Check Your Internet Outrage: Talking About Talking About Privilege, Part I
The latest high-profile salvo in the ongoing internet argument over the phrase 'check your privilege' was fired the other day by a semi-anonymous emailer and a conservative blogger. And although we dramatically part views on a number of issues, I think he has some worthy points. More importantly, the areas where both he and his opponent lose the plot illuminate some important aspects of how we talk about social justice and how we can make the discussion more productive.
Now, a cursory scroll through my blog will show you I think a lot about the interaction of fiction, privilege, and social issues. That said, I have grown to detest the phrase 'check your privilege' and the associated mindset. What started out as a shorthand to tell people they were being obstructively oblivious has morphed into a verbal weapon to censor disagreement and diverse perspectives.
Besides the obvious problem-- that censoring dissenting voices stifles insight and the exchange of ideas--there are some underlying assumptions that make the 'check your privilege' argument particularly obnoxious. Dealing with these isn't just about improving the quality of discussion on privilege and social justice, but about improving your ability as a writer to research and tell stories about experiences that are different from your own.
The assumptions:
One privilege equals all privileges. The fallacy basically states that because someone is privileged in one area, that's true for every other measure-- for example, the wealthy person must also be cisgender, male, a member of their area's dominant religion, straight, have had an awesome childhood, white (or a member of the dominant ethnic group in their country), neurotypical, and not have any long-term health problems.Someone in a comfortable position has no relevant insights. First of all, no one has ownership of the facts, and someone's background doesn't impinge on their ability to make logical, factual arguments. Second, it's perfectly possible this person does have some analogous or relevant experience, or might have observed the issue close up and come to some very experience-based conclusions. 'Privilege' means that group faces no social/systemic problems whatsoever. Groups that have some systemic advantage may have fewer problems than other groups, or a lower severity of a particular problem, but that doesn't mean they don't experience the problem at all. Furthermore, the group may experience an entirely different set of issues. Privilege is immutable. A change of time, place, or circumstances can send people in and out of 'privilege' and 'non-privileged' identities. For example, someone might be able to 'pass' for a member of a more privileged group; alternately, someone might lose their privileged status to chance events like disease or economic downturn. Statistics about a group perfectly describe all its members. Just because members of a group are 'more likely' or 'less likely' to experience something doesn't mean it's 'always' or 'never' true for all individuals.
All of these assumptions reduce someone to a cardboard cutout. Arguing with cardboard cutouts is rarely fruitful. And more importantly for the purposes of this blog, seeing the members of a group as cardboard caricatures will hinder you as a writer. Being able to understand the perspectives of people who are different from us is vital, and to do that we need to be able to listen, no matter what that person's background.
Now, a cursory scroll through my blog will show you I think a lot about the interaction of fiction, privilege, and social issues. That said, I have grown to detest the phrase 'check your privilege' and the associated mindset. What started out as a shorthand to tell people they were being obstructively oblivious has morphed into a verbal weapon to censor disagreement and diverse perspectives.
Besides the obvious problem-- that censoring dissenting voices stifles insight and the exchange of ideas--there are some underlying assumptions that make the 'check your privilege' argument particularly obnoxious. Dealing with these isn't just about improving the quality of discussion on privilege and social justice, but about improving your ability as a writer to research and tell stories about experiences that are different from your own.
The assumptions:
One privilege equals all privileges. The fallacy basically states that because someone is privileged in one area, that's true for every other measure-- for example, the wealthy person must also be cisgender, male, a member of their area's dominant religion, straight, have had an awesome childhood, white (or a member of the dominant ethnic group in their country), neurotypical, and not have any long-term health problems.Someone in a comfortable position has no relevant insights. First of all, no one has ownership of the facts, and someone's background doesn't impinge on their ability to make logical, factual arguments. Second, it's perfectly possible this person does have some analogous or relevant experience, or might have observed the issue close up and come to some very experience-based conclusions. 'Privilege' means that group faces no social/systemic problems whatsoever. Groups that have some systemic advantage may have fewer problems than other groups, or a lower severity of a particular problem, but that doesn't mean they don't experience the problem at all. Furthermore, the group may experience an entirely different set of issues. Privilege is immutable. A change of time, place, or circumstances can send people in and out of 'privilege' and 'non-privileged' identities. For example, someone might be able to 'pass' for a member of a more privileged group; alternately, someone might lose their privileged status to chance events like disease or economic downturn. Statistics about a group perfectly describe all its members. Just because members of a group are 'more likely' or 'less likely' to experience something doesn't mean it's 'always' or 'never' true for all individuals.
All of these assumptions reduce someone to a cardboard cutout. Arguing with cardboard cutouts is rarely fruitful. And more importantly for the purposes of this blog, seeing the members of a group as cardboard caricatures will hinder you as a writer. Being able to understand the perspectives of people who are different from us is vital, and to do that we need to be able to listen, no matter what that person's background.
No comments have been added yet.
