The Concept of Privilege

[carpedm9587]

Well at least by focusing all efforts on the former, then one's efforts are not split between the former and the pointless latter. It would increase the chance of success.

Sure, when we teach our children not to wrong others, we often employ the golden rule, and ask them to consider what it would be like if someone did the same to them. Empathy. But then the end point is that the bad thing is bad, and not about how it is a "privilege" to not be hit or solen from, etc.

As I said, it does not seem to me that the differentiation is the problem. And this terminology may be related to that mistake.

As I think more about the "privilege" concept, the more perverse it seems to me. You said in an earlier post that if an injustice were to cease entirely, then the non-victims would then cease to be called "privileged" (in that respect). Non-victims are thus said to be "privileged" if and only if there exists victims. Thus we say people are "privileged" only because others are victims. But that seems sick and twisted. Wouldn't it be better instead to point to the ways people are worse off if their fellow-men are allowed to be victims of injustice?

I agree differentiation is not the problem, which is why I was specific about "unjust" differentiation.

[demi-conservative]

I don't think that is actually what I AM saying, though, Sparko. This is not just about "giving to the less fortunate." This is about identifying and correcting systemic injustices that we have created or inherited, and that we are somewhat blind to because they are, for us, "the norm."

Call it 'social justice', that's what it is. Always goes well down here!!!

[demi-conservative]

In another thread, I made reference to various ways in which I feel our society/culture privileges me in ways that it does not privilege others, and the requirement my moral code places on me to recognize that and do what I can to help balance the scales. Almost immediately after the post, the discussion was buried in a sea of accusations of "self-loathing," "guilt trips" and various other things that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. No amount of trying to reset the discussion helped. So I'm going to start a fresh thread to explore this concept, with the hopes that what I am actually trying to say is heard and not, again, buried in meanings and ideas that are NOT part of what I am saying.

I do not need to "feel guilty" to acknowledge that I have been privileged in ways that I did nothing to earn. Indeed, the primary feeling I experience is thankfulness, not guilt. I also do not need to "feel guilty" because I recognize that someone else does not have access to those privileges. I didn't do anything to create that situation, so I have nothing to feel guilty about. I do not need to loathe myself to recognize I have been privileged, nor do I need to loathe myself to recognize when someone else does not have access to those privileges.

Sometimes, the "privilege" is nothing more or less than a circumstance. My parents stayed married, and I had both of them throughout my youth, and through to my mid-fifties. They were not rich, but I was never hungry, never truly lacked for any need, had my health seen to, and had a comfortable (though small) and safe home. Although I was born with two fairly serious physical defects, my parents had the contacts to deal with them medically, and the healthcare coverage (due to their jobs) to pay for it. These are forms of privilege that are "circumstances" for which I am grateful, and that gratitude is part of why I find myself wanting to find an help those who did not find themselves with those kinds of circumstantial privileges.

Then there are some kinds of privilege that are more ingrained in our culture/system/society. When we live in a culture/family that teaches "X," we assimilate "X" often without even being conscious of it. That then colors how we behave going forward, sometimes even unconsciously. These are the things we know as "implicit bias." They don't make us bad people. They make us human - stewed in the behaviors of our culture. The behaviors and attitudes transcend generations, and are notoriously difficult to work out of the culture. Several researchers at Harvard found an objective way to actually measure implicit bias. It's called Project Implicit. I referenced it in my previous posts. I won't explain it again here unless someone has questions about it.

I believe it is incumbent on me to look for every way in which imlicit bias affects our society. I want to know when it is present in a way that negatively affects me (disdvantages), and when it is present in a way that positively affects me (privileges). The evidence that these biases exist in our culture as unequivocal to me. I cannot ignore it. The evidence that it exists in racial, gender, ethinic, sexual-orientation, religious, and class-based domains is crystal clear. I know I am not free of it because I took the Project Implicit tests and valued the feedback. I know it is present in the people around me - it cannot NOT be.

For us to look for and try to correct these biases is nothing more or less than acting justly, so that all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or social class have the same possibilities, affected only by random circumstance, and not systemic bias. This is what I think. This is how I try to live. Wanting to be better than I am today is not rooted in guilt or self-loathing. I do not have to say "I am horrible and I suck" to say "I want to be better tomorrow than I am today." I do not have to wallow in guilt to say "I want our culture/society to be better tomorrow than it is today." After all, the best atheletes in the world STILL keep trying to be better on the next run/swim/game. Wanting to be better does not mean I think I am bad.

Carpedm, though you are godless relativist, are also biggest moralizing preacher here. You sure you're not parody???

[Starlight]

Carpedm, though you are godless relativist, are also biggest moralizing preacher here. You sure you're not parody???

Being godless makes people much more moral. It is when the God-worshipers start moralizing that people should run for the hills.

[demi-conservative]

Being godless makes people much more moral. It is when the God-worshipers start moralizing that people should run for the hills.

Nah, being godless moralizing gives you stuff like Communism, 'why can't people be equal!!?!??!?!? ', they cry, then murder hundreds of millions. Sad!!!

Now carpedm is doing 'why can't people be equal!?!?!?!??!?!' stuff all over again.

[Tassman]

Nah, being godless moralizing gives you stuff like Communism, 'why can't people be equal!!?!??!?!? ', they cry, then murder hundreds of millions. Sad!!!

Now carpedm is doing 'why can't people be equal!?!?!?!??!?!' stuff all over again.

[Mountain Man]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...cks-questions/

[demi-conservative]

Rich people tend to abandon God, now look at Sweden, growing new rape capitaln. Sad!

To quote Phil Zuckerman, professor of secular studies

Demi was wondering whether there is worthless 'xxx studies' he's not heard of, looks like there is one!!!

[Adrift]

This wouldn't happen to be the same anti-Christian, atheist advocate Phil Zuckerman, author of Atheism and secularity, Society without God, Faith no more, and contributor to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism you've mentioned a number of times in the past, would it? Assuming Zuckerman is correct (and just because he's ant-Christian doesn't mean he isn't, I admit he very well may be), does Zuckerman figure in the centuries of Christian influence on those Scandinavian nations, or that their some of the most culturally homogeneous societies in the world (and certainly in the West)?

[Darth Executor]

scandinavian societies aren't anywhere near the most just societies in the world. arguably, they are some of the worst

[Charles]

scandinavian societies aren't anywhere near the most just societies in the world. arguably, they are some of the worst

I think this mainly proves Tassman's point. If you found them to be just I would be worried for these nations.

[Darth Executor]

I think this mainly proves Tassman's point. If you found them to be just I would be worried for these nations.

all my policies stem from the idea of absolute justice. They clash with leftism because corruption is at the heart of the left.

[carpedm9587]

all my policies stem from the idea of absolute justice. They clash with leftism because corruption is at the heart of the left.

Wow. Talk about "themism."

[Tassman]

This wouldn't happen to be the same anti-Christian, atheist advocate Phil Zuckerman, author of Atheism and secularity, Society without God, Faith no more, and contributor to The Cambridge Companion to Atheism you've mentioned a number of times in the past, would it?

Assuming Zuckerman is correct (and just because he's ant-Christian doesn't mean he isn't, I admit he very well may be), does Zuckerman figure in the centuries of Christian influence on those Scandinavian nations, or that their some of the most culturally homogeneous societies in the world (and certainly in the West)?

If the historical input of Christianity was so important one can only wonder why the highly Christian USA is one of the most violent and inequitable societies in the developed world with the highest levels of incarceration.

scandinavian societies aren't anywhere near the most just societies in the world. arguably, they are some of the worst

Really! But you don't make the argument to support your bald assertion.

[Adrift]

I didn't commit a genetic fallacy, to the contrary, I indicated that he may be correct.

If the historical input of Christianity was so important one can only wonder why the highly Christian USA is one of the most violent and inequitable societies in the developed world with the highest levels of incarceration.

I'm certain much of it has to do with America's population size, stricter laws, gun control issues, and relatively complex cultural diversity, which is why I asked if Zuckerman takes into consideration Scandinavia's cultural homogeneity.