"privilege"

Which I find to be the problem with discussion of privilege. People assume that the motive behind discussion and becoming aware of privilege is to challenge the exist of the tribulations of those who hold it most in society. There will never be an existence without struggle. Privilege is not a measure of psychological prosperity; it is a measure of social standing. It is merely a comparison of how two demographics fair on a sociological level. There is nothing more to it. How they are viewed by a society and what value they are given. Everyone races after an opportunity to vocalize their personal struggles, but those are irrelevant to the topic at hand unless it ties back to an oppression, negativity, or malice that was birthed by society.

Society does not dictate who is fortunate enough to be born into a wonderful family and who isn't. Society does not dictate who is abused and neglected in childhood and who isn't. Society does not dictate who becomes depressed or diseased and who lives long and accomplished lives. Society does dictate the distribution of wealth and the mindset towards the haves and have nots. Society does dictate the weight that is placed on race and the hierarchy that is created as a result of it. Society does dictate the presence of prejudice and the victimization of ethnic and sexual minorities. Society does dictate the mindset behind which each gender is treated.

You are correct that those who dismiss the opinions of others merely because they hold certain privileges is a matter of ignorance as well. It is true that there are those in the world who may view privilege in a way the transcends social boundaries and make assumptions about the supposed "ease" of life for certain demographics. Ignorance and dramatics are always going to have a place in the minds of some in society; however, it would simply be another case of ignorance to reject or minimize the prevalence of an issue within society simply because we don't like how some people elevate the concept to extreme heights.

Edit: I have no idea why the sentences of my second paragraph aligned themselves. I'm not sure if it makes it hard to read, but oh well.

 

Can you elaborate on this? Why should someone feel guilty for a situation they have absolutely no control over? Nobody can choose their skin colour, gender or sexuality, can they? So what do you mean by feeling guilty?

I see a lot of shaming from you but never any solutions. How would you combat it?

 

You can define it as shaming. I define it as allocating appropriate responsibility when people bullshit their way out of it and put the burden of proving themselves on others instead of proving their own substance.

I could get personal too, but I think I'll avoid that.

---------- Post added 14th Jul 2014 at 10:42 PM ----------

An example is extreme wealth existing alongside poverty. Of course, it's easy for the fortunate ones in this situation to put their heads in the sand and pretend that it's a natural occurrence, but ultimately, they're withholding the money necessary to alleviate the poverty.

The same thing with something like race and gender. Without actively fighting an issue, it becomes an act of compliance, implicit approval of the situation. It brings to mind Desmond Tutu - "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - If you have a privileged position by the virtue of a natural trait, you're still responsible for failing to curb that privilege when it comes at others' expense.

 

You've fallen into the all too common trap of associating people with each other based on completely irrelevant traits. Being a white male does not make one guilty for historical atrocities performed by white males in the past. One is only responsible for their own actions, and I understand it is human nature to form group mentalities, but why can't they be based on more personal traits rather than ethnicity and gender and so on?

Many people like to blame others for their own problems and inadequacies, yes. But what are you inferring? Only those in privileged positions do so? All people do it, to one degree or another. I don't understand this sentiment that responsibility should be shifted onto people who have nothing to do with the laws or societal standards.

Another problem with defining people as privileged or not is that it ignores personal situations. We should strive for equity, but not through demeaning or denying that everyone faces struggles in this life. Not all of those in privileged positions will experience the privilege, and even if they do, it may not benefit them in any applicable situations. Stereotypes and labels should be antiquated concepts, but unfortunately they are more abundant than ever, and they continue to be perpetuated without a second thought.

I wasn't intending to get personal, it was merely an observation. You also ignored my question.

 

I actually did answer your question. I firmly believe that the way to tackle a problem is by not pretending it's less important. Which is what I feel the attitude of "stop blaming them/stop generalising" is. That's a beginning. The rest is by redistributing that power and wealth to make it less unequal, and to do that, you need to have those with power on the side of that redistribution (or a revolution, but let's not go into that.)

I can't see a constructive conversation coming out of saying individualism is more important. Yes, it matters a great deal, but it's not individualism that decides that entire racial groups will be put into disproportionate relative or absolute poverty, or that the law will let murderers off if they shoot a race less legally respected.

While I understand that you're reluctant to put a generalisation over something, the personal situations of most people are almost entirely defined by their social status in other ways. Someone beaten into disability or made homeless by homophobic or transphobic parents has a terrible personal situation, but it's not sheer misfortune that causes the problem. Nor is it an individual flaw that health services may be catered for those far more fortunate.

We can't fully address problems if we deny how entrenched they are.

---------- Post added 14th Jul 2014 at 11:04 PM ----------

I think the biggest problem is pretending that you acknowledge the existence of these problems, but you have little or no willingness to admit that somebody might be vaguely responsible on the grounds that they're the beneficiaries of the problem.

 

When talking about the culpable, you're referring to the 1% (or so) of people who hold control, power and the finances available to help the poor. Most whites, most males, most heterosexuals are just normal citizens who do not have the means to do anything about these lopsided situations. It is not their (or our, considering you and I fall into most of these demographics) fault that they were born into these lives, and I'm not sure how it is possible

I treat everyone with respect, irregardless of their social situation. I would love it if I could cure poverty but unfortunately I'm not a billionaire; far from it. I'm not pretending to acknowledge anything. I do acknowledge the severe differences in our society and economy. But what does it mean? Am I supposed to feel guilty that us whites are doing better? Or proud, perhaps? I feel neither because being white is one of the most irrelevant things about me. I don't feel any positive or negative feelings about my race or ethnicity.

You might disregard the importance of indivuality but the truth is we are all individuals. I am white, but I am not white people. I am a man, but I am not men. These things do not define me, they say nothing about me other than physical attributes and aesthetic features. The things that do define me are my personality, my friends, my family, my goals, my ideas, my dreams, my hobbies. If everyone could adjust themselves to the concept that there is no need to hide behind these labels, society would actually be a lot more equal. It is not right to be pressured into siding with beliefs you do not adhere to simply because it is expected of you.

I can get behind the idea of the super-rich distrubuting their wealth to those in need. This makes sense, and I have never been opposed to it. But most of us aren't so affluent that we can sort out other people's financial woes, and what are we supposed to do? More to the point, you're a white male, what do you do? Apart from focusing the blame on people who have no association with each other, that is.

 

Your solution is to pretend everyone's equal apart from millionaires. Forgive me if I find that entirely unrealistic and denialist. Your solution is, in short, to pretend that nothing is wrong.

You and I are both defined very strongly by our race, sex, and respective geographies, as well as class and perhaps to a smaller extent sexuality. Those are what make us, and nobody is immune from the circumstances they are brought up in. Pretending that everyone's an unattached individual is, dare I say, an act of unexamined privilege.

And now you mention it, yes, I do feel the responsibility. Which is why I help run a branch of a charity organisation, volunteer in two more, and try to educate people on the importance of charity, social power imbalances and how they're focussed on (I do mostly refugee issues in the Asia Pacific, teaching those issues along with debating with people my age and younger). That is what I do, and I'd like you not to insinuate that I'm sitting here doing absolutely nothing because you don't have an argument.

---------- Post added 14th Jul 2014 at 11:28 PM ----------

And yes, I understand that it's more nuanced than that, but I don't think even the bluntest, most unembellished and plainest statement will get through.

 

Please don't make assumptions on my behalf. The millionaires were an example, as people without much money are in no position to financially aid even those in extreme poverty. Not once did I say nothing was wrong. I do acknowledge the differences. I don't deny any of it.

What about your race defines you? Or your sex? Please tell me. Some people let these things define them, but they do not. The fact I am male, for example, has nothing to do with any of my interests or passions, despite what pernicious stereotypes lead me to believe.

Fair enough. That's something to be proud of and I find it impressive that you can find the time to do that. Don't take offence to this, but the reason behind my inquiry was that I see many people who complain about people who do nothing about inequality and so on, when all they themselves are doing is blaming another group of people. I am glad to see you are not one of these people.

I have no interest in shifting blame onto others to make myself feel better. I believe there are great problems in our society and they need to be addressed. The solutions lie in educating people that we are all morally equal, that we do not need to fight each other over inconsequential differences. Unfortunately, there is a lot of corruption at the top of the hierarchy, and the tendency for those who get rich is to want to keep the money for themselves. Those in positions to make a difference rarely do.

I'm not sure if you do understand the nuances and complications involved, but nevermind.

 

My problem is that, while I don't believe that pure democracy exists anywhere, the ability for normal people to effect change is dismissed as impossible because of this hierarchy (which conveniently doesn't exist for anything else).

Telling people that we're morally equal is great, but equality is the goal, not the means to achieve it. We can't run around sprinkling equality dust over everything and say the problem's fixed. And it might involve antagonising people, and yeah, someone's going to have to get blamed.

Don't be patronising. To be honest, I think neither of us understands the nuances, but please don't pretend you're an objective arbiter with no stake in social issues such as race and gender.

---------- Post added 15th Jul 2014 at 12:06 AM ----------

As for how race and gender define me (and you), let's just look at the entire history of the planet. I would have thought that it'd be pretty obvious that gender and race are defining features when the majority of the (non-white) world are in poverty, men on average make more than women (accentuated in actual poverty, which women are more likely to be in.) Being born in the wrong place, being born into a family who can't provide, are all things that define you more than your taste in clothes or music. And that's what privilege is about.

Being born into the right country on the right continent, hopefully in a good family, is more than most people could possibly achieve at the moment. The fact that it's fashionable, not absolutely mandatory, to buy slave-free clothing and luxury products like coffee and chocolate is one of the rawest examples of how much privilege there is compared to others.

---------- Post added 15th Jul 2014 at 12:08 AM ----------

We're still in the stages of debating over the existence of privilege. I think it might be premature to demand broad solutions (from a 16 year old) from the get-go.

 

Maybe other people deny the existence of a hierarchy but it is quite blatantly prevalent in almost every area of society. The media, which influences most people, is owned by a select few. The Government is made up of a few people who get to decide what is best for the people, despite clearly having their own interests at heart.

When ruled by this hierarchy and also discriminating against each other and waging wars over different ideologies, it is difficult for us to all come together and help out, especially when so many people like to deny truths such as racism still existing. What better tool than education is there to cure ignorance? I'm not saying it will happen over night, and unfortunately it probably won't happen at all due to a lying and uncaring Government, but if it was enforced and regulated, educating young people as to how we should be treating each other and why would make for strong progression.

Again, who are you blaming? Are you and I to blame for the slave trade? Fairly sure we weren't alive back then. It's this tendency to blame everything on race and gender and creating absolutes where there are none that I find abhorrent.

 

But it's this implicit "well, they're all dead so it's up to the descendants of slaves to sort everything up now instead of those who still carry the profits" attitude which worries me and I find abhorrent. I'm fairly sure that slaves exist (partially to our profit), anyway.

An elected government is elected, even if its members are disproportionately privileged compared to their (relatively globally) privileged electorates. There are other voting options, and I'm sure you wouldn't categorise the UK, Australia, Germany, or any such country as corporate dictatorships. Media needs consumers, governments need voters, but a great many voting people often have the privilege of not having to care about who gets in. So yeah, it is up to blaming people to quite a large extent. Change doesn't come by patiently expecting it to.

 

I have never condoned slavery nor subjected anyone to such conditions, so how am I in any manner responsible? What you consistently fail to grasp is the fact that these predisposed groups are not a collective who do everything together. Those responsible are those who perform the actions. These people should be punished and made accountable, but lots of them are in positions that allow them to get away with it.

None of what you are saying has any logic applied to it.

 

No, I understand that. But I also understand that those groups are not subject to those problems in the same ways, to the same extents, nor is it even significant the few handful who are.

What I'm trying to get across is wow, it does in fact have a bearing on your life your race, social class, geography, and gender. That is my entire point, one you asked for. The point that privilege is a defining factor in how one lives one's life.

 

Just because someone is not a slave does not mean they should be held accountable for slavery.

Of course it has a bearing. It affects everyone's life due to stereotypes and societal constraints. However, what I said was that it does not define you. In essence, life is about self actualization and the journey to get there. I doubt many people make it, but everyone is striving for happiness and success. It is true that race, gender, sexuality etc. will affect the difficulties of traversing this journey as well as the culmination. But these things are not who you are. I was making the simple point that attributes and skills should not be seen as being due to race, gender, sexuality. Who you are is unique, noone deserves to be confined into a box because of what they happened to be born as.

 

There is a global economy which supports that. For example, most cotton in the world is extremely suspect. What we buy in the first world may be geographically separated, but the dirty work is hidden elsewhere and is just as real as if it were done in our own countries. These are goods we couldn't go without and consume in abundance. And that is the responsibility involved - changing our habits as consumers, as voters, as citizens who have the power to make better decisions.

I never said that people aren't individual. But your individualism has barriers. You can't decide to be rid of your connections to the outside world, ever, and the figurative box is an extremely minor concern given that you've basically brushed away my concerns with "but I'm individual."

You are your circumstances. Your personality is shaped by them. What you have, whom you know, what you know, the way you know things. I can't agree in the existence of this isolated individualism, because I don't see it as nearly as significant. Your life is set out for you in more significant ways by birth than it is by your own choices.

 

It is true that lots of the things we buy will be made in horrible conditions. I'm cynical enough to believe that my taking a stand wouldn't make a difference though. For everyone to do so, or a large enough majority, it would take an extremely powerful movement.

I haven't decided to be rid of outside connections and I haven't mentioned an isolated individualism. What I'm talking about is who people are in essence, rather than their demographics. Accountability should be deferred to those actually responsible rather than shifting blame onto people who are just trying to make a living. I'm not saying all "everyday people" are innocent, because many are not, but making assumptions about people based on these attributes is an inherently wrong thing to do.

 

I doubt this conversation will be productive any further. I think I'll call it a day.

 

Fair enough. I think half of it has been based on misunderstandings anyway.

 

To elaborate on this, the best example of this is seen with economical privilege. It is not by chance that the divides between the first through third worlds exist. Conceit is definitely something that is prominent in human nature; but, given the opportunity, most human beings would love to wave a magical wand and put an end to all of this poverty, suffering, and struggle for survival on this planet, theoretically; however, the reality of the economic divide in the modern world is that equality without sacrifice, even anything remotely close to to equality, is scientifically impossible. The amount of resources and raw materials that the first world needs to sustain its current way of life simply could not be given to all members of this planet.

The first world is absolutely capable of changing the endless struggle for survival of the third world. The first world is perfectly capable of ending the pillaging of vast geographical regions for their land and resources and contributing to the suffering of the native populations, but doing so would mean sacrificing our current way of life to some degree. It is easier to accept ignorance than to admit that your way of life is built on the lost opportunities and needs of others. It might damage our ideas of ourselves being inherently giving and good-natured.