The Prejudice of Implicit Privilege

[Augustus]

Like my professor once said "people do not wish to acknowledge things even when you hold the mirror to their face"

A bit like how many progressives can't see that the way they communicate their ideas outside of their bubble is as big a problem as the ignorance and bigotry that they think leads to their rejection.

The guy that wrote that made a lot of sense as to why in this case "white privilege" is often met with defensiveness.

But still misses the obvious that using a term with strong negative connotations instantly causes defensiveness due to the realities of our cognition.

“there is a crucial insight to be gained from the underlying structure of mental activity: the brain’s operations arise fundamentally and inescapably from raw associations. Just as amino acids can be called the building blocks of life, associations can be called the building blocks of thought.

In various influence training programs, it’s common to hear instructors advise participants that to convince others to accept a message, it is necessary to use language that manages the recipients’ thoughts, perceptions, or emotional reactions. That strikes me as partially right. We convince others by using language that manages their mental associations to our message. Their thoughts, perceptions, and emotional reactions merely proceed from those associations...

the main purpose of speech is to direct listeners’ attention to a selected sector of reality. Once that is accomplished, the listeners’ existing associations to the now-spotlighted sector will take over to determine the reaction.”

Robert Cialdini - Pre-Suasion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But still misses the obvious that using a term with strong negative connotations instantly causes defensiveness due to the realities of our cognition.

Now that I've had some sleep I might be able to more properly reply.

I don't believe it's the word. It's the very concept. Explaining the word and explaining the concept take equal amount of words, I get that. But no matter what we call it, some people are going to have to work through their defensiveness. Because we can't stop talking about it. And we shouldn't coddle the defensiveness.

If I called it "powerdym" and defined it as:
"a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor due to social class" people would still get defensive.
But I don't need to do that. Because minus the social class bit, that sentence is exactly the definition of privilege, straight out of Merrium. So social privilege is the most accurate word to put to that definition of that phenomenon.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Meh....I don't expect respect from anyone here.
Some people will give it.
But some won't.
I don't take it personally.
And I recommend that you learn to do the same.
You'd experience less anger & hostility, which would
enable more understanding of opposing views.

I don’t mind opposing views and being open-minded about views that contradict mine, so long as they’re respectful. The problem I have are the disingenuous which from the surface here you seem to be. You remind me of the many discourses I have had with whites over the years concerning socio-political injustices that incur by the disenfranchised people of color and who have issue with the subject of race.

The “get over it” phenomena I’d call it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Do you mean you only intend to speak with people that agree with you ?

No, I intend to speak with people willing to explore the idea calmly and rationally despite how it makes them feel.
Also kind of why I don't post much in the evolution vs creation board. Plenty of dialogue, not a lot of constructive dialogue.

 

[Augustus]

I don't believe it's the word. It's the very concept. Explaining the word and explaining the concept take equal amount of words, I get that. But no matter what we call it, some people are going to have to work through their defensiveness. Because we can't stop talking about it. And we shouldn't coddle the defensiveness.

Some people are always going to reject the concept.

There are large numbers of people who are latently amenable though and may or may not end up supporting your position.

In the broader discourse, the 2nd group are who you are communicating with.

If I called it "powerdym" and defined it as:
"a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor due to social class" people would still get defensive.
But I don't need to do that. Because minus the social class bit, that sentence is exactly the definition of privilege, straight out of Merrium. So social privilege is the most accurate word to put to that definition of that phenomenon.

If you have 2 words with exactly the same meaning neither is more 'accurate' than the other. The word is just a symbol.

If you used powerdym you start from a neutral place. It carries neither positive nor negative connotations.

White privilege carries connotations like elitism, aristocracy, country clubs and private schools, butlers and maids, sedan chairs, some powdered fop in pantaloons and a cravat, oppressors, even white power.

"We convince others by using language that manages their mental associations to our message. Their thoughts, perceptions, and emotional reactions merely proceed from those associations... the main purpose of speech is to direct listeners’ attention to a selected sector of reality. Once that is accomplished, the listeners’ existing associations to the now-spotlighted sector will take over to determine the reaction.”

No matter how much we would like it to be, attitude change is usually not based on an impartial consideration of objective evidence.

Given this, when given a choice between 2 words that, as you note, mean exactly the same thing, what would be a logical argument in favour of choosing the one which produces a strong negative emotional reaction in many people you wish to influence? How can you blame someone for being defensive when you purposely choose terminology that guarantees this?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don’t mind opposing views and being open-minded about views that contradict mine, so long as they’re respectful. The problem I have are the disingenuous which from the surface here you seem to be.

You continually inform me what's wrong with me, eg, being white, being old, my avatar,
my persona, etc. Returning your generosity, I advise that you've some dysfunctional
anger going on. It results in prejudice, intolerance, incivility, & misreading of posts.

The “get over it” phenomena I’d call it.

"Chip On The Shoulder" phenomenon, it would seem.
You should respond civilly to issues I address, not about me personally.
Try that out, & you'll see that I'll do the same.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Some people are always going to reject the concept.

There are large numbers of people who are latently amenable though and may or may not end up supporting your position.

In the broader discourse, the 2nd group are who you are communicating with.



If you have 2 words with exactly the same meaning neither is more 'accurate' than the other. The word is just a symbol.

If you used powerdym you start from a neutral place. It carries neither positive nor negative connotations.

White privilege carries connotations like elitism, aristocracy, country clubs and private schools, butlers and maids, sedan chairs, some powdered fop in pantaloons and a cravat, oppressors, even white power.

"We convince others by using language that manages their mental associations to our message. Their thoughts, perceptions, and emotional reactions merely proceed from those associations... the main purpose of speech is to direct listeners’ attention to a selected sector of reality. Once that is accomplished, the listeners’ existing associations to the now-spotlighted sector will take over to determine the reaction.”

No matter how much we would like it to be, attitude change is usually not based on an impartial consideration of objective evidence.

Given this, when given a choice between 2 words that, as you note, mean exactly the same thing, what would be a logical argument in favour of choosing the one which produces a strong negative emotional reaction in many people you wish to influence? How can you blame someone for being defensive when you purposely choose terminology that guarantees this?

This is just so funny to me because this is exactly what those offended by the term privilege preach against. Changing to new words because the ones they use have stigma, without consideration for the context and intent the word is being used and making it all about a call to emotion. 'I won't listen to you unless you only use neutral, inoffensive language' is not a position I'm willing to cowtail to. Especially since I don't believe it's the word but the core concept they reject. So making a new word and bringing it into the lexicon of the social world for that reason would be a futile waste of time.

 

[Koldo]

No, I intend to speak with people willing to explore the idea calmly and rationally despite how it makes them feel.
Also kind of why I don't post much in the evolution vs creation board. Plenty of dialogue, not a lot of constructive dialogue.

You have said you intend to speak to people that understand the term and use it. Have you had a change of mind ?

If you want to reach out to pretty much everyone else, do you sincerely believe that calling them privileged is a good start?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If you want to reach out to pretty much everyone else

I don't. That would be unrealistic.

 

[Koldo]

I don't. That would be unrealistic.

Then who do you want to reach out and why do you think that calling them privileged is a good idea?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then who do you want to reach out and why do you think that calling them privileged is a good idea?

No specific demographic. Just not people who can't hear the term or concept of privilege spoken without getting offended and defensive. Or more specifically, can't push beyond that feeling to analyze it and the intent of the speaker.

 

[Koldo]

No specific demographic. Just not people who can't hear the term or concept of privilege spoken without getting offended and defensive. Or more specifically, can't push beyond that feeling to analyze it and the intent of the speaker.

You didn't answer the second part of my question. Why do you think that calling them privileged is a good idea?

 

[Mister Emu]

I did some reading this morning that made me realize more fully this notion of how prejudice as it creates social injustice can exist even outside the psychological attitude of the individual.

I'd like to see an example of how someone can prejudicially create social injustice without reference to their psychology. The concept of prejudice demands judgement, i.e. conscious thought.

how did his despicable behavior become acceptable to so many people to the point that he was elected?

That issue has been litigated to death. The grievous political and governing faults of the only viable opposing candidate were such that a poorly trained circus bear would have stood a fair chance, much less a successful businessman with a lot of promising rhetoric.

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

Especially when those who say they are fighting against discrimination want it writ in law. People don't like their position, social or economic, assailed by hypocrites.

The reason why someone like Trump can be elected president seems to me to have to do with the fear that many white people are feeling with their declining status.

That's certainly part of it, declining status is bad. Improving status is good. Couching status as a zero-sum game where to lift one is to push another down leads to evil.

When the educated and the intellectual tells you time and time and time again that you are loosing your job but you are gaining a stronger economy...but you still have no job, that doesn't satisfy.

Indeed. It doesn't satisfy, it doesn't feed your family or send your child to a better school than you went to. And it doesn't make you anti-intellectual to be forcefully against policy decisions that lead to those outcomes.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You didn't answer the second part of my question. Why do you think that calling them privileged is a good idea?

I don't want to understate the importance of the concept of privilege in building empathy for people ho have less access, opportunity and resources in a power dynamic by simply not having the time to write about it.
Can point you in the right direction though.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/why-its-important-to-think-about-privilege-and-why/

 

[Mister Emu]

"White privilege" has been a topic of academic study long before it became a popular term.

"White privilege" is a disgustingly poor label that doesn't actually describe the phenomenon it is referring to and lends itself to posturing social activists who weaponize it along racial lines.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'd like to see an example of how someone can prejudicially create social injustice without reference to their psychology. The concept of prejudice demands judgement, i.e. conscious thought

I can see someone talking about how a behavior can unknowingly perpetuates a prejudicial system or organization that causes social injustice. But I wouldn't call the person prejudiced unless, after being given that knowledge, is still apathetic towards that social injustice.

 

[Augustus]

This is just so funny to me because this is exactly what those offended by the term privilege preach against.

Most people don't preach against anything, they are largely uninterested. Because some people are hostile to the concept, doesn't mean that all who find the term problematic are doing so due to hostility.

Changing to new words because the ones they use have stigma, without consideration for the context and intent the word is being used and making it all about a call to emotion. 'I won't listen to you unless you only use neutral, inoffensive language' is not a position I'm willing to cowtail to.

In general, do you think that all academic terminology is automatically the best way to discuss ideas with a mass audience?

Academics are among the worst communicators, even ones who deal with communication

Especially since I don't believe it's the word but the core concept they reject. So making a new word and bringing it into the lexicon of the social world for that reason would be a futile waste of time.

You just posted a link to an article that explains how to overcome the defensiveness that the term produces among people who would otherwise agree with you.

This seems to be a common feature of articles that people recommend on the issue, they all acknowledge the problems the term creates yet still insist it is an important thing to understand.

Why would one not prefer to start the discussion without having to utilise special tactics to overcome the problems created by what is a completely avoidable symbolic representation of a concept?

Why would anyone think it is desirable to have to persuade someone of multiple things to win the day rather than just a single one of these?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

they all acknowledge the problems the term creates

That's not what I'm reading. The problem is with people's difficulty approaching the concept. Not the term.

 

[Augustus]

That's not what I'm reading. The problem is with people's difficulty approaching the concept. Not the term.

This is a clear statement of someone sympathetic to the idea, but rejecting the terminology:

When I explained this to my friend during our fancy West Village meal, he became defensive. He cited his struggles learning to read, being born into a household with parents who had immigrated from Europe, and being in debt from school as reasons that he should not be assumed to be privileged. While he did reference the disadvantages that women and minorities experience, he would not identify with the label of privilege.

In my experience, his level of defensiveness is not unusual when discussing privilege

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is a clear statement of someone sympathetic to the idea, but rejecting the terminology:

When I explained this to my friend during our fancy West Village meal, he became defensive. He cited his struggles learning to read, being born into a household with parents who had immigrated from Europe, and being in debt from school as reasons that he should not be assumed to be privileged. While he did reference the disadvantages that women and minorities experience, he would not identify with the label of privilege.

In my experience, his level of defensiveness is not unusual when discussing privilege

That's not sympathetic to the idea, because it's lacking the introspection which privilege is talking about. It's not just about recognizing disadvantages others have, but advantages you have. That's what discussing privilege as a concept not just a term (actually the definition of the term and the concept are one in the same) entails.