The self-defeating nature of using "Privilege (Theory)" (in societal discourse)

[Ryika]

In sociology, privilege is a concept used for certain rights or advantages that are available only to a particular person or group of people. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly in regard to age, disability, ethnic or racial category, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and/or social class.[1] Two common examples involve having access to a higher education and to housing. Under a newer usage of the term, privilege can also be emotional or psychological, regarding comfort and personal self-confidence, or having a sense of belonging or worth in society. It began as an academic concept, but has since become popular outside of academia.

Researchers have published a substantial body of analysis of privilege and of specific social groups, expressing a variety of perspectives. Some commentators have addressed limitations in the term, such as its inability to distinguish between concepts of "spared injustice" and "unjust enrichment", and its tendency to conflate disparate groups.

[Wikipedia, the most trusted source on the Interwebs]

Some assumptions that follow:

• If you're white in America, then you're privileged. Makes sense as a generalization, because everything else being equal, the average white American finds themselves in a better position than the average non-white American.
• If you're a man in America, then you're privileged. Makes sense as a generalization, because everything else being equal, the average man finds themselves in a better position than the average woman in America. (This one is controversial, but let's assume that it's true for the sake of the argument)
• If you're tall in America, then you're privileged. Makes sense as a generalization, because everything else being equal, the average tall person finds themselves in a better position than the average small person in America. (within certain boundaries; while this is generally true, there is a point where additional height starts becoming a negative)
  
• If you're ablebodied in America, then you're privileged. Makes sense as a generalization, because everything else being equal, the average ablebodied person finds themselves in a better position than the average disabled person in America.
• If you're wealthy in America, then you're privileged. Makes sense as a generalization, because everything else being equal, the average wealthy person finds themselves in a better position than the average disabled person in America.

The problem is of course that "everything else" is never equal when you actually compare individuals. Is a tall, able-bodied, black female from a wealthy background more privileged than a disabled, white male from a poor background? Well, I would say that as a generalization we cannot really judge that. Our model is simply not accurate enough with only those 5 attributes, and that is further complicated by the fact that we do not know what goals in life these people have.

So how do we increase the accuracy? Well, we add more attributes, right? But that's exactly the problem. To make an accurate statement about a population, we need to add so many attributes, that we inevitably shrink down the group that we're targeting. The more accurate we get, the less useful our results.

This is what I see as the inherent problem with privilege theory, the more accurate you make it, the less useful it becomes. All it can deliver is rough approximations about groups that tell us nothing about the individual. That's fine in the context of academia - as far as I understand it, sometimes you need exactly that, rough approximations that are accurate within the model because of the sample size - but it makes it absolutely useless for everyday discourse.

Telling a person that they're privileged because they're a "cis white male" ("aka scum") ignores the fact that they may have been born into poverty, that their mother might have died after giving birth to them which might have left them with a scarring mental health problem that might have ruined their life to a point where they've lived on the street since they were 16.

You simply don't know these things about a person, so all you do by telling a person that they're privileged is to silence a voice who might have something to say that you should have listened to. Chance might be on your side if you're judging a person based on a set of characteristics that have a high likelihood of being associated with privilege, but if you do it often enough, you're bound to find yourself punching down at a person who is less privileged than you and the people you think you're fighting for.

Which is why you shouldn't ever make blank statements about a demographic, even if the average person in that demographic is privileged.

Your thoughts?

Also, this thread is very intelligent, because nobody has ever thought about any of this.

 

[Gori the Grey]

You didn't ask us a question.

 

[Berzerker]

If you're in America then you are privileged

just wanted to add that to the list

we're all in our own boxes, but blacks face more discrimination than whites because they're not in the same box with the whites. Us & Them is in all of us.

 

[Peuri]

What I find off putting about the US leftist(?) academic jargon about race and gender is the words they use to portray their concepts. I guess it's my "white fragility" showing? In history "privilege" was a word used about the private laws for people, such as the nobility, and cities, as most people probably know. In a modern context it gives an image as if there still was private law for melanine poor people or heterosexuals in the west, that we live in some sort of apartheid society still. And as the words we use create the social world we inhabit, such words creates an image of living in an apartheid state. Sure there is discrimination, but it is not by law, so the form of the words used should reflect the changed circumstance. Because the words used are war words, it doesn't sound so strange anymore why basically anyone can be called a nazi by angry activists.

I know that there is evidence that you can get a shorter sentence on average being white or a woman in the US, but that isn't exactly a private law. "White advantage" would be more accurate in my meagre estimation. Also is "privilege" an actuality or potentiality? I would say it's mostly potentiality, since how can it be known how much advantage has been received in being male for example in any random life?

Advantage is not a one way street either. Atleast not in all possible cases. Take men vs. women for example. Historically men have had all the public political power and earned much more than women. But nowadays women vote more than men, are more educated than men, kill themselves less, work in safer envirobments, get the custody of children in a divorce easier and make most of the spending decisions of families for example. So even if men tend to earn more after a couple has children, and people seem to think men work harder or what ever, no one is talking about the advantages of being female, and there are advantages.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Advantage is not a one way street either. Atleast not in all possible cases. Take men vs. women for example. Historically men have had all the public political power and earned much more than women. But nowadays women vote more than men, are more educated than men, kill themselves less, work in safer envirobments, get the custody of children in a divorce easier and make most of the spending decisions of families for example. So even if men tend to earn more after a couple has children, and people seem to think men work harder or what ever, no one is talking about the advantages of being female, and there are advantages.

Thank you for putting that intelligently and succinctly. And yes there are advantages that most people gloss over when they start ranting about women's rights and male privilege. The rhetoric gets tiresome after a while. A lot has been fixed, and there is a little more to go, but the situation isn't nearly as dire as the feminists would have you believe.

 

[Senethro]

As a general rule you shouldn’t try to apply broad stroke stuff to individuals.

 

[Lexicus]

What are some 'advantages of being female' anyway?

 

[Synobun]

What are some 'advantages of being female' anyway?

A lot of the advantages are absence of disadvantage, like divorce court statistics and conviction rates. If men are disproportionately ruled against then that acts as an advantage for women (naturally).

For actual advantages, i.e. when looking at the differences between sexes, I think it's fairly established that women are more emotionally in tune than men tend to be. This is an advantage. Emotional repression isn't so neat. Even if you fight against gender stereotyping and provide the same life skill education to both men and women, I am also willing to bet you'd still see women excel in that category as a general rule.

As well, even accounting for cultural norm, there's an underlying biological premise for aesthetic. Women meet that bill fairly well across the board. It is difficult to see this as an advantage sometimes because of the history surrounding it; men acting as predators against women negates any sort of appreciation for the general aesthetic of the female form.

I sort of see this path unhelpful as it inevitably leads to someone, on both sides, growing resentful of the other. Or it escalates to debates on who deserves what based on some apparent separation of innate value.

 

[BenitoChavez]

What are some 'advantages of being female' anyway?

Longer lifespan, maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, ladies night at the local bar, etc.

 

[Lexicus]

A lot of the advantages are absence of disadvantage, like divorce court statistics and conviction rates. If men are disproportionately ruled against then that acts as an advantage for women (naturally).

I'm not sure how these can be framed as "advantages of being female" except by the most simplistic possible analysis. Women, by and large, are not in charge of the systems that are producing these outcomes.

I sort of see this path unhelpful as it inevitably leads to someone, on both sides, growing resentful of the other. Or it escalates to debates on who deserves what based on some apparent separation of innate value.

The problem I have is that most of the things people frame as "female advantages" are really outcomes that happen because of how women are perceived by men. Women get custody in disputes more frequently because of a family law system overwhelmingly constructed by and administered by men. Men die on the job in workplaces designed and run by other men. Men are most of the soldiers in militaries created and led overwhelmingly by men.

Longer lifespan,

This is an actual advantage.

maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, ladies night at the local bar, etc.

Again...systems constructed and controlled by men, blah blah blah

 

[Synobun]

I'm not sure how these can be framed as "advantages of being female" except by the most simplistic possible analysis. Women, by and large, are not in charge of the systems that are producing these outcomes.

The problem I have is that most of the things people frame as "female advantages" are really outcomes that happen because of how women are perceived by men. Women get custody in disputes more frequently because of a family law system overwhelmingly constructed by and administered by men. Men die on the job in workplaces designed and run by other men. Men are most of the soldiers in militaries created and led overwhelmingly by men.

Yes, that's why the two paragraphs you cut out of my quote specifically said "actual advantages".

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, that's why the two paragraphs you cut out of my quote specifically said "actual advantages".

For actual advantages, i.e. when looking at the differences between sexes, I think it's fairly established that women are more emotionally in tune than men tend to be. This is an advantage. Emotional repression isn't so neat. Even if you fight against gender stereotyping and provide the same life skill education to both men and women, I am also willing to bet you'd still see women excel in that category as a general rule.

As well, even accounting for cultural norm, there's an underlying biological premise for aesthetic. Women meet that bill fairly well across the board. It is difficult to see this as an advantage sometimes because of the history surrounding it; men acting as predators against women negates any sort of appreciation for the general aesthetic of the female form.

These two paragraphs? I didn't consider them substantial enough to respond to. "Emotionally in tune" is a very vague phrase and the second one seems to say "that men find women attractive is an advantage for women"; virtually every woman I know would respond to that suggestion with the horse laugh.

 

[Synobun]

Women find women aesthetically attractive as well. Spending more than five minutes in the presence of women would show this to be true.

But alright my dude. Let me know when I'm substantial enough for ya.

 

[BvBPL]

The problem is of course that "everything else" is never equal when you actually compare individuals.

Privilege theory arises from sociology which is a discipline that seeks to describe populations, not individuals. It is not the theory itself that is inherently problematic, rather it is the application of a theory that is from an expressly generalized discipline to the individual that is flawed.

Condemning privilege theory for failing to describe an individual’s experience is like blaming an atlas for failing to describe 833 Main Street as a Gothic Victorian house. It’s a gross misuse of the tool by people who don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Lexicus]

Women find women aesthetically attractive as well. Spending more than five minutes in the presence of women would show this to be true.

Even so. "Society considers you a shapely piece of meat" is not exactly an advantage imo.

 

[Synobun]

You are rad at willful misinterpretations.

 

[Lexicus]

You are rad at willful misinterpretations.

It's not a willful misinterpretation. Maybe you can explain what exactly you meant.

Incidentally, if women really are more "emotionally in tune" than men, it's likely because women are expected to perform free emotional labor for men from about the time they start to talk. I wouldn't call this an advantage either.

 

[aelf]

Because the words used are war words, it doesn't sound so strange anymore why basically anyone can be called a nazi by angry activists.

War words are used because reasoned appeals are often ignored. They are not expressly designed to convince - they express frustration at the current conditions and a willingness to fight back. Yes, "fight back"; because the culture wars were a right-wing, conservative platform. They started the war in which you see these "war words" being used.

Moderates would say why not take the high road? If everyone takes the high road, it will just be a road. Without those willing to fight, those who talk are much less likely to make headway.

Privilege theory arises from sociology which is a discipline that seeks to describe populations, not individuals. It is not the theory itself that is inherently problematic, rather it is the application of a theory that is from an expressly generalized discipline to the individual that is flawed.

Condemning privilege theory for failing to describe an individual’s experience is like blaming an atlas for failing to describe 833 Main Street as a Gothic Victorian house. It’s a gross misuse of the tool by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Agreed.

Also, I think privilege theory works very well when used as a critique of discourses and mindsets, not so much as a complete framework for analysing social relations. It's straightforward to critique something that was said or a certain mindset as privileged. It doesn't work when you automatically assume that someone is a priori privileged.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Is a tall, able-bodied, black female from a wealthy background more privileged than a disabled, white male from a poor background?

It’s a good point that one could dismiss an individual less privileged than oneself with a more common privilege. Wealth is a more powerful privilege than appearance so the answer is that yes, a wealthy, able-bodied black woman is more privileged than a poor, disabled white man.

Women find women aesthetically attractive as well. Spending more than five minutes in the presence of women would show this to be true.

This should be common knowledge. Seto, Chivers, and Blanchard conducted research on this.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s a good point that one could dismiss an individual less privileged than oneself with a more common privilege. Wealth is a more powerful privilege than appearance so the answer is that yes, a wealthy, able-bodied black woman is more privileged than a poor, disabled white man.

I don't understand this relentless drive to fit the whole idea into one rigid scheme. Surely we can be content with not automatically knowing whether one person is 'more privileged' than another? Surely we can just accept that it depends on lots of different factors, on specific context, etc.?