, the straight majority, who initially put them in place," would you feel guilted, shamed and like I'm personally blaming you instead of acknowledging who has the power in this dynamic?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A double standard is the root of ALL evil, and the elite it protects could be from the left (usually) right or center. The privilege meme is nothing more than a feint in hopes of moving attention away from the usually leftist privileged elite. It's the latest politically correct example of screwing with the lexicon.

What "leftist priveged elite"?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It really is not an apt term if you are aiming for mutual understanding. See above post for explanation.

So what term would you like to use to explain them phenomenon?

 

[sealchan]

I remember that episode



I actually meant it in a different way though. The language we use to discuss issues can be as, or even more, important than the issue itself.

Once you frame the issue in terms of privilege you have lost the ability to change the minds of people who have not already been primed with a certain ideological tendency.

It's one of the most egregiously counterproductive pieces of terminology that could be constructed if the purpose is mutual understanding which very much belies its roots in a certain type of ideological advocacy.

Given the choice, which seems more likely to succeed:

a) Convince people to be empathetic with people being discriminated against
b) Convince people that they should be ashamed of some unearned privilege they have based on an accident of birth and that, implicitly, they are collectively responsible for oppressing everyone else

Many modern progressives create a framework in which they are bound to fail. Framing a discussion in a way that even people who agree with them won't agree with them is insane.

Often though, the purpose is not to convince others, but to bask in a sense of self-righteousness. This is an unfortunate characteristic of modern political discourse for many people of all persuasions.

I recognize this issue, and I think I highlighted it as follows...

This presents an interesting challenge for those who seek to facilitate the further improvement of society for the underprivileged with the cooperation of the privileged who, of course, seek out that government should be serving their needs and that since everyone's rights are equal (for the sake of argument) there is no reason why any government action or policies shouldn't be a problem so long as they are not explicitly biased in their application to members of society. Those who unknowingly enjoy the privilege of their class will actively resist changes in government policy that are meant to continue to erode the imbalance and inequity in society that continues to be demonstrated in daily acts which determine privileged access to resources of value shared by all people.

(Ok on a second reading that was as clear as mud...)

The problem lies in the fact that explicit bias may not be present but implicit privilege, which may not reflect the conscious beliefs or attitude of the privileged, is still, nonetheless, perpetuated by the actions of the unconsciously privileged. You can't accuse such a person of direct responsibility easily, but you can ask them, perhaps, to engage in supporting changes meant to correct the systemic issue.

Here is an example that was presented in my corporate training...a manager in a marketing team is discussing with a manager in a different department about all of the applications they were taking for the position of social media coordinator (or some such job). They had so many applicants that they decided they needed to find a way to rule out a large number of the applicants quickly in order to make a reasonable deadline to obtain new hires. The method the manager in this scenario said they came up with was to eliminate all of the applicants above a certain age figuring that they would be less familiar with social media applications.

Now in this case there was absolutely no sense in which the manager had any prejudice against "older" people. But she made a stereotyped assumption about the knowledge and fitness of a person (profiled them) based on age. A persons age is a protected class, in fact. But such profiling may be common and as such represents a kind of systemic discrimination which sets up a privilege for the class of people who are enacting it. The preponderance of younger people in a career motivated by practical concerns, nonetheless, might enact a general (systemic) practice of discriminating against older people.

The privilege, I suppose, is that the younger generation grew up in a context in which social media was more crucial to their experience than it was, obviously, to those who grew up in a time before its creation. I think that in this case a member of the younger generation could be expected to be able to recognize the systemic privilege they were attempting, without malice, to enact and have the ability to self-correct their behavior without being so turned off my the term as to be highly offended at its mere mention.

However, some profiling comes with culturally acceptable stereotypes and one may find one's family or friends to be critical if one were to second guess such stereotypes. At this level then one has the challenge that Jesus had of being a member of a group but finding himself at odds with some deeply held biases of that group for which that group would readily persecute one of their own.

This is the wall between self and the Other.

 

[sealchan]

It really is not an apt term if you are aiming for mutual understanding. See above post for explanation.

I responded to this in my response to the above post.

Thanks!

 

[Augustus]

I have never, ever, heard any sociologists or psychologists frame privilege as something to be ashamed of. Q

Which might be ok if the discourse was limited to academia, but it is not. There is a major difference between what might be true 'in theory', and what people hear.

They're not stupid, they know that when facing privilege with shame you're likely to get a defensive reaction and that just stymies the dialogue. But instead of just discontinuing the term, they just patiently explain that's not what it means.

Why would anyone choose a term knowingly that required such a process if the purpose was to persuade though? Most people have tuned out before you get to patiently explain anything if you have a mass audience.

Social science academics are, in general, terrible communicators (with a few exceptions). Most journal articles are poorly communicated for an academic audience, let alone a general public.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against discrimination.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against the idea that they benefit from unearned privilege that requires them to feel guilt.

I understand what you are saying, and much of it is 'technically' correct, but it is communication suicide to frame an issue where most people agree with you in terms of something where most people disagree with you.

Anyone who coined that term as part of a professional communication campaign would likely have a very short career.

 

[Father Heathen]

I redeemed my privilege points for a t-shirt and a coffee mug.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which might be ok if the discourse was limited to academia, but it is not. There is a major difference between what might be true 'in theory', and what people hear.



Why would anyone choose a term knowingly that required such a process if the purpose was to persuade though? Most people have tuned out before you get to patiently explain anything if you have a mass audience.

Social science academics are, in general, terrible communicators (with a few exceptions). Most journal articles are poorly communicated for an academic audience, let alone a general public.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against discrimination.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against the idea that they benefit from unearned privilege that requires them to feel guilt.

I understand what you are saying, and much of it is 'technically' correct, but it is communication suicide to frame an issue where most people agree with you in terms of something where most people disagree with you.

Anyone who coined that term as part of a professional communication campaign would likely have a very short career.

I mean, if I were just going on common use definitions from opposition, I should probably not use the term 'liberal' because of all the assumed baggage that comes with that term. At some point people have to understand that just because you heard or felt a negative association with that term doesn't mean the term is invalid or should be changed. Which is exactly what the self-identified 'Anti-PC' crowd argue!

You could have just left out 'social' and left it at 'science.' As most science fields are riddled with difficult to simplify terms for a general audience (or even each other in breaking research) that they none-the-less will explain rather than discard useful terms.

 

[sealchan]

Exactly so. Same with all who rush to find a way to claim victim status.

My current fav bit of correctness is the one about
"cultural appropriation".

I've grappled a bit with this myself. How would you define the boundaries in this area?

 

[sealchan]

Which might be ok if the discourse was limited to academia, but it is not. There is a major difference between what might be true 'in theory', and what people hear.



Why would anyone choose a term knowingly that required such a process if the purpose was to persuade though? Most people have tuned out before you get to patiently explain anything if you have a mass audience.

Social science academics are, in general, terrible communicators (with a few exceptions). Most journal articles are poorly communicated for an academic audience, let alone a general public.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against discrimination.

The vast majority of people are either consciously, or latently, against the idea that they benefit from unearned privilege that requires them to feel guilt.

I understand what you are saying, and much of it is 'technically' correct, but it is communication suicide to frame an issue where most people agree with you in terms of something where most people disagree with you.

Anyone who coined that term as part of a professional communication campaign would likely have a very short career.

Guilt isn't a necessary response. It is an understandable one, but one that I think would dissolve given time and thought.

Do we raise a child in the belief in Santa Claus so that they can participate and the joy and hope implicit in that belief and then feel guilt when the literality of that belief is revealed to be a sham? The same should hold in this case in which we, as a culture, should learn that we are growing and learning and that some of our values will require adjustment from time to time and that those who misled us were not necessarily promoting some shameful agenda. Still it is not hard to understand how this might be hard to understand.

I am glad for this discussion because I think that it is crucial.

 

[Augustus]

The problem lies in the fact that explicit bias may not be present but implicit privilege which does not reflect the conscious beliefs or attitude of the privileged, is still, nonetheless perpetuated by the actions of the privileged. You can't accuse such a person of direct responsibility, but you can ask them to engage in supporting systemic changes meant to correct the systemic issue.

People, in general, are not persuaded by facts. We are not rational creatures due to the way we evolved, and most people are not motivated enough to fight through initial negative emotional impulses.

For the sake of discussion, assuming you are 100% correct, you still will lose the argument by utilising the term privilege.

How much difference do you believe there would be in response to the following 2 questions asked to white Americans? a) do you think minorities are discriminated against or b) do you benefit from white privilege.

I guarantee far more people agree with a).

What do you think?

 

[Augustus]

At some point people have to understand that just because you heard or felt a negative association with that term doesn't mean the term is invalid or should be changed. Which is exactly what the self-identified 'Anti-PC' crowd argue!

Do you think you have a better chance of persuading someone that minorities are discriminated against, or a better chance of persuading them that they benefit from unearned racial privilege?

 

[Augustus]

So what term would you like to use to explain them phenomenon?

Anything that focuses on discrimination, as most people are against that.

 

[sealchan]

People, in general, are not persuaded by facts. We are not rational creatures due to the way we evolved, and most people are not motivated enough to fight through initial negative emotional impulses.

For the sake of discussion, assuming you are 100% correct, you still will lose the argument by utilising the term privilege.

How much difference do you believe there would be in response to the following 2 questions asked to white Americans? a) do you think minorities are discriminated against or b) do you benefit from white privilege.

I guarantee far more people agree with a).

What do you think?

I would totally agree. In fact, in what I have read regarding studies in this area, this is born out.

However, I think that many people so have the self-respect to think that facts are important and when presented with them they will at least try to rationalize those facts into a favorable context.

I recognize that this subject is an extremely difficult one and as such it further demonstrates to me that this IS THE subject of our very current times that needs to be addressed. It is like a pain in a muscle...it only will go away if it is addressed (through massage/message)...

A debate forum is a place where those who will self-select to withstand such potentially painful topics will be present to respond to such discussions.

But as another participant has asked, how would you approach such a conversation with someone if you thought they were being unfair and not aware of it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Anything that focuses on discrimination, as most people are against that.

Doesn't privelege do exactly that? Privelege of one implies discrimination against another, I'd have thought?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you think you have a better chance of persuading someone that minorities are discriminated against, or a better chance of persuading them that they benefit from unearned racial privilege?

I don't see it as an either-or scenario.
They are being discriminated against and we have more opportunity and control to affect change that than they do.
The former is framing the problem, the latter is a call to action based on social environment.

 

[Augustus]

A debate forum is a place where those who will self-select to withstand such potentially painful topics will be present to respond to such discussions.

My point is not about debate forums, or academic discourse, it is about mass communication.

But as another participant has asked, how would you approach such a conversation with someone if you thought they were being unfair and not aware of it?

Frame it in terms of what they agree with, discrimination is wrong.

If they don't believe discrimination is wrong then your ****ed. But such a group is a small minority and you don't need to persuade them of anything to be successful.

 

[Audie]

I redeemed my privilege points for a t-shirt and a coffee mug.

Does it say

I SURVIVED WHITE PRIVILEGE