The way we talk about privilege implies that if you drew the right card, your life is perfect.
I’ve noticed a troubling trend in the way we talk about privilege: the idea that a person of a certain perceived privilege has no issues related to that area. For example, a white person has no racial problems, a straight person has no sexuality problems, a cis person has no gender problems.
Now, keep in mind, most of the problems that, say, a straight person might have related to sexuality are very inconsequential in a general sense. As a straight man in the United States, I can marry any woman who will have me. Obviously, that’s a privilege that LGBT* people do not have in every state. I would never seek to diminish their struggles; their struggles happen on a general and an individual level. On a general level, there is discrimination woven into our culture and our laws. On an individual level, each person’s story is going to be different. The same is true with the privileged position: heterosexuality. On a general level, heterosexual is the luckiest card in a deck that’s already been rigged. However, that doesn’t diminish an individual’s truth. So, if a heterosexual man complains about unwanted sexual advances from women, the response is overwhelmingly “get over it” or “it’s not a big deal”. Often, these responses are well-intentioned or well-informed. People will often cite the probability that a woman making sexual advances will assault a man: very low. But, the problem with that approach is that they’ve just generalized an individual’s feelings/ experiences. Is that hypothetical man in mortal danger? Probably not. Therefore, he’s not allowed to be upset? Fear of death is the only valid emotion now?
It feels kind of awful to tell someone about something that upsets you and have that person respond with all the reasons your feelings are invalid.
|
Similar is the concept of “manpain” that floats around usually in TV and movie fan communities. The idea of “manpain” is that men (usually white) experience some sort of trauma, real or perceived, and then act obnoxiously (See: Batman). Notice the insidious nature of this concept; a man’s pain is usually invalid. Then when we stack on the fact that the definition says those experiencing “manpain” are usually white, we get to the heart of the matter. The stem of this dismissal of emotional trauma comes from the idea that a man, and a white man at that, is too privileged to have actual problems.
We need to never stop talking about privilege, pointing it out when we see it, and searching for it in our lives. However, we need to remember that the people we’re interacting with are human beings. I’m a straight cisgendered black man, but I’m also Christian.
A human being doesn’t walk around as a living embodiment of his/her categories. This seems so obvious that I’m upset I even have to say it.
I want to say again that I would never dismiss the struggles of those not in privileged positions. Never. I just want to point out that a person who has a certain kind of privilege is still a person. It feels kind of awful to tell someone about something that upsets you and have that person respond with all the reasons your feelings are invalid.
Photo/ Flickr— Stefan Neuweger
I’ve tried explaining that to people before, that as long as they use that word they will make zero progress. The reason is simple, at least in my corner of American Culture, growing up I could “earn” privileges by doing extra things, such as extra chores. The privileges could then be taken away if I did something wrong, broke a rule, got in trouble at school. They wouldn’t be anything fancy, I could stay up 30 minutes longer, or something like that. I doubt seriously I’m the only person who grew up with that usage of the word. So when… Read more »
I think the problem is the word “privilege.” The concept makes total sense, but it’s quite an aggressive word choice.
Absolutely bang on, Christian – this is why I dislike this application of this concept. When a group’s statistics are used to harangue a person who belongs to that group – what is being done is no different to the prejudice we are trying to overcome (except that it has some vaguely credible-sounding sociological jargon attached to it, which gives it an air of legitimacy). Yes, Bruce Wayne was the wealthiest guy in Gotham – and they can have their heart torn up by life too. Everyone would feel dead inside if they’d seen their parents murdered at a young… Read more »
I agree, the way privilege is discuss is wrong and it takes away from the larger picture. The competitive nature of America constantly creates an “us versus them” situation when it shouldn’t be. “When a group’s statistics are used to harangue a person who belongs to that group – what is being done is no different to the prejudice we are trying to overcome”: while there are parallel, I would caution feeling as though they are the same. We all have some privilege. When I hear about mine to force myself not to get defensive. Rather I train myself to… Read more »
The similarity is far too close for me – which doesn’t mean I think the concept has no value, just not as much applicability as the average person using it apparently does. At most it can be used to look at how groups interact, but one should be far, far more careful when crossing from discussion of groups to discussion of individuals within that group. Really, it should be discarded entirely by that point. It’s like using a yardstick to measure grains of sand. It just doesn’t work, it’s the wrong tool. The usage of this concept, ok, it has… Read more »