Comments on: Self-transformation and the challenges of unpacking privilege

By: Laurelin

Laurelin — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 01:54:06 +0000

Thank you very much for this post.

By: arielladrake

arielladrake — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:25:00 +0000

BrainFromArous:
The issue isn’t so much with ‘defending’ one’s thoughts (though I wonder if perhaps the problem is seeing a request to check your privilege as an accusation, when it’s, well, a request.*), but, to use your case specifically, the fact that your response to a comment about your privilege was, essentially “No I’m not!”. Generally speaking, that’s not really a defense. It comes across as a knee-jerk reaction. You contend that you did consider what we said before responding in that manner, but that consideration wasn’t conveyed.

I don’t want to derail the comments here, so if you wish to have a long discussion about this let me know and perhaps we can take it to e-mail instead, but as I pointed out (perhaps more clearly) in this comment, the problem wasn’t that you were talking about generalities - there may have been a discussion to be had about those generalities. The problem was that you were stating generalities in such a way that erases the exceptional from view.

*And yes, it is a request that is rather a contingency for discussion here. But really, I think it’s quite obvious that we’re not the entire internet, we’re one blog. Which, incidentally, is why I’m usually so amused by those (not that you’ve done this) who talk about how their free speech is being stifled and so on and so forth because their comments are being moderated on one blog on the internet.

By: BrainFromArous

BrainFromArous — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:07:11 +0000

“After that? Sure, we can talk about your argument. But anti-oppression workers shouldnâ€™t have to accept the same, overwhelming, unfounded biases in each debate just to be â€œfairâ€ to every debater who comes their way.”

Agreed. But we’re still left with the question of what qualifies as “bias,” and who gets to classify that. The problem in the study of gender, sexuality, etc. is that both the bio-determinist ‘Essentialists’ and nurture-not-nature ‘Constructivists’ recklessly condemn each other as “biased.”

By: Katie

Katie — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:46:09 +0000

Here’s a link to more discussion about self-transformation as an ongoing process, not something you do and then never have to do again once you’ve done it and started living as the first “new you.” (You have to get way down into the comments to get to the good stuff.)

And here’s a link where it took me lots and lots of explaining to understand the privilege forming…get this…my desire to have things explained. (Ironic, isn’t it? But I think the explanation they gave me still took a lot less time than the explanations I was asking for.)

By: Sigel Phoenix

Sigel Phoenix — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:21:04 +0000

A very eloquent, cogent introduction post! Another point to expand on is how “check your privilege” is not code for “you’re irredeemably incorrect.” Saying to someone that they have privilege is not a way of dismissing their arguments, but rather pointing out how privilege, as you say, is informing their actions and reactions.

After that? Sure, we can talk about your argument. But anti-oppression workers shouldn’t have to accept the same, overwhelming, unfounded biases in each debate just to be “fair” to every debater who comes their way.

By: BrainFromArous

BrainFromArous — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:19:23 +0000

“Something that comes up often in discussions about challenging privilege is this idea that asking someone to check their privilege is akin to expecting them to engage in some kind of Maoist form of self-criticism.”

I’m flattered to be (sort of) quoted.

Ok, this is going to be a sincere, respectful statement to you personally, Jen/arielladrake, since we locked horns over this. Delete or not as is your wont; I would just like you to read it and see where I am coming from.

Ahem.

What irked me (and still does) about the whole privilege-checking thing is that I was simultaneously accused and told that I couldn’t defend myself against the accusation - that, in fact, merely standing up for the integrity of my own thoughts confirms the accusation. According to that “rule” tekanji quoted, my options were:

1) Accept the accusation.

2) Ask for a more detailed accusation.

The idea that I might honestly, sincerely disagree with my accusers and have good reasons to do so is simply… dismissed. The accusers’ point of view is the very incarnation of rectitude and challenges to it betray the dread hand of… PRIVILEGE!

Go ahead and fight sterotypes, sexism, misogyny, bigotry, sloppy thinking, logical fallacies… all of it. More power to you. But please keep in mind that there’s nothing “anti-oppression” about awarding yourself the power to make unanswerable accusations against others.

Thanks for reading.