Let's talk about privilege theory

[Rosa Partizan]

and especially how calling out certain privileges is used to shut down valid opinions. I used to be a big supporter of this stuff, but some feminist blog here in Germany is pushing it way too far. To sum it up a bit sharply: If you're white, cis and hetero, no matter if man or woman, you have to stfu. I've seen this today when they discussed Emma Watson's speech. The bottom line was: She shouldn't be speaking on behalf of women because she doesn't know the struggles of POCs, lesbians, transwomen etc (she even mentioned her awareness of having privileges in society, but this blog doesn't care, as always), so she's not in the position to talk about feminism and everything she said is only useful to white cis hetero women. This is something that happens regularly in these groups: You get shut down on nearly everything. Last time that happened to me I discussed that Nicki Minaj's representation doesn't look any different than big black booty-fetish stuff and that this type of sexuality probably wouldn't exist without the male gaze. Some black women called me "white feminist" and that her representation is "empowering her very own sexuality". Yeah, whatever.

So, when do you think that throwing in privilege is correct and when is it misused? Just write whatever comes to your mind, I really don't care, just wanna discuss it.

[DOOM]

I still don't get how it's empowering to shake your ass in front of white label bosses to still their lust and need for money.
It's basically commodification of the female body part 234618

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Having said all of that, in your run-of-the-mill discussions on more general day-to-day concepts (such as the idiocy that is Nicky Minaj), I don't think that an opinion is necessarily less valid for its authors race, gender or sexuality, unless it involves the sort of subject material where their characteristics would make their opinion less valid (a man talking about rape, for example).

[Sasha]

i got told to "check my privilege" a while back by an so called "abolitionist" in a debate on sex-work.
i still dont know what that means as i'm pretty sure that i have been a lot closer to sex-work and sex-workers than she will ever be.
it has become a really pathetic cop-out.

now obviously privilege is a real thing, and we should all be aware of it and how it affect us and those arround us but like all in essence sensible theory people whill always run with it and abuse it (and germans are the best at that ;-) )

[Quail]

I think in spaces where "privilege theory" is dominant it's important to note that there is a difference between using an awareness of privilege to ensure that marginalised groups get the space and opportunity to discuss the oppression they face and how to fight against it, and abusing the idea of privilege in order to shut down a conversation.

On one hand, it's not appropriate for a man to lecture a woman about feminism and dominate the conversation - because enough of that happens in the world in general, and also privilege can make a person blind to just how pervasive oppression is, so I think we would all benefit from shutting up and listening to people who experience forms of oppression that we don't, to get their perspectives even if we don't agree 100% with their politics. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the idea that someone who does benefit from certain privileges can have some kind of understanding of oppression. People who educate themselves, who actively engage with marginalised people and their struggles against oppression can have a good understanding of how that stuff works. I don't think it's healthy to dismiss their opinions purely on the basis that they're (for example) a white straight man, unless obviously they're making some tired old strawman that everyone is sick of hearing/unpicking.

[Creative Destruction]

i got told to "check my privilege" a while back by an so called "abolitionist" in a debate on sex-work.
i still dont know what that means as i'm pretty sure that i have been a lot closer to sex-work and sex-workers than she will ever be.
it has become a really pathetic cop-out.

now obviously privilege is a real thing, and we should all be aware of it and how it affect us and those arround us but like all in essence sensible theory people whill always run with it and abuse it (and germans are the best at that ;-) )

"check your privilege" seems to come from tumblr armchair warriors. it's annoying as shit.

[Lily Briscoe]

I think the sort of feminists who don't have anything better to talk about than female celebrities shaking their asses are probably a complete lost cause anyway.

[ColumnNo.4]

I think everyone should be aware of certain privileges awarded them by their sex, race, etc. however that shouldn't exclude them from discussion.

[Lily Briscoe]

On the main topic of the thread, though, I don't think privilege theory is a useful tool for understanding structural oppression. It's basically an academic fad that came out of the Maoist-influenced American 'New Left', and the political implications of it are pretty consistent with its origins. I mean, the whole idea that not experiencing whatever kind of special oppression constitutes 'privilege' ends up in some really bizarre conclusions, such as white chronically-homeless men being structurally 'privileged' in all kinds of ways, or 99% (or whatever) of working class people being privileged by virtue of not being trans. It's an ideology that could be easily adapted to justify austerity measures and general attacks on supposedly "privileged" sections of the working class.

Also, with regard to the OP, I think it's pretty telling that internet privilege theorists view Emma Watson's privileges in terms of her being "white, cis, and hetero" rather than in terms of her being, you know, a celebrity multi-millionare... Perhaps Oprah would have been a better choice.

[Lily Briscoe]

So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

What is on 'their mind'? 'Minority groups' tend to have the same kinds of divisions and differences in opinion and perspective that you find among 'non-minority groups'...

[Devrim]

Yes, it's quite ironic that the proponents of privilege theory come from America academia, certainly one of the most privileged (in the real sense of the word) groups in the world.

It's a load of reactionary sociological nonsense.

Devrim

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Privilege theory is an inherently liberal concept and should have no place in revolutionary leftist discussions. It is incredibly reductionistic to the point of absurdity and worthlessness.

The reasons for the "privilege" of different groups honestly depend on that group and the aspects of "privilege" are so disparate that it's difficult to really address them all in one statement.

For example, society views the straight cis white male as the sort of "standard" human being, and this is viewed as an example of "privilege". In reality, the issue doesn't go very deep: straight cisgender white people are a majority of the population of the United States (in the creation of cultural material, people tend to either seek to emulate themselves or the median person) and in the case of whites the most consistently demographically present (so much of the already existing cultural material is centered on these groups). As for gender: males have, throughout human history, tended to dominate the public sphere where females dominate the domestic sphere. Because of this, males tend to be more "visible".

The fact that men tend to end up in the public sphere where women end up in the domestic sphere is worthy of being discussed in itself. I don't really think this is an example of "male privilege" in any meaningful sense. The reasoning for this comes from the interaction of biology and the environment/material conditions in which humans live. The inclinations and physical traits of the human sexes lend themselves to the establishment of gender norms - not at all unlike any other animal. These norms vary as the material conditions of a given society develop over time. A big problem here is the fact that the domestic sphere is very much marginalized where it is, in fact, a very important part of society. The real reason why, for instance, full-time parents (of either gender, but obviously these would tend to be mothers) are not given the respect they deserve - is that this labor cannot be exploited by a capitalist. More generally, the whole liberal individualist ideology tends to value visible individual public figures (the "great man" theory of history). In that sense, I don't think it a bold prediction to say that a post-capitalistic society would entail greater respect both for the traditional labor of women and the decision of some men and women to go against the norm for their gender. The latter of these is already happening to some extent within the context of capitalist society, but it is meaningless without (and true equality of the genders cannot be attained without) the former. The solution to the problem of gender equality, then, is the abolition of capitalism.

It's sort of similar with "white privilege". People of African ancestry in particular have been at a great historical disadvantage throughout their time in the Americas - but throughout the past 150 years, proletarian whites have been similarly disadvantaged. One thing people often point to is the difference in IQ between races, and how groups such as Asians and Jews which average higher IQs than whites, tend to be more successful. The problem with this is that intelligence as measured by IQ (rational/logical intelligence) may be a important trait, but is not the only important trait - it holds no intrinsic value greater than that of, say, creativity or athletic ability. The reason it is elevated to such a high status is that it strongly correlates with traits favored by the market in the modern day. The problem of racial inequality cannot be solved by affirmative action programs which, rather than challenging the genuine privilege of rich whites, punish the most disadvantaged whites at the expense of the least disadvantaged people of minority groups. Rather, it can only be solved through the abolition of capitalism.

(well this is my first post in a while)

[Skyhilist]

I used to be pretty reactionary with regards to this and deny white privilege - wish I could go back and straighten myself the fuck out tbh. It's obvious that groups like white's have more privilege. But in terms of the official "white privilege theory", I do have my reservations about that, because the theory seems to assume that a certain amount of privilege is always inherent, and seems to imply that the amount of privilege that a group has over time is static and unchanging, which I don't really see as true. I might just be misinterpreting what the theory is saying itself though tbh.

[The Feral Underclass]

The notion that a black woman is not at a social disadvantage and experiences society differently because of her race and gender, to a white man based on his race and gender, who experiences the same society at an advantage, is demonstrably true. You can literally identify how this a fact. Dismissing that as "liberal" or suggest it is "reactionary" to identify it, is pointedly absurd.

[The Feral Underclass]

Privilege theory is an inherently liberal concept and should have no place in revolutionary leftist discussions. It is incredibly reductionistic to the point of absurdity and worthlessness.

The reasons for the "privilege" of different groups honestly depend on that group and the aspects of "privilege" are so disparate that it's difficult to really address them all in one statement.

For example, society views the straight cis white male as the sort of "standard" human being, and this is viewed as an example of "privilege". In reality, the issue doesn't go very deep: straight cisgender white people are a majority of the population of the United States (in the creation of cultural material, people tend to either seek to emulate themselves or the median person) and in the case of whites the most consistently demographically present (so much of the already existing cultural material is centered on these groups). As for gender: males have, throughout human history, tended to dominate the public sphere where females dominate the domestic sphere. Because of this, males tend to be more "visible".

The fact that men tend to end up in the public sphere where women end up in the domestic sphere is worthy of being discussed in itself. I don't really think this is an example of "male privilege" in any meaningful sense. The reasoning for this comes from the interaction of biology and the environment/material conditions in which humans live. The inclinations and physical traits of the human sexes lend themselves to the establishment of gender norms - not at all unlike any other animal. These norms vary as the material conditions of a given society develop over time. A big problem here is the fact that the domestic sphere is very much marginalized where it is, in fact, a very important part of society. The real reason why, for instance, full-time parents (of either gender, but obviously these would tend to be mothers) are not given the respect they deserve - is that this labor cannot be exploited by a capitalist. More generally, the whole liberal individualist ideology tends to value visible individual public figures (the "great man" theory of history). In that sense, I don't think it a bold prediction to say that a post-capitalistic society would entail greater respect both for the traditional labor of women and the decision of some men and women to go against the norm for their gender. The latter of these is already happening to some extent within the context of capitalist society, but it is meaningless without (and true equality of the genders cannot be attained without) the former. The solution to the problem of gender equality, then, is the abolition of capitalism.

It's sort of similar with "white privilege". People of African ancestry in particular have been at a great historical disadvantage throughout their time in the Americas - but throughout the past 150 years, proletarian whites have been similarly disadvantaged. One thing people often point to is the difference in IQ between races, and how groups such as Asians and Jews which average higher IQs than whites, tend to be more successful. The problem with this is that intelligence as measured by IQ (rational/logical intelligence) may be a important trait, but is not the only important trait - it holds no intrinsic value greater than that of, say, creativity or athletic ability. The reason it is elevated to such a high status is that it strongly correlates with traits favored by the market in the modern day. The problem of racial inequality cannot be solved by affirmative action programs which, rather than challenging the genuine privilege of rich whites, punish the most disadvantaged whites at the expense of the least disadvantaged people of minority groups. Rather, it can only be solved through the abolition of capitalism.

(well this is my first post in a while)

The fundamental premise of your argument is that privilege theory negates the desire to abolish capitalism. That is untrue. Privilege theory is not an alternative to anti-capitalism, it is simply a way of understanding that struggles for liberation are not simply confined to economics.

Do you think that when capitalism is suddenly abolished, male attitudes towards women are suddenly going to disappear? That the entire working class are going to suddenly stop dividing male and female social roles, or stop enforcing gender binaries or realise that heterosexual culture is domineering? You can see in revolutionary practice how men replicate the same patriarchal dynamics even though they call themselves communists. Look at how many sexual assaults against women occur in revolutionary organisations and the way they are covered up? Another example being how often in far-left gatherings, women end up performing the same domestic tasks as in the traditional home, i.e. cooking, cleaning etc, and men are perfectly comfortable to allow that to happen.

Millennia of social oppression against women and black people and gay people isn't going to disappear just because the economic basis of society has changed. Those oppressions are engrained in our social functioning and attitudes and require identifying; they have to be challenged concurrently with the quest to abolish capitalism. All that privilege theory does is identify what those oppressions are, how they manifest themselves and how you combat them in your daily life and struggle. Why do you object to that? The problem with these threads is that none of the critics of privilege theory ever understand it. Especially idiots like Devrim who are still stuck in the 1970s.

My suggestion to people like him is update your fucking politics and deal with it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, it's quite ironic that the proponents of privilege theory come from America academia, certainly one of the most privileged (in the real sense of the word) groups in the world.

So you acknowledge that privilege exists, then?

[Devrim]

So you acknowledge that privilege exists, then?

Of course there is privilege in the world. It just doesn't correspond to anything that comes out of privilege theory at all.


Especially idiots like Devrim who are still stuck in the 1970s.

My suggestion to people like him is update your fucking politics and deal with it.

I'm not getting into a discussion with you as I think you are rude, abusive, and don't have anything interesting to say.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course there is privilege in the world. It just doesn't correspond to anything that comes out of privilege theory at all.

That sentence literally makes no sense. If you acknowledge that social groups have advantages (privilege) that other social groups do not, then privilege theory clearly does have something to say and clearly does correspond to your thinking.


I'm not getting into a discussion with you as I think you are rude, abusive, and don't have anything interesting to say.

Devrim

That's perfectly fine with me. I have enough sexist, old men to deal with in my daily life without adding you into the mix.

[Palmares]

This is something I've said in the past:


For me at least, I think one important point is how the obsession with certain social struggles detracts from the greater totality. Of course there needs to be a balance between the totality and the necessary parts, as they are dependent on each other.

However, on a more day-to-day level, the way one may experience this (and thus critique it), is how extreme PC analysis can lose the point of critiquing oppression in the first place, whilst also becoming extremely divisive, and for me, also creating a consciousness of hyper-sensitivity (from within this mentality of self-victimisation).

In my past, I have been a very PC person. I admit, I have been an arsehole. I have also called out douchebags on their shit. It's a tough balance, and to some degree, I'm still trying to disamantle/unlearn some of the ultra-PC consciousness that has been instilled in me (whilst also resisting becoming a disrespectful un-PC fuckhead).

For example, if someone says something sexist, then call them on their shit. However, this act in of itself does not make someone "fucked". Everyone makes mistakes. We all live under the same structures of oppression, so noone is perfectly onto it. So yeah, tell them off, in a diplomatic non-devisive way. Unless they say something really fucked, then, well, it's one's own prerogative to tell them off as they see necessary. It's definitely not clear cut. But hey, if you were to tell every single person you meet in every context for all the mistakes they make... you'll have few friends, and certainly won't be gathering allies to building any sort of movement.

I remember, there were times when I was sensitive to so many words that people I knew would say. I was obviously hanging out in less PC communities at these times. I would feel so tense. I would feel so angry. I started to realise this was a real problem. Sure, tell people off when they say shit stuff, but it's not appropriate in all contexts, and is not sustainable.

And in practice now, I still admit it can be sometimes difficult to ascertain when is the right context to "call someone out" or similar, but at least I feel I can now better communicate and socialise with people outside of PC communities without feeling (more) anxious about what words people use, etc.

To add to that, I think the, what people call, "oppression olympics" is a very dangerous precedent that is becoming normalised in some western radical communities. It's basically a competition of who is the most oppressed, but in a weird turn of events, the focus shifts to the "guilt" of the "oppressors". It's a way for some people to weld large amounts of social capital, and is simply (re)creating rules and hierarchy, using "privilege" as a smokescreen.

But you know, then the difficult part is to not react to such dogma with equally ignorant dogma of the opposite scale. Just because someone calls you a "white devil" doesn't mean you should join the KKK...

I remember a ridiculous example of the "oppression olympics" I witnessed was from this "trans-femme-boy" I knew. I have no issue what they identify as, however, I had in the past been suspicious of their superficial politics. This became much more evident to most, when years later they (after spending alot of time with ultra-PC folk in the US) starting calling people out here in Australia for transphobia. However, they misjudged how much social capital they had compared to those they were calling out. Thankfully, my friend who had doubted me for so long, finally saw idiocy that was this person. They simply wanted to kick out some "cis-men" from their house. Like, sure, they don't have to live with cis-men if they don't want to, but it became clear they moved into this house with those guys already in their thinking they could kick them out afterwards. Nasty. But of course, there were still those of believed them.

But the story doesn't end there.

They returned to the US. Good riddance. But... I remember I came across their tumblr (trendy quipster!) one time, and witnessed that they were being publicly called out on there for "cultural appropriation". Apparently, they had been spotted at some big queer gatherings with dreadlocks. :lol:

This was the stupidest, but also funniest thing I've ever seen! Someone who calls people out on nothing, being "out oppressed" by some POC folk. All a bunch of idiots to me, but funny to witness. Getting some of their own medicine. :laugh:

Got loads more stories, but that's one of my favourites!

[Rugged Collectivist]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Having said all of that, in your run-of-the-mill discussions on more general day-to-day concepts (such as the idiocy that is Nicky Minaj), I don't think that an opinion is necessarily less valid for its authors race, gender or sexuality, unless it involves the sort of subject material where their characteristics would make their opinion less valid (a man talking about rape, for example).

So, why is it okay for straight white guys to talk about Nicki Minaj's ass, but not rape or the basis of feminism? What criteria are you using to sort these topics?

TBH the first few posts of this thread sound like "it's okay to call people out, as long as it's not me"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I won't claim to be an expert on it, but on the surface it does appear to have legitimacy. In reality though, I cannot say that I have seen it used very constructively in any sense. Instead for the most part I have so far seen it used to tear down and even completely alienate people who might otherwise be allies. It is also used to attack legitimate enemies sure, but has that ability ever been something that we, we being people opposed to the present way of things, ever lacked? For right now it appears to be a useful tool that people are for whatever reason unable to wield properly and as a result ends up doing more harm than good.

[Sasha]

TBH the first few posts of this thread sound like "it's okay to call people out, as long as it's not me"

oh no, i really appreciate and are open to being called out on shit i actually do, its essential and humbling and educational.

i am though completely allergic for people trying to enforce a hive mind/group think.
and sadly in certain circles, being less privileged has started, within the discussion of privilege (!!!), being wielded as a privilege itself. "i'm a female/queer/black/handicapped etc etc so only i can be right, you need to shut up and everyone should adhere to my opinion."

for example you have, and that was related to my wisecrack about germans where this i quite influential in certain radical scenes, a tendency related to privilege theory called "the power of definition" where it is said that only the victim of an act of aggression/oppression can define what happened to them.
which i agree in so far that it acknowledges that the personal subjective perspective of the victim matters, should be recognized and communicated to the perpetrator. If you feel discriminated or sexual assaulted you are victimized, no matter the circumstances, intentions etc etc, that should be acknowledged and not brushed aside and people should work to make you feel safe etc again.
but that doesn't mean that the collective, in how she should deal with the situation, doesnt get to to formulate a subjective interpretation as well, that only the subjective experience of the victim is true for the collective too.

privilige theory is very useful and important, and so can many of the theory and praxis formulated from/uppon it (like the power of definition) but like with every theory you can run with it and end up at completely opposite and even insane positions.

like anti-germanism had at its basis a correct analysis of the problem of structural and unrecognized anti-semitism in the radical left and western society doesnt mean you should end up supporting the bombing of iraq by the US, privilige theory shouldnt mean that on a 35 degrees hot mid summer anti-coal climate action camp every workshop and meeting should be dominated by a very small number of insane people who feel no relation anyway to the actual subject of the camp demanding that men should not take of their shirts in public at all when they are over heating because one single person feels sexual intimidated by that and she as a female and sexual assault survivor gets to decide what is sexual intimidation and the opinions of every other person, male and female, will be held against the privilege scales by a self appointed tribunal (yes this happened). at a certain point the collective should just be able to say, we understand your position, we gave them a lot of though and dont want to diminish your feelings but have to respectfully request you to not further disrupt this important thing we spend months preparing, so either accept how far we have gone to accommodate you as much as possible or you should just leave.

[Palmares]

anti-germanism

You mean like the anti-Deutsch? I remember them from my time in Germany. Zionists! I remember at the G8 in Germany all those years ago I met an Israeli anarchist who was touring around Germany doing talks explaining how stupid the anti-Deutsch was. They told me, "There's no anti-Deutsch in Israel!" :lol:

[Sasha]

like we say here in holland, nothing is more german than the anti-germans..

[Rosa Partizan]

nice that you mention this taking one's shirt off-thing.
Once there was a punk show in that autonomous venue and the drummer took off his shirt, cause you know, playing drums is really exhausting and it can heat up as hell there. There was this feminist (we all know that special dreadlock jute bag-type) and she went crazy like "this is molesting and triggering, girls can't do that, he's exercising male privilege blah blah". I'm all for societal conscience and I'm for women being able to walk around topless, but I know there are a ton of assholes that would make them feel uncomfortable. Still, it doesn't help if guys keep their shirts on. I got another analogy, from the same blog I was writing about: They went like, hetero couples should maybe not kiss in public, because with kissing, they reproduce heteronormativity, they exercise their privilege and make it difficult for gay couples to feel comfortable with their homosexuality, knowing that in many places, gay couples can't do that. So in how far is it helpful for gays when heteros stop kissing? I wouldn't do it at a gay pride event or stuff, but in a daily situation? It's like someone's drowning, you're sitting in a boat and instead of pulling him in the boat, you jump in the water saying "look, I'm giving up my privilege".

[Rafiq]

That sentence literally makes no sense. If you acknowledge that social groups have advantages (privilege) that other social groups do not, then privilege theory clearly does have something to say and clearly does correspond to your thinking.


No, the problem isn't recognizing that "privilege" exists. It has existed since the dawn of class society. It is the fundamental implications drawn from this that are alien to any class based politics. Privilege theory is worthless because it is inconsistent. Who are you to decide where it ends? Yes, *technically* cis privilege exists *technically* thin privilege exists, yes, *technically* non-handicapped privilege exists, and I could go on. The point of Communists is to recognize this:

That racial, or sexual groups do not constitute real social groups, and that if they do - this is a result of the absence of Communist politics, not solely a system of privilege. That isn't to say feminist or anti racist struggles aren't our struggles too.

Privilege theory pacifies, and makes harmless the struggle for emancipation and the fighting spirit. Privilege theory sustains the system of racial and sexual oppression by revoking its lineage to the universal oppression of the worker. It pitifully victimizes, rather than empowers those who are "un-privileged". It is perfectly synonymous with a cry for sustainability of capitalism - it reduces oppression to a series of guilt inducing privileges by which all are culprits, somehow. It thereby reduces all class oppression to this logic, and because we are all equally culprits, exploitation doesn't even factor in. We must all be aware of our "privileges" and act in accordance.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

for example you have, and that was related to my wisecrack about germans where this i quite influential in certain radical scenes, a tendency related to privilege theory called "the power of definition" where it is said that only the victim of an act of aggression/oppression can define what happened to them.

which i agree in so far that it acknowledges that the personal subjective perspective of the victim matters, should be recognized and communicated to the perpetrator. If you feel discriminated or sexual assaulted you are victimized, no matter the circumstances, intentions etc etc, that should be acknowledged and not brushed aside and people should work to make you feel safe etc again.

but that doesn't mean that the collective, in how she should deal with the situation, doesnt get to to formulate a subjective interpretation as well, that only the subjective experience of the victim is true for the collective too.

I honestly think this talk of "subjective interpretation" is just dancing around the issue - oppression and harm are real, objective phenomena. As such, it is entirely possible that someone will claim to be oppressed or harasses when nothing of the sort has happened. This does not mean we ought to dismiss every complaint automatically, far from it (although that is something certain groups who swear by privilege theory do), but it does mean that we can tell that homophobic dude that, no, he wasn't harassed by another dude hitting on him.

[consuming negativity]

"Hey, people are sort of ignorant about things that they don't experience" is not really a revolutionary idea. It's one of those psycho-sociological concepts that seems obvious when you think about it, and has been turned into some great theory as if the idea of ignorance is somehow new or limited to white people in Western countries. And really, I think most of the people who say "check your privilege" must be internet trolls or like, 14 years old. I've never encountered any adult feminists, LGBT activists, or anybody who actually seriously says "check your privilege" to people like some ridiculous catch phrase. The whole thing has been turned into a hollow caricature of human rights movements, casting us as decadent yuppie liberals that are equally as ignorant as those with prejudice. And it, unfortunately, makes it hard to get rid of the ignorance. The idea behind it is sound, but it's obfuscated behind a bunch of smoke and mirrors to the point of being meaningless. I've found I get taken much more seriously if I explain the ideas without the loaded language; most people are generally accepting and go "yeah, I agree, but look at these ~*~tumblr feminists~*~"... kind of like how you can't say you're a socialist without being called Obama, a communist without being called Stalin, a feminist without someone going "eww, armpit hair", or any of the other excuses people use so that they don't have to argue against ideas based on their actual merit. It would probably do us better to follow the lead of corporations... say it's a brand new thing, give it a brand new label, and then say "oh no, we don't like that shit, we like this" and sell them the exact same idea. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Who are you to decide where it ends?

That's the point. A great deal of the time, white, straight and male people tend to self-proclaim their opinions as the 'expert' or 'common sense' opinion on, respectively, issues to do with race, sexuality, and gender, much like you hear a lot of bigwig, tenured academics waxing lyrical about 'all the poverty'.


That racial, or sexual groups do not constitute real social groups

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. You have just asked who are we to make decisions on privilege, now you, you alone, have decided that black people are mistaken in thinking they have a common identity, that gay people do not experience a shared identity etc.


Privilege theory pacifies, and makes harmless the struggle for emancipation and the fighting spirit.


I don't think it does. It seems to me that it does the opposite - that women, people of colour, and gay people, can fight for their own spaces to share amongst themselves and other their experiences, and can fight for the space in society in general to have their struggles recognised, respected, and acted upon.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Left-wingers have been analyzing the experiences of disenfranchised groups within society long before privilege theory. Privilege theory was born out of the academic discourse of the New Left. Before that time period discussion within the left about non-class related discrimination was more muted, but it definitely existed, see for example Emma Goldman's (who, as a female anarchist communist of Jewish descent, wasn't exactly high on the societal totem pole) writings on the subject. I don't really see privilege theory as advancing upon previous discourse really, and in some ways it has developed into some really ridiculous nonsense, like people who have thin privilege, people who don't have red hair having privilege, subcultural-related discrimination compared to racism, etc. Although it's probably true that the increase in attention to social issues which the left prior to the 1960's may have not given enough thought to (especially in regards to homosexuality) was a positive development.

Generally if someone wants to exclude me in a discussion about privilege theory, though, I'm OK with that because it's not something that I'm particular interested in discussing anyway LOL

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"check your privilege" seems to come from tumblr armchair warriors. it's annoying as shit.

See, I think we really need to grapple with this, because "check your privilege" might spill out of the mouths/keyboards of self-rightous tumblr-warrior oppression-Olympians, but it doesn't come from them in the long view.

So, like, I think we can trace the concepts that now get articulated as "privilege" (in all sorts of contradictory ways!) back to sources like W.E.B. Dubois, or, in a more complete form, to the Combahee River Collective (of whice Audre Lorde was a member). And to be real, that's some good shit we need to seriously study and understand. Crucially, these analyses see the total transformation of society as necessary responses to realities of privilege as part of totalizing system (rather than a piecemeal process of adding and subtracting point on an individualized basis).

For what I believe is more nuanced critique then many put forward on The Left (tm), I highly recommend checking out Andrea Smith's The Problem with "Privilege" (http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/).

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's not fun to get hoisted on your own privilege theory petard, is it? :lol:

[Revolver]

I do not know if there is a single "privilege theory" that can be deconstructed, since proponents range from American liberals to Maoists. My concern with the privilege theory, as I have seen it played out in academic circles and politically as well, is that it conceals the material basis of the very oppression it obsesses over. I find it difficult to understand certain "anti-racist" activists who adopt this analysis, for example Tim Wise or Noel Ignatiev, because the consequences of their political analysis are murky at best. What does it mean to "abolish whiteness" as Ignatiev suggests? What does it mean to say that "we will have to attack white racism and substantially diminish it" before class abolition becomes possible? Because it is very easy to adopt their views without any revolutionary commitment, and it is very easy for their reformist projects to lead to reactionary outcomes.

I suppose one easy way of looking at this is to consider the issue of affirmative action. Clearly, support of affirmative action is associated with American liberalism or the vague contours of the "American left" such that it exists today. I know that Tim Wise supports it, not sure about Ignatiev (and it is somewhat ironic that the prominent proponents of this theory are often straight white males). But what does the support of race conscious policies produce? We know that the outcomes have been abysmal, although there are clearly countervailing forces that undermine already weak race conscious policies as well that must be taken into account. Beyond the policy outcomes, I would argue that they are also producing more sectarianism (identity politics and new group demands) and even reinforcing the concept of "whiteness" and white privilege that these proponents of privilege theory disclaim on moral grounds. So how does this privilege theory advance the egalitarianism it was designed to support?

There are other examples as well, arguably less contentious than affirmative action. Consider the campaign to campaigns to correct the racial imbalances of the drug war and mass incarceration. In California, a recent product is SB 1010, which reduces the penalty for possession of cocaine base (crack) to the same penalties for powder cocaine. But note that the penalty for possession of the drug remains a felony! This is at best an “incremental” reform that will modify but not eliminate terms of incarceration and the debilitating impact of a felony record. But an examination of the history of the disparity itself reveals how clueless the “privilege” standpoint epistemology can truly be: The federal disparity, ramped up by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, was at the time widely supported by black representatives. In 1989, Ebony Magazine (http://books.google.com/books?id=3NQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false) was profiling Charles Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, Deputy Whip and a strong proponent of anti-drug legislation, as “The Front Line General in the War on Drugs,” in which he expressed outrage that drug legalization was even being debated, calling it “moral and political suicide.” His position on drug policy did not begin to change until about 2007, when he became a proponent of relaxing the disparity and claimed that “well-intentioned” lawmakers “besieged” by the “crack epidemic” may have made inadvertent errors in judgment.

Why does the example of Rangel matter? Because his perspective is thoroughly encapsulated by the kind of “anti-racist” radicalism Ignatiev and Wise promote. Rangel’s support of mass incarceration and drug criminalization is a product of his underlying concern for equality of opportunity for racial and ethnic minorities. Today it would be impossible to square that circle, given the harsh reality of the racially imbalanced criminal law policies in America, but in 1986 it was consistent with the privilege theory and its proponents. If you read the Ebony article, you will see Rangel framing it exactly this way, and today the historical support for draconian drug laws in the black community (http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/16/212620886/the-shift-in-black-views-of-the-war-on-drugs) is considered “controversial” because academics like Michelle Alexander, the author of The New Jim Crow, whose husband is now a US Attorney enforcing federal drug laws, who says she worries that current drug reform efforts (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2014/mar/10/new_jim_crow_michelle_alexander_talk) are driven by fiscal concerns as opposed to moral imperative, have cast the drug war as a racist project that “was launched as a way of trying to appeal to poor and working-class white voters,” identifying blacks as the enemy.

Well that does sound somewhat radical and edgy, doesn’t it? But then we have Tim Wise interviewing (http://www.timwise.org/2012/07/racism-and-the-new-jim-crow-dialogue-with-michelle-alexander/) Alexander and she’s calling for a new “moral” consensus, for making “appeals...that create moments...that are genuinely transformational” because they point to a deep human connection beyond economics or politics, a “spiritual” connection. Wise also goes on about the ability to “conceptualize...self and other” in some sort of “collective” way, and although he harps on about the economic crisis and uses some sort of weird economic analysis of “the system,” including the way that “white folks” can no longer rely on the psychological “wages of whiteness,” he concludes that “what white folks need to understand is not just that inequality is...expensive...but...has set white people up...for a commitment to a value system” that will “batter them” in the long term. His solution? Attacking “psychological” damage created by US individualism to promote “solidarity,” or something.

What is infuriating about this is easy enough to identify: They are using the language of Marxism and engaging in a kind of surface analysis that resembles Marxism, but it translates as a very vague and politically confused prioritization of racial politics and murky appeals to “values” and “spirituality” and “morality.” This is very far removed from the materialist analysis that begins with an examination of deeper productive forces and the way in which production generates and determines class relationships. What Wise calls “a vulgar form of class reductionism (http://www.timwise.org/2010/08/with-friends-like-these-who-needs-glenn-beck-racism-and-white-privilege-on-the-liberal-left/)” is, his misleading caricature aside, the only way to discern who actually benefits from this so-called “system” that must be combated “spiritually,” per Alexander and Wise. This is rejected by Wise and similar proponents of “privilege theory” because , he argues, “racism affects the lives of people of color quite apart from the class system.” He demonstrates that this is the case by showing that white workers suffer comparably shorter periods of unemployment, that middle class and affluent blacks are still subject to racial profiling and discrimination in the market, etc. But this is confusion, of course: Class is not “middle” or “upper” or a discrete point along a continuum of income and wealth distribution, it is one’s relationship to the means of production.

This gets me back to the issue at hand: Privilege theory, at both a theoretical level as well as at an operational level, is often used to conceal the actual source of the social and economic inequality it blames on “whiteness” or “heterosexism” or what have you. Unsurprisingly, its proponents often respond with patronage solutions that exacerbate and perpetuate the existence of the social status that gave rise to the existing privilege in the first place and opens the door to new ones. And while people like Wise suggest that “white privilege,” which consists of “unearned” material advantages as well as the “privilege” of being spared from mass incarceration and other abuses, doesn’t do much for white workers, how on earth would you rally white workers and black workers around a program that is wholly concerned with dismantling a racial power structure, perhaps through new patronage for minorities, without much promise to the poor white “beneficiaries” of this system? The answer, of course, is that you don’t; paltry affirmative action policies are in tatters and on the brink of extinction, and the only way you are likely to “even the playing field” on issues like racial profiling is by increasing state surveillance, which simply means a net loss of the “privilege” of not being subjected to harassment by a police state.

This is not to suggest that the issues of race, gender, sexuality and the like are not important, or “mere epiphenomena.” They are interlocking factors; on this point I do not disagree with proponents of privilege theory who emphasize the need to study the interrelationships between the “axes of identity,” like race, religion, sexuality, gender or “socioeconomic status.” But I strongly disagree with any attempt to assign those categories the primary role reserved for class. And the reason for that is very simple: The production process exerts the primary influence over the conscious experience of the “superstructure,” and the class relationships are rooted in the relationship to the production process. If you do not have that analytical framework, you do not have class struggle and your politics will begin to reflect it.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, the problem isn't recognizing that "privilege" exists. It has existed since the dawn of class society. It is the fundamental implications drawn from this that are alien to any class based politics.

Well I reject the idea that it's alien and instead assert that it is complimentary to class based politics.


Privilege theory is worthless because it is inconsistent. Who are you to decide where it ends? Yes, *technically* cis privilege exists *technically* thin privilege exists, yes, *technically* non-handicapped privilege exists, and I could go on. The point of Communists is to recognize this:

That racial, or sexual groups do not constitute real social groups, and that if they do - this is a result of the absence of Communist politics, not solely a system of privilege. That isn't to say feminist or anti racist struggles aren't our struggles too.

But then what are those struggles? You talk about "feminist struggle" and "racist struggle," but what are they actually? What are trans struggles and gay struggles?

If they are not the daily struggle against the engrained covert oppression that exists between social relationships then what are they? Are you denying that oppression exists on a covert level? When a straight couple can walk down the street holding hands but a gay couple cannot, what is that? What is that social dynamic? When a man sits on a bus with his legs wide apart without consideration for those around him, what does that attitude signify? Where has it come from? When a man talks over a woman in a meeting, what is that phenomenon? But more than that, how does it situate the man in relation to the woman? When a straight, white man rejects the idea that a black, gay woman is more socially disadvantaged than him, what does that reinforce? What does that symbolise? How is the power-relationship of that dynamic expressed in that moment?


Privilege theory pacifies, and makes harmless the struggle for emancipation and the fighting spirit. Privilege theory sustains the system of racial and sexual oppression by revoking its lineage to the universal oppression of the worker. It pitifully victimizes, rather than empowers those who are "un-privileged". It is perfectly synonymous with a cry for sustainability of capitalism - it reduces oppression to a series of guilt inducing privileges by which all are culprits, somehow. It thereby reduces all class oppression to this logic, and because we are all equally culprits, exploitation doesn't even factor in. We must all be aware of our "privileges" and act in accordance.

Ugh. For fuck sake.

This argument of yours is entirely a fabrication of your mind. It relates in no way to privilege theory as it is intended. The idea of privilege recognises that in society certain human beings experience society at an advantage and that those advantages are not just overt economic ones, but are covert, subtle cultural and social advantages -- that patriarchal and homophobic attitudes are engrained in the daily routines and subconscious attitudes of men and straight people.

That is not pacifying anything, it is strengthening the understanding of social oppression. It is identifying the existence of attitudes and dynamics that transcend the economic dimensions of our oppression as a class. It is not negating that struggle, it is simply articulating that there is more to it; that ending capitalism isn't going to magically end social oppression as it manifests itself in our social reproduction.

[Rugged Collectivist]

oh no, i really appreciate and are open to being called out on shit i actually do, its essential and humbling and educational.

I feel the same way to an extent. The problem is, calling somebody out ought to be an educational experience, but all too often it turns into a tongue lashing, and I can't blame anyone for being defensive in that situation. This is especially unhelpful in radical circles, where it can safely be assumed that the vast majority of the people present aren't intentionally trying to be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. If someone says something problematic, they may not even know why it is problematic, and it's on the person demanding the privilege check to explain why. You can't expect someone to take your criticism uncritically because you're a black trans lesbian. You still have to back up your claims with evidence. "it hurt my feelings" isn't evidence. Which leads into another problem with privilege theory, the tendency for it's practitioners to speak of oppressed groups as if they share a hive mind, but I digress.


i am though completely allergic for people trying to enforce a hive mind/group think.
and sadly in certain circles, being less privileged has started, within the discussion of privilege (!!!), being wielded as a privilege itself. "i'm a female/queer/black/handicapped etc etc so only i can be right, you need to shut up and everyone should adhere to my opinion."

I agree completely.


or example you have, and that was related to my wisecrack about germans where this i quite influential in certain radical scenes, a tendency related to privilege theory called "the power of definition" where it is said that only the victim of an act of aggression/oppression can define what happened to them.
which i agree in so far that it acknowledges that the personal subjective perspective of the victim matters, should be recognized and communicated to the perpetrator. If you feel discriminated or sexual assaulted you are victimized, no matter the circumstances, intentions etc etc, that should be acknowledged and not brushed aside and people should work to make you feel safe etc again.
but that doesn't mean that the collective, in how she should deal with the situation, doesnt get to to formulate a subjective interpretation as well, that only the subjective experience of the victim is true for the collective too.Sorry, that's absurd. Definitions ought to have agreed upon meaning. That's the whole point of definitions. Otherwise no one would understand each other. Plus, it leads to absurd assertions, like the woman claiming that shirtless men are "sexually intimidating" her.


privilige theory is very useful and important, and so can many of the theory and praxis formulated from/uppon it (like the power of definition) but like with every theory you can run with it and end up at completely opposite and even insane positions.The problem for me is that I agree with the basic idea behind privilege theory, that certain groups have it harder in certain societies based on things like race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc, but I disagree with almost all of the conclusions that privilege theorists draw from this fact. I also don't know if "privilege" is the best prism through which to view these phenomena either. It shifts the focus from the people who are suffering to the people with supposed "privilege". A focus that is no doubt useful for shutting down the opposition.

Another problem is the lack of consideration these people give to class. Your average privilege theorist would look at someone like Oprah Winfrey and argue that she's two times more oppressed then a working class white man, even though she could probably offset her disadvantages by throwing money at them. (do you really think someone is going to say no to Oprah because of her race or sex? Come on...) Surely this is due to the fact that the theory was formulated by middle class academics.



like anti-germanism had at its basis a correct analysis of the problem of structural and unrecognized anti-semitism in the radical left and western society doesnt mean you should end up supporting the bombing of iraq by the US, privilige theory shouldnt mean that on a 35 degrees hot mid summer anti-coal climate action camp every workshop and meeting should be dominated by a very small number of insane people who feel no relation anyway to the actual subject of the camp demanding that men should not take of their shirts in public at all when they are over heating because one single person feels sexual intimidated by that and she as a female and sexual assault survivor gets to decide what is sexual intimidation and the opinions of every other person, male and female, will be held against the privilege scales by a self appointed tribunal (yes this happened). at a certain point the collective should just be able to say, we understand your position, we gave them a lot of though and dont want to diminish your feelings but have to respectfully request you to not further disrupt this important thing we spend months preparing, so either accept how far we have gone to accommodate you as much as possible or you should just leave.The problem is that she's right, if you take privilege theory to it's logical conclusion. You can't really say that an oppressed person has more right to speak on issues related to their oppression, and then pick and choose which parts you like. You say that it's important to let a victim define their oppression, but when one does and you disagree you dismiss her. Ultimately you're not letting her if you hold final say. It's just a show.

Rosa's post is a perfect example of why this mentality needs to be abandoned. What happens when two women disagree about their oppression?

[consuming negativity]

I don't think this 'rebranding' thing will work, there will always be reactionary fucks out there who try to tarnish anything associated with radicalism. If it has worked for them in the past, why not keep doing it?

It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion insofar as that I didn't think RevLeft was actually gonna jump up and change the word and the world or anything. But I do think it's a valid strategy. I mean, the flu changes every year, but we still develop vaccines. We get dirty every day, but we still shower and get clean again. Just because they /can/ do something doesn't mean it will always work out exactly as planned. It isn't like a vending machine where you insert propaganda and right-wing votes come out. Rebranding works.

[Revolver]

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. You have just asked who are we to make decisions on privilege, now you, you alone, have decided that black people are mistaken in thinking they have a common identity, that gay people do not experience a shared identity etc.

Rafiq is not talking about identity. Clearly, black people and gay people have shared and common identities as a "people" in some sense. They experience solidarity, largely as a result of oppression. But both race and sexual orientation are malleable social categories with varying degrees of social and political significance across time and space. Sexual orientation is perhaps different from race because affectional identity is likely to have a more consistently social significance than racial markers since it relates to your choice of a romantic and sexual partner, but both are social constructs.

I am not sure what Rafiq meant by "real social group," but these identities do not necessarily carry much political significance. It actually is possible to imagine a world where the social and political significance of gender choice in a partner or skin color is negligible or even nonexistent. We do not live in that world of course, but then the Ottomans did not live in this world, and their confessional identities and the millet system were reflections of their own social structure. This system worked for the ruling class reasonably well for a time, and when it stopped working the millet system was abandoned, but the vestiges of confessional identity are clear enough in the sectarian conflicts that are ongoing in the Levant. But today's sectarian divisions are not ancient, they reflect the social and political realities of the people who live in the Middle East today. There are plenty of Alawite Syrians who do not believe in god, just as there are Sunnis, Druze, etcetera who have been assigned confessional and sectarian identities as a result of political developments.

So let us admit that these groups all have some shared identity. Who benefits from the conflicts between these groups, and who benefits from the conflicts that exist within those groups? That is really the key question. And unsurprisingly, the fight between groups becomes a fight for a share of the pie, under conditions not of actual scarcity, but differential distribution of resources. But you do not get to the question of distribution if you restrict the debate to the parameters set by those who control the means of production. Instead, you end up with feuds over the "privileges" allocated to the working class and divided along lines that do not correspond to actual class relationships. The political conflicts do not accurately reflect class interests, but instead reflect "racial consciousness" or "sectarian consciousness." And more importantly, they also run the risk of perpetuating the existing divisions and creating additional divisions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From what I can tell, privilege theory more often than not is a way of avoiding talk about class. Yes, being a straight white male is the lowest difficulty setting (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/) in the great Game of Life, but that's hardly an observation that predates "privilege theory/intersectionalism", let alone one alien to Marxism.

There is value in making a detailed analysis of how class relations are modulated by other considerations such as ethnicity and sexual orientation, but I fear that the language of "privilege theory/intersectionalism" has for too long been hijacked by smug liberals looking for ways of demonstrating their superiority and social justice credentials to remain useful.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is value in making a detailed analysis of how class relations are modulated by other considerations such as ethnicity and sexual orientation, but I fear that the language of "privilege theory/intersectionalism" has for too long been hijacked by smug liberals looking for ways of demonstrating their superiority and social justice credentials to remain useful.

May I ask what practical experience you have in any struggle, be it class based or social based, to have formed this position? In my activity, I have not yet come across anyone who is smug or liberal who uses privilege theory to demonstrate their superiority.


From what I can tell, privilege theory more often than not is a way of avoiding talk about class.

That is simply untrue. Privilege theory is inextricably linked to class. You can't have one without the other. If you have experienced people who have taken the position you describe, perhaps it's because they themselves are liberals.

[Hagalaz]

Okay,so what is a modern day white person supposed to do?
Kill himself to atone for "white privelidge"?
Grovel before other races? What?

[Slavic]

Okay,so what is a modern day white person supposed to do?
Kill himself to atone for "white privelidge"?
Grovel before other races? What?

Become a Communist.

I mean, I'm sure your just joking about those questions.

[Rafiq]

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. You have just asked who are we to make decisions on privilege, now you, you alone, have decided that black people are mistaken in thinking they have a common identity, that gay people do not experience a shared identity etc.



Social groups are defined by their relationship to production, not their cultural identities or their sexual orientation. Real politics - or struggles in pertinence to relation to power must be socially based - or they are not politics at all.

[Rafiq]

Well I reject the idea that it's alien and instead assert that it is complimentary to class based politics.



But then what are those struggles? You talk about "feminist struggle" and "racist struggle," but what are they actually? What are trans struggles and gay struggles?

If they are not the daily struggle against the engrained covert oppression that exists between social relationships then what are they? Are you denying that oppression exists on a covert level? When a straight couple can walk down the street holding hands but a gay couple cannot, what is that? What is that social dynamic? When a man sits on a bus with his legs wide apart without consideration for those around him, what does that attitude signify? Where has it come from? When a man talks over a woman in a meeting, what is that phenomenon? But more than that, how does it situate the man in relation to the woman? When a straight, white man rejects the idea that a black, gay woman is more socially disadvantaged than him, what does that reinforce? What does that symbolise? How is the power-relationship of that dynamic expressed in that moment?

It is not that you are wrong with regard to the dynamics of oppression, or that discrimination faced by the groups associated with privilege theory is not real. The point is that this oppression does not exist by merit of their difference (to the rest of society) alone.

Only a universal class based struggle could ever pose a viable threat to a form of sexual relations which disallows gay couples to walk in the street holding hands, while hetero couples can (Granted, it is possible that within capitalism we could see this in the near future - but only through the bourgeois sexualization of homosexuality, i.e. assuming "passive" and "dominent" roles, you know, "So whose the women in the relationship?" kind of attitude). The same goes for all other struggles concerned by Communists. The point is that privilege theory does not simply posit that you might be better off one way, or another - it attempts to associate 'class difference' with this sea of differences. In other words, to be male and straight is privileged, and to be of the bourgeois class is privileged all in the same language. This is innately postmodern - this obfuscates any real class based politics, by reducing the true cause to one cause of many.

We never argue against things simply by merit of what they identify as. We argue against things based on what they fundamentally represent, and their implications. As far as privilege theory goes - it "coincidentally" coincided with the death of Communist politics, if not as a means to reinforce this death. Privilege theory does not compliment class based struggle - it trivializes it. According to Occam's razor simpler explanations which are consistent and over-reaching are preferable to 'consistent' explanations which are complicated and so forth. In the case of privilege theory - and the modern Left, nothing could be more true. This sea of "theory" brought by the academia is a substitute for a real Communist language which wouldn't have to apologize for itself, or directly argue against prevailing ideas in such a direct manner. The relationship privilege theory has to the ruling order is parasitic - it RELIES on the absence of real Communist politics in order to survive. An over-reaching Communist ideological universe and language would not have its adherents "checking their privilege" or any other such nonsense. If you want to look at it this way: Yes the struggle would be black and white, through these barriers of obfuscation class based politics ram through, mercilessly. An ideology which accounts for the entire world does not need to have people struggling to refine, and perfect hegemonic bourgeois liberal society through use of political correctness. The sexual, and racial egalitarianism is vested in the political expression and existence of proletarian class based movements to begin with. Even the most mediocre evolution of petty trade union consciousness saw the complete opposition to racism, historically - keep in mind this is before Marxism really even set in. Yes homosexuality was condemned - but homosexuality was not even properly understood, and had a different context back then. In Russia, for example, it was associated with pedastry, violence and Fascism.



This argument of yours is entirely a fabrication of your mind. It relates in no way to privilege theory as it is intended.

Well, sorry to break it to you but no concrete, real criticism of anything relates to its "theory as intended". Let me explain: When we criticize liberalism, we don't criticize abstract ideas of freedom and liberty - we criticize the fundamental implications drawn from this - what this MEANS. If everyone played the game of criticizing that which what they oppose, SIMPLY by merit of what they claim such criticism would be impossible, because everyone is right and consistent in their own world.

We don't oppose privilege "theory", we oppose privilege-theory rhetoric, privilege-theory ideology and the privilege-theory mentality.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

It is not that you are wrong with regard to the dynamics of oppression, or that discrimination faced by the groups associated with privilege theory is not real. The point is that this oppression does not exist by merit of their difference (to the rest of society) alone.

Only a universal class based struggle could ever pose a viable threat to a form of sexual relations which disallows gay couples to walk in the street holding hands, while hetero couples can (Granted, it is possible that within capitalism we could see this in the near future - but only through the bourgeois sexualization of homosexuality, i.e. assuming "passive" and "dominent" roles, you know, "So whose the women in the relationship?" kind of attitude). The same goes for all other struggles concerned by Communists. The point is that privilege theory does not simply posit that you might be better off one way, or another - it attempts to associate 'class difference' with this sea of differences. In other words, to be male and straight is privileged, and to be of the bourgeois class is privileged all in the same language. This is innately postmodern - this obfuscates any real class based politics, by reducing the true cause to one cause of many.

We never argue against things simply by merit of what they identify as. We argue against things based on what they fundamentally represent, and their implications. As far as privilege theory goes - it "coincidentally" coincided with the death of Communist politics, if not as a means to reinforce this death. Privilege theory does not compliment class based struggle - it trivializes it. According to Occam's razor simpler explanations which are consistent and over-reaching are preferable to 'consistent' explanations which are complicated and so forth. In the case of privilege theory - and the modern Left, nothing could be more true. This sea of "theory" brought by the academia is a substitute for a real Communist language which wouldn't have to apologize for itself, or directly argue against prevailing ideas in such a direct manner. The relationship privilege theory has to the ruling order is parasitic - it RELIES on the absence of real Communist politics in order to survive. An over-reaching Communist ideological universe and language would not have its adherents "checking their privilege" or any other such nonsense. If you want to look at it this way: Yes the struggle would be black and white, through these barriers of obfuscation class based politics ram through, mercilessly. An ideology which accounts for the entire world does not need to have people struggling to refine, and perfect hegemonic bourgeois liberal society through use of political correctness. The sexual, and racial egalitarianism is vested in the political expression and existence of proletarian class based movements to begin with. Even the most mediocre evolution of petty trade union consciousness saw the complete opposition to racism, historically - keep in mind this is before Marxism really even set in. Yes homosexuality was condemned - but homosexuality was not even properly understood, and had a different context back then. In Russia, for example, it was associated with pedastry, violence and Fascism.

Alright! To start, I wanna call bullshit on "Even the most mediocre evolution of petty trade union consciousness saw the complete opposition to racism." It's just demonstrably untrue - the history of segregationism in American unions (particularly trade unions) and collaboration with management to consign black labour to the lowest paid and unskilled work was a norm officially into the thirties, and, in many cases, de facto as late as the 70s.

So, like, we need to really grapple with the "Why?" of that, and a simplistic formulation like "universal class struggle" can't give us the answer. Sure, a liberal version of identity politics that says "Black people are oppressed by white supremacy, workers are oppressed by bourgeois rule" as though the two are the same isn't going to get us anywhere either. The thing is, people who put that forward - either as liberals, or "Marxists" setting fire to straw men - haven't done a very good job of understanding the intersectional feminist and "Women of Color Feminism" praxes that these ideas emerged from.

Let's dig that for a minute. The gist is this: White supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism aren't all the same thing, but white supremacist patriarchal capitalism functions as one totalizing system with a real history in which these three things are inseparably entwined. Consequently, if we want to understand class, we need to understand the way class is premised on women's reproductive labour, and the way class is premised on the racialization of class - the way the working class itself is colour-coded with some people racially marked for slavery and super-exploitation (ie - the proletariat, with nothing to lose but their chains), and some people are marked for incorporation into the state-apparatus through unions, through the academy, etc. Now it's not that this happens necessarily on an individual level - but that it is an organizing principle for capital vis-a-vis labour.

Two key points: I'm referring specifically to the North American situation, and I'm keeping it simple - the neo-colonial reality is more complicated than I'm laying out. But that's the rub: It's more complicated, not less. Now more than ever falling back on "the working class"-as-universal-subject-of-capitalism without reference to the real composition of the working class is a strategic dead end.

[Hagalaz]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Having said all of that, in your run-of-the-mill discussions on more general day-to-day concepts (such as the idiocy that is Nicky Minaj), I don't think that an opinion is necessarily less valid for its authors race, gender or sexuality, unless it involves the sort of subject material where their characteristics would make their opinion less valid (a man talking about rape, for example).

Interesting.
so you would also agree that those evil,straight white men should be able to safely discuss issues of concern to them? Without other "groups" attending?

[Hagalaz]

Become a Communist.

I mean, I'm sure your just joking about those questions.



Am I?
Frankly I'm tired of all this race bashing and hatred towards those like myself.
What many on the Left(whatever that means anymore)fail to grasp is that there is a backlash growing in this country . Many whites,male and female,are starting to resent this grouping of themselves into some kind of evil omnipotent monolith .You want to know where the rise in the right wing is coming from? Keep up the racial/gender hatred and it will only get worse.
Keep telling people they are bad because they have pale skin,or blond hair,or somebody was a slave at some point in history,or they are a racist if they disagree with a black etc...You get the idea. Keep dividing the races and the fascists win.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Dude, you're not oppressed just because people say you have privilege

[motion denied]

Dude, you're not oppressed just because people say you have privilege

Who are you to say that Hagalaz is not oppressed? Have you had his experience of life?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Who are you to say that Hagalaz is not oppressed? Have you had his experience of life?

I didn't say he wasn't oppressed, go back and read my post

[Rafiq]

Alright! To start, I wanna call bullshit on "Even the most mediocre evolution of petty trade union consciousness saw the complete opposition to racism." It's just demonstrably untrue - the history of segregationism in American unions (particularly trade unions) and collaboration with management to consign black labour to the lowest paid and unskilled work was a norm officially into the thirties, and, in many cases, de facto as late as the 70s.

Did Lenin not differentiate petty trade union consciousness with reactionary unionism and the labor aristocracy? You're not wrong that institutionalized unions were far from immune from racism - but you should at least be able to recognize that organic expressions of trade-union consciousness were explicitly anti-racist - or, for a better word, they crossed racial boundaries. Again, the development of radical politics was not necessarily a result of the theoretical writings of intellectuals - the popularity and prevalence of these writings is directly correlated with the fact that they "worked"- that is to say, they spoke the language previously unknown, but inherent to the worker.

And no one could argue that many trade union's didn't become degenerate, or organs of class rule for the bourgeoisie. The point is that the strive for class-based organization often was able to destroy racial barriers (Obviously, without politics it is hard for this to be reinforced, but that does not mean it is not there)



Now more than ever falling back on "the working class"-as-universal-subject-of-capitalism without reference to the real composition of the working class is a strategic dead end.


Well the logic is certainly correct - it is stupid simply to fall back on vague, abstract notions of "the working class" as if the working class can exist in such a manner without being a political entity. And surely, it is not a magical remedy, sophisticated politics and ideological discipline is necessary to reinforce such ideas (which is why they become proletarian in nature - this external political mobilisation becomes irrevocably a force of class struggle).

But what you don't understand is that this isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that the politicization of the working class alone entails the impossibility of racism. In other words, for the proletariat to act upon its interests as a social class, for the proletarian identity to exist - this directly entails the absence of racism. If a group of people act as a class then it is logical to deduce that sexual minorities, or other ethnicities also form a component of this class. What you fail to understand is that anti-racism is not an intellectual preference, it is integral to the politicized condition of the worker. To act as a class, to act consciously as a class is the only threat to institutionalized racism. It isn't hard to understand - real class based politics would absolutely render things like "privilege theory" to be an absurdity.

[Hagalaz]

Dude, you're not oppressed just because people say you have privilege

Well,dude, I didn't say I was oppressed. Apparently you missed the point I was trying to make.
Big surprise...

[ColumnNo.4]

Not oppressed however stop shaming me because I'm quarter black and don't suffer quite the prejudice as someone with darker skin or because I'm a male and don't suffer quite the sexism that women do.

[Quail]

Nobody is shaming anyone else for not being oppressed, and if you think that's the point of talking about privilege then you're missing the point massively.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Am I?
Frankly I'm tired of all this race bashing and hatred towards those like myself.
What many on the Left(whatever that means anymore)fail to grasp is that there is a backlash growing in this country . Many whites,male and female,are starting to resent this grouping of themselves into some kind of evil omnipotent monolith .You want to know where the rise in the right wing is coming from? Keep up the racial/gender hatred and it will only get worse.
Keep telling people they are bad because they have pale skin,or blond hair,or somebody was a slave at some point in history,or they are a racist if they disagree with a black etc...You get the idea. Keep dividing the races and the fascists win.

Highlighting that white people, everything else being equal, have a more privileged position in most modern societies is not 'race bashing'.

The rise in the right-wing comes from people like you willingly accepting the dominant media discourse that black people, women, gays, muslims etc. should stop complaining because they might upset the straight white middle class men.

Privilege has nothing to do with hating men, white people etc. The fact that you immediately jump to a position based on personal prejudice and hatred is quite telling as to your opinions vis-a-vis racial, sexual, gender, and class justice.

[PhoenixAsh]

I unfortunately have little time to construct this post.

Privilege theory:

The theory itself is a useful tool to illustrate how certain groups, based on certain issues, experience the world differently and gives insight in what, compared to other groups, we do not experience and have to keep in mind. It is based on generalizations but as it stands it is a useful illustrative theory.


Apply that theory to praxis and that is where we learn that theory and reality are two entirely different things.

I will illustrate the points I will make with personal examples to illustrate how this works. These examples are based on my personal experiences but I have witnessed them many, many, many times in different forms and constructs and they are merely here to illustrate HOW privilege theory is applied in praxis.


1). Applying the theory is based on assumptions.

A CIS White Male has more "privilege" only compared to other groups. But who is a CIS White Male? And what do you base your distinction and label on? If I walk into a room with people who do not know me...I am labelled a CIS White Male. Why? Because I am obviously white...and male...and therefore I must probably be CIS. And this is how I am approached. Whether the label is correct or not is irrelevant. It is based on profiling. It is based on an assumption...and ONLY when I am forced to identify myself this label is sometimes adjusted. Sometimes...because people do not take your word for it. Apply this logic the other way around. If I assume somebody is straight when they aren't the application of privilege theory is that I am exercising my privilege. This is hardly oppression against me. But it DOES show where the theory fails entirely.



2). Applying privilege is based on ignoring your own privilege and on dismissing the experiences of another

Here is a perfect example. In our group we held a meeting on feminism and I was asked by several of the women to give a short introductionary speech on how men experience the interaction with women within the group. One of the newer (and I ironically, German) women in our group interupted the introduction stating I, as a man, was not qualified to speak on women's issues. Which is all fine and well.

However. She was 19 and starting her activism. I am near my 40's and have been involved in feminist struggle for the better part of those 40 years. I was also not speaking on women's issues but on how men view women's issues and how they can support and participate in the struggle and how I was socialized (which...I am VERY qualified to speak on). Now...that is all fine and well. Except of course she then continued that only women were able to speak on womens issues which prompted one of the non white women in our group to respond the 19 year old white girl was just about as qualified to speak on women's issues as I was...since she was both white and from a privileged economic position and had no fucking clue how it was that.

The meeting had to be rescheduled with several people not talking to each other anymore.

But here we are. Neither criticisms were correct. They ignore individual experience completely. Somebody maybe from a more privileged group but this doesn't mean they are aware and conscious about certain issues through their experience and observations.


3). Applied privilege theory does NOT mean that if you are a member of a certain group you are the "embassador" of that group or equates you special insight on the issues.

Quail is just about as qualified to speak on women's issues as Sarah Palin is. (and I am def not comparing the two). Who we tend to believe is more subject to personal preference and subjective interpretation. But both are women. Both live in patriarchy.

To illustrate even further we had a youtube video in the "uncle tom" thread of a black person talking about racism or something. He is black. He is an person. He is not representative of all black people.

In other words. Just because you are man/woman/LGBTQS/white/non white/abled etc. does NOT mean you are a representative of that group not that your personal narrative is illustrative of that group. So a woman who has been active on the scene and in the struggle for years is not equal in knowledge to a woman who just recently discovered that she is structurally oppressed as a woman.


4). Privilege theory is a generalization. Applied theory presents this as fact.

It denies the fact that not all CIS gendered women experience patriarchy the same way, think alike, have the same issues....but more importantly...it also denies oppression within these groups amongst each other.

Privilege theory is designed to compare privilege on certain specific issues. It doesn't deal well with interconnectivity.

For example: A CIS gendered white women living in Europe faces entirely different sets of problems than those living in America, Russia of Ghana (yes...there are white women in Ghana).

5). Applied Privilege Theory denies oppression

Yes. Contrary to popular believe it really does. Being a CIS gendered white man has become synonymous with "not facing oppression". This of course ignores the fact that CIS White males do have their structural hierarchy and enforce gender roles and behaviour on each other. The same as does any other group. Such as that there is a huge, huge amount of structural discrimination within the LGBTQ community itself to a point where several of my no straight friends and long time activists have brought this issue up as being more pressing than the heteronormativity within society itself.

6). The narrative of "oppressing" or more "privileged" groups towards lesser privileged or oppressed groups sometimes grants useful insights.

I'll let that stand on itself for now


7). The power of definition

This point should speak for itself...




I can make a huge ammount of points against applying Privilege Theory in Praxis.

The main take away should however be that Privilege Theory is a very useful theory to illustrate and create awareness. It is however easy to apply incorrectly and has become a weapon rather than an explanation and illustration. Applying it has created more barriers for organisation than it has created solutions and it has created more divisions than it has found common grounds.

[ColumnNo.4]

Nobody is shaming anyone else for not being oppressed, and if you think that's the point of talking about privilege then you're missing the point massively.

I don't think that's the point however that's the direction it's going. You can't place blame on an individual simply because they happen to be male, white, straight, etc. I see and hear this occuring more frequently.

[agnixie]

It's probably ironic from an anarchist but as far as I've experienced as a queer, trans, etc activist and in radical left environments: privilege theory in its application ends up reinforcing a weirdly liberal, individualistic approach to shit that doesn't follow or mesh with any ideological, mass basis. It's too often used to put the onus of oppression on the individual, and as a corollary too often used intra-community to silence opinions that question its validity beyond an observational tool of relatively limited value, or establish an odd, often more moralistic than materialistic hierarchy of oppression.

[motion denied]

and as a corollary too often used intra-community to silence opinions that question it or establish an odd, often more moralistic than materialistic hierarchy of oppression.

Every time this was/is brought up IRL things go exactly like you described. Sometimes some person would make an incredibly stupid argument/suggestion and use "PRIVILAGE!!" to shut down criticism.

And of course the guiltiest of the guilty automatically resigned out of fear of being oppressive - which at this point means close to nothing.

These things made me strongly dislike (some) anarchists. Much time for bullshit.

It's an assembly, if you say stupid fucking shit you'll be called out, regardless of anything. Then again I'm all about privilege, authority, oppression, power and hierarchy.

[Quail]

I don't think that's the point however that the direction it's going. You can't place blame on an individual simply because they happen to be male, white, straight, etc. I see and hear this occuring more frequently.

Where do you see and hear this happening more frequently? It's not placing "blame" on an individual to encourage them to acknowledge their privilege, and I think if you want to be a good ally to any marginalised group of people you need to get past the mindset of blame. Many people are (understandably and justifiably) angry with the way they have been treated by men, by straight people, by white people, etc., but it's not aimed at you personally because you happen to be male, straight, white, etc.

[PhoenixAsh]

Except that is exactly how privilage theory put as the basis of political praxis works out. Now I am not sure about the UK...but it does in large parts of Northern Europe. And it is getting increasingly more absurd to the point that there is not one single action or activity in which the Praxis of Privilage Theory does not frustrate, obfuscate or detract from the action or activity to such an extend that it frustrates organisation itself and ineffectualizes the entire political scene. And for one it has led to my entire group just walking away from any event and action because of it. We either do it ourselves or we will screen which groups we work with on the basis of personal experience with their members. We will no longer participate with any group or assembly which use Privilege Theory as a basis for their Praxis because of this bullshit and we will actively seek to prevent these group participating in our events on an equal basis (meaning they do not get to participate in debates or walk in our lines). A decision which was proposed by the female section of our group and which has been unanimously adopted and accepted.

[RedWorker]

There are situations where it is either not appropriate or not welcome for certain groups (normally straight white men such as I) to either discuss or comment on an issue, or to be in attendance at an event. So that's the first thing - there should always be spaces where minority groups can safely discuss what is on their mind, what issues are facing them and potential responses they have/actions they want to take.

For example, I don't think it's massively helpful for men who call themselves feminists to attend a meeting on patriarchy-related subjects and start arguing the basis of feminism with women, less working class women and women of colour/gay women etc.

Interesting. So for example "white" people should not interfere in "black" people's space to discuss their issues. Basically what are we saying here, that "race" is actually "real" instead of a social construct? Here's a good exclusion rule: it's irrelevant whether someone is part of the "oppressed group" or not, it's relevant whether they're reactionaries. "Women" sexists (who are sexists against "women") are as prevalent as "men" sexists. So exclude them, and don't exclude "men" non-sexists.

And here again we're mixing sex with gender. So let's say I was born with a penis but I identify as a "woman". Now, am I part of the "sacred oppressed group" and allowed to participate in their discussion or not? What if I think gender is just a social construct, holds no inherent relationship to biological sex, and I don't identify with any of them?

"Men who call themselves feminists", so "men" apparently can't be as feminist as "women"? I concur, there's "men" who are gonna mansplain and are best excluded of any intelligent discussion. Incidentally there is an equal amount of "women" who would be equally sexist. And here I'm talking about sexism against "women", not sexism against "men".

This reminds me of the "nationalism of the oppressed", idealisation of workers and all that. Let's face it, there's as many reactionaries in oppressed groups as everywhere else and even more. It's not biological differences which make one a sexist, actually it's completely irrelevant. It's simply a natural product of the current structure. And I can imagine the next reply that is going to re-define the "oppressed group" as not "women" but rather "people who have actually suffered from patriarchy". Which ignores the fact that "men" (who identify as "men" only because of patriarchy) suffer from patriarchy. Everyone is forced into the heteronormativity whether they like it or not and no matter who they were born as and it isn't nice.


Where do you see and hear this happening more frequently? It's not placing "blame" on an individual to encourage them to acknowledge their privilege, and I think if you want to be a good ally to any marginalised group of people you need to get past the mindset of blame. Many people are (understandably and justifiably) angry with the way they have been treated by men, by straight people, by white people, etc., but it's not aimed at you personally because you happen to be male, straight, white, etc.

I agree, I don't see people from oppressed groups ever treating people from non-oppressed groups in a different way. What I constantly see is people from non-oppressed groups who worship the oppressed group. This is analogous to people worshipping any Palestinians anywhere and whatever they do even if it's anti-Semitist and stupid. "You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and of the oppressors". At the same time it is not the oppressed group itself that they worship, but rather what they construe of as the oppressed group.

[Quail]

I'm not sure about other groups in the UK, so perhaps other people have different perspectives. I don't know of any leftist groups who rely solely on "privilege theory" to inform their praxis; everyone I work with who uses the notion of privilege as a tool for understanding social relationships uses it alongside a class-based analysis.

I think that a greater awareness of the various privileges we may or may not have allows us to better understand where other people are coming from, which in turn means that we are better able to work with them and be active in their struggles without perpetuating the same structures of oppression that they face in wider society. You only need to look as far as most leftist meetings where the women end up doing all of the domestic work (childcare, making food, etc) while the men seem utterly oblivious, and already there is an application of "privilege theory." All those men who let their female comrades do all of the boring stuff on the side while they give the speeches need to become aware of the privilege that allows them to be so oblivious to the way that they're perpetuating patriarchal power structures within the anarchist movement.

[Rosa Partizan]

Quail, it's interesting you mention that. All of those societal roles are reproduced to a high degree in that Hardcore punk-far leftist-antisexist-blahblah-scene. We even make jokes about it, like "Where's his girlfriend? Who's gonna hold his jacket now while he's moshing/violent dancing?" I mean, yeah, it's absolutely acceptable in those areas for women to mosh or to dance, to join a band, and everyone who's against that is gonna get his ass kicked. Still, there are hardly women present. When I go to such a show, the women-men-ratio is at best 40:60, but most times rather 20:80 or even less. Why is it that women don't feel attracted that much to this music? Is it because it's "heavier"? Or because of that habitus of masculinity that's been floating around this scene for decades? I once saw a poster advertising a band, they wrote "female-fronted hardcore" and many people, even males, were pissed off, because they were like "why is that important at all?" But yeah, you still see it. Women hold jackets and bring vegan cupcakes while the males are doing...yeah, male stuff. Some women even go there because they know there will be hot, tattooed guys, so you see them all dressed up while the guys wear some pants and a bandshirt and don't give a fuck. So behind all of this antisexist thing, having introduced unisex toilets, still there's the same old gender stuff going on.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sexism within the left is a real issue. That is beyond any debate. People denying that really need a reality check. That issue however is not solved with using Privilege Theory as both a weapon and a shield in order to stiffle debate. And regrettably that is exactly what is happening in large parts of the anarchist and autonomous scene. The locations where privilege theory has been put in praxis, with the power of definition as its zenith of idiocy, as being the basis for organisation have deteriorated to a point where the focus on whose privilige is showing more had actually taken priority over direct action and organizing events and which has created a culture of "calling out and shaming"...more often than not on some extremely trivial and extremely unrelated issue.

More often than not the so called under priviliged invoking it...are really not that underprivileged at all and usually are the ones who, through their behaviour, create an atmosphere of surpression for their supposed peers.

[Rosa Partizan]

Sexism within the left is a real issue. That is beyond any debate. People denying that really need a reality check. That issue however is not solved with using Privilege Theory as both a weapon and a shield in order to stiffle debate. And regrettably that is exactly what is happening in large parts of the anarchist and autonomous scene. The locations where privilege theory has been put in praxis, with the power of definition as its zenith of idiocy, as being the basis for organisation have deteriorated to a point where the focus on whose privilige is showing more had actually taken priority over direct action and organizing events and which has created a culture of "calling out and shaming"...more often than not on some extremely trivial and extremely unrelated issue.

More often than not the so called under priviliged invoking it...are really not that underprivileged at all and usually are the ones who, through their behaviour, create an atmosphere of surpression for their supposed peers.

Tell me about it. An acquaintance of mine had no issues with going to a strip club and touching the m-and-w-dancers (ironically, haha so funny), but she had big issues when a male friend of mine asked her to bring him some food from the kitchen, and he's one of the biggest, most authentic male feminists I know.

[PhoenixAsh]

It has become ridiculously subjective. So much so that the vast majority of times something is attributed to privilige which really isn't privilige at all but simple human and social interaction but because a "member" of a supposed "priviliged group" does something...it becomes an issue.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Interesting. So for example "white" people should not interfere in "black" people's space to discuss their issues.

I'm not saying that there should be some sort of racial segregation, but that oppressed groups of black, female and LGBT workers have expressed a desire to have their own black-, female-, and LGBT-only spaces to discuss and work through issues. After all, much like the ruling class cannot emancipate the workers, so too to an extent it is true that as a white man, I am probably not best placed to lead the struggle for an end to the oppression of black women.

I recognise that and, whilst I am always very keen to maintain an interaction and active support for the struggles of black women, for example, I am under no illusions that their own emancipation is theirs to lead, not mine.


Basically what are we saying here, that "race" is actually "real" instead of a social construct?

No, i'm saying that the effects of race as a social construct are real, and that is undeniable. Black Americans are treated differently because some white folk perceive them as different, not because they are actually racially different.


Here's a good exclusion rule: it's irrelevant whether someone is part of the "oppressed group" or not, it's relevant whether they're reactionaries. "Women" sexists (who are sexists against "women") are as prevalent as "men" sexists. So exclude them, and don't exclude "men" non-sexists.

What's the point in preaching to the converted? By your exclusion rule, most workers would be excluded from taking part in class emancipation, most women would be excluded from the struggle against patriarchy. That sounds like minority, vanguardist, dictatorial crap.


And here again we're mixing sex with gender. So let's say I was born with a penis but I identify as a "woman". Now, am I part of the "sacred oppressed group" and allowed to participate in their discussion or not? What if I think gender is just a social construct, holds no inherent relationship to biological sex, and I don't identify with any of them?

I think, though I would welcome clarification from others, that the generally accepted rule is 'self-identification'.

I would also add that you are showing a particularly patronising attitude to women by deigning their oppression "sacred".


"Men who call themselves feminists", so "men" apparently can't be as feminist as "women"? I concur, there's "men" who are gonna mansplain and are best excluded of any intelligent discussion. Incidentally there is an equal amount of "women" who would be equally sexist. And here I'm talking about sexism against "women", not sexism against "men".

I was merely distinguishing "men who call themselves feminists" from "men who don't", because there are large amounts of men in both groups.

When I am talking about sexism, I am generally talking about structural sexism rather than isolated cases. In the case of structural sexism that is prevalent generally across society, I would disagree that women as a social group are capable of being sexist.



I agree, I don't see people from oppressed groups ever treating people from non-oppressed groups in a different way. What I constantly see is people from non-oppressed groups who worship the oppressed group. This is analogous to people worshipping any Palestinians anywhere and whatever they do even if it's anti-Semitist and stupid. "You have to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressed and of the oppressors". At the same time it is not the oppressed group itself that they worship, but rather what they construe of as the oppressed group.[/QUOTE]

[RedWorker]

What's the point in preaching to the converted? By your exclusion rule, most workers would be excluded from taking part in class emancipation, most women would be excluded from the struggle against patriarchy. That sounds like minority, vanguardist, dictatorial crap.

We're not talking about leading an emancipation struggle here. We're talking about how apparently only "women" (a quite abstract concept, by the way) are allowed to comment about women's issues in women's spaces, black people in black people's spaces, and so on. And what I'm saying is that if someone is to be excluded from these spaces then it should be people who are saying things directly against the groups' interest, not judged based on a presumed sex, gender, or "race".


I would also add that you are showing a particularly patronising attitude to women by deigning their oppression "sacred".

No, what I'm doing is criticizing your understanding of the oppressed group. The oppression is completely real.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=RedWorker;2789680]We're not talking about leading an emancipation struggle here. We're talking about how apparently only "women" (a quite abstract concept, by the way) are allowed to comment about women's issues in women's spaces, black people in black people's spaces, and so on.

That's not really what I said at all, though. It's really up to the women in women's spaces if they want to have men present at a particular meeting or whatever. I think that's just fair and courtesy and men should respect that. The same for other social groups.


And what I'm saying is that if someone is to be excluded from these spaces then it should be people who are saying things directly against the groups' interest, not judged based on a presumed sex, gender, or "race".

And i'm saying this is a ridiculous idea, because if you just exclude people every time they say something you don't agree with, you will end up turning revolutionary struggles into introverted, cultist circle-jerks, much like the left is today actually.


No, what I'm doing is criticizing your understanding of the oppressed group. The oppression is completely real.

Have I ever said oppression isn't real?

[PhoenixAsh]

I think privilege theory applied to social praxis is actually causing the introvert left wing circkle jerk. Rather than being inclusive the groups become exclusive with half of the debates revolving around accusations of privilege and oppressive behaviour and the other half around how bad the latest new Troytskyist/Anarchist/Stalinist party/group/association is or how this or that phrase in no longer relevant books about far gone era's should be explained slightly different from the evil revisionists of the "others"....the left is in shambles and it is pittiful and laughable to such an extend we are no longer relevant at all.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think privilege theory applied to social praxis is actually causing the introvert left wing circkle jerk. Rather than being inclusive the groups become exclusive with half of the debates revolving around accusations of privilege and oppressive behaviour and the other half around how bad the latest new Troytskyist/Anarchist/Stalinist party/group/association is or how this or that phrase in no longer relevant books about far gone era's should be explained slightly different from the evil revisionists of the "others"....the left is in shambles and it is pittiful and laughable to such an extend we are no longer relevant at all.

To be fair, I don't think there is anything unhealthy with a critical introspection of the types of groups that have dominated the British left for the past couple of decades. They are well out of date, out of touch, and hold pretty much no hope for working class emancipation. If the use of privilege theory applied to praxis helps to engage a wide group of people across the social spectrum in a critical debate about the composition, organisation and content of revolutionary politics, then I view that positively.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I would also add that privilege theory, rooted in an actual positive idea (of how we can empower oppressed social groups), is preferable to the 'we are all doomed the left is shit' sort of politics that only serves to pacify communists by sapping revolutionary spirit and offering no useful solutions for critical engagement or positive development of our political strategies.

[Hermes]

This is probably a dumb statement, but most of the arguments I've seen against privilege theory in this thread seem to be entirely anecdotal evidence that's been blown up into theory that the 'entire left' has been 'afflicted' with the terrors of privilege theory.

I mean, 'everyone I've met who subscribed to privilege theory SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION etc' or so on

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of attempt to grapple with privilege theory as presented by the supporters in this thread, instead people just continue to reply with 'ah, yes, but these people I met believed in privilege theory...'

[PhoenixAsh]

To be fair, I don't think there is anything unhealthy with a critical introspection of the types of groups that have dominated the British left for the past couple of decades. They are well out of date, out of touch, and hold pretty much no hope for working class emancipation. If the use of privilege theory applied to praxis helps to engage a wide group of people across the social spectrum in a critical debate about the composition, organisation and content of revolutionary politics, then I view that positively.


I would also add that privilege theory, rooted in an actual positive idea (of how we can empower oppressed social groups), is preferable to the 'we are all doomed the left is shit' sort of politics that only serves to pacify communists by sapping revolutionary spirit and offering no useful solutions for critical engagement or positive development of our political strategies.



This is actually the exact opposite I am arguing.

Applied privilege theory has not brought ANYTHING positive to the scene but rather has been the source of infighting, alienation, gaps between members, disassociation, exclusivity and distracting from organizing and activism.

It has NOT engaged, it has NOT created an open and inviting environment and it has NOT created a discourse on issues that need addressing. Nor has it created an increased influx of people from un & underprivileged groups.

It created hostility, suspicion, allegations, and has shut down more DA than the police.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is probably a dumb statement, but most of the arguments I've seen against privilege theory in this thread seem to be entirely anecdotal evidence that's been blown up into theory that the 'entire left' has been 'afflicted' with the terrors of privilege theory.

I mean, 'everyone I've met who subscribed to privilege theory SHUT DOWN DISCUSSION etc' or so on

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of attempt to grapple with privilege theory as presented by the supporters in this thread, instead people just continue to reply with 'ah, yes, but these people I met believed in privilege theory...'


Because it isn't the theory that is the problem...it is the application of that theory. And yeah...that basically boils down to the theory being used to shut down discussion, exclude people and shame/call out people for imagined slights based on their perceived gender, sexual orientation, race etc.

And it is a little more than "owww but these people I met believed in theory."
It is the structural take over of the doctrine of who is and who isn't allowed to speak on certain issues. It has created an environment where people offering somebody a drink could (and have been) be excluded for sexism and heteronormative oppression based entirely on them offering that drink. And more than one person have been banned from scenes based on the power of definition.

Because no matter how nice the theory is to illustrate things and create understanding...basing your social organization on that theory creates the environment where we are competing for oppressed status and unless you are a black lesbian transgender woman who is a paraplegic with severe psychological disorders then apparently to some people...your opinion doesn't really matter because as it turns out...you don't understand oppression and you need to be continuously and at all times be called out on your privilege and shamed for it.

And that is, unfortunately, all that it boils down to in reality.

That is per definition going to be based on anecdotal evidence because there has been no scientific research done on the subject. But what you have here is people who give that evidence have over hundreds of years of activism combined saying more or less the same thing about their experiences with the application of this theory as a basis for praxis.

[Hermes]

the theory being used to shut down discussion, exclude people and shame/call out people for imagined slights based on their perceived gender, sexual orientation, race etc.

It is the structural take over of the doctrine of who is and who isn't allowed to speak on certain issues. It has created an environment where people offering somebody a drink could (and have been) be excluded for sexism and heteronormative oppression based entirely on them offering that drink. And more than one person have been banned from scenes based on the power of definition.

basing your social organization on that theory creates the environment where we are competing for oppressed status and unless you are a black lesbian transgender woman who is a paraplegic with severe psychological disorders then apparently to some people...your opinion doesn't really matter because as it turns out...you don't understand oppression and you need to be continuously and at all times be called out on your privilege and shamed for it.

And that is, unfortunately, all that it boils down to in reality.

But what you have here is people who give that evidence have over hundreds of years of activism combined saying more or less the same thing about their experiences with the application of this theory as a basis for praxis.


okay, but obviously that can't be the sole logical conclusion of the application of privilege theory if the experience that quail, vladimir, et al (not to speak for them) differs so drastically. if you admit that it's all anecdotal anyway, I'm not sure why anyone would value your experience over quails, or redworker's over vladimir.

the critiques of the 'oppression olympics' and shaming, etc, seem to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of privilege theory, as you can see many proponents of the theory actively critiquing that very same tendency.

I also think it's kind of misleading to say that groups base their entire existence on privilege theory

[ColumnNo.4]

Where do you see and hear this happening more frequently? It's not placing "blame" on an individual to encourage them to acknowledge their privilege, and I think if you want to be a good ally to any marginalised group of people you need to get past the mindset of blame. Many people are (understandably and justifiably) angry with the way they have been treated by men, by straight people, by white people, etc., but it's not aimed at you personally because you happen to be male, straight, white, etc.

In both listening or engaging myself I've heard this logic levied. As I said before, one should be aware of the privileges their race, sex, etc. however they should not be considered guilty by association.

[Rosa Partizan]

Hermes, I understand what you say, but by what could you judge a theory if not by those who use it and the way it's applied all the time? I mean, if so many people misuse it, maybe there are just really flaws in that theory? I absolutely think that as a hetero white male, there are many forms of oppression that will never apply to you, there's no way denying that. But on the other hand, not all supposed types of oppression apply to less privileged people, I mean not to every single individual. Yes, it's still structural, so single individuals don't really matter when evaluating this theory. But those people who use it to dismiss other people's opinions, which I've seen a lot in this leftist-feminist scene...are THEY really the most oppressed ones? Many of them are middle class and/or study or even have a degree. Does anyone think that some black woman, single mother of 2 children, below the poverty line, will go to a white dude saying "check your privilege, cis-scum"? Really? You know that those most in need don't even think about theory stuff.

[PhoenixAsh]

okay, but obviously that can't be the sole logical conclusion of the application of privilege theory if the experience that quail, vladimir, et al (not to speak for them) differs so drastically. if you admit that it's all anecdotal anyway, I'm not sure why anyone would value your experience over quails, or redworker's over vladimir.

the critiques of the 'oppression olympics' and shaming, etc, seem to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of privilege theory, as you can see many proponents of the theory actively critiquing that very same tendency.

I also think it's kind of misleading to say that groups base their entire existence on privilege theory


Well first off I didn't say anything about organisations basing their sole existence on privilige theory and if that is your take away then my conclusion is that you have not really understood what I was saying and it is an indication that you are not really active as an actvist in the autonomous/anarchist/ANTIFA and or squad scene.

What I did say is that privilege theory is applied as a basis for organisation or apply it in their praxis. There is an obvious difference between that and what you are making of it.



Now I won't speak for or comment on Quail and Vladimir but both are from the UK which is an entirely different scene from mainland Europe and as far as I can tell there is some debate about the state of Anarchist/Autonomous and ANTIFA activity there.When Sasha, Roza and I are speaking we are speaking from experiences in Northern, and parts of Southern and Eastern, Europe. So no. The two narratives do not have equal value as they are based on two entirely different scenes and geographic regions. What it does illustrate is that there maybe a difference between the UK and the European scenes...which would be no surprise at all.


And I do get the impression that they are talking about the theory itself...and we are talking about its application and consequences. Nobody here however is disputing the theory itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think that's the point however that's the direction it's going. You can't place blame on an individual simply because they happen to be male, white, straight, etc. I see and hear this occuring more frequently.


But place isn't being blamed because they are make, white, straight. There is no part of the privilege argument that asserts or implies that someone's race, gender and sexuality is their fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

Hermes, I understand what you say, but by what could you judge a theory if not by those who use it and the way it's applied all the time?

By understanding it, perhaps?


I mean, if so many people misuse it, maybe there are just really flaws in that theory?

Such as what?


I absolutely think that as a hetero white male, there are many forms of oppression that will never apply to you, there's no way denying that. But on the other hand, not all supposed types of oppression apply to less privileged people, I mean not to every single individual. Yes, it's still structural, so single individuals don't really matter when evaluating this theory. But those people who use it to dismiss other people's opinions, which I've seen a lot in this leftist-feminist scene...are THEY really the most oppressed ones? Many of them are middle class and/or study or even have a degree. Does anyone think that some black woman, single mother of 2 children, below the poverty line, will go to a white dude saying "check your privilege, cis-scum"? Really? You know that those most in need don't even think about theory stuff.


So you accept that people misuse the theory, that the theory is essentially correct and that the shaming that happens only does so in elitist circles and doesn't reflect the class at large?...So, erm, what is the actually the problem here?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhoenixAsh]

Because TFU...it is endemic throughout scene en culture

And THAT is something that can not and should not be ignored. '

Simply saying that there is no problem with the theory means that you accept the theory as something which could be and should be readilly applied into praxis rather than it staying a theory which only serves to clarify and illustrate based on one dimensional generalizations and is NOT and can NEVER be a reflection of individual reality.

[ColumnNo.4]

But place isn't being blamed because they are make, white, straight. There is no part of the privilege argument that asserts or implies that someone's race, gender and sexuality is their fault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps not by the theory itself but most certainly by those utilizing it. I'm hearing it more and more and I don't think it's conducive to effectively overcoming the issues of inequality.

Apparently there's a 'not all men' group who receives quite a bit of backlash due to the fact that they are attempting to separate themselves from the generalized statement that all men are, by association, guilty of supporting rape culture.

One could say it's the bastardisation in the application of the theory?

[PhoenixAsh]

Well to be fair....the "not all men" argument is in itself an opposite form of applied privilege theory and the two are both destructive imo.

Both often go hand in hand...by which I mean that on facilitates the other and even aggravates the other.

The truth is that applied privilege theory leads to a culture of blame and shame often baseless and beside the point. The "Not all men" argument is equally not conductive to debates and creates a culture of hiding behind platitudes and posing and as an argument often not true at all.

[Comrade #138672]

While I still accept privilege theory, there are some problems with its incorrect usage. However, there are quite some Marxists who immediately dismiss it as "liberal" and "inherently bourgeois", because it had been thought of by bourgeois liberals first. But, according to this kind of reasoning, we should also dismiss the labor theory of value, because bourgeois economists came with it first. Of course, Marx added something significant to the theory, thereby transforming it into a socialist science. Likewise, I think that privilege theory can be transformed from a bourgeois theory into a supplement for socialist theory. We should remain skeptical about it to a certain degree, but there is nothing wrong with borrowing some of its concepts and ideas, that can be understood as secondary expressions of capitalist class relations, and fitting them into our own framework as being logically derived from class. There is not necessarily anything wrong with acknowledging our differences like that. It can significantly enhance our understanding of working class life and the workers' needs, as long as we understand that class relations lie at the core of everything.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

While I still accept privilege theory, there are some problems with its incorrect usage. However, there are quite some Marxists who immediately dismiss it as "liberal" and "inherently bourgeois", because it had been thought of by bourgeois liberals first.

OK, but that's not even fucking true. As per my previous post, the origins of privilege theory lie primarily in the work of radical anti-capitalist people of colour - notably W.E.B. Dubois, and, more recently, the Combahee River Collective. We can also find certain similar ideas emerging in the furthest left Maoist currents - e.g. J. Sakai, Butch Lee, Bromma. So, yes, some irritating white academics have peddled this shit like it's theirs, but, for fucks sake, why the hell would you buy that?


There is not necessarily anything wrong with acknowledging our differences like that. It can significantly enhance our understanding of working class life and the workers' needs, as long as we understand that class relations lie at the core of everything.

Again, I want to point out what's problematic here: If we simply say, "These are our differences, and they're important, but class is at the core," we risk reproducing the worst mistakes of liberal ideas about privilege - that is, seeing a multitude of "issues" rather than a totalizing system with a particular historical genesis. So, like, we need to flip that formulation on its head to a certain degree, and see the ways that race and gender are at the core of class. This is important - otherwise we're going to be really disoriented vis-a-vis where the proletariat is actually at, because we're going to be looking at the most bought-off big white men, seeing their high level of organization (through unions, through social democratic parties) and saying, "Oh! There is the most advanced section of the working class!" But that's wrong - terribly and destructively wrong, and is going to lead us to make the same 1914-style mistakes over and over again (see: The CPUSA rooting for the Democrats, Fightback! organizing within the NDP and CFS, etc./pick your local example).

[ColumnNo.4]

Well to be fair....the "not all men" argument is in itself an opposite form of applied privilege theory and the two are both destructive imo.

Both often go hand in hand...by which I mean that on facilitates the other and even aggravates the other.

The truth is that applied privilege theory leads to a culture of blame and shame often baseless and beside the point. The "Not all men" argument is equally not conductive to debates and creates a culture of hiding behind platitudes and posing and as an argument often not true at all.

I don't know much about the 'not all men' movement however I agree with the argument that generalisations are counter productive. Privilege theory should be about education, not ostracization.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Because TFU...it is endemic throughout scene en culture

And THAT is something that can not and should not be ignored. '

Simply saying that there is no problem with the theory means that you accept the theory as something which could be and should be readilly applied into praxis rather than it staying a theory which only serves to clarify and illustrate based on one dimensional generalizations and is NOT and can NEVER be a reflection of individual reality.

Surely, if we have a theory here that seems largely to make sense (That we should acknowledge and critically engage with the idea that of relative privilege even within the working class), but there are some issues with its transfer into real world praxis, it makes less sense to throw the entire theory out, instead of analysing why there are some cases where privilege theory is used to shut down discussion and place blame on people for things that are beyond their control.

I get the sense that there are a lot of conjecture-based accusations about the application of privilege theory in the real world that are being used to shut down any meaningful analysis of the theory itself. Which is ironic because this is the same accusation levied against privilege theory in praxis.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Because TFU...it is endemic throughout scene en culture

And THAT is something that can not and should not be ignored. '

Simply saying that there is no problem with the theory means that you accept the theory as something which could be and should be readilly applied into praxis rather than it staying a theory which only serves to clarify and illustrate based on one dimensional generalizations and is NOT and can NEVER be a reflection of individual reality.

Surely, if we have a theory here that seems largely to make sense (That we should acknowledge and critically engage with the idea that of relative privilege even within the working class), but there are some issues with its transfer into real world praxis, it makes less sense to throw the entire theory out, instead of analysing why there are some cases where privilege theory is used to shut down discussion and place blame on people for things that are beyond their control.

I get the sense that there are a lot of conjecture-based accusations about the application of privilege theory in the real world that are being used to shut down any meaningful analysis of the theory itself. Which is ironic because this is the same accusation levied against privilege theory in praxis.

[PhoenixAsh]

We are not saying the theory should be thrown out...but we are saying that the theory is a one dimensional generalization which only has theoretical value as an indicator and illustrator of how levels of oppression affect us.

Applying a one dimensional theory based on gross generalizations without ANY calculation and allowence for such trivial issues as regional differences, inter group power dynamics and the fact that it is based on subjective interpretations of group make ups and identification of group membership etc. is basically bound to be a complete and utter cluster fuck.

This is not conjecture. This is happening and has been happening for years now. The scene has become a joke because of it and people stay away from it. Ironically it is off putting especially for the groups the paxis of Privilege Theory is supposed to protect and ironically the ones who are the most vocal in enforcing it and the logical conseguences it hold are the ones who are the least oppressed and relatively speaking the most privileged of such groups....and...what is more...from the accusations derived from privilege theory there is NO defence. At all...because it is based on identification of group membership and simply belonging to such groups means you are wrong based on the power of definition.

IF you think that is overly dramatic I strongly suggest you frequent some of the places where the power of definition is being implemented.

Now...in respect to OP which primarilly mentioned the application of privilege theory I think this criticism is entirely relevant.



If you want to discuss the usefulness of the theory itself...well...its usefulness by its very nature is limited. It is, as I repreatedly said, a one dimensional comparative generalization which serves to illustrate issues.

The limits of its usefulness are also indicated by its entire name: PRIVILEGE

No. It isn't privilige. It is less oppression. By emphasizing privilege as the main foundation of the theory the theory itself detracts from the plight of all groups involved in the comparison. And is based from the perspective of the lowest common denominator. Meaning that groups higher up the privilege ladder appear to be the groups that are NOT oppressed...a fact that can be witnessed on this site frequently.

This means that according to those who really understand the theory itself the ones with the most right to speak and the ones who also have the best knowledge how to fight their supression and have the most authority to speak on the issues are the ones who are the most oppressed within a certain subgroup. And that...is complete and utter bullocks to put it mildly.



The theory fails to adress, as I said, the interconnectivity of oppression and intra- & inter groups power dynamics andf views the issue devoid of any comparative social and economic context. It simply can not process reality accurately and the levels of oppression and privilege completely and utterly change when more factors are introduced up to a point that the theory itself becomes defective and no longer has any value or purpose. It also can not handle individual levels of awareness and practice and therefore fails utterly as anything that can be applied in the real world.


As a basis for organization and practical application is does however create more discord, strive and miscomprehension and, even worse, mutual antipathy than any other theory. Stalinists at an anarchist meeting is more conductive for political meaningful debate than application of privilege theory and I have held more constructive debates shouting at Nazi's on the street than I have had with some of the self professed guardians of the under priviliged wielding privilege theory as their main argument.


Again....IF you think this overly dramatic I again strongly urge you to come to mainland Europe and frequent the scenes in which the power of definition is being used

[The Feral Underclass]

This whole debate is dishonest because Phoenix is trying to conflate privilege theory with his bad experiences while simultaneously saying that the problem isn't privilege theory but those who misuse it.

If the main premise of Phoenix and Roza et al is that people misuse privilege theory and that's bad, well that's obviously true and no one has denied that, so where is the contention?

If we're saying that applied theory in the Dutch and German scenes have informed the theory of privilege there, well that's fine, but that's specific and not general to the theory and its history, or its applications (except through misunderstanding) elsewhere. Unless, of course, you want to generalise it and then your real issue is exposed -- you just don't like the fundamental idea, and it has nothing to do with anything else.

I would be interested to know what these examples of shutting down and guilt placing actually are (unless I've missed them), because in my experience of this kind of application of shutting someone down it is usually in a queer meeting when straight men come and tell us our ideas and struggles are divisive, or when men speak over women. The only guilt placing I've seen is when women get fucking angry that men are sat around smoking and drinking while kitchens get cleaned and make it clear that it's not okay...

So yeah, I can imagine if you've been called out in these ways, it probably would make you question the theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Feral Underclass]

I'd like to add, actually, that -- in my view at least -- privilege theory is something that should be auto-applied (or self-applied). It's not something that can be applied onto you.

The point, surely, is that we all question our behaviours and attitudes, and develop a self-reflective and self-critical approach to how we interact with other humans (and non-humans)...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Testicles]

(and non-humans)...


Like oak trees and daffodils...

[The Feral Underclass]

Like oak trees and daffodils...

Daffodils def need to check their privilege.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Testicles]

Daffodils def need to check their privilege.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Check your animal privilege you speciesist! You always hear talk about "animal rights" and "animal welfare" but you never hear about plant rights!

If you don't give your dog water and it dies you go to jail, if you forget to water those rhododendrons and they die no-one will care.

If I butcher my cat and boil it people will be aghast but I do the same to a noble cabbage and people don't bat an eyelid.

Just because they don't have faces or any recognisable intellect!

It's time to end this animal privilege! Give Peas a chance!

[The Feral Underclass]

What about legumes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Testicles]

What about legumes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aren't peas a type of legume?

The only plant that doesn't deserve any rights are courgettes because they're an affront to humanity and everything it stands for.

[Quail]

This is a general warning to stay on topic guys.

[PhoenixAsh]

TFU, do you know what is really really dishonest? That you pretend that this thread isn't about the practical application of the Privilege Theory and that so far all you have been doing is completely ignoring all that has been said and used the same disengenous accusationist mentality towards people who have been active in these scenes for years and years and who have witnessed how incredibly disruptive and destructive it actually is.

You can repeat over and over again how there is nothing wrong with the theory but what you continue to fail to adress is the fact that it is and always will be a one dimensional comparitive generalization which doesn't fucking work in reality because it lacks any capacity of illustrating the intricacies of power dynamics cross groups and within groups...at all.

Instead you do this:


So yeah, I can imagine if you've been called out in these ways, it probably would make you question the theory.


And this:


and then your real issue is exposed -- you just don't like the fundamental idea, and it has nothing to do with anything else

You have ignored the many, many points I brought up...and your only answer....is illustrating exactly what Sasha, Roza, a lot of other users and I have been saying. You have based your entire answer based on specious subtile allegations.

And that is exactly the mentality displayed by the disengenous fucks who propagate the praxis and application of privilege theory and the resulting power of definition: If you do not agree it is probably because you are a sexist, racist prick who can't stand their white cis gendered privilege being challenged.

No need to actually adress arguments of course...

But the simple fact of the matter is that what is actually happening and what you are doing here is the logical outcome of that very same privilege theory and your complete and utter inability to distinguish from a generalization model and actual reality.

Let me make this clear:

The model is not meant as a practical means of organization. It is an illustrative tool that can clarify certain aspects of oppression and illustrates the differences of experiencing reality. It has never been meant, never been designed and isn't capable and will never ever be capable of actually working in the real world as a practical applicable tool because the real world is not made up out of generalizations and individuals do NOT fit the stereotypical portrayal and simplifications the theory necessarilly have to use.

What applying the theory actually does is reducing people to certain aspect, labels if you will, and it forces to out themselves if they do not want to be subjectively grouped into a certain category.

This isn't missuse...this is the logical extend of applying your little precious theory that has never been designed to be anything else than just that: a theory.

And you adress beautifully another reason WHY it can never work in your second post here: it should be auto- or self applied. But the theory doesn't actually say that...at all...ever. So that is basically just your opinion about the theory (one which I completely agree with...at least for the last part of it) and not something that is part of the theory itself. Now that in itself should illustrate that how YOU feel that the theory should be applied...is not how it is actually viewed by people in huge sections of the European revolutionary left.

Now...we do not really need privilege theory. What we actually need is basic social fucking skills and reason. Just because a man interrupts you doesn't mean he is opressing a woman or showing male privilege. And just because you identify a male as being CIS gendered doesn't actually mean that someone is actually CIS gendered. Because what privilege theory does absolutely not do is take into account personal and individual narrative. So just because somebody isn't actually gay or queer means you know better how to organize than he or she.

Let me clarify that last part for you:

Just because you belong to an oppressed group doesn't really equate you with special knowledge, skills or powers nor does it make you a spoke person for that group. What that DOES mean is that perhaps you have a better understanding of what it is to belong to that group and perhaps you know first hand the oppression that group is facing. Nothing more...nothing less...and it most definately isn't a guarantee that that is actually the case.

What Privilege Theory also doesn't actually explain is inter group power dynamics and inter group levels of privilege and oppression. So how white cis women oppress each other for example....never adressed by privilege theory. Why? Because it is one dimensional. It doesn't explain geographic and regional variations and deviations...at all...ever. Why? Because it wasn't designed to do so.

Now...you can dismiss all this criticism and the criticism you have completely ignored so far...and you can create your little subtile allegations....that proves my point. But I loved this:


Unless, of course, you want to generalise it and then your real issue is exposed

Wauw.

Your entire experience has been limited to some sections of the UK scene. You have fuck all experience for the rest of Europe. My experience with this subject has crossed 7...7 countries. Add to that the experiences of Rosa and Sasha that substantiate my criticism almost to the letter for at least two of these 7 countries....and we are the ones trying to generalize?

How fucking disengenuous.

Wauw.

[The Feral Underclass]

TFU, do you know what is really really dishonest? That you pretend that this thread isn't about the practical application of the Privilege Theory and that so far all you have been doing is completely ignoring all that has been said and used the same disengenous accusationist mentality towards people who have been active in these scenes for years and years and who have witnessed how incredibly disruptive and destructive it actually is.

I don't know what you mean by "pretended"? I'm not pretending anything about the application of privilege theory. If you read my post I very clearly identify and accept a portion of your argument as "fine." All I have done is point out your inconsistent argument, of which there are seemingly two premises: a) that people misuse privilege theory and that this application is specific to your experiences (at least you support Roza's point which is precisely this) and b) that privilege theory is fundamentally flawed.

Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. If you argue that a theory can be misused, then you are implicitly accepting that there is a legitimate theory to be misused. You also simultaneously say that the theory is flawed, which implicitly means that the theory isn't legitimate. Well, it can't be both? So which is it?


You can repeat over and over again how there is nothing wrong with the theory but what you continue to fail to adress is the fact that it is and always will be a one dimensional comparitive generalization which doesn't fucking work in reality because it lacks any capacity of illustrating the intricacies of power dynamics cross groups and within groups...at all.

But I have seen it applied and I have seen it work, so either you can counter that by accusing me of lying or you can accept that your specific experiences are not an indictment of the entire theory of privilege...


You have ignored the many, many points I brought up...and your only answer....is illustrating exactly what Sasha, Roza, a lot of other users and I have been saying. You have based your entire answer based on specious subtile allegations.

My allegation isn't specious or subtle, it's demonstrable and blatant. I'll repeat it for you: Your argument is inconsistent and based on a prejudiced interpretation of privilege theory according to your personal experiences.


Instead you do this:

So you haven't been called out? I mean, I personally would be interested to know..


And this:

You just spent the previous paragraphs explaining to me how privilege theory is fundamentally flawed. So when I say: "your real issue is exposed -- you just don't like the fundamental idea, and it has nothing to do with anything else" that is actually true...I think...I mean, you've not been particularly consistent, so it's hard to tell.


And that is exactly the mentality displayed by the disengenous fucks who propagate the praxis and application of privilege theory and the resulting power of definition: If you do not agree it is probably because you are a sexist, racist prick who can't stand their white cis gendered privilege being challenged.

In my experience it usually does mean that...


No need to actually adress arguments of course...

But the argument that you want addressing is whether or not white, straight, cis-men are privileged or not, or at least the theory can't be applied in practice...If it's not that, then what is it? What is the actual argument that you are making? That all white, straight cis-men are different? Well, that's not really an argument is it? It's just a statement of fact...


But the simple fact of the matter is that what is actually happening and what you are doing here is the logical outcome of that very same privilege theory and your complete and utter inability to distinguish from a generalization model and actual reality.

You show me a white, straight able bodied cis-man who is not advantaged at the expense of those who are not white, straight able bodied cis-man and I will reject privilege theory.


The model is not meant as a practical means of organization.

No, it's meant as an autoapplied process of self-reflection and self-criticism based on an understanding of social privilege. But ultimately, people can organise however they want. If you don't like the way some people organise and the way some people are prepared to call others out for their attitudes and behaviour, well that's just tough shit really.


It is an illustrative tool that can clarify certain aspects of oppression and illustrates the differences of experiencing reality. It has never been meant, never been designed and isn't capable and will never ever be capable of actually working in the real world as a practical applicable tool because the real world is not made up out of generalizations and individuals do NOT fit the stereotypical portrayal and simplifications the theory necessarilly have to use.

If it can't be applied in reality, that would mean that queer people shouting down a straight man for telling them they are divisive for waging queer struggles couldn't happen. If privilege theory can't be applied in reality, then that would mean women couldn't tell men to get off their lazy fucking arses and contribute some domestic tasks at social gatherings...Or if you say they can do that, then how is doing so not privilege theory applied?...


This isn't missuse

So there is a fundamental flaw in the theory?


And you adress beautifully another reason WHY it can never work in your second post here: it should be auto- or self applied. But the theory doesn't actually say that...at all...ever.

Right, but we're talking about correct and incorrect ways of applying the theory...I mean, that obviously starts from the premise that privilege theory can be applied in the first place...


So that is basically just your opinion about the theory (one which I completely agree with...at least for the last part of it) and not something that is part of the theory itself. Now that in itself should illustrate that how YOU feel that the theory should be applied...is not how it is actually viewed by people in huge sections of the European revolutionary left.

So you are now arguing that it can be applied correctly, which you just spent an entire post saying it couldn't be...

But I don't think it's a question of how I "feel", it's a question of how I apply the theory of privilege, which is the entire purpose of your intervention. right? If you're argument is that people apply the theory in one way, but that another way is better, then you have to accept that there is actually a way for it to be applied correctly and therefore the theory can be applied correctly...Which negates your argument that it can't be...


Your entire experience has been limited to some sections of the UK scene. You have fuck all experience for the rest of Europe. My experience with this subject has crossed 7...7 countries. Add to that the experiences of Rosa and Sasha that substantiate my criticism almost to the letter for at least two of these 7 countries....and we are the ones trying to generalize?

Let's assume for argument's sake that my experience is limited to the UK "scene" (what does that even mean?), what does your alleged experience actually prove? I don't know what these mysterious "scenes" are...Maybe you could tell us what they are...But perhaps what it proves is that your "scenes" are just shitty places? I mean, the political organising I'm involved in includes, you know, adults...Normal, self-possessing adults...People who are perfectly capable of communicating with each other about problems they have in a productive, mature way...When someone behaves shitty, they get called out on it and the person goes away and reflects...Maybe there is some discussion, maybe there is some disagreement, but it usually doesn't result in massive dramas (as per the anarchist book fair recently). Then again, these "scenes" aren't anarchist "scenes," which, when I think about it is where most, if not all, of these dramas occur...

[PhoenixAsh]

So far what you have done is illustrate perfectly what we have been saying. Rather than address the actual arguments that have been provided you have so far basically dismissed and ignored them and rather based your entire argument and answer on the user and how you perveive their membership of a certain group laced entirely with subtile and not so subtile accusations of blatant privilege.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that using privilege theory the way you are using it here works for you. And that is rather the point....and part of all the arguments you either missed or completely ignored.



Now aside from this obvious fact in which you in itself completely legitimize and illustrate the points we are making you also have made a very huge error.

So let me explain again what I am actually saying...it really, really isn't that hard:

1). There is nothing wrong with the theory if you use it as a theory. It is a one dimensional comparative generalization approach that serves to illustrate how, on certain issues, the experience of members of certain groups may differ.

2). When you apply it as a basis for praxis the theory is flawed. Most obviously because of point one. And more importantly because it isn't a model that can deal with the power dynamics that actually take place in society.

Now I can understand that the concept of something being fine on paper but not actually functioning in reality as a basis for praxis is a difficult one to grasp and that you therefore feel the need to simply dismiss it as being contradictory.

What is however very contradictory is the following:


I'd like to add, actually, that -- in my view at least -- privilege theory is something that should be auto-applied (or self-applied). It's not something that can be applied onto you.

From which you continue to then use it to create accusations, calling out, blaming, and giving examples in which it actually is forced on people to illustrate how it does actually work in your opinion. Which is kind of ironic. In order to show how it works you have to rely on examples that contradict how you think it should work.

The fact that you use the phrase: calling out (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/call+out)...also illustrates a mind set that isn't at all conductive to create an atmosphere of safety and cooperation and finding mutual common talking points. More so because that calling out is done because of subjective perceptions of somebodies group association and membership. And that is even aside from the fact that it is entirely based on the subjective interpretation of behaviour from members of less privileged groups because they say it is where no defence is actually possible from the accusation because of the circle reasoning inherent in the theory itself.

I will come back to these points later below

Now...you think you may have found some argument in paying heavy attention to subjective examples which then, in your opinion, show how this is not indicative of the theory working or not working. OMG you have caught me. It is just like I didn't say in my first post in this thread (#56 for if you are interested):


I will illustrate the points I will make with personal examples to illustrate how this works. These examples are based on my personal experiences but I have witnessed them many, many, many times in different forms and constructs and they are merely here to illustrate HOW privilege theory is applied in praxis.


Or that it means that I am saying it never works and falsely generalize. Because I have most definately never said this:


Except that is exactly how privilage theory put as the basis of political praxis works out. Now I am not sure about the UK...but it does in large parts of Northern Europe.

But sure...I am being dishonest.


Now lets get back to the actual points you so far have failed to address in lieu of creating your speciouos accusations based on half-truths and subjective interpretations....of why Privilege Theory is flawed when it comes to practical application as a basis for praxis:


1). Privilege theory is based on generalizations.

2). Privilege theory is one dimensional

3). Privilege theory says nothing about intra group oppression and doesn't differ between inter group oppression

4). Privilege theory is based on theoretical group membership

5). Privilege theory is based on certain set assumptions for oppressive or privileged behaviour based on the perception of the oppressed or under privileged group

6). Privilege theory assumes congnitive awareness of absence of privileges

7). Privilege theory does not involve individual context

8). Privilege theory does not calculate contextualization

And those are a few of the criticisms levelled against privilege theory being applied as the basis for praxis.

In reality there are several more issues.

Its terminology for example is one of them. And as you beautifully illutrate this works out as creating the illusion that more priviliged groups do not face oppression or their oppression is entirely irrelevant...because...as you yourself state in your reply...it is a comparison of absence of privileges.

There is also an obvious problem with the power of definition that is inherrent in the theory. Just because an individual of a certain group says something is oppresive or privileged behaviour doesn't really automatically entail that it is. Yet people from other groups can, as per theory, not really address these issues, because the theory itself states that members of an oppressed group have a better insight in what is and what isn't oppressive behaviour towards them not being a member of that group means flatly you are not able to tell. Naturally disagreements between group members not withstanding.

To actually be able to have your opinion on certain issues and, especially, in certain conflicts taken seriously it actually forces people to identify themselves as belonging to a specific group. Even if they do not want to do so, do not feel safe or comfortable to do so...in places which pretend to be and create a safe environment.

And as I said before membership of a certain group does not actually magically grant you special insights, knowledge or enables you to speak for that group...at all. However privilege theory actually does assume this because it is an abstract model to explain certain aspects of reality and not a tool to accurately reflect reality. Nor does membership of a certain group automatically mean that you do not have a deep level of insight and understanding of what other groups face and can actually some pretty amazing, valid suggestions and ideas.



Now...all of the issues you mentioned that would no longer be possible without the application of privilege theory as a basis of praxis...naturally are entirely able to be solved without actually applying privilege theory. It is called communicating, understanding, mutual respect, self criticism and trying to understand each other.

Now I will absolutely be the first to admit that there are huge problems on exactly these issues. But exactly the mentality of "calling out" contributes to these huge problems.

Lastly I am going to address this question:


So you haven't been called out? I mean, I personally would be interested to know..


If by called out you mean that people calmly mentioned, often in private or in a select group, how certain aspects of my behaviour or of what I said or how I said it could be perceived as insulting and perhaps were the result of socialization...then yes. On these occasions I learned a whole lot, didn't agree with everything, but I think it enabled me to actually evolve my opinions and make some changes in how I behave to people or what my choice of words is. Most of these instances were instances where I was even unaware that I was doing something that offended somebody. And admittedly in most of these instances the people who pointed this out to me had a point to one extend or another. In all of these instances I have had valued discussions or exchanges of ideas and opinions and had the chance to actually explain how I meant something or why their interpretation was probably not what they made of it if that was appropriate.

Have I ever been "called out" in its definition? Then yes. Absolutely. I have been called out multiple times...publicly, often shamed, and in some occasions I have been asked to leave.

Now...personally I don't really give a flying rats ass what other people I do not value at all think of me. So there is little drama from me. But you know what is actually funny? In allmost all of the instances where I have been called out and accused...the invariable result has always been infighting between members of the group I supposedly was oppressing or showing privileged behaviour towards on whether or not I was. Not to mention that in most of those occasions the reason I was called out was really...interesting...to say the least. Or in some of these cases I was forced to out myself and suddenly the exact same behaviour was perfectly fine and acceptable.

Now do you want specific examples to go with this?

[The Feral Underclass]

This is a rushed, half-arsed post, because, to be honest, I'm really bored, which is why this will be my last post to you...But anyway...


So far what you have done is illustrate perfectly what we have been saying.

But I don't have any problem with that...My issue here is not trying to not illustrate what you're saying. On the contrary, I am trying to outline what you're saying in a more coherent way so that I can understand it...


Rather than address the actual arguments that have been provided you have so far basically dismissed and ignored them and rather based your entire argument and answer on the user and how you perveive their membership of a certain group laced entirely with subtile and not so subtile accusations of blatant privilege.

I can't dismiss and ignore an argument that I don't undrstand. You have contradicted yourself twice. I have outlined those contradictions to you. Until you have addressed them, there really is no more that can be said on the issue.


I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that using privilege theory the way you are using it here works for you. And that is rather the point....and part of all the arguments you either missed or completely ignored.

In your previous post you said, "t [privilege theory] has never been meant, never been designed and isn't capable and will never ever be capable of actually working in the real world as a practical applicable tool."

This statement contradicts the statement you are making here that, "no doubt whatsoever that using privilege theory the way you are using it here works for you."

How can privilege theory simultaneously never be capable of practical application and have a working practical application? So, this isn't me ignoring your argument, it's me telling you that what you're saying is contradictory.


Now aside from this obvious fact in which you in itself completely legitimize and illustrate the points we are making you also have made a very huge error.

So let me explain again what I am actually saying...it really, really isn't that hard:

1). There is nothing wrong with the theory if you use it as a theory. It is a one dimensional comparative generalization approach that serves to illustrate how, on certain issues, the experience of members of certain groups may differ.

2). When you apply it as a basis for praxis the theory is flawed. Most obviously because of point one. And more importantly because it isn't a model that can deal with the power dynamics that actually take place in society.

So again, it's not that I'm ignoring your argument, or as you've pointed out, even disagreeing with it, my point of contention is that your argument is logically inconsistent.

Firstly, you have already accepted that the theory can be applied without being flawed. Secondly, if your argument is that the theory isn't designed to deal with the power dynamics that actually take place in society, how can it a) legitimately achieve your first point and b) how can those applying it incorrectly be applying privilege theory. How can you incorrectly apply something that can't be applied in the first place...? :confused:


Now I can understand that the concept of something being fine on paper but not actually functioning in reality as a basis for praxis is a difficult one to grasp and that you therefore feel the need to simply dismiss it as being contradictory.

I'm not dismissing the idea that the theory [I]not being able to be put into praxis is contradictory, I am highlighting that your argument is contradictory, as I've outlined several times to you already.

Privilege theory can be applied, I have seen it, and you have accepted that this is "no doubt" a working model...So what we are left with here is your bad experiences, which leads me to consider what those bad experiences actually are. Is this really about privilege theory, or is it about your life choices and the way you have been treated?


What is however very contradictory is the following:


I'd like to add, actually, that -- in my view at least -- privilege theory is something that should be auto-applied (or self-applied). It's not something that can be applied onto you.

From which you continue to then use it to create accusations, calling out, blaming, and giving examples in which it actually is forced on people to illustrate how it does actually work in your opinion. Which is kind of ironic. In order to show how it works you have to rely on examples that contradict how you think it should work.

The fact that you use the phrase: calling out (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/call+out)...also illustrates a mind set that isn't at all conductive to create an atmosphere of safety and cooperation and finding mutual common talking points. More so because that calling out is done because of subjective perceptions of somebodies group association and membership. And that is even aside from the fact that it is entirely based on the subjective interpretation of behaviour from members of less privileged groups because they say it is where no defence is actually possible from the accusation because of the circle reasoning inherent in the theory itself.

Aside from the fact that most queer people, women and people of colour are sick and fucking tired of trying to find "mutual common talking points" with people who constantly reinforce our oppressions, it's not actually our responsibility to create an atmosphere of safety and cooperation...

On your point about this so-called contradiction: I have never said that I have a problem with people being called out. It is necessary and right for queer people to shout down straight men and it is necessary and right for women to call out men who treat them like servants. If you have a problem with that, then perhaps we are getting closer to the truth of this issue.


1). Privilege theory is based on generalizations.

So?


2). Privilege theory is one dimensional

It is a a theory that deconstructs social oppression with a tradition dating back decades, involving huge amounts of texts, research and debate. The argument that it is superficial only indicates your lack of awareness.


3). Privilege theory says nothing about intra group oppression and doesn't differ between inter group oppression

Why is that the responsibility of privilege theory?


4). Privilege theory is based on theoretical group membership

I have no idea what this means or what its significance is...


5). Privilege theory is based on certain set assumptions for oppressive or privileged behaviour based on the perception of the oppressed or under privileged group

Because they are demonstrably true.


6). Privilege theory assumes congnitive awareness of absence of privileges

Privilege theory assumes that someone has the ability to be aware of an absence of privilege? Is that what you're saying?


7). Privilege theory does not involve individual context

When a straight man is shouting at me in a meeting, I don't need to give a fuck about their individual context, actually.


8). Privilege theory does not calculate contextualization

Because it doesn't have to.

The fundamental premise of my argument is that straight, white, able-bodied cis-men either need to stop replicating their shitty behaviour and attitudes and reinforcing my oppression through them, or they can fuck off.


Its terminology for example is one of them. And as you beautifully illutrate this works out as creating the illusion that more priviliged groups do not face oppression or their oppression is entirely irrelevant...because...as you yourself state in your reply...it is a comparison of absence of privileges.

That is an illusion fabricated in the minds of people who have an issue with the theory. This isn't about oppression Olympics, it's about an holistic understanding of oppression that intersects. The only time it becomes this illusion is when people like you turn it into one in order to win an argument.


There is also an obvious problem with the power of definition that is inherrent in the theory. Just because an individual of a certain group says something is oppresive or privileged behaviour doesn't really automatically entail that it is.

I don't see how that has anything to do with privilege theory. That principle can be applied to literally everything.


Yet people from other groups can, as per theory, not really address these issues, because the theory itself states that members of an oppressed group have a better insight in what is and what isn't oppressive behaviour towards them not being a member of that group means flatly you are not able to tell. Naturally disagreements between group members not withstanding.

You think that you understand female oppression better than a woman?


To actually be able to have your opinion on certain issues and, especially, in certain conflicts taken seriously it actually forces people to identify themselves as belonging to a specific group. Even if they do not want to do so, do not feel safe or comfortable to do so...in places which pretend to be and create a safe environment.

My objective in life is not about making white, straight men feel safe and comfortable. And I'm not going to apologise for that.


And as I said before membership of a certain group does not actually magically grant you special insights, knowledge or enables you to speak for that group...at all.

No, but if you want to have those insights, knowledge and be able to speak for that group, being in that group is usually a good place to start.


Now...all of the issues you mentioned that would no longer be possible without the application of privilege theory as a basis of praxis...naturally are entirely able to be solved without actually applying privilege theory. It is called communicating, understanding, mutual respect, self criticism and trying to understand each other.

All of which is enabled by the understanding of privilege...


Now I will absolutely be the first to admit that there are huge problems on exactly these issues. But exactly the mentality of "calling out" contributes to these huge problems.

Only if you're straight, white, male, cis-gendered and able bodied.


If by called out you mean that people calmly mentioned, often in private or in a select group, how certain aspects of my behaviour or of what I said or how I said it could be perceived as insulting and perhaps were the result of socialization...then yes. On these occasions I learned a whole lot, didn't agree with everything, but I think it enabled me to actually evolve my opinions and make some changes in how I behave to people or what my choice of words is. [quote]Most of these instances were instances where I was even unaware that I was doing something that offended somebody.

A perfect example of privilege.


And admittedly in most of these instances the people who pointed this out to me had a point to one extend or another. In all of these instances I have had valued discussions or exchanges of ideas and opinions and had the chance to actually explain how I meant something or why their interpretation was probably not what they made of it if that was appropriate.

Wow, privilege theory being applied in a productive way...Who'd have thought it...


Have I ever been "called out" in its definition? Then yes. Absolutely. I have been called out multiple times...publicly, often shamed, and in some occasions I have been asked to leave.

So you want us to believe that you are innocent and all the people that have called you out are just wrong?

What credibility do you have? Basically, a stranger has come into a discussion about privilege theory, gone on an emotive rant about how it's this great terrible thing when applied in real life (but is fine so long as it isn't applied and no one actually calls any one out), who, it turns out, has been "called out" a number of times for their shitty behaviour, and we're not supposed to take this into consideration?

Maybe the reality here is that you're just a jackass?


Now...personally I don't really give a flying rats ass what other people I do not value at all think of me.

Well, perhaps you should start...


So there is little drama from me. But you know what is actually funny? In allmost all of the instances where I have been called out and accused...the invariable result has always been infighting between members of the group I supposedly was oppressing or showing privileged behaviour towards on whether or not I was. Not to mention that in most of those occasions the reason I was called out was really...interesting...to say the least. Or in some of these cases I was forced to out myself and suddenly the exact same behaviour was perfectly fine and acceptable.

I would wager that the issue here is probably on a more fundamental political level. I'm assuming the "scenes" you're talking about are anarchist ones? If so, all this does is illustrate the anarchist morass.

[consuming negativity]

Is anybody actually reading these ridiculously long-winded choppy-ass posts? Your arguments will make a lot more sense and be a lot more easier to read if you write in full paragraphs, and it will also make you a lot more likely to actually address the main arguments within a post because you will be forced to write fluently and coherently.

[PhoenixAsh]

The entire premisse with which you address the arguments presented to you is by making the assumption that they are founded in white cis male membership of a group and that whatever is actually said has no merrit beyond that point. And that is exactly why privilege theory should stay just a theory and should not be applied as a basis of praxis.

Now once again I have to point out that your entire premisse on why applied privilege theory as a basis of praxis works is by enforcing it on others in stead of applying it as a tool of self reflection like you said you thought was the only correct way to apply privilege theory in praxis.

Your inability to actually behave yourself accordingly and your insistance on shifting the discourse away from the content of an argument to the one making the argument is really, really ironic.

Not to mention you still don't really seem to be able to actually process the simple premisse that some theories are valid and useful on paper but lack the capacity to be applied as the foundation of praxis because of their short commings in being used that way. It is the same principle why planes make shitty cars...they are intended to fly and not to drive down a highway.

So yes, of course using the privilege theory to shut down any content related debate and by discrediting the arguments actually presented by shifting the focus on group membership based on your subjective assumptions rather than on their actual content works for you. That was an ironic statement...which apparently flew over your head. It meant and means that it works for the person using it to shut down discussion and discredit the arguments based on perceived group membership and casting doubt on the character of the one making it based on...tada....privilege theory because somebody really can not defend themselves against a theory that simply states that that is what they are actually doing based on the fact that they belong to a certain group (wether they belong to that group or not).

Now your entire reply is a huge cop out. Not only actually addressing the issue and relying heavilly on the premise that it is entirely fueled because I belong to a privileged group...in your subjective assessment.

Which privileged group would that be in your high opinion? Would that be the CIS group? Would that be the Male group? Would that be the heterosexual group? Or would that be the white group? The able bodied group? THe mental health group? Which one or ones? And....where do you base that on? To what is your comparison made? To which group? Your premise that my criticism is based on group membership completely relies on the comparison of group membership over a subject which is not dependend on actual group membership. And is my opinion on the matter is privileged and therefore less valid than yours because you happen to be a non-heterosexual? And does this trump Sasha's staments? Which makes your non-heterosexuality more qualified to question my arguments than his non-heterosexuality? Or Roza for that matter? Not entirely sure either way how privilege factors in into criticizing the way the theory is applied as a basis for praxis.


And that is exactly what I have been trying to argue. There are sooooo many problems that arise from trying to use a theory based on generalizations and one dimensional comparison of specific issues as a foundation of praxis that it actually doesn't work and creates more problems than it solves. And again...you beautifully illustrate this in your behaviour.

And of course we have your usual cop out of running out of a thread dismissively pronouncing your superiority. There is a term from management that embodies your behaviour perfectly: seagul management. You fly into the window screaming loudly, shit all over the place and fly out the other window still screaming loudly. Your actual contribution being close to zero.

Now. I have never actually told you what I have been called out on or what people pointed out as being insulting. And how this reflects on individually applicable cases. Yet you fully grasp this as:


So you want us to believe that you are innocent and all the people that have called you out are just wrong?


As a reply to this statement specifically:


Have I ever been "called out" in its definition? Then yes. Absolutely. I have been called out multiple times...publicly, often shamed, and in some occasions I have been asked to leave.

I don't want you to believe anything. I have not said that I was innocent or that these people were wrong...in fact I haven't commented on this at all.

What I did say a section later was that:


So there is little drama from me. But you know what is actually funny? In allmost all of the instances where I have been called out and accused...the invariable result has always been infighting between members of the group I supposedly was oppressing or showing privileged behaviour towards on whether or not I was. Not to mention that in most of those occasions the reason I was called out was really...interesting...to say the least. Or in some of these cases I was forced to out myself and suddenly the exact same behaviour was perfectly fine and acceptable.

Which you conveniently ignore entirely.

And reply to that maybe the scenes are anarchist ones and therefore shitty scenes.

Tendency bait much?


What that section says is three things:
1). When two people of an oppressed group disagree that certain behaviour is the result of privilege or oppressive...then what?
2). The reason I was called out was interesting. I for one never knew that casually glancing at somebody was "raping them with your eyes". Or offering somebody a drink was oppressive. Or asking a guy where he got his make up was actually homophobic. Or asking a woman with whom I had been discussing her new born baby with for over an hour how she and her boyfriend were coping was actually heteronormative oppression (this was actually the accusation of a third party). And yes...these are actual examples.
3). That I was forced to out myself in a supposed safe space based on the assumption that I was a hetero, CIS, male and white to boot and the charge based on that assumption was completely overturned.

And of course I have been socialized male. So of course I have had my share of learnings to do. Pointing out those learnings however is NOT applying privilege theory as a basis for praxis. They maybe examples of privilege theory. But there is a huge and obvious difference between being an example of privilege and applying privilege theory as a basis of praxis. Now...supposedly you are intelligent enough to actually understand that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Jesus fucking Christ. There are useful critiques to be made of "privilege" - I posted a link to one earlier (Andrea Smith's "The Problem with 'Privilege'"), and there are others - "Accomplices Not Allies", for example. This garbage, however, is attacking a version of "privilege theory" that exists solely among people who haven't bothered to dig into the material.

So, in hopes of clarifying some things:


1). Privilege theory is based on generalizations

No, privilege theory is based on the concrete historical genesis of specific forms of systemic violence.


3). Privilege theory says nothing about intra group oppression and doesn't differ between inter group oppression

Actually, it says quite a bit about "intra group oppression" - its origins are very much in Women of Colour feminists' critiques of white and liberal feminism, and its imagination of a singular universal category of women. It also starts from the specificity of oppressions - their historical development, etc. - so that white supremacy operates differently (but inseparably) from patriarchy, etc.


4). Privilege theory is based on theoretical group membership

No, it's based on material processes which mark and order bodies. This includes, typically, explicit jurido-political measures (laws forbidding certain sexual acts, disenfranchising populations, etc.), social norms, etc.


5). Privilege theory is based on certain set assumptions for oppressive or privileged behaviour based on the perception of the oppressed or under privileged group

No, as per above, it assumes the marking and ordering of bodies - so that, for example, certain privileges are literally designated within juridico-political frameworks, certain behaviours and ways of being are within and definitive of social norms, etc.


6). Privilege theory assumes congnitive awareness of absence of privileges

No, it doesn't. In fact, it tends to assume that systems of oppression naturalize themselves, and that oppression is often experienced as isolating and individualizing, rather than as a manifestation of systems which privilege. However, it does, correctly, point out that it is the self-activity of the oppressed which makes these systems comprehensible, and that the privileged are apt to experience them as natural unless confronted with a serious challenge to their assumptions. This is demonstrably true - where privileged people now talk about oppression and recognize it as such, one can trace this awareness to the activity of the oppressed, and not the sudden goodwill or deep insight of the privileged. Of course, systems of power continually attempt to erase this reality, so that instead of Women of Colour Feminism informing this conversation, we get tumblr being cited as an accurate reflection of these theories.
Chew on that bit.


7). Privilege theory does not involve individual context

That really depends on what you mean by "individual context". It certainly looks at the ways in which people's/peoples' social locations are informed by intersecting structures of power. It certainly doesn't deal with "the individual" as atomized construction of bourgeois politics.

-

As you can see, I've omitted numbers two and eight from your list. Number two wasn't really claiming anything. I'm assuming the latter is in fact a point, but you're going to need to articulate it differently. I've never in my life been asked to "calculate contextualization", so I don't know what you're trying to say.

[PhoenixAsh]

I am struggling how to place my response in a readable format. But lets go.

First off all...lets face reality. Privilege theorists do not agree with each other. That means that among privilege theorists there is disagreement. That means that you clarifying privilege theory and how it should be interpreted relies on specific intepretations. We have Wing describing privilege theory as a form of aggression against non privileged groups. We have Shaman basically saying that it iss derived from our forms of education and we have Kimmel and Blum stating that not all white men are racist and Kendall saying all white men are racist. So lets cut the bullshit here and not pretend there is one single unified theory.

So to answer your points. Lets start here.

The reply you gave to privilege theory relying on generlizations. Aside from the fact that the answer you gave did not really address that point it is also at least partially wrong here. And for several reasons.



No, privilege theory is based on the concrete historical genesis of specific forms of systemic violence.

Privilege theory is not based on the concrete historical genesis of specific forms of systemic violence. Although violence features into the theory its main premisses is that the position based on certain comparable aspects such as race, sexuality, gender ao. we have and the levels of oppression we face or do not face create the specifics of how we interact together and how we perceive the world around us and how our socialized behaviour affects other groups. But even more so it views oppression bottom up lying entirely with the inevitibility and inescapabiliy of bias. Creating a system in which the position of privilege is the basis of oppression for all groups less privileged.

Now as I mentioned your answer here doesn't adress and much less negate the point I was making. But since you deemed it totally relevant to call my points garbage I will let notable privilege theorist Kendall illustrate the simple fact of generalization:


Any of us who have race privilege, which all white people do, and therefore the power to put our prejudice into law, is racist by definition, because we benefit from a racist system

I am not saying he is wrong. But lets do each other a favor and not pretend that this isn't obviously a generalization.

Now this quote alone, from somebody who obviously is pretty much relevant and knows a little something about privilege theory invalidates most of your points to start with.

Now your assessment is also based on a mix between privilege theory and intersectionality theory. Which is fine of course but that is not actually clarifying privilege theory. But here is the problem.

Privilege theory relies on comparative fields and comparative groups based on specific points of comparison. Adding and substracting points of comparison will radically alter the output of your analysis.

So while it is perfectly logical and valid to conclude that based on race all white people have race privilege over non white people. It is equally valid to conclude that when adding next to race an economic precursor to conclude that some black people are privileged over some white people. Both are valid and both invalidate each other.

This holds on paper but it has obvious implications for applying the theory into praxis...

What privilege theory continues to state is that because of the privilege a group has it is actually contributing subconsciously to the oppression of other groups. And applying this to the above means that depending on the points of comparison a person can both always be oppressed by white people while simultaneously also be oppressing white people.

Adding that to intersectionality theory and a lesbian black women of bourgeois position according to applying privilege theory is oppressed on the basis of race, oppressed on the basis of gender, oppressed compared to heterosexuals and privileged based on economic class over some white women, some white men and some non heterosexuals and depending on regionality she is even privileged based on race over some other races.

And that is where Privilege Theory stops being usefull as a practical applicable theory that forms the basis of social interaction.

And hwat you end up with is actually the theory of Kyrarchy.

Returning for a bit to analyse Kendalls statement...this exact same statement becomes true when applied to...for instance...Saudi Arabia...where Saudi Arabians are suddenly the racist rather than the oppressed because they have both race privilege and the power to legislate their predjudice compared to Asians.


Now your next point also doesn't address what I have been saying. What I am saying is that Privilege Theory does not explain intra group powerd dynamics. Your reply to this is based on creating an entirely new comparison between certain subsets within a group based on clear distinct differences where you add race to the equation of the gender equation. Now perhaps I didn't really make myself clear in previous posts so I will clarify this for you. Privilege Theory can not distinguish between the power dynamics of CIS white women or Lesbian Black Women or CIS white men of equal social and economic standing amongst each other. It can't without adding additional factors which need their own level of comparison which you indeed did here. And yet there is a huge amount of inter group power dynamics going on which create levels of oppression and privilege based on factors which Privilege Theory can not address and therefore glosses over.

One of the main academic points levelled against privilege theory is that it is unable to create nuance between several groups that are relative to each other but amongst each other have varying degrees of privileges depending on each other.

Blum for instance argues:


I offer some mild criticism (..) its inadequate exploration (..) its failure to recognize important ethnic differences within racial groups (..)

A text which also incidentally contradicts a lot of your points...




Actually, it says quite a bit about "intra group oppression" - its origins are very much in Women of Colour feminists' critiques of white and liberal feminism, and its imagination of a singular universal category of women. It also starts from the specificity of oppressions - their historical development, etc. - so that white supremacy operates differently (but inseparably) from patriarchy, etc.

This means that for each single group a new comparison needs to be made relative to each other. Obviously this holds repercussions when applying privilege theory in praxis because how do we position the status of black people in the Netherlands towards Arab people in the Netherlands? And compared to Germany? Both obviously suffers from race oppression compared to white people...but both also have different privileged standings in Dutch society.




No, it's based on material processes which mark and order bodies. This includes, typically, explicit jurido-political measures (laws forbidding certain sexual acts, disenfranchising populations, etc.), social norms, etc.

I actually do not understand what you mean with "mark and order bodies" so I googled it and came up with a bunch of links to law and order series sites. I did not encounter for 10 pages with 50 entries per page anything about privilege theory and that is when I stopped turning pages.

So I have no idea what you are arguing. And I am sorry to have to ask for clarification.



No, as per above, it assumes the marking and ordering of bodies - so that, for example, certain privileges are literally designated within juridico-political frameworks, certain behaviours and ways of being are within and definitive of social norms, etc.

I still don't know what you mean with that phrase so I am unable to accurately address the point.

What I am however able to address is that your answer does appear to actually reject the piont of Privilege Theory being dependend on the perception of privilege and oppression from the lesser privileged and oppressed groups. I am entirely sure that I can conclude that you reject this notion based on your use of the word "no".

But since that is an integral part of most privilege theories...I am not sure what you base that "no" on.

In fact it is one of the main features of Marxist critique of Privilege Theory. The fact that it doesn't rely factor in alienation and self perpetuation.



No, it doesn't. In fact, it tends to assume that systems of oppression naturalize themselves, and that oppression is often experienced as isolating and individualizing, rather than as a manifestation of systems which privilege. However, it does, correctly, point out that it is the self-activity of the oppressed which makes these systems comprehensible, and that the privileged are apt to experience them as natural unless confronted with a serious challenge to their assumptions. This is demonstrably true - where privileged people now talk about oppression and recognize it as such, one can trace this awareness to the activity of the oppressed, and not the sudden goodwill or deep insight of the privileged. Of course, systems of power continually attempt to erase this reality, so that instead of Women of Colour Feminism informing this conversation, we get tumblr being cited as an accurate reflection of these theories.
Chew on that bit.

Well...I will grant you part of this point. And I was entirely wrong on that note.

But the other part of the post negates actual privilege theory when you are talking about systems of power when the main criticism levelled by Marxists against Privilege Theory is that according to the Theory the system of power is the system of privilege itself...with class being just one of the factors. So here you seem to be confusing Marxism with Privilege Theory. The system becomes an abstract rather than the result of specific factors.



That really depends on what you mean by "individual context". It certainly looks at the ways in which people's/peoples' social locations are informed by intersecting structures of power. It certainly doesn't deal with "the individual" as atomized construction of bourgeois politics.

It actually entirely ignores individual experience and bases its analysis on perceived group membership. It also doesn't really take into account membership of mutually exclusive groups. People not actually comming out for their gender identity or sexuality for example or people who pass as one identity while being or originating from another.

This point also relates to another point of contention and that is the one about inescapability and inevitability. Again this is illustrated by Kendalls quote (which I totally admit isn't the holy grail). Regardless of awareness and of actual behaviour the fact that you belong to a privileged group means you are the oppressor of other groups.

And in debates this continues to be a huge flaw in Privilege Theory. Many theorists struggle with it. You're white. Therefore privilege. End of story. You're Bisexual. Therefore privilege. End of story.

You may have struggled your entire life against the system of privilege. Against racism or inter gay bias. But since you are Israeli and therefor race privileged you will always be racist or biased or since you are bisexual...you are always privileged over other groups. You may completely be aware...conscious and never ever show or display any behaviour...but yet you still belong to the privileged group and therefore still contibute to oppression.

And there is the kicker. Privilege Theory offers an explanation and illustration. it doesn't actually offer a solution.




As you can see, I've omitted numbers two and eight from your list. Number two wasn't really claiming anything. I'm assuming the latter is in fact a point, but you're going to need to articulate it differently. I've never in my life been asked to "calculate contextualization", so I don't know what you're trying to say.


Actually you have adressed point two in several of your answers. What it means is that it is a theory that explains based on certain points of comparison...and the one dimensional bit refers to what I said about members of a certain group being underprivileged compared to one group...while when adding a factor become privileged over certain members of the group they are always underprivileged to.

Point 8 means...and it maybe that I have chosen the wrong words that privilege theory doesn't factor in contextualization. It doesn't contextualize issues in its entirety. What I mean with that is that it illustrates certain aspects by taking them out of the entirety of social interaction.



I also see you have addressed a few of the points but didn't answer to three major points I made:

1). Who belongs to a group and who doesn't and who decides this and based on what criteria?

What I mean is what I said previously. The distinction of whether somebody belongs to a group or doesn't belong to a group is irrelevant on paper. When you apply Privilege Theory as a basis for Praxis however that distinction becomes really really relevant.

Now a friend of mine outwardly identifies as a CIS Heterosexual and passes for white. He is however not white. He is not CIS and he is not heterosexual. Now this is obviously a rare case based on all factors combined. But it actually is quite common when you consider that on gender identity and on sexual preference a lot of people do not out themselves.

And the question really is...if that is, and it obviously is, the case...then the conclusion that members of an oppressed group can not speak with authority
about issues pertaining to an oppressed group...then this becomes entirely relevant according to privilege theory. And it is quite clear cut according to that theory. Yet in reality it actually isn't that clear cut....at all.

Also an obligatory mention of TERFS here yet again...who decides who doesn't belong to a certain group?


2). The problem of terminology.

The theory quite explicitly talks about unearned privilege compared to groups who have more rights. (And do note here the switch in terms,...because that yet again is one of the criticisms levelled against privilege theory both in academic discource and in Marxist criticism). In doing so it creates the illusion...and is often interpreted as such...that the most privileged groups do not actually face oppression and all members or the group are at some level guilty of the oppression of less privileged groups.

3). When addressing privilege becomes contradictory between members of a specific group

So what happens if a member of a group points out oppressive behaviour of a member of another group and the member of the first persons group vehemently disagree with them?




Now..again...don't get me wrong...the theory is a very good tool to illustrate and explain reality based on certain factors and it serves its function of offering an explanation and interpretation of explaining social interaction which can be used to illustrate issues.

But because of its very nature and exactly because it is a tool that offers an explanation of social interaction it is inherrently flawed...and let me emphasize this part because you have completely ignored it....WHEN APPLIED AS A BASIS OF PRAXIS.

It can not function that way because it isn't designed that way and it isn't its function.

A plane is a perfectly fine mode of transportation when used in its intended purpose...it is an absolute shit mode of transportation when you use it as a car....which also is a fine mode of transportation but it actually doesn't really function as a plane. In order to do so it needs to be heavilly modified....by which it becomes something entirely different.

It is really that simple.


So there you are. I am sure I haven't digged into the material.

Chew on that

[PhoenixAsh]

Ow. I like to point you to a hugely interesting article that both substantiates and contradicts my arguments and yours by the way is something written a few years ago by the Woman Caucus from the Anarchist Federation in the UK. You have to google it. I am sure it floats around.

Obvious from the arguments above I do not entirely agree with it but I do make some of the same points and issues. And it is is a very interesting read regardless of whether or not it actually disagrees with my points.

It also distinguishes between privilege theory, intersectionality and kyriarchy and actually comes up with a useful synthesis.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Ow. I like to point you to a hugely interesting article that both substantiates and contradicts my arguments and yours by the way is something written a few years ago by the Woman Caucus from the Anarchist Federation in the UK. You have to google it. I am sure it floats around.

Obvious from the arguments above I do not entirely agree with it but I do make some of the same points and issues. And it is is a very interesting read regardless of whether or not it actually disagrees with my points.

It also distinguishes between privilege theory, intersectionality and kyriarchy and actually comes up with a useful synthesis.

Link (http://www.afed.org.uk/blog/state/327-a-class-struggle-anarchist-analysis-of-privilege-theory--from-the-womens-caucus-.html)

[GanzEgal]

Just write whatever comes to your mind, I really don't care
It comes to my mind that you use a lot of specialist vocabulary, whose meaning is unknown to many of your readers: cis, stfu, POC...

[Lord Testicles]

It comes to my mind that you use a lot of specialist vocabulary, whose meaning is unknown to many of your readers: cis, stfu, POC...

http://www.giyf.com/

[PhoenixAsh]

POC = people of color / proof of concept
PIV = penis in vagina (shorthand for heterosexual sex)
CIS = male born as male or female born as female (otherwise known as those people who identify their sex and gender as the sex they are born with)...
STFU = shut the fuck up

LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & queer (denoting non heterosexual & non CIS gender and identities)

[Rosa Partizan]

POC = people of color / proof of concept
PIV = penis in vagina (shorthand for heterosexual sex)
CIS = male born as male or female born as female (otherwise known as those people who identify their sex and gender as the sex they are born with)...
STFU = shut the fuck up

LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & queer (denoting non heterosexual & non CIS gender and identities)

Don't wanna be nit-picky, but you don't need to practice PIV to have heterosexual sex. I really like how within all that gender stuff, you really explain stfu :laugh:

[LeftOrthodox]

Privledge huh? Does it exist? Most definitely. As a dark skinned black male I see it in action quite often....white privlege that is. Gender and sexual orientation privlidge exists as well.

[Illegalitarian]

It's pretty impossible to argue that it does not exist imo

[GaggedNoMore]

Applied privilege theory has not brought ANYTHING positive to the scene but rather has been the source of infighting, alienation, gaps between members, disassociation, exclusivity and distracting from organizing and activism.

It seems to me that you are confusing the cause of something with its effect.

Most likely, it's not "privilege theory" per se that has caused these ills you speak of, but instead the consistent refusal of those who have one or more forms of privilege to acknowledge their respective privileges compared to those who don't, and the resulting resentment and frustration of those who feel as though they are banging their heads off a wall, trying in vain to help others "get it".

In other words, the responsibility for this lies with those who stubbornly refuse to listen, get defensive...or generally put their hands over their ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you".

You don't advance a revolution or a cause by walking on eggshells or not wanting to hurt someone else's ego.

[PhoenixAsh]

It seems to me that you are confusing the cause of something with its effect.

Most likely, it's not "privilege theory" per se that has caused these ills you speak of, but instead the consistent refusal of those who have one or more forms of privilege to acknowledge their respective privileges compared to those who don't, and the resulting resentment and frustration of those who feel as though they are banging their heads off a wall, trying in vain to help others "get it".

In other words, the responsibility for this lies with those who stubbornly refuse to listen, get defensive...or generally put their hands over their ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you".

You don't advance a revolution or a cause by walking on eggshells or not wanting to hurt someone else's ego.

The application of privilege theory is being done at face value. This means that people assume about the privilege of others in other to shut them down in debates....fairly consistently.

The way it is applied is primarily a function of the theory itself. As the theory itself is schematic, one dimensional generalisation it can not be practically applied in organizational structures...because orgainzational structures are by defintion complex social structures.

This means that people are assigned privilege based on the assumptions of the ones claiming they are showing their privilege or that opposition to ideas and positions is dismissed out of hand on the basis of nothing more than privilege incongruity. These assumptions are made on nothing more than subjective interpretations and assumptions. In order to defend from an accusation of privilege somebody either needs to out themselves or they are shut down. Especially in places where the power of definition is a part of implementing privilege theory.

So no. The problem is not those who don't want to listen. The problem is those who implement privilege theory as a practical basis for organization.

[TypesWithFist]

I agree. I am aware of my white male privilege and ashamed of it. The real question is what can we do about it?

There is this cool site called CheckMyPrivilege. Take the quiz and find out how privileged you are. :)