I thought this was an interesting conversation, so thought I’d storify it and share it here.
15 thoughts on “How To Tell Someone They’re Privileged”
This is unreadable in Firefox.
Huh; I use firefox and it seems to be working; do you need to update?
I wonder if it’s more than a coincidence that popular privilege theory settled on the word “privilege” – considering that, while people debate whether the thing it’s ostensibly about should even be called “privilege” (“Issue with privilege terminology is it implies that it was conferred, begging question of who has power to.”), the thing it’s actually about is privilege, exactly in the traditional sense of the word (and more than superficially similar to, say, the Ottoman or British empires’ systems of recognizing certain minority privileges, of course with a relative bias toward the interests of minority elites). The privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about racism is reserved for non-whites; the privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about specifically anti-black racism is reserved more specifically for black people; the privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about discrimination against trans people is reserved for trans people; maybe or maybe not along with a certain number of jobs and positions of authority; etc.
(Exception: Poverty is mentioned in the above discussion, but nobody actually seems offended by the opinions of the college educated and the rich on economic issues being given equal status with everybody’s else’s.)
Also: ‘The term definitely has stigma but IMO it’s mostly people not wanting to be “bad people” or to change their actions.’
In scare quotes veritas (except when there isn’t, but in this case there is). So the internal debate here is over whether “privilege” is a sufficiently slick way to call somebody bad people.
I think it makes sense that people who are oppressed should be the ones you listen to first about how their oppression works. That includes poor people (and in part of the discussion I didn’t include, Natalie does in fact point out that she’s poor, and that people talking to her like they know more about poverty than her is a crappy thing to do.)
Also, it seems odd to stress “privilege to talk about stuff” over racism or sexism as the privilege in question.
“So the internal debate here is over whether “privilege” is a sufficiently slick way to call somebody bad people.”
I don’t think so. The issue is over how to get people to change harmful actions. It’s always difficult to distinguish between sin and sinner; I think it’s worth trying to do though.
It occurs to me that the word “oppression” has become less than useless. When the same word is used for Henry Louis Gates experiencing four hours of physical discomfort in 25 years and for being poor, then the purpose of that word is to obscure.
and in part of the discussion I didn’t include, Natalie does in fact point out that she’s poor, and that people talking to her like they know more about poverty than her is a crappy thing to do
I roughly inferred all that from what you did post, and of course it’s beside the point. Like you and like me, Natalie is nobody.
Also, it seems odd to stress “privilege to talk about stuff” over racism or sexism as the privilege in question.
Again, you were discussing whether racism and sexism should even be called “privilege.” Meanwhile, the privileges that privilege theory says specific groups of people should have are, again, privileges in the traditional sense of the word.
It’s always difficult to distinguish between sin and sinner; I think it’s worth trying to do though.
I’m more and more convinced that the correct response to all religious homilies is to do the opposite.
“I love you, I just hate your sin” – good luck ever getting that person on your side for anything, after condescending to them like that. (Of course, the whole point of forgiveness is to feel superior to the forgiven.)
“I hate you, you probably hate me.” Now that can be the beginning of a productive relationship.
“When the same word is used for Henry Louis Gates experiencing four hours of physical discomfort in 25 years and for being poor, then the purpose of that word is to obscure.”
I don’t think so. Oppression is about structural inequities. Some of those inequities may be more sweeping than others, but that doesn’t make the term meaningless. A little torture or a lot of torture; it’s still torture.
“Again, you were discussing whether racism and sexism should even be called “privilege.” ”
Well, among other things.
“Meanwhile, the privileges that privilege theory says specific groups of people should have are, again, privileges in the traditional sense of the word.”
Not so sure about that. You’re assuming the baseline of conversation is neutral. It’s not. “Black people should be listened to on black issues” exists in a context where they generally aren’t,and generally don’t have as much access to platforms. It’s you who’s saying that black people are being granted privileges. I’d say the effort is to get to equality.
“I’m more and more convinced that the correct response to all religious homilies is to do the opposite.”
Foucault would laugh at you, right? I think this kind of knee-jerk, ritualized rejection to religion just means that you’re more religious than I am (not a difficult task, admittedly.)
If “[o]ppression is about structural inequities,” then you don’t need the word oppression, you can just say structural inequalities. Except, of course, you do want the word oppression, because it sounds scarier, because it’s about more than that. So you have your cake and eat it.
“Black people should be listened to on black issues” exists in a context where they generally aren’t,and generally don’t have as much access to platforms. It’s you who’s saying that black people are being granted privileges.
So are you. You’re just also saying “But there’s a good reason.”
Foucault would laugh at you, right? I think this kind of knee-jerk, ritualized rejection to religion just means that you’re more religious than I am (not a difficult task, admittedly.)
Now you’re not having a conversation with me any more but with yourself. (And also causing me to realize that “you’re more religious than I am” as a rejoinder to the New Atheists has become a bromide. Thanks, I’ve used it before and might have again.)
I didn’t write a “kind of knee-jerk, ritualized rejection of religion.” The correct way to parse what I wrote is, (1) homilies (in the pejorative, not necessarily religious sense of the word) are by definition wrong, and (2) more specifically, the religious ones are maybe always (hyperbole – let’s say, usually) wrong in a way that’s the exact opposite of correct. It contained nothing against religion, per se.
Now let’s talk about that “knee-jerk, ritualized.” It implies that “rejection of religion” can be valid, but you have to do it right. So, what, keep the “love,” ditch the fire and brimstone? It’s the “love” that kills the most people!
re: Foucault, who cares?
I care about Foucault! The whole last comment was pretty much a good-natured joke.
I think there’s a difference between saying, “everyone should have a voice in their treatment” and framing that as a privilege. This is in fact one of the problems with privilege rhetoric. You get situations where it seems like basic rights are some sort of special dispensation.
@Noah But you’re not saying everybody should have an equal voice. You’re saying some people’s voices should be given special status, to make up for their being denied equal status.
Ah, no, you’ve misunderstood me.
I’m saying that, if you don’t say, “we should listen to black voices on these issues,” they won’t be listened to. The current power dynamics are inequitable. You need to say, “we will include these people” because there is institutional and individual racism which exists right now. Valuing those voice is not giving them special status to make up for inequity. It is advocating for equality.
Basically the subordinate status of black people is so systemically ingrained that arguing for equality is perceived as arguing for special status.
I’m saying that, if you don’t say, “we should listen to black voices on these issues,” they won’t be listened to.
That’s not what you’re saying:
I think it makes sense that people who are oppressed should be the ones you listen to first about how their oppression works
“That’s not what you’re saying:”
No, it really is.
No, it isn’t. You already wrote that “first,” it’s too late to try to say it more slickly.
This is unreadable in Firefox.
Huh; I use firefox and it seems to be working; do you need to update?
I wonder if it’s more than a coincidence that popular privilege theory settled on the word “privilege” – considering that, while people debate whether the thing it’s ostensibly about should even be called “privilege” (“Issue with privilege terminology is it implies that it was conferred, begging question of who has power to.”), the thing it’s actually about is privilege, exactly in the traditional sense of the word (and more than superficially similar to, say, the Ottoman or British empires’ systems of recognizing certain minority privileges, of course with a relative bias toward the interests of minority elites). The privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about racism is reserved for non-whites; the privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about specifically anti-black racism is reserved more specifically for black people; the privilege of superior status for one’s opinions about discrimination against trans people is reserved for trans people; maybe or maybe not along with a certain number of jobs and positions of authority; etc.
(Exception: Poverty is mentioned in the above discussion, but nobody actually seems offended by the opinions of the college educated and the rich on economic issues being given equal status with everybody’s else’s.)
Also: ‘The term definitely has stigma but IMO it’s mostly people not wanting to be “bad people” or to change their actions.’
In scare quotes veritas (except when there isn’t, but in this case there is). So the internal debate here is over whether “privilege” is a sufficiently slick way to call somebody bad people.
I think it makes sense that people who are oppressed should be the ones you listen to first about how their oppression works. That includes poor people (and in part of the discussion I didn’t include, Natalie does in fact point out that she’s poor, and that people talking to her like they know more about poverty than her is a crappy thing to do.)
Also, it seems odd to stress “privilege to talk about stuff” over racism or sexism as the privilege in question.
“So the internal debate here is over whether “privilege” is a sufficiently slick way to call somebody bad people.”
I don’t think so. The issue is over how to get people to change harmful actions. It’s always difficult to distinguish between sin and sinner; I think it’s worth trying to do though.
It occurs to me that the word “oppression” has become less than useless. When the same word is used for Henry Louis Gates experiencing four hours of physical discomfort in 25 years and for being poor, then the purpose of that word is to obscure.
I roughly inferred all that from what you did post, and of course it’s beside the point. Like you and like me, Natalie is nobody.
Again, you were discussing whether racism and sexism should even be called “privilege.” Meanwhile, the privileges that privilege theory says specific groups of people should have are, again, privileges in the traditional sense of the word.
I’m more and more convinced that the correct response to all religious homilies is to do the opposite.
“I love you, I just hate your sin” – good luck ever getting that person on your side for anything, after condescending to them like that. (Of course, the whole point of forgiveness is to feel superior to the forgiven.)
“I hate you, you probably hate me.” Now that can be the beginning of a productive relationship.
“When the same word is used for Henry Louis Gates experiencing four hours of physical discomfort in 25 years and for being poor, then the purpose of that word is to obscure.”
I don’t think so. Oppression is about structural inequities. Some of those inequities may be more sweeping than others, but that doesn’t make the term meaningless. A little torture or a lot of torture; it’s still torture.
“Again, you were discussing whether racism and sexism should even be called “privilege.” ”
Well, among other things.
“Meanwhile, the privileges that privilege theory says specific groups of people should have are, again, privileges in the traditional sense of the word.”
Not so sure about that. You’re assuming the baseline of conversation is neutral. It’s not. “Black people should be listened to on black issues” exists in a context where they generally aren’t,and generally don’t have as much access to platforms. It’s you who’s saying that black people are being granted privileges. I’d say the effort is to get to equality.
“I’m more and more convinced that the correct response to all religious homilies is to do the opposite.”
Foucault would laugh at you, right? I think this kind of knee-jerk, ritualized rejection to religion just means that you’re more religious than I am (not a difficult task, admittedly.)
If “[o]ppression is about structural inequities,” then you don’t need the word oppression, you can just say structural inequalities. Except, of course, you do want the word oppression, because it sounds scarier, because it’s about more than that. So you have your cake and eat it.
So are you. You’re just also saying “But there’s a good reason.”
Now you’re not having a conversation with me any more but with yourself. (And also causing me to realize that “you’re more religious than I am” as a rejoinder to the New Atheists has become a bromide. Thanks, I’ve used it before and might have again.)
I didn’t write a “kind of knee-jerk, ritualized rejection of religion.” The correct way to parse what I wrote is, (1) homilies (in the pejorative, not necessarily religious sense of the word) are by definition wrong, and (2) more specifically, the religious ones are maybe always (hyperbole – let’s say, usually) wrong in a way that’s the exact opposite of correct. It contained nothing against religion, per se.
Now let’s talk about that “knee-jerk, ritualized.” It implies that “rejection of religion” can be valid, but you have to do it right. So, what, keep the “love,” ditch the fire and brimstone? It’s the “love” that kills the most people!
re: Foucault, who cares?
I care about Foucault! The whole last comment was pretty much a good-natured joke.
I think there’s a difference between saying, “everyone should have a voice in their treatment” and framing that as a privilege. This is in fact one of the problems with privilege rhetoric. You get situations where it seems like basic rights are some sort of special dispensation.
@Noah But you’re not saying everybody should have an equal voice. You’re saying some people’s voices should be given special status, to make up for their being denied equal status.
Ah, no, you’ve misunderstood me.
I’m saying that, if you don’t say, “we should listen to black voices on these issues,” they won’t be listened to. The current power dynamics are inequitable. You need to say, “we will include these people” because there is institutional and individual racism which exists right now. Valuing those voice is not giving them special status to make up for inequity. It is advocating for equality.
Basically the subordinate status of black people is so systemically ingrained that arguing for equality is perceived as arguing for special status.
That’s not what you’re saying:
“That’s not what you’re saying:”
No, it really is.
No, it isn’t. You already wrote that “first,” it’s too late to try to say it more slickly.