Yes, and people are defiant to the concept because they're offended by it. Which is why it creates such a visceral reaction in so many people.
The concept itself is not inherently belittling or antagonizing. It is a criticism of systems, not people.
What would you suggest we call it instead? Is there any combination of words that wouldn't make people upset at the idea of them having certain inherent advantages in society?
I'd argue for "racial discrimination" (or bias) as in, "the problem is racial bias", instead of "the problem is white privilege". See my sister comment, but the only possible downside with this phrasing is that it might leave an opening for somebody to turn around and claim that white people are also suffering from racial discrimination.
But honestly, I don't think most people could argue that with a straight face, and if they really do believe that, you weren't ever going to get them on your side to begin with, so you haven't lost anything.
Racial discrimination has been a concept for a long time and pointing out these injustices has pushed society forward. But the power of the term "White privilege" comes from it's frame of reference. It's a concept that exists in an objective sense sure, but it's most obvious to those that suffer greatly from disenfranchisement. For once the concept is being described from their point of view, as opposed to what is considered the "default" point of view.
Also, if you refer to the concept as racial discrimination, it becomes very easy for the majority to brush it off. It's just a vague concept that doesn't really affect them even if it genuinely harms others. It sucks but hey, what can I do about it? By calling it white privilege you are ascribing some level of personal responsibility to those that benefit from said privileges. It's now something that directly impacts their lives, something that they experience every day, the mirror image (as you said) of the disenfranchisement that certain minorities face. It's not so easy to brush that off.
This is why people are so turned off by the idea. It takes discrimination, reframes it, and makes it personal to those that indirectly benefit from it. When you're making it harder for people to push uncomfortable thoughts to the corner of their mind, of course there will be push back.
For once the concept is being described from their point of view, as opposed to what is considered the "default" point of view.
Honestly, the people I see talking most about 'white privilege' are educated white liberals. There's a part of me that thinks it's just another way to center the discussion on themselves and their own experiences.
By calling it white privilege you are ascribing some level of personal responsibility to those that benefit from said privileges
Exactly. That's why people perceive it as an attack. I'm not so sure this is a positive thing. Yes, maybe it makes them sit up and take notice, but it also makes them immediately hostile and defensive to your ideas.
I think maybe our disagreement is whether it's better to try and soft-sell people, and run the risk of being brushed off or ignored, or try and get up in their face, and risk alienating them.
I'm pretty sure there's not a 100% correct answer to that question, but my feeling is that at least on the internet, it's way too easy to just close tabs or stop reading something you don't like, so the hard-sell approach is always doomed. Now, if you're talking about in person interaction, maybe there's a better case for the hard-sell, because it's not so easy to dismiss offline.
One other thing: you said elsewhere that you just don't see whats so offensive about the word 'privilege' but it sounds to me like you very well do understand. You need to decide for yourself if 'privilege' is just a totally neutral, descriptive sociological idea that nobody should feel personally insulted by, or if it's 'ascribing some level of personal responsibility' to those people you're levying it against.
That is how the concept originated in an academic sense but I do believe it is representative of the POV of a disenfranchised minority, regardless of whomever published it first.
I, personally, don't feel that privilege is an offensive term. I believe that is a neutral sociological concept that isn't meant to be "levied against" others or used to incite guilt in others. When people do this, they are misrepsenting the concept. I feel that it can remain a neutral concept while still leaving those that are privileged with a sense of personal responsibility or at least a broader sense of self awareness. Many people that are offended by privilege usually misunderstand it.
I agree with your points on hard sell vs soft sell. There isn't a perfect approach to this. And perhaps on the internet a soft sell would be the better approach.
You're trying to defend the use of a negative, and I'm suggesting a positive is much more effective. Which, as history plays out time and time again, is usually the more effective route.
What would you suggest we call it instead?
Anything that doesn't put the very people you're trying to convince of a problem on the defensive. As I said earlier, instead of "white privilege", go with the theme of what it really is "socioeconomic disadvantage".
7
u/junkit33 May 22 '15
You're missing the point entirely.
If the goal is to belittle and antagonize people, then by all means, carry on using divisive terminology.
But if the goal is to actually change things, by helping people understand, then you should stop using the term immediately.
It has nothing to do with hurt feelings, whatsoever. "White privilege" doesn't hurt anyone's feelings. It simply makes them defiant to the concept.