The Concept of Privilege

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps if we break down the concept of privilege a bit more it might provide more nuance?...
lets put up 3 categories such as 1) advantage (gained by oneself or circumstances) 2) entitlement (what is due because of circumstances or systems) 3) Rights (privileges accorded because one is human)
As a Theist...I will use "circumstance" as interchangeable with "God-given". In the Islamic concept "rights" are also "God-given" in that we do not decide to be born as human---this is a matter of "circumstance" as well...
The 3 categories overlap because all 3 have elements that are circumstantial/God-given and systemic/man-made. (for example, "rights" may be God-given---but its implementation (as laws) is systemic/man-made)

a symbol of "Justice" often has weight scales depicted....and in order to balance our concept of privilege, we need 2 more ideas/concepts ---the weight on the other side of the scale of privilege is obligation/responsibility. The scale itself must be a symbol of the concept of equality. Under this setup, let us consider "rights"---simply being "human" one has certain "rights" that of life, wealth, conscience/morality, education, etc...but some people have more than others because of circumstances (advantage)---therefore those who have less, have more entitlement (due) than those who have more. This is because all humanity is of equal worth therefore have equal (God-given) rights. Justice can only be achieved by creating a system in which rights are distributed in ways in which advantages and entitlements are balanced. Those who have been given more--have a higher degree of obligation /responsibility and those who have been given less have a higher degree of entitlement.

The principle concept is that all humanity is of equivalent worth and are entitled to "rights"---but we are also diverse and this diversity creates a diversity of needs...thus "justice" for one (or a group) can become an oppression for another---that is why "same possibilities" is not enough.....rather a diversity of solutions is better....they provide specificity and may be more just.

The way I see it, the problem with Modernity/Capitalism is that those who have wealth and/or power assume they are "entitled" ---that "circumstances" had nothing to do with it and they are the sole creators of their wealth and power. But it is possible this is simply an illusion and the reality may be that circumstances played a major role in their achievements.....from an Islamic point of view---such a self-centric worldview leads to worship of "self" (idolatry) and erodes gratefulness in the heart. Without gratefulness there is no humility and without humility one cannot be compassionate and merciful. Arrogance and pride fills up a person so there is no space for others.

Solutions must begin with the family...a person who has more should begin by sharing with family, then with the larger circle of relatives particularly the elderly, the sick, the handicapped, widowed, orphaned ...etc and then go on to share with the neighbors and community...and go on from there.... So why start with the family?....consider, some of those who are homeless or in poverty are someones parent or child are they not? someones relative or neighbor....they are where they are because they were abandoned......Considering our human nature, it is easier to acknowledge the basic rights of our unfortunate family and/or relatives and treat them with compassion and mercy...we can then build on this and extend it to others as we begin to acknowledge that all humanity is family....this way can also lead to more tailor-made solutions which might be more just and efficient. Once families and communities begin to actively take responsibility for those who are at a "disadvantage", one would need to rely less on governments. This would be a good thing because implementing standard, single large-scale solutions to a diversity of needs will inevitably leave some behind, cause an injustice to some, or infringe on the rights of some....

What if a community is so advantaged that there are no disadvantaged members---or if there are---they are taken care of---then such communities can become mentors of other communities. Personal contacts and relationships between communities will generate unique solutions that fit the resources and needs of both communities so that burdens are lessened in a win-win solution. Such personal contacts and friendships between communities might bring awareness of privilege to the community with an advantage and hope of better possibilities/future to the community with a disadvantage...?....

It is not our fault that we have an advantage and likewise, it is not our fault that we have a disadvantage---we are all one family with different circumstances. Our differences do not make one more worthy and the other less worthy---it simply creates diversity. This diversity is an essential ingredient in creating humane societies and individuals.

Well outlined. I'll be interested in seeing the responses.

[Darth Executor]

a symbol of "Justice" often has weight scales depicted....and in order to balance our concept of privilege, we need 2 more ideas/concepts ---the weight on the other side of the scale of privilege is obligation/responsibility. The scale itself must be a symbol of the concept of equality. Under this setup, let us consider "rights"---simply being "human" one has certain "rights" that of life, wealth, conscience/morality, education, etc...but some people have more than others because of circumstances (advantage)---therefore those who have less, have more entitlement (due) than those who have more. This is because all humanity is of equal worth therefore have equal (God-given) rights. Justice can only be achieved by creating a system in which rights are distributed in ways in which advantages and entitlements are balanced. Those who have been given more--have a higher degree of obligation /responsibility and those who have been given less have a higher degree of entitlement.

Justice has weight scales depicted because it's supposed to be blind to factors irrelevant to a case, not because it's trying to "balance out privilege". A poor person should receive the same sentence for a murder identical to one committed by a rich person (and vice versa). This is justice in the classical sense, but it flies in the face of privilege theory and its perverse version of justice that is Social Justice.

The principle concept is that all humanity is of equivalent worth and are entitled to "rights"---but we are also diverse and this diversity creates a diversity of needs...thus "justice" for one (or a group) can become an oppression for another---that is why "same possibilities" is not enough.....rather a diversity of solutions is better....they provide specificity and may be more just.

Is all humanity of equivalent worth?

The way I see it, the problem with Modernity/Capitalism is that those who have wealth and/or power assume they are "entitled" ---that "circumstances" had nothing to do with it and they are the sole creators of their wealth and power. But it is possible this is simply an illusion and the reality may be that circumstances played a major role in their achievements.....from an Islamic point of view---such a self-centric worldview leads to worship of "self" (idolatry) and erodes gratefulness in the heart. Without gratefulness there is no humility and without humility one cannot be compassionate and merciful. Arrogance and pride fills up a person so there is no space for others.

This sounds like a parody of what envious liberals think rich people believe.

[Darth Executor]

Although I think even the article itself ignores the extent to which people tend to take their own society / institutions / government for granted. For example, if history's best entrepreneurs had been born into tribes who lived in the Amazon rainforest, I sincerely doubt they would have achieved billionaire status. People who boast of self-made success in the Western world, e.g. through running their own business and working hard, seem to not only overlook all the people who worked equally hard but who didn't achieve success, I think they overlook just how much efforts by their governments and society have gone into making their country / civilization the kind of place in which people can work hard and build a business and achieve success.

I'm quoting this because i want to reply to it but I have to go to school for now.

[lilpixieofterror]

No study accounts for everything, but the factors I listed are cited in the study. You might want to read it.

I took the liberty of emphasizing the error in your approach. I have already outlined two ways that the outcomes of implicit bias can be countered. Similar apporaches can be used in other contexts. We can also do a great deal to counter implicit bias by including it in our school curricula, talking about it in our churches, passing around links like the one I passed where people can test themselves, using the bully pulpit of the government, holding seminars and education sessions in our workpkaces, especially for those in public service, and so forth. Nowhere have I suggested that implicit bias can be completely eliminated, in any of its dimensions. I HAVE said, mutiple times, that we need to do all we reasonably can to minimize it. That we cannot make the world "perfect" doesn't mean we cannot try to make the world as good as we can make it.

Using all of these approaches, and any others we can conceive, over time, implicit bias CAN be reduced. IMO, any reduction is a good thing if the implicit bias is leading to unbalance/unfair social/financial/political realities.

BTW: parents abusing their children is an example of situational/circumstantial privilege; it's not an example of systemic implicit bias. That is a different thing.

[Mountain Man]

a symbol of "Justice" often has weight scales depicted....and in order to balance our concept of privilege...

Wrong.

The symbol of justice has scales and a blindfold to imply that the law can be fairly enforced without prejudice. It has nothing to do with "[balancing] our concept of privilege". On the contrary, "privilege", or lack of it, should never be a consideration when enforcing the law.

[Cow Poke]

Wrong.

The symbol of justice has scales and a blindfold to imply that the law can be fairly enforced without prejudice. It has nothing to do with "[balancing] our concept of privilege". On the contrary, "privilege", or lack of it, should never be a consideration when enforcing the law.

Just like 'reverse discrimination' came to be a problem in hiring and promoting when race or ethnicity should have nothing to do with the process.

[carpedm9587]

Read the study, Pixie. Or don't. The choice is yours. But until you do, I'm not going to pay a lot of attention to your critiques.

First, my statement is taken with the idea of getting rid of all family privileges, a point you left out.

That was never proposed by me, so I don't know why you feel a need to respond to it.

So because some people won't listen, we don't do it? Again, no one has suggested we can create a perfect system. You do as much as you can and hope to begin the process of reversing the cultural trend.

Third, you said just what I said already, dealing with biasness requires a shift of attitude by exposing people to different cultures and views.

Except I said nothing about trying to have "everyone raised in the same circumstance." I merely pointed out multiple, fairly simple, activities that can be engaged in to begin the process of shift, specifically targetted to systemic implicit bias, not to circumstantial differences in privilege.

Who on earth said anything about inciting jealousy? And why do you folks feel a need to continually return to this "guilt" theme. Have anyone noticed that the only people screaming "guilt" and jealousy are those on the right? I can see the condition of people in Haiti and want to help them move to a better place without for one second thinking I am in any way guilty of causing their situation. I can realize that my tendency to get louder when I get angry is because that is what I learned in my home and work to correct it without having one moment of guilt about it. I can also learn that my reaction to people of different races is skewed because of the culture/home I grew up in and want to correct it without feeling one iota of guilt. Our society is as it is for factors that trace back centuries and generations - and they have nothing to do with me. Recognizing cause does not immediately require me to feel guilt. That's ridiculous.

If you cannot do these things without immediately feeling guilt, then I suggest you look at why that is so - instead of just assuming that anyone who wants to improve themselves and our society as a whole is driven by guilt. I can assure you that guilt has nothing to do with it, no matter how many times you tell me it does.

[Mountain Man]

Here's a perfect example of the sort of thing we're talking about, and why some of us roll our eyes when liberals start whooping and hollering about "white privilege":

Source: New York Post

https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

© Copyright Original Source

Also:

Source: FOX News

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/28...t-society.html

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

Here's a perfect example of the sort of thing we're talking about, and why some of us roll our eyes when liberals start whooping and hollering about "white privilege":

Source: New York Post

https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

© Copyright Original Source

Also:

Source: FOX News

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/28...t-society.html

© Copyright Original Source

The first article does indeed, appear to be more than a bit over the top, and is a good example of a "bad" approach to dealing with privilege. I don't know the history of yoga, so I don't know the Indian view of it. If there is any taint of "privilege" here, and I do not know if there is or isn't, it certainly does not seem to me to be the most urgent thing we have to deal with. Ensuring equity in hiring would seem to me far more critical. And the entire tone of the statements seems to far exceed the import of the matter. This is the kind of thing the left does that just makes it harder for us to actually tackle meaningful things.

I don't see the problem with the second article. I've read it several times, and what is being said seems to align quite well with the reponses I've seen here. Despite several attempts to explain the concept I am putting forward, and increasing care with using the right words so I don't set off reactions, the predominant response I am continually getting appears to be one that denies that racism/sexism/etc. remain problems in our country, and that it needs to be addressed. I would describe that as a "bubble of unreality." The idea that in a few generations we can have completely undone the damage of centuries of slavery (which was practiced by native tribes before our arrival, was practiced from Columbus in 1492 through the end of the Civil War, and is still an underground reality in the country today), decades of Jim Crow, and the tribulations of the Civil Rights fight that occured in my lifetime, is simply preposterous. Racism is deeply rooted in our society/culture/and psyches. The evidence is there - it is unequivocal - and it is available for anyone willing to look. The vestiges of those years remains in our culture and is quantifiable in many ways.

That does not mean that everyone is consciously, intentionally, racist. As I have noted before, there is a vast difference between overt racism (which is reprehensible), and the more subtle implicit biases we all carry. I think, perhaps, we need a new word. When people say "racist," the mind goes to David Duke and his ilk. When I say "I know I am racist," I am not saying that I am of that ilk. I am saying I know I am subject to implicit bias. The data says that most of us are, to varying degrees. My implicit bias is comparatively light, probably because of my children, but it's still there. I did not have them in my life for 39 years; and now they have been in my life for 21. The implicit bias developed in my first 39 years have not been erased by the next 21, but it has been lessened. So perhaps we need a less "triggering" word for this kind of more subtle, but still important, form of bias.

[Sparko]

Carpe you don't seem to be using "white privilege" in the same manner as the liberal activists are using the term. I think it might be another example of you using a different definition like when you were redefining "slave" to be a mom to her baby.

[Mountain Man]

That does not mean that everyone is consciously, intentionally, racist.

Just unconsciously, unintentionally racist, right?

[carpedm9587]

Just unconsciously, unintentionally racist, right?

Yes - implicit bias is a form on unconscious, unintentional racism. It's why I think we need a better word.

[carpedm9587]

Carpe you don't seem to be using "white privilege" in the same manner as the liberal activists are using the term. I think it might be another example of you using a different definition like when you were redefining "slave" to be a mom to her baby.

I am using white privilege in the conventional sense, as far as I know: any systemic privilege that is derived from being white (caucasian).

And at no point did I ever say that a woman is a slave to her baby. I don't know where you got that idea, but I have never said it or thought it.

[Psychic Missile]

Here's a perfect example of the sort of thing we're talking about, and why some of us roll our eyes when liberals start whooping and hollering about "white privilege":

Nothing these people say is untrue and your lack of understanding of their positions is a symptom of your proud ignorance. Maybe you shouldn't inform your opinion by way of a tabloid and a propaganda machine.

[Sparko]

I am using white privilege in the conventional sense, as far as I know: any systemic privilege that is derived from being white (caucasian).

And at no point did I ever say that a woman is a slave to her baby. I don't know where you got that idea, but I have never said it or thought it.

when we were discussing abortion.