Check your privilege

[Gob]

Whatever you’re doing, stop. Actually, you’re reading this, so it’s probably best to carry on for the minute. But then when you’ve finished you need to stand up, step back, and take the time to “check your privilege”.

Until today I wouldn’t really have known where to even find my privilege, never mind scrutinise it. But thanks to Twitter – sociology’s version of NHS Direct – I am now fully up to speed.

Last week, in the midst of a debate about some vital issue of the moment (possibly something to do with Ed Miliband and Willy Wonka), someone indignantly instructed me to “check my privilege”. I didn’t have a clue what they were on about, and politely told them I thought they were nuts. But since then I’ve seen requests/demands for people to CYP popping up all over the place.

So this morning, after I saw Labour MP Tom Harris state he was off to conduct his own privilege audit, I threw myself upon Twitter’s mercy, and asked what this perplexing phrase actually meant. And now I know.

Apparently, if any of us wish to comment on a particular issue we have to first “check our privilege”. It’s like a sort of moral entry exam. Before expressing a point of view we must first establish our bona fides. So for example, if you want to talk about an issue such as welfare reform, you have to consider whether you are middle-class or not. If you are, then sadly you fail the test. You can’t comment. Or if you do comment, then your point of view is in some way invalidated.

Sufficiently briefed, I sat down to give myself a comprehensive privilege MOT. White: tick. Male: tick. Middle-class: tick. Public school education: fail. Able-bodied: tick (well, half a tick. I’ve only got one eye. But you get two for a reason). Heterosexual: tick, (though never say never).

My initial response was delight. I’d given my privilege a thorough going over, and everything looked to be in good working order. But then to my horror I realised this was in fact a catastrophe. Unless the debate veers off towards comprehensive education for the partially sighted, I literally have nothing to contribute. Or if I do contribute, who will listen? My privilege will act like a gag. A beautiful and very expensive Liberty silk gag. But a gag none the less.

Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not on. This is naked “privilegeism”. And I for one shall not sit still for it.

For a start, how do we actually define privilege? Let’s go back to the example I gave about welfare. Who really holds the privilege in this debate? Is it someone like me, who has never taken a penny of welfare, except to make regular withdrawals from the bank of mum and dad.? Or is it those who are actually subsisting on, and benefiting from, welfare themselves? Who, in this case, actually enters the debate from a position of self-interest? Shouldn’t it be those Shameless types who we all know are merely idling and scrounging and swinging the lead, who should be giving their own privilege the run down?

Also, who actually came up the whole CYP concept? How’s their own privilege looking, eh? Apparently the phrase “check your privilege” first originated on the social justice blog Shrub.com, (no, I’ve no idea what a social justice blog is either). Shrub was set up by Andrea Rubenstein, who describes herself as the site’s “primary blogger”, which sounds a touch hierarchical.

Anyway, from what I can glean, Andrea appears to be a woman, white, relatively able-bodied and university-educated. Something of a mixed bag, privilege-wise. Though, to be fair, she does acknowledge, “Once you have a basic grasp on the system of privilege, the next step is one simple self-realisation: you are privileged … we are all privileged”. To help us come to terms with this, she helpfully provides some useful “primers”, including “Privilege in action”, “Occasionally conversations with my men are instructive” and “Privilege is driving a smooth road and not even knowing it”. Where not holding a driving licence puts you on the pyramid of oppression isn’t made clear.

I’m sure Andrea means well. But I’m sorry, I’m still old enough to remember the days when being a white, middle-class male actually meant something. And surely if we know one thing about privilege, it’s that it doesn’t give up without a fight.

So fight we must. From now on, I shall be confronting the privilegists head on. Far from letting my privilege silence me, I shall use it to give my arguments wings.

So those of you who would have me “check my privilege” hear this. I’ve got my latest copy of Esquire sitting on my desk right now. It contains an article on page 110 on the philosophy of Pamela Anderson, and I’m going to read it, and I’m going to enjoy it.

I’ve seen the Phantom Menace three times. And though I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next man, it never even occurred to me he was a crass racial stereotype. And it never will.

Yes, I will wait till Gatsby is on at the Greenwich Picturehouse, rather than the Odeon, because it’s a more refined cinematic experience, and there will be fewer people complaining “Oi, this isn’t The Hangover Part Three”.

Believe me, I’ve checked my privilege. I’ve looked under the bonnet, checked the oil and kicked the tires. It’s in immaculate working order.

Privilege isn’t driving a smooth road and not even knowing it. It’s driving a smooth road, with the wind in your hair, the sun on your face and not a care in the world. I'm sorry about that. Really, I am.

[Scooter]

What a piece of tripe. Recognizing one's privilege does not constitute any sort of a "gag". It is a recognition that one's viewpoint is colored by the fact that one has certain advantages, and that that viewpoint will not necessarily be shared by those who do not have those advantages. It is, therefore, a means of being able to see issues from another's point of view. Recognizing one's privilege would mean seeing that a statement like "the law treats both rich and poor equally by preventing both from sleeping under a bridge" is not going to be seen as helpful by someone who is poor. Ditto statements like "laws against interracial marriages treat all races equally" or "gay people have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals because they are equally entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex".

[Lord Jim]

This "CYP" concept looks to me like nothing more than the latest in a long line of rhetorical devices the intent of which is to discredit whatever someone who disagrees with you says by employing a form of "the fallacy of the ad hominem"...

An attempt to dismiss any arguments made based on nothing more than the upbringing of the speaker, without having to examine the actual merits of the argument....

It's both intellectually destructive, and intellectually dishonest...

It's something that should be recognized for what it is, and dismissed out of hand.

[Scooter]

It depends. There's a difference between claiming that an argument is fallacious simply because it is being made by someone with privilege, and recognizing that the reason why someone is making a fallacious argument is because they are approaching the issue from a position of privilege. For example, when Dave says, as he often has, that gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because they are free to marry anyone of their choosing of the opposite sex, the claim is fallacious, for obvious reasons. It is not the fact that Dave is heterosexual that makes it fallacious, but it is Dave's heterosexuality that causes him to believe in the logic of the statement; he sees heterosexual marriage as normative and therefore sees it as appropriate for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. His position of privilege does not allow him to see the fallacy inherent in such a statement.

That is the point of "checking our privilege" - to make us mindful of the fact that our privilege may be blinding us to fallacies in our argument, not that our privilege necessarily makes our arguments fallacious.

[Gob]

THE requirement to ‘Check Your Privilege’ before saying anything is one of the most obviously toss-ridden things yet, experts have confirmed.

'Where would sir like to express his opinions today?'

‘And where would sir like to voice his opinions today?’

The concept, invented by the same people who think Hugo Chavez was an absolute delight, requires that before you express an opinion you ask yourself whether you have a right to do so.

Professor Henry Brubaker, of the Institute for Studies, said: “Jesus fucking Christ on a bike.”

According to the Guardian’s Guide to Privilege Checking, the concept is the latest funky, hi-tech way to shut down opinions you dislike without making it too obvious that is exactly what you are up to.

Julian Cook, professor of embarrassing undergraduate ideas at Roehampton University, said: “The Guardian is now just a student newspaper run by angry but enthusiastic 19 year-olds.

“Perhaps when Alan Rubsbridger graduates he’ll go on to a successful career in journalism and one day may even edit a proper newspaper, like the Wolverhampton Express and Star.”

Tom Logan, an opinion-haver from Stevenage, said: “If someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about I would tend to say something like ‘what the fuck would you know?’ or ‘you’re talking out of your arse’.

“‘Check Your Privilege’ is obviously an attempt to replace those perfectly good phrases with the sort of trite self-importance that appeals to left-wing Twitter-Thugs.”

Logan added: “That said, I fully realise I am not the same as the people who want me to check my privilege. Therefore, I have now checked my privilege, in relation to them, and continue to believe that they are an utter fucking nightmare.

“And because I have checked my privilege, I assume that means my opinion is even more valid.”

“Thank you Privilege Checkers!”

[Crackpot]

Really scoot? I'm heterosexual and believe nothing of the sort. His argument fails because it is stupid regardless of his "privilege"

Seriously your argument every bit as offensive as the shit Dave spews.

[Scooter]

I didn't say that every heterosexual sees things as he does. Reading comprehension can be a helpful tool.

[Crackpot]

Yeah I know there's some good ones

[Scooter]

Perhaps an example less likely to ruffle your sensibilities:

An HIV+ person says, "Advances in treatment have made HIV infection a chronic, manageable condition, rather than the death sentence it used to be."

A perfectly reasonable sounding statement, yes? Because we know that HIV treatments have been very successfully used to prevent disease progression and greatly extend life expectancy in HIV+ people, right?

Except that the statement is not true for the vast majority of HIV+ people in the world. Why?

Because they cannot afford HIV treatments nor do they live in a country that can afford to provide them.
Because they lack clean water and/or food that is required to accompany the treatments.
Because some of the most effective HIV meds require refrigeration which they do not have access to.
Because they lack access to medical care, including tests that are necessary to ensure that the treatments they are on are effective.
etc., etc., etc.

So a statement that appears both eminently reasonable and grounded in the best science, is in fact a statement that is imbued with the privilege of the person making it. Someone who can afford HIV meds, or who lives in a country rich enough to provide them to him/her. Someone who has clean running water. Someone who doesn't have to worry where his/her next meal is coming from. Someone who has a refrigerator. Someone who has access to a doctors and laboratory testing. Etc., etc., etc. Privileges that are not shared by the vast majority of HIV+ people throughout the world. And effectively managing HIV infection in the whole population of those infected is impossible without recognizing the effect of that difference in privilege.

[Econoline]

I get your point, Scooter, but...

Tom Logan, an opinion-haver from Stevenage, said: “If someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about I would tend to say something like ‘what the fuck would you know?’ or ‘you’re talking out of your arse’.

“‘Check Your Privilege’ is obviously an attempt to replace those perfectly good phrases

[Rick]

Not knowing what in the world I'm talking about has never stopped me...

[Lord Jim]

An HIV+ person says, "Advances in treatment have made HIV infection a chronic, manageable condition, rather than the death sentence it used to be."

A perfectly reasonable sounding statement, yes? Because we know that HIV treatments have been very successfully used to prevent disease progression and greatly extend life expectancy in HIV+ people, right?

Yeah , okay...

Except that the statement is not true for the vast majority of HIV+ people in the world. Why?

Because they cannot afford HIV treatments nor do they live in a country that can afford to provide them.
Because they lack clean water and/or food that is required to accompany the treatments.
Because some of the most effective HIV meds require refrigeration which they do not have access to.
Because they lack access to medical care, including tests that are necessary to ensure that the treatments they are on are effective.
etc., etc., etc.

There are a whole host of things...

Malaria, typhus, cholera, Beriberi, Bengi fever...

That one doesn't generally encounter in The First World, that one might very well encounter in The Third World...for which there is inadequate medical assistance...

How would that make the opinions of those who live in the First World about those things, inherently invalid?

Not following your logic here....

[Scooter]

It doesn't make their opinions "inherently invalid". From their perspective, their opinions may be perfectly valid. But their perspective is not the only perspective, and recognizing that there is another perspective is sometimes a matter of recognizing the degree to which privilege forms a part of their perspective.

To return to my example, let's say a group of people from around the world are discussing where to invest money in order to have the greatest impact on the health of HIV+ people. Someone from a developed country might say that more money should go into researching more effective treatments. Someone from a developing country might say, "hey, wait a minute, improved treatments are not going to help us unless we have the infrastructure to get them to the people that need them, so we need to put some of the money into building medical clinics and improving roads so people can get to them." Neither answer is inherently right or wrong, but they are influenced by the fact that lack of infrastructure poses a treatment barrier in developing countries to a much greater degree than it does in developed countries. Differing levels of privilege lead to differing perspectives on solving the problem.

[rubato]

Being aware that one's perspective is shaped by a set of circumstances more limited than those affecting everyone else is the beginning of understanding.


More and more often I'm encountering people using the Rawlsian* method for arguing from a less-biased perspective in social justice.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

yrs,
rubato

* And acknowledging the source, too. I was floored when a character in "The West Wing" referred directly to Rawls' "veil of ignorance".

[Lord Jim]

Being aware that one's perspective is shaped by a set of circumstances more limited than those affecting everyone else is the beginning of understanding.

You mean like ignorance and stupidity?

If that's what you're referring to, let me extend my congratulations to you for finally beginning to comprehend the set of circumstances that has been limiting your sense of understanding...

More and more often I'm encountering people using the Rawlsian* method for arguing from a less-biased perspective in social justice.

LOL

This from a guy who wouldn't know the difference between John Rawls and Lou Rawls...