Liza Talusan blogs about a negative experience a friend had when his “Got Privilege?” shirt offended a white person:
Recognizing privilege, owning up to your privilege and then actively identifying ways in which we institutionally disempower those without privilege gives us tools in our toolbox. It helps us to call attention to ways in which we play into systems of oppression. It awakens our sense of responsibility and turns on the voice in our hearts to call for change.
When capitalized, "Sie" is the formal way to address adults of either gender in polite German. I majored in the…
If one assumes that a person is making their money, including enough money to have no incentive to "work", by…
Ob sie wirklich Deutsch spricht. Normalweise, kommt die US Soldaten nicht ins Stadt und spricht nicht so oft mit denn…
As for being a Nazi, ich spreche fliessend deutsch und wohnte in Deutschland fuer drei Jahre mit der americanishe Luftwaffe…
And of course this "incentive" only applies to poor people: Rich people who already have enough to live off of…
Of course it’s offensive to someone who doesn’t believe they are priviledged, or believes that their priviledge is minimal.
Now, they’re wrong… but see it from their point.
When you tell someone they’re priviledged, you say several things
1) your struggles and accomplishments are not your own. That blood, sweat, and tears? Totally didn’t happen. You were just given a leg up by The Man.
2) I deserve your stuff. I got less than I deserve, and you got more than you deserve. Logically, in a just world, your crap would be mine. I may or may not be involved in trying to rectify this.
3) You are complicit in oppressing me, simply by not doing anything. This means you’re an evil, bad person, and I hate you, and so should every other right-thinking person.
see how somebody might get a little angsty about being told they’re privileged?
Privilege is offensive if you take it for granted.
Calling out someone’s privilege can be offensive if one is self-righteous about it (glass houses and all that) – especially if you’re from a higher class than the person you are calling out. Which not to say you’re wrong, as poor people can still enjoy relative levels of privilege accorded to race, gender identity, sexuality and so on. But few poor people are going to put up with a middle class or higher person calling them privileged.
this article kind of turns the notion of privilege on its head. It touches on the issue of how affirmative action reverses racial privilege among other things:
this site.
Privilege is definitely offensive when it sounds like this.
Silenced is Foo’s point that when you tell someone they are privileged they hear “I deserve your stuff. I got less than I deserve, and you got more than you deserve.” is right on target.
In regards to Liza’s story about the “Got Privilege” t-shirt, it reminded me of a student who wore a white t-shirt as part of a class presentation and discussed the way white privilege is as ubiquitous as white t-shirts – it’s so common, it’s rendered invisible. This was encouraging as so often people of white privilege are reticent to own up to the many perks whiteness confers.
I posted today about my idea that we should start using the term ‘people of white privilege.’ It is here if anyone is interested:
http://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/
Oh yeah.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, definitely.
Regarding your link, nojojo:
[Emphasis mine]
Yep. WaPo’s advertisers wanted me to read on for three pages, but upon reaching this early paragraph, I knew better than to bother.
SiF, I personally think when calling out someone’e privilege, one should be as specific as possible. So in my view, RIGHT:
White Guy: Why you can’t you just pull yourself up by the bootstraps, like I did? I started my own business up from nothing! I’m great!
Black Guy: To start your own business, you needed an initial loan from either the bank or prospective investors. Black folk aren’t as readily afforded the benefit of the doubt at the bank, and if they are not for the same amounts. We also don’t have the kind of connections that would allow us to appeal to initial investors directly. Therefore, your statement reflects some of your privilege as a White person. Bootstraps don’t come in equal lengths for everybody.
WRONG:
White Guy: Why you can’t you just pull yourself up by the bootstraps, like I did? I started my own business up from nothing! I’m great!
Black Guy: You just have tons of White privilege.
I can understand how a blanket statement like that could be seen as privilege. However, neither will I accept that the notion of privilege is intrinsically hurtful and therefore we should never talk about it ever ever.
The second last sentence should read “… could be seen as offensive“, not “privilege”. For some reason, I can’t seem to edit it.
Sylphhead: I agree that being more specific is better and more likely to get the privileged person to change their outlook, but I would be careful about implying that less-privileged people have a *duty* to provide education about privilege — they’ve got enough on their plates trying to make it without the benefit of privilege.
Oh, I don’t mean that at all. I do think the recipient may take offense at a blanket statement about privilege, but no one has a right to not be offended by what other people say.
Pingback: What if analogous to the term ‘person of color,’ we used ‘person of white privilege’? « Professor, What If…?
From the post linked:
In my life, I believe the same goes for the other ways (class, sexual identity, marriage status, education, ownership, health, etc) in which I experience privilege as a woman of color. We all carry around these unspoken Member ID Cards that allow us into these exclusive systemized clubs. But, do we belong to these clubs at the expense of others?
I must say that when I read discussions about privilege on left-wing blogs the presumption seems to be that the answer to the question there is always “yes”. That in turn makes people think you’re accusing them of doing something wrong. You have to engage people in a fashion that does not raise up an immediate emotional defensive reaction if you want to get them to consider your viewpoint.
Stentor writes:
Sylphhead: I agree that being more specific is better and more likely to get the privileged person to change their outlook, but I would be careful about implying that less-privileged people have a *duty* to provide education about privilege — they’ve got enough on their plates trying to make it without the benefit of privilege.
Duty? No. But if you want to actually convince the person you’re speaking to that the concept of “privilege” a) actually exists and b) can apply to them, it’s the smart way to go.
Statements about privilege often sound to the person being informed they have it as an accusation, and also as an attempt to dodge personal responsibility for one’s own actions and status. Societies are complex, and who you are and what you do are a mix of where you started out and what you did with what you have. A discussion of privilege can seem like you want to blame everything on how you started out so that you can duck the question of what you did from there on.
Duty? No. But if you want to actually convince the person you’re speaking to that the concept of “privilege” a) actually exists and b) can apply to them, it’s the smart way to go.
Right — and I said as much. The thing is, though, that convincing people is not the only possible goal (there’s also venting, avoiding the feeling that you’re condoning things by your silence, getting on with whatever else you could be doing besides engaging in a difficult and potentially unproductive debate, etc.). You can’t assume that tailoring statements to be maximally effective at convincing you should be the overriding goal whenever someone talks to you.
RonF writes:
I was going to explain the entire concept of white privilege to you — how if you are white and you didn’t actually “start out” with something, people were more willing to give it to you, or over look it, and how if you weren’t white, even if you did “start out” with something, people tended to forget you have it, deny you have it, or take it away from you. But you seem to be oblivious to the fact that this happens at all.
One of the really cool things about “privilege”, as a theory of social behavior, is that it actually works. So blind are heterosexual, white, male, Christians to the structural advantages they receive that they think the entire system is a meritocracy, in which all that matters is what they have, and what they do with it. And if they manage to “overcome” what they didn’t have, it must be because of “hard work”. It’s the reaction to not getting what someone expects which begins to reveal the structural inequalities. White guy doesn’t get a job. His reason? “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION!” Not, “well, there are a lot of people out there looking for jobs”, but “WHERE IS MY FREE JOB?”
People who choose to ignore their privilege are able to do so because it’s irrelevant in their lives. But for people who lack those privileges, their very lack is completely relevant to their lives. When one can’t get a job because there are too many structural disadvantages for being non-white, non-male, obviously non-heterosexual, or somehow obviously non-Christian (and all the other privileged classes), the fact that one isn’t privileged is experienced every day in ones diminished standard of living, lack of access to health care, lack of access to credit, lack of access to job promotions, etc. You can ignore your privilege because doing so doesn’t threaten your life. The people who don’t have your privilege can’t because it does threaten theirs.
Please re-read my post and tell me how you came to the conclusion that I was presenting my own viewpoint as opposed to explaining what I’ve observed in others.
Stentor:
You can’t assume that tailoring statements to be maximally effective at convincing you should be the overriding goal whenever someone talks to you.
Well, true enough. And some people will never be convinced. I gave up playing “Meathead” to my father-in-law’s “Archie” about a year after I first met my wife. I did make the presumption that we were talking about how to trying to make someone see the light, but I grant that this is not always the object. I personally either try to do that or else ignore the whole thing. Venting is not my thing – I don’t find it productive, and it also seems to diminish the ventor (if that’s a word?) in other’s eyes as “Oh, they’re overemotional”.
This is actually an important point. There is no binary duality between “things you start out with” and “things you earn”. Our society’s method of *earning* is what is under dispute. We’re suggesting that it’s not perfect, and it can be biased.