Privilege/kyriarchy split from harassment thread

[PhoenixAsh]

I never could get behind that use of the word "privilege" which basically makes it out tobe not being subject to diffuse forms of domination. I would be interested in the historical overview of how that word came to be used in such a way, since I believe there was a historical precedent to it in that it was used to refer to aristocratic heredity. And it's a long way from very specific relations of domination to a simple fact of not being a candidate for it.

In relation to other points you raise, I agree.


I am not really a proponent of a flat out Patriarchal societal view but rather support a Kyriarchal view of interconnection of suppression. I am not really a fan of privilege theory either; beyond its use as a tool of comparing relative positions of oppression. One of my main criticisms on it is indeed the language used...but I thought it would be a more easily understood term to use to explain the issue in the light of this thread.

[synthesis]

I am not really a proponent of a flat out Patriarchal societal view but rather support a Kyriarchal view of interconnection of suppression. I am not really a fan of privilege theory either; beyond its use as a tool of comparing relative positions of oppression. One of my main criticisms on it is indeed the language used...but I thought it would be a more easily understood term to use to explain the issue in the light of this thread.

I'd never heard of this term ("kyriarchy") before this discussion, but I have to say it bothers me a little. It strikes me as yet another step towards reducing class to just another way in which people are oppressed and discriminated against rather than (obviously) the basis of class society and all other forms of oppression from there.

Wikipedia says that the term "encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia, economic injustice, and other forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized." See how "economic injustice" - not the exploitation of labor - is just ticked off the list like anything else?

I mean, I can't honestly tell if it's any better than privilege theory, the less repugnant cousin of third-worldism. I think it's a step up in the sense that it doesn't actively antagonize broad swathes of the working class - again, a sign of its relationship with third-worldism - but insofar (heh) as it demotes class antagonisms to the level of simply a form of prejudice, it's still problematic, at least for Marxists.

[Quail]

I don't see why a class analysis and an understanding of the notion of relative privilege are necessarily at odds with each other. While it is important to look at the big picture from a class struggle perspective, it is also important to note the various ways in which certain groups are discriminated against and recognise the limitations in your understanding if you don't belong to a particular marginalised group. I think there is a reason that women and people of colour are vastly under-represented in revolutionary politics and it's because the movement is unintentionally alienating to them. In which case, I think we can apply the useful bits of privilege theory to create a communist movement which includes everyone, rather than one which is dominated by white men.

(Sorry, slight tangent. Will respond properly to the rest of this thread in a bit when I'm not busy with uni work etc.)

[PhoenixAsh]

I'd never heard of this term ("kyriarchy") before this discussion, but I have to say it bothers me a little. It strikes me as yet another step towards reducing class to just another way in which people are oppressed and discriminated against rather than (obviously) the basis of class society and all other forms of oppression from there.

Wikipedia says that the term "encompasses sexism, racism, homophobia, economic injustice, and other forms of dominating hierarchies in which the subordination of one person or group to another is internalized and institutionalized." See how "economic injustice" - not the exploitation of labor - is just ticked off the list like anything else?

I mean, I can't honestly tell if it's any better than privilege theory, the less repugnant cousin of third-worldism. I think it's a step up in the sense that it doesn't actively antagonize broad swathes of the working class - again, a sign of its relationship with third-worldism - but insofar (heh) as it demotes class antagonisms to the level of simply a form of prejudice, it's still problematic, at least for Marxists.

Kyriarchy is a more accurate theoretical model to explain modes of oppression rather than the two dimensional model of privilege and patriarchy.

There are two important notes I want to make to the Marxist perspective of gender oppression:

As the needs of the ruling class are changing with different factions competing within the system the economic role of women is changing and therefore also their legal and social status. This does not mean their oppression is ending and more economic and legal equality in some countries does not seem to lead to social equality.


and


From a Marxist perspective the idea of condensing every form of oppression to the class struggle is part of the class struggle is necessary because of the economist focus point of the ideology. These forms of oppression resulted from property, law and capitalism. But I think a Marxist analysis of certain modes of oppression is both inadequate and formed by bourgeois mentality.

In the Gotha program Marx wrote:

The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labor, insofar as it relates to the duration, intermissions, etc. of the working day; otherwise it could only mean the exclusion of female labor from branches of industry that are especially unhealthy for the female body or objectionable morally for the female sex.

Other socialists wrote:

The women there are stripped of all that is feminine and their femininity is trampled under foot, just as our men, in many different types of employment, are bereft of anything manly.

This bourgeois mentality siphoned through to Leninism and eventualy Stalinism where it was transposed as proletarian moralism still creating the sexual moralist view of the role of women in society without actually liberating them. But it was also present in other non Marxist-Leninist organisations.

That situation disproves that the class struggle will actually resolve women's oppression...and could very well be perpetuated in societies with a non capitalist mode of production.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

To be honest, I associate the word "kyriarchy" with social democrats. Most of the writing I've read that uses the word fails hard at seeing the ways in which class, race, and gender are not simply "interconnected", but are actually mutually constituting. I'm much more partial to bell hook's white supremacist capitalist patriarchy since it names specifically the historical phenomena that define existing capitalism (and names capitalism, rather than some watered down "classism" nonsense).

[PhoenixAsh]

To be honest, I associate the word "kyriarchy" with social democrats. Most of the writing I've read that uses the word fails hard at seeing the ways in which class, race, and gender are not simply "interconnected", but are actually mutually constituting. I'm much more partial to bell hook's white supremacist capitalist patriarchy since it names specifically the historical phenomena that define existing capitalism (and names capitalism, rather than some watered down "classism" nonsense).

The problem with the "constituting" opinion is that race and gender oppression has been part of every stage of history. They are not merely a factor of capitalism and bourgeois mentality but a factor of the power mentality of the ruling class.

As such racism and gender oppression will not automatically dissolve when the mode of production changes (as we have seen in the various revolutions) and gender oppression still exists and existed within socialist and revolutionary movements and ideology.

[PhoenixAsh]

To be honest, I associate the word "kyriarchy" with social democrats.

Kyriarchy shows how somebody could be oppressed on one position and privileged on another.

So it proposes everybody consists of several occupied positions. The primary position you assign for analysis will serve as the base of reference and experience for all other positions.

So if you use the model in a Marxist way you would make class the primary position. From this primary position all other positions are experienced. So positions on gender, race and sexual preference would be experienced through the class position.

It isn't social democrat. But it is a model. A model which could be adapted to fit all (most) other theories.

It is however, not reductionist, such a purely Marxist model for example.

So it explains the fact that a white bourgeois woman can be oppressed from her sex and or gender position while enjoying privileges from her class position and ethnic position and therefore creates a more dynamic model of systems of privilege and oppression. Plus it explains the dominating structures within positions themselves.

On the other hand. Privilege theory and Marxist class analysis fall short in that category.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The problem with the "constituting" opinion is that race and gender oppression has been part of every stage of history. They are not merely a factor of capitalism and bourgeois mentality but a factor of the power mentality of the ruling class.

See, this is actually case in point - you're wrong.

Race, as such, only came into being relatively recently. In particular, it arose alongside the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the colonization of North America. "Race", as we know it, is only a few hundred years old.

Similarly, "gender oppression" is by no means eternal - binary gender isn't even universal. To be certain, patriarchy has existed in some societies for a very long time, but patriarchy as we know it know has shaped and been shaped by the emergence of capitalism and the role of women's reproductive labour in capitalism (I'm sorry I plug this book on here at least once a week (http://libcom.org/library/caliban-witch-silvia-federici)).


As such racism and gender oppression will not automatically dissolve when the mode of production changes (as we have seen in the various revolutions) and gender oppression still exists and existed within socialist and revolutionary movements and ideology.

OK, but the thing is, you're going about this the wrong way. The thing is, the mode of production won't change unless patriarchy and white supremacy are overthrown.

The presence of patriarchal and white supremacist ideology within ostensibly revolutionary movements is a given - those movements continue to exist within capitalism: you might as well say, "Well, you call yourself a communist, but you buy things!" It's like, "Uh, no shit." The point is to change this.

[Tigertilda]

Kyriarchy shows how somebody could be oppressed on one position and privileged on another.
So it explains the fact that a white bourgeois woman can be oppressed from her sex and or gender position while enjoying privileges from her class position and ethnic position and therefore creates a more dynamic model of systems of privilege and oppression. Plus it explains the dominating structures within positions themselves.


It sounds like the same thing as intersectionality. Or am I wrong?

[Thirsty Crow]

From a Marxist perspective the idea of condensing every form of oppression to the class struggle is part of the class struggle is necessary because of the economist focus point of the ideology. These forms of oppression resulted from property, law and capitalism. But I think a Marxist analysis of certain modes of oppression is both inadequate and formed by bourgeois mentality. I'm not really sure what would it mean to condense every form of oppression to class struggle.

The point, as I see it, is to recognize the class basis on which different forms of domination develop, and those can't really be reduced to their basis in class exploitation; that would mean, for instance, that one axis of division among the working class, that of gender, is really non-existent if it were to be reduced to the common denominator of class exploitation and domination. I think that it is necessary first to recognize that the division itself is based on the weakness of the class, but that it is real and something that needs to be fought against.

I also think that Marxists shouldn't afford themselves the luxury of this historically inaccurate assessment that these forms of domination resulted from capitalism; they are much older in origin, but have been shaped among other things by the dynamic of capital and especially in its struggle against labor.



As such racism and gender oppression will not automatically dissolve when the mode of production changes (as we have seen in the various revolutions) and gender oppression still exists and existed within socialist and revolutionary movements and ideology.
The problem with this perspective is that we haven't actually seen a change in the mode of production in the various historical instances of (proletarian) revolution.

Now, if we take the issue of sexism in relation to capital, in its most basic contours, I believe there are two points to make:

1) The woman's body is of special importance for capital and its political representatives because it is exclusively tied with the production of the most precious commodity out there - labor power. This in itself indicates that capital cannot afford itself to renege on control and discipline over women's bodies

2) Connected to the former, the woman's body as a laboring body (producing commodities other than that of labor power) is a specific problem for capital precisely in relation to the woman's capacity for childbirth; here I'm referring to the fact that, probably following the cycles of accumulation (expansion/"prosperity"-crisis), the issue of maternal leave becomes a specific burden for capital which seeks flexibility to both shed labor if necessary and drive down the costs of variable capital, i.e. labor. I suspect this might be a part of the rationale behind wage differentials, though this is nothing more than a speculation on my part

So, what follows unambiguously from these points is that it is both analytically and politically incorrect to divorce the problem of gender/sex domination from the "infrastructure of society"; it also follows that a radical transformation of existing relations of domination is only possible on a completely different social basis - that of communism.

[synthesis]

I don't see why a class analysis and an understanding of the notion of relative privilege are necessarily at odds with each other.

I think this assessment is incomplete on three different levels. First, you mention "relative privilege," which isn't exactly an intrinsic tenet of privilege theory. PhoenixAsh, not that he'd agree with me here, says that a different term "shows how somebody could be oppressed on one position and privileged on another." The fact that it is necessary to invent a new word to demonstrate this concept should in turn demonstrate something about the inability of privilege theory to address it. This isn't to say that people who talk about privilege theory don't understand this concept - that would be absurd - but rather that privilege theory itself is not a good framework for understanding the complexity of oppression in capitalist society.

Second, you say that it's not an issue to have "an understanding of the notion of relative privilege." This isn't really the same thing as "privilege theory," though. I have "an understanding of the notion of relative privilege" and I still don't agree with privilege theory. The issue is "privilege theory" as an ideological current and as the way in which the theory is "implemented," so to speak.

Third, class analysis and privilege theory are mutually exclusive, or rather privilege theory is an alternative "class analysis" to that proposed by Marxism. It is, again, the less repugnant cousin of third-worldism, which proposes that first world workers have material interests contrary to those of third world workers. If the material interests of straight white male workers lie in maintaining the status quo, then by definition they are "the enemy" of the revolutionary class.


I think there is a reason that women and people of colour are vastly under-represented in revolutionary politics and it's because the movement is unintentionally alienating to them. In which case, I think we can apply the useful bits of privilege theory to create a communist movement which includes everyone, rather than one which is dominated by white men.

I absolutely agree with the first sentence. With regards to the second, I don't think there is anything to be "salvaged" from privilege theory in revolutionary politics. If someone has said or done something problematic, or not said or done something in a way that is problematic, you can challenge it in a similar way as you would with privilege theory, simply without the concept of individual privilege.

I don't see how telling another worker to "check their privilege" is a productive way to engage them on issues of discrimination and oppression. Instead of challenging them on the basis of their "white privilege" and "male privilege," challenge them on the basis of behavior that reinforces racism and sexism. The difference might be hard to see, and in practice the two might seem co-occurring or even synonymous, but the difference is in the theory and in the terminology. Saying that one part of the working class is "privileged" relative to another is saying that their interests lie in maintaining the status quo, which is in turn dismissing their revolutionary potential - exactly the same as third-worldism.

[Sinister Intents]

It sounds like the same thing as intersectionality. Or am I wrong?

Here is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
I haven't looked into what intersectionality is yet, and if I remember I'll modify this post later to elaborate on them

[Quail]

I think this assessment is incomplete on three different levels. First, you mention "relative privilege," which isn't exactly an intrinsic tenet of privilege theory. PhoenixAsh, not that he'd agree with me here, says that a different term "shows how somebody could be oppressed on one position and privileged on another." The fact that it is necessary to invent a new word to demonstrate this concept should in turn demonstrate something about the inability of privilege theory to address it. This isn't to say that people who talk about privilege theory don't understand this concept - that would be absurd - but rather that privilege theory itself is not a good framework for understanding the complexity of oppression in capitalist society.

As I understand it (though I must admit I'm not very knowledgeable about this so feel free to correct me), the word kyriarchy came about as a way of extending the notion of patriarchy to recognise the other intersecting forms of oppression. I've not personally heard anyone argue that being privileged in one way means that you can't be disadvantaged in another, so really I think this is a bit of a strawman. "Privilege theory" doesn't put everyone in a definitive ranking of least to most privileged, because there has to be more nuance to it than that. A working class white male is obviously not privileged compared to a bourgeois black woman. But he would be privileged compared to a working class black woman, and due to living in a racist, sexist society balanced in his favour, he might be blind to the ways in which he helps to perpetuate such forms of oppression.


Second, you say that it's not an issue to have "an understanding of the notion of relative privilege." This isn't really the same thing as "privilege theory," though. I have "an understanding of the notion of relative privilege" and I still don't agree with privilege theory. The issue is "privilege theory" as an ideological current and as the way in which the theory is "implemented," so to speak.
What is your understanding of "privilege theory"? Because as far as I can tell, within the revolutionary left it's mostly used as a slur against feminists and others who criticise their male or white comrades for not being willing to challenge their own behaviour.


Third, class analysis and privilege theory are mutually exclusive, or rather privilege theory is an alternative "class analysis" to that proposed by Marxism. It is, again, the less repugnant cousin of third-worldism, which proposes that first world workers have material interests contrary to those of third world workers. If the material interests of straight white male workers lie in maintaining the status quo, then by definition they are "the enemy" of the revolutionary class.
I don't think that's an entirely honest evaluation. It is in the material interests of all workers to overthrow the current order. If men are privileged by our patriarchal society, it doesn't mean that it is in their interests to keep the entire society as it is, but it often appears to be in their interests to maintain the oppression of women. Now, while a lot of women's oppression is inherently tied to capitalist oppression, I don't think that abolishing capitalism will magically make women's oppression disappear. As long as the bourgeois values that treat women and others who aren't men as less valuable (whether consciously or not) remain prevalent in the communist movement, the potential to create a truly liberated society isn't there. As long as women are the minute takers, the sandwich makers and the quiet voices while the men are the speakers, facilitators and the writers, and as long as rapists and rape apologists infest our movement, we cannot fight for an equal society.


I absolutely agree with the first sentence. With regards to the second, I don't think there is anything to be "salvaged" from privilege theory in revolutionary politics. If someone has said or done something problematic, or not said or done something in a way that is problematic, you can challenge it in a similar way as you would with privilege theory, simply without the concept of individual privilege.

I don't see how telling another worker to "check their privilege" is a productive way to engage them on issues of discrimination and oppression. Instead of challenging them on the basis of their "white privilege" and "male privilege," challenge them on the basis of behavior that reinforces racism and sexism. The difference might be hard to see, and in practice the two might seem co-occurring or even synonymous, but the difference is in the theory and in the terminology. Saying that one part of the working class is "privileged" relative to another is saying that their interests lie in maintaining the status quo, which is in turn dismissing their revolutionary potential - exactly the same as third-worldism.
I think that telling someone to "check their privilege" is somewhat meaningless if you don't also elaborate on what is is about their behaviour that is reinforcing some form of oppression. So personally I wouldn't tell someone to check their privilege, I would call out the specific behaviour.

For me, the part of privilege theory that I find especially useful is the way that it draws attention to the ways in which people subconsciously reinforce sexism, racism, etc., because as someone who isn't on the receiving end of that kind of oppression, they either don't know that it happens or they don't fully understand the context or why it reinforces structures of oppression. I find it useful both as a way of challenging myself when it comes to things like racism and transphobia which I don't experience, and a way of explaining to other people why certain behaviour contributes towards the oppression I do experience.

[synthesis]

As I understand it (though I must admit I'm not very knowledgeable about this so feel free to correct me), the word kyriarchy came about as a way of extending the notion of patriarchy to recognise the other intersecting forms of oppression. I've not personally heard anyone argue that being privileged in one way means that you can't be disadvantaged in another, so really I think this is a bit of a strawman. "Privilege theory" doesn't put everyone in a definitive ranking of least to most privileged, because there has to be more nuance to it than that.

Kyriarchy originated in the Harvard Divinity School, oddly enough. And I don't think the problem is "ranking" forms of privilege; it's in discarding the primacy of the exploitation of the working class to our system. Of course working class women generally suffer more than men from this exploitation; that doesn't change the fact that while capitalism could go on without sexism, it could not go on without exploiting the working class - hence the difference in the origins of their oppression.


A working class white male is obviously not privileged compared to a bourgeois black woman. But he would be privileged compared to a working class black woman, and due to living in a racist, sexist society balanced in his favour, he might be blind to the ways in which he helps to perpetuate such forms of oppression.

What does this "privilege" mean aside from the ways in which he perpetuates racism and sexism?


What is your understanding of "privilege theory"? Because as far as I can tell, within the revolutionary left it's mostly used as a slur against feminists and others who criticise their male or white comrades for not being willing to challenge their own behaviour.

Well, you objected to my initial characterization of the subject; it's not like I was applying it to something you said, or anything anyone else said in this thread, specifically. To answer your question, "privilege theory" in its purest form states that straight white males have opposite material interests to other groups; at its worst, it disregards class completely, and at its best, class in the Marxist sense is just another form of privilege rather than the basis of all oppression. Think third-worldism applied domestically; they come from the same ideological origins. Yes, "third-world" workers have it worse than "first-world" workers, but the question is the degree to which their interests diverge.

I think it would be just as productive to ask, "What is your understanding of this criticism of privilege theory?" Because it does seem like there is some misunderstanding going on here.


I don't think that's an entirely honest evaluation. It is in the material interests of all workers to overthrow the current order. If men are privileged by our patriarchal society, it doesn't mean that it is in their interests to keep the entire society as it is, but it often appears to be in their interests to maintain the oppression of women. Now, while a lot of women's oppression is inherently tied to capitalist oppression, I don't think that abolishing capitalism will magically make women's oppression disappear. As long as the bourgeois values that treat women and others who aren't men as less valuable (whether consciously or not) remain prevalent in the communist movement, the potential to create a truly liberated society isn't there. As long as women are the minute takers, the sandwich makers and the quiet voices while the men are the speakers, facilitators and the writers, and as long as rapists and rape apologists infest our movement, we cannot fight for an equal society.

I don't have any objection to almost all of this quote, except this part:


If men are privileged by our patriarchal society, it doesn't mean that it is in their interests to keep the entire society as it is, but it often appears to be in their interests to maintain the oppression of women.

And you could just as easily say, "If Israelis are privileged by Israeli apartheid, it doesn't mean it's in their interest to maintain capitalism, it often appears to be in the interests of Israeli workers to maintain the oppression of Palestinians." Sure, but does that make the Israeli worker a class enemy of the revolutionary working class, as privilege theory posits?


I think that telling someone to "check their privilege" is somewhat meaningless if you don't also elaborate on what is is about their behaviour that is reinforcing some form of oppression. So personally I wouldn't tell someone to check their privilege, I would call out the specific behaviour.

For me, the part of privilege theory that I find especially useful is the way that it draws attention to the ways in which people subconsciously reinforce sexism, racism, etc., because as someone who isn't on the receiving end of that kind of oppression, they either don't know that it happens or they don't fully understand the context or why it reinforces structures of oppression. I find it useful both as a way of challenging myself when it comes to things like racism and transphobia which I don't experience, and a way of explaining to other people why certain behaviour contributes towards the oppression I do experience.

If you find it useful for yourself, by all means continue utilizing it. Again, I don't think that correcting someone on behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, etc. requires an assessment of their "privilege."

[Quail]

Kyriarchy originated in the Harvard Divinity School, oddly enough. And I don't think the problem is "ranking" forms of privilege; it's in discarding the primacy of the exploitation of the working class to our system. Of course working class women generally suffer more than men from this exploitation; that doesn't change the fact that while capitalism could go on without sexism, it could not go on without exploiting the working class - hence the difference in the origins of their oppression.
Really I think this depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking a liberal who thinks that "classism" is comparable to sexism or racism then yes, you're right. But most if not all the people on the revolutionary left who talk about privilege do so knowing that it is impossible to eliminate oppression within the framework of capitalism.



What does this "privilege" mean aside from the ways in which he perpetuates racism and sexism?
The "privilege" is being ignorant of how ingrained sexism and racism are in our society, of not realising how and why certain behaviour perpetuates oppression and of being able to look at anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc., as something of less importance than fighting capitalism.



Well, you objected to my initial characterization of the subject; it's not like I was applying it to something you said, or anything anyone else said in this thread, specifically. To answer your question, "privilege theory" in its purest form states that straight white males have opposite material interests to other groups; at its worst, it disregards class completely, and at its best, class in the Marxist sense is just another form of privilege rather than the basis of all oppression. Think third-worldism applied domestically; they come from the same ideological origins. Yes, "third-world" workers have it worse than "first-world" workers, but the question is the degree to which their interests diverge.

I think it would be just as productive to ask, "What is your understanding of this criticism of privilege theory?" Because it does seem like there is some misunderstanding going on here.
I think you're criticising a position that I (and others who see some value in privilege theory) don't actually hold. Having male privilege doesn't put you into a separate class with opposing interests to those who don't, in the way that owning the means of production puts your interests at odds with those who don't. I don't think that is an accurate analogy. But it is in the interests of the male communists who currently dominate the movement to maintain their dominant position which naturally leads to a struggle which benefits them and ignores the specific needs of more marginalised people. Hence why there are fewer women and people of colour in the communist movement. Because it is organised by and for white men.



And you could just as easily say, "If Israelis are privileged by Israeli apartheid, it doesn't mean it's in their interest to maintain capitalism, it often appears to be in the interests of Israeli workers to maintain the oppression of Palestinians." Sure, but does that make the Israeli worker a class enemy of the revolutionary working class, as privilege theory posits?
I think I answered this above.



If you find it useful for yourself, by all means continue utilizing it. Again, I don't think that correcting someone on behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, etc. requires an assessment of their "privilege."
I disagree, because as I said above, assessing your privilege is useful in understanding why you were oblivious to how/why behaviour perpetuates oppression in the first place.

[synthesis]

Really I think this depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking a liberal who thinks that "classism" is comparable to sexism or racism then yes, you're right. But most if not all the people on the revolutionary left who talk about privilege do so knowing that it is impossible to eliminate oppression within the framework of capitalism.

Sure, I'll give you that. I still think they could do essentially everything they do without using an ideological framework that originated in the frustration of Maoist academics with the seeming lack of revolutionary inclinations in their local white male working class; here again we can see the parallels with the inherently dismissive qualities of third-worldism, not with specific people but with the theory upon which their specific approach is based.


The "privilege" is being ignorant of how ingrained sexism and racism are in our society, of not realising how and why certain behaviour perpetuates oppression and of being able to look at anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc., as something of less importance than fighting capitalism.

That doesn't sound like much of a privilege to me. Ignorance may be bliss, but is it a "privilege"? I thought that the privilege was not having to experience the specialized forms of oppression that "unprivileged" people do.

Of course, the obvious rejoinder is that it is indeed a privilege to be able to be ignorant of the subjective experience of specific kinds of oppression, but that's sort of the opposite of your argument. We all acknowledge that experiencing forms of oppression doesn't directly translate to a structural understanding of that oppression - well, except maybe Bea Arthur - and therefore you don't need to be in a "privileged group" to not understand structural oppression or to not understand how individual behavior perpetuates that oppression.

So again: what does "privilege" mean in that hypothetical scenario?


I think you're criticising a position that I (and others who see some value in privilege theory) don't actually hold. Having male privilege doesn't put you into a separate class with opposing interests to those who don't, in the way that owning the means of production puts your interests at odds with those who don't. I don't think that is an accurate analogy.

It is indeed an inaccurate analogy if a socialist is taking bits and pieces of privilege theory to challenge behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, etc. The problem is with privilege theory in its totality; the question, then, is what these bits and pieces can accomplish that other tactics cannot.


But it is in the interests of the male communists who currently dominate the movement to maintain their dominant position which naturally leads to a struggle which benefits them and ignores the specific needs of more marginalised people. Hence why there are fewer women and people of colour in the communist movement. Because it is organised by and for white men.

Prepare yourself for an odd question: How is it in their interest to maintain a dominant position in "the communist movement"? That is, on its face, an absurd thing to ask; what I mean is, what exactly are the material interests that are benefited by holding such a dominant position?

And how do you decide the point at which these "privileged" workers become so dominant that their material interests become antithetical to the revolutionary (and necessarily feminist) working class?


I disagree, because as I said above, assessing your privilege is useful in understanding why you were oblivious to how/why behaviour perpetuates oppression in the first place.This is more of a personal quibble, but I think one major problem I have is the assertion that it is a "privilege" to engage in behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, and LGBT-phobia. Leaving aside the fact that such behavior is obviously not exclusive to the "privileged" group, but can of course be engaged in by people from "unprivileged" groups who have internalized the framework of oppression, I question whether such behavior should be seen as a "privilege" rather than as simply behavior that needs to be corrected. The difference might seem small or even semantic, but I think it reflects a sizable gap in perspectives on the nature of oppression in capitalism.

Anyways. Can we agree on this: "Privilege theory can sometimes be useful in specific instances, but never necessary, and sometimes counter-productive?" I think that would be an acceptable compromise - a good compromise, of course, leaving neither side fully satisfied.

[Quail]

Sure, I'll give you that. I still think they could do essentially everything they do without using an ideological framework that originated in the frustration of Maoist academics with the seeming lack of revolutionary inclinations in their local white male working class; here again we can see the parallels with the inherently dismissive qualities of third-worldism, not with specific people but with the theory upon which their specific approach is based.
The widespread adoption of elements of "privilege theory" in anarchist circles is, as far as I am aware, in response to the rampant sexism (and racism, etc) and the unwillingness of male comrades to do anything about it.



That doesn't sound like much of a privilege to me. Ignorance may be bliss, but is it a "privilege"? I thought that the privilege was not having to experience the specialized forms of oppression that "unprivileged" people do.

Of course, the obvious rejoinder is that it is indeed a privilege to be able to be ignorant of the subjective experience of specific kinds of oppression, but that's sort of the opposite of your argument. We all acknowledge that experiencing forms of oppression doesn't directly translate to a structural understanding of that oppression - well, except maybe Bea Arthur - and therefore you don't need to be in a "privileged group" to not understand structural oppression or to not understand how individual behavior perpetuates that oppression.

So again: what does "privilege" mean in that hypothetical scenario?


The "privilege" is being ignorant of how ingrained sexism and racism are in our society, of not realising how and why certain behaviour perpetuates oppression and of being able to look at anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc., as something of less importance than fighting capitalism.
I would like to emphasise the bit in bold. For many male comrades it is all well and good for them to be against sexism in theory and not really do much else, because it doesn't really affect them so much. Their privilege allows them to be a part-time feminist or a feminist in name only. For those without male privilege it is a necessity to fight against our oppression on a daily basis.


It is indeed an inaccurate analogy if a socialist is taking bits and pieces of privilege theory to challenge behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, etc. The problem is with privilege theory in its totality; the question, then, is what these bits and pieces can accomplish that other tactics cannot.
Researching the forms of oppression you don't experience and examining how you might perpetuate such oppression or benefit from it is "checking your privilege" however you want to call it. I think that privilege theory is most useful in the context of understanding why the revolutionary communist movement is dominated by white men and figuring out how we can change that. Something that "privilege theory" advocates is listening to the people who experience a form of oppression. White men need to shut up and listen to women and people of colour and use that to inform how they organise in future. That is really the only way forward, but because this is so often dismissed as "identity politics" then it doesn't happen.



Prepare yourself for an odd question: How is it in their interest to maintain a dominant position in "the communist movement"? That is, on its face, an absurd thing to ask; what I mean is, what exactly are the material interests that are benefited by holding such a dominant position?

And how do you decide the point at which these "privileged" workers become so dominant that their material interests become antithetical to the revolutionary (and necessarily feminist) working class?

It benefits them because they don't have to do anything. They don't have to look at themselves and say, "I've been an anarchist for decades and I still don't know how to take minutes because I expect the women to do it - shit I'd better change (lol sorry something that really winds me up)" or change their behaviour in any way. They can continue organising in a way that excludes the most marginalised people in society and shouting them down when they suggest that something needs to change.

I think we're perhaps looking at this from a different perspective, but I think that when communists are organising in a way which actively alienates marginalised people and refuse to change they are already acting in a way which is harmful to the working class as a whole.

This maybe sounds rather bitter but I have been frustrated and disillusioned a lot lately at the complete and utter failure of communists in general to engage with the most marginalised sections of society.


This is more of a personal quibble, but I think one major problem I have is the assertion that it is a "privilege" to engage in behavior that reinforces racism, sexism, and LGBT-phobia. Leaving aside the fact that such behavior is obviously not exclusive to the "privileged" group, but can of course be engaged in by people from "unprivileged" groups who have internalized the framework of oppression, I question whether such behavior should be seen as a "privilege" rather than as simply behavior that needs to be corrected. The difference might seem small or even semantic, but I think it reflects a sizable gap in perspectives on the nature of oppression in capitalism.
Perhaps I'm getting tired but I'm a little confused by what you mean here. Of course it's behaviour that needs to be corrected, and it shouldn't be seen as a "privilege" to engage in behaviour which perpetuates oppression. But if you can engage in or witness such behaviour without consequences to yourself, then you have the "privilege" that you're not affected by it. You can go home and forget about it. People in marginalised groups can't do that.


Anyways. Can we agree on this: "Privilege theory can sometimes be useful in specific instances, but never necessary, and sometimes counter-productive?" I think that would be an acceptable compromise - a good compromise, of course, leaving neither side fully satisfied.
I will agree that privilege theory has both value and limitations. That is my compromise :P