I'm not referring to any definitional origin in critical theory or whathaveyou. — StreetlightX
What's your underastanding of it? — StreetlightX
Not at all. As creative noted, the dissonance between what ought to be a state of 'normalcy' and it having count as a privilege is precisely the point of the term. It draws its critical power from precisely the uneasy collapse of the two. To not treat normality as privilege - given the current state of things - is to miss the point. Which is what you are doing.
If the term is inaccurate, it is, as it were, an ontological inaccuracy, one that ought to be remedied at the level of action, not language. The goal being to make it nonsensical, which it currently, sadly, is not. — StreetlightX
it simply seems that irony is lost on you, — StreetlightX
As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.
We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations.
Unsurprisingly, my interest started with the popularised Erin Cooley study in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, which was premised on the assumption of white privilege being used to increase awareness and promote action. The study was specifically on the impact such approaches have on assumptions about poverty where it did indeed seem that talk of 'white privilege' promulgated 'lazy and feckless' tropes in regard to poor whites, and even generated an increased use of individualist language regardless of race (ie, talk of privilege merely ressurects ideas of assessing achievement by comparison with origin rather than as a indicator of it). — Isaac
Lowery: That's a good question. I don't talk about this often in the classroom, honestly. So when I'm in the classroom, what I do is work on leadership...So I do often stand in front of students and talk about their responsibilities. So working at Stanford, our students are both incredibly talented and also incredibly privileged, as am I and everyone else associated with Stanford as an academic institution, and many other really elite and high status academic institutions. And in front of those groups what I say is that when we behave, the decisions we make affect many other people. And it's very easy to focus on how our decisions affect our outcomes, what it means about our career, what it means about our family, and lose sight of the fact that from our perch, those decisions actually affect many people's lives.
And so I don't talk in particular about race, but what I try to impress upon people in positions of power is that if we lose sight of the consequences of our behavior on other people, we will likely end up supporting existing inequities, right? Exacerbating existing inequities. It doesn't require us to be bad people or racist. It just requires us to continue to go along with the system as it is, and to continue to try to maximize our own outcomes. And that I think it's incumbent upon us to do more than that. So when I talk with students, that's the message that I give them. And I don't find a lot of resistance to that, because again, people want to see themselves as good and moral people. So I think it's important to convey to them what that actually requires of them.
So you're admitting that the term does not accurately describe what it says it does. You are asserting that its non-descriptiveness, its falsehood is exactly the point of the term. — Pro Hominem
The study was specifically on the impact such approaches have on assumptions about poverty where it did indeed seem that talk of 'white privilege' promulgated 'lazy and feckless' tropes in regard to poor whites, and even generated an increased use of individualist language regardless of race (ie, talk of privilege merely ressurects ideas of assessing achievement by comparison with origin rather than as a indicator of it). — Isaac
it simply seems that irony is lost on you,
— StreetlightX
Yep. — Banno
Here's a pop article that might be of interest:
Learning About Privilege
The reaction fo the white student has parallels in this thread.
The checklist mention can be found in White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.
Talking about privilege makes the privileged uncomfortable. That is not sufficient reason not to talk about privilege. — Banno
The Erin Cooley article:
We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations. — Banno
I did the exact opposite of that. I 'admitted' that the term captures something quite real about our state of affairs, in which normalcy has acquired a sense of privilege. At stake is not 'accuracry' or falsehood but normativity. What is currently a state of affairs should be otherwise. Once that is so, then the term will no longer have purchace. That is currently not the case — StreetlightX
Interesting. On paper, the term ought to do the exact opposite of this - insofar as privilege is a social relation and speaks precisely to supera-individual factors that shape behaviour. Perhaps there's a degree to which the term is simply too complex, with rife misunderstandings that have colored its use in ways detrimental. On the other hand that also strikes me as elitist bullshit, and that its misunderstanding can be attributed to it being a favourite target of conservative identity politics, which toxifies everything it touches.
In any case, as a term which simply marks the sad situation in which normalcy has indeed become a case of privilege, I believe it still has purchace, and rather uncontroversially so — StreetlightX
A lovely series of indignant assertions, lacking argument and still wrongly assocating the term with 'blame'. Beyond argument I suppose — StreetlightX
Not sure what you think I'm lying about, I have always been open and upfront about my contempt for the framing. If I agreed that white privilege was necessary, if I agreed that white privilege was an important marker, then my opposition makes no sense. — Judaka
The Erin Cooley article:
We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege—leading to negative social evaluations.
This is indeed an interesting point. Isaac, presumably you do not think this sufficient reason not to talk in terms of privilege? — Banno
On paper, the term ought to do the exact opposite of this - insofar as privilege is a social relation and speaks precisely to supera-individual factors that shape behaviour. — StreetlightX
On the other hand that also strikes me as elitist bullshit, and that its misunderstanding can be attributed to it being a favourite target of conservative identity politics, which toxifies everything it touches. — StreetlightX
In any case, as a term which simply marks the sad situation in which normalcy has indeed become a case of privilege, I believe it still has purchace — StreetlightX
Talk of 'white privilege' is just bourgeois dinner-table chatter by comparison. — Isaac
That right-wing punditry toxifies everything is nit in itself a reason to throw one's hands up and say "we might as well not give it any thought". — Isaac
wondered, on reading your other post, if there might be an evidence base in the literature of psychology that leant one way or the other. — Banno
This is a side issue. — Banno
That one is able to talk about one's privilege in a critical way is precisely, a mark of it. It no doubt accounts for the fact that people like Pro are so violently offended over what they see as a nominative injustice. In my experience, the people most liable to actually talk about 'white privilege' tend to be those who have nothing to say other than to whine about it. A perfect kind of bourgeois black hole. — StreetlightX
That it toxifies everything is all the more reason to be clear about our terms and not cede ground to them. More thought, not less. — StreetlightX
Apply this same logic to talking about men and women in a way that makes a trans person uncomfortable. Its nice to see that you've come around to realizing another's hurt feelings isn't a privilege to silence someone else.Talking about privilege makes the privileged uncomfortable. That is not sufficient reason not to talk about privilege. — Banno
This disconnect is a problem because it removes the hook that the discourse initially had back into the reality of the situation is claims to be about, and discussion removed from any attachment to lived reality can end up castles in the air, a distraction from what really needs doing. — Isaac
Your position is based on the ultimate separation between the reality of systemic racism and the existence of white privilege. Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set ofyou are trying to make the case that it is impossible to convince a person of the reality of systemic racism without convincing them of this privilege. I totally disagree. I do not believe that white privilege exists. I am supremely confident in the existence of both individual and institutional racism, and its many areas of impact beyond criminal justice, including housing, employment, education, and many more.
So, since it is completely possible to understand the institutionalized framework of racial oppression without resorting to the use of this admittedly non-descriptive term, I ask again, what value does it have? . — Pro Hominem
Yet, it is quite common now to define systemic racism as a set of
institutional practises that function to favour certain racial groups over others: — Number2018
"Solid Ground defines Institutional Racism as “the systematic distribution of resources, power and opportunity in our society to the benefit of people who are white and the exclusion of people of color.” Present-day racism was built on a long history of racially distributed resources and ideas that shape our view of ourselves and others. It is a hierarchical system that comes with a broad range of policies and institutions that keep it in place."
https://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/institutionalracism.pdf
The definition states that systemic racism is the practice to disadvantage communities of colour in favour of people who are white. Therefore, both notions are essentially interrelated. — Number2018
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.