Privilege. How can it be talked about and acknowledged in today's society

[chomalungma]

Just a follow up from the recent threads. Male privilege. White privilege. It exists. But some people think it is a poor concept as they don't seem privileged. This thread is just to carry on the conversation.

On a global scale almost everyone in the UK is privileged. They live in a relative stable democracy, are relatively safe, have a health system, schooling, a transportation infrastructure and a welfare safety net. Simply being in the UK gives privileges that few in the other 194 countries can only dream of.

The big battles are global ones. That is not to say that other battles should not be fought.

On a global scale we are in an amazing situation in the U.K.

But even maintaining that situation requires people to be constantly maintaining society.

While I don’t support the notion of male and other privileges, I do support human rights.

I know many right wing people critique the left for still fighting for equality when we already have so much. But I don’t think gaining rights in principle means we have them and can all go home. Everyone in society had to be involved in maintaining democracy and human rights.

There will always be police misuse of power and we always have to curb that. There will always be employers who put staff at risk and we have to keep stopping them doing that.

Decent societies have to be maintained. They are not something we can just take for granted as having been given to us as, well, a privilege. We all have to work at being in a society together.

rockingchaircandle

Labour was 100% signed up to all the trendy left ideologies, including the “privilege” doctrine, and their traditional supporters in constituencies that had been Labour for the better part of a century abandoned them in droves.

Nah, that must all have been a coincidence...

Yes @endofthedays it is fundamentally about keeping a 'good society' with 'human rights' .

I think the GE was about a lot more than people voting against a 'privilege' doctrine!

The idea of privilege keeps getting portrayed wrongly. Strange when it's central to the thread. I think you need to understand it to debate it properly.

"Viewing people as being more morally virtuous, intelligent, left wing or educated because they the world in terms of privilege is the problem here." This isn't the idea of privilege! But then, that's been explained many times on here.

I still don't know who you're happy too see face inequality @cendrillionsings.

I’m not sure why you’ve put human rights in quotation marks. Human rights are international law. They’re not some kind of nebulous concept.

Anyway, we’re doing pretty poorly at being a good society compared to twenty years ago when it comes to many issues of poverty, Look at homelessness for example.

So something is clearly going wrong.

‘"Viewing people as being more morally virtuous, intelligent, left wing or educated because they the world in terms of privilege is the problem here." This isn't the idea of privilege! But then, that's been explained many times on here.‘

I didn’t say it was the idea of privilege.

The concept of privilege is that some people have unearned advantages due to their membership of particular socially constructed groups.

I think the GE was about a lot more than people voting against a 'privilege' doctrine!

Of course - it was also a vote for Brexit and against socialism.

I still don't know who you're happy too see face inequality

Literally anyone. There’s no need to fetishise inequality as the greatest evil on the face of the Earth. It’s an intrinsic part of the human condition which has never been eliminated even in Lenin’s Russia or Mao’s China, and it’s not going to disappear no matter how much people moan about it on social media.

The class and location issues are interesting. I think class and location are things that could change - ie you could grow up working class but move to middle class or vice versa. People may be able to look for a job in another city (though it is a lot harder for some to save money for this).

Race and sex are much more difficult/impossible.

I guess people are constrained by knowledge and resources. So - more information like access to internet etc may help people find out where there are opportunities.

A huge number of people don’t want to move away from their local community for opportunities.

That’s one of the major societal divides that has been highlighted in both Brexit and the decline in the Labour Party.

The difference between the anywheres and the somewheres.

Yeah, if only they had the internet in Dewsbury. Maybe that's why Corbyn wanted to give it away for free?

I was just quoting you to agree @endofthedays.thought it was a useful perspective

Intrinsic part of human condition to fight inequality too would argue.

Sorry, was adding more points rather than attempting to be critical. It is hard to convey tone on the internet.

It's not about moral virtue, or being educated etc it's about recognising people's experiences based on inequalities, like racism.
It's a description of the inequalities people face in life. So they can be examined and hopefully addressed.

I can't be glib about it. You're right, inequality has never been eradicated. However, huge strides have been made in a recent period of time. But, even more recently, progress is being challenged. Racism has got worse as the worst of Brexit has emboldened bigots. Human rights need defending. Inequality needs identifying and challenging.

It is about claiming moral virtue if you don’t believe that other people have equally good ways of understanding the world’s problems and attempting to address them.

Well it's about debate, if you're discussing ideas, not moral virtue.

But this seems to be a way of dismissing the ideas, as woke or lefty etc.

What are the alternative ideas? Always glad to hear anything designed to tackle inequality! Saddened by claims on this thread that we shouldn't be.

I'm still not clear why logically people are disagreeing with the concept of privilege, even if it isn't always communicated well/ co-opted by 'woke' agendas.

www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/09/25/nypd-officer-who-tackled-james-blake-has-defamation-case-against-tennis-star-dismissed/

This story is a textbook case of privilege.

James Blake, former professional tennis player who is mixed race, was tackled to the ground and handcuffed in a hotel by a NY police officer who mistook him for an armed suspect.

The white officer then SUED James Blake accusing him of "defaming" him by calling him a racist. The lawsuit was rightly dismissed.

So you have a wealthy, successful black man who was treated like a criminal and physically attacked by a white police officer. And the officer decides he is the victim and attempts to sue.

If that's not white privilege I don't know what is.

I'll ask you how often you think Andy Murray or Roger Federer has to worry about being arrested and assumed to be a criminal.

‘Well it's about debate, if you're discussing ideas, not moral virtue‘

It depends on what you’re debating.

If you are debating what to do about inequality, and describing it in terms of privilege makes it more difficult to reach an understanding, then it’s useful to temporarily treat the word as taboo so that you can continue discussing the topic of inequality without constantly trying to get people to agree to use a particular word. In that case you are not talking about moral virtue.

Or maybe you are debating whether or not the concept of privilege is better or worse for understanding inequality than a human rights approach, or a materialist approach. In which case it’s not about moral virtue. It’s about understanding that other people have different frameworks they use to understand the world, but you believe privilege is the best concept, which is fine.

If however your debate approach is that the only correct way to understand inequality is through privilege and anyone who disagrees is uneducated, has misunderstood you or is secretly mean and probably a fascist, then you are making a claim of moral virtue.

I disagree with the concept of privilege because it collapses different problems into one unclear concept.

The first would be one of injustice. If someone is murdered by the police for being gay, they have had their human rights violated and have been treated unjustly. I have not been murdered so in that instance my rights are intact and I have been treated justly. But rights are not a privilege. Privilege suggests justice is some kind of luxury the state or society has allowed me like a gift. That is a very troubling way to view justice and rights.

The second would be one of unjust greater benefits. Maybe I find out about some fun activity through some kind of straight person networking and someone else doesn’t. If I then get an opportunity at their expense, then it is unjust that I benefit from their situation. I should perhaps have that benefit removed. That is totally different to my rights, which should never be removed.

The third is one of benefits that are not about justice at all. For example I massively benefit from having a wonderful family and having a shared history and culture with them. As a society we have a moral obligation to help people who due to wars and other tragedies don’t have that situation. But me not being an orphan has nothing to do with justice. I am not benefitting at someone else’s expense.

And those three things get collapsed and confused by the concept of privilege. As seen on this thread, where people use privilege to describe being housed, being illegally detained by the police, not getting into Cambridge and not being taken to the library by their parents as if these are all similar sorts of issues that belong in one category.

I one main problem seems to be in the term 'privilege' which is understood to mean something extra bestowed on someone, a benefit or a bonus, which then is at odds with people who are not privileged with wealth.

The thing is, that's just not what it means in the context of white/ male privilege. It's simply just the absence of a certain type of discrimination.

@Endofthedays @notsusan

I think I see where the misunderstanding is. What you are describing as ‘rights’, to a BME person looks like a privilege because it’s a right generations of people who look like them have been denied.

Walking down the street without being harassed for no reason by police should be a right, but it is a ‘priviledge’ for blacks.
The ability to walk into an interview and be judged solely on how you perform on the day and not by the colour of your skin is a right, but it is not if you are black.
Being able to rent a room if you could afford one was aright inthe 60s but a ‘priviledge’ if you were black or Irish.

All these examples are ‘rights’ that you feel entitled to if you are white but not if you are BME.

All these examples are ‘rights’ that you feel entitled to if you are white but not if you are BME

And when people try to discuss these rights and how they don't have them - they get dismissed. By people who have these rights, who have the power, the platforms and the positions in society where they get to determine who gets the rights,

Some people have more rights than others. And they are more than happy to keep those rights rather than ensure everyone benefits from such rights.

Could I ask people what they think white privilege is - just to check that people are talking about the same thing?

I suspect that some people are talking about a different concept to what other people are.

Yes - we do want employers to stop being discriminatory against people with caring responsibilities.

And when a man says that there is no discrimination against women due to caring responsibilities (and he has had no expereince of such things), then he may need to be reminded that there is and he probably doesn't know because of his background. And that's given him an advantage.

Some people will say that that is wrong - and society needs to change.
Some people will react badly because they don't like to think they have an advantage in some areas.