simple description of "privilege"

Another thing I find a bit annoying about the parable is the phrase 'The dog doesn't know what cold means' (paraphrasing). Now I know this isn't actually referring to a language issue, but more an internal feeling issue; but I can't help feeling that it's taking away the onus on the women to properly/adequately/(?) explain the hurt she is feeling. Instead of coming to the conclusion that both the dog and gecko could be at fault for the lack of understanding between them, the blame is solely laid at the feet of the dog. Is this a fair characterisation?

Why is it generally only the men who is considered incapable of comprehending some aspects of female experience? Women would be equally unable to comprehend some aspects of male experience too!

If you want to claim that women have access to private information than men don't have access to, you should also realize that men have access to private information that women don't have access to.

For a woman to dismiss the feelings and concerns of a man because of privilege is no better than a man dismissing the feelings and concerns of a woman because of privilege. Sure, maybe the woman feels justified on the principle of tit for tat. However, taking a tat from some men doesn't justify giving a tit for other men.

We all can only experience what we can experience. It would do everyone well to appreciate that what others experience may be quite different than what they experience. Using this fact in a genital measuring contest is simply juvenile.

I appreciate the concept of privilege, but I think it must be applied in all directions. Anything else is hypocritical, bigoted, and perhaps even hateful.

rEvolutionist wrote:Another thing I find a bit annoying about the parable is the phrase 'The dog doesn't know what cold means' (paraphrasing). Now I know this isn't actually referring to a language issue, but more an internal feeling issue; but I can't help feeling that it's taking away the onus on the women to properly/adequately/(?) explain the hurt she is feeling. Instead of coming to the conclusion that both the dog and gecko could be at fault for the lack of understanding between them, the blame is solely laid at the feet of the dog. Is this a fair characterisation?

I don't know if blame really comes into it.
Dad was an artillery spotter in the Korean Conflict.
He made sure I never had any desire to be in the military,
but do I really understand what he went through? Can I?

As I keep saying, there is no good definition of "Privilege," and it is a concept that does no real work when attempting to deal with Social Issues.

The Dog and Gecko Parable is fatally flawed. It is dealing with a tautology: That Dogs and Geckos are different.

If you accept this, and then claim "But it's trying to show that the one cannot understand the other, then you are left with a contradiction (or another tautology).

If the Husky Cannot understand the Gecko's position due to his biology, then the only thing that can provide this information to the Husky and Gecko is evidence that both the Husky and Gecko can understand.

Such evidence is contradictory to the statement that the one cannot understand the other, because any evidence that shows this must be understandable by both of them - thus showing that there is in fact understanding of the other's condition.

And if there is no such evidence, then one is left with a situation in which there is absolutely nothing that can be done. Biology is biology, Huskies are Huskies and Geckos are Geckos and the world will have to be ordered such that it takes this into account. The two will never be equal, and will forever be separate.

So, based upon this... The concept of "Privilege" doesn't do any work. It only creates further complications of a situation, and provides a means of division and separation where unity and understanding is needed rather than ignorance and division.

It's a simplified model, and like most of those can gives weird results when applied to complex real world situations.

dancer_rnb wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:Another thing I find a bit annoying about the parable is the phrase 'The dog doesn't know what cold means' (paraphrasing). Now I know this isn't actually referring to a language issue, but more an internal feeling issue; but I can't help feeling that it's taking away the onus on the women to properly/adequately/(?) explain the hurt she is feeling. Instead of coming to the conclusion that both the dog and gecko could be at fault for the lack of understanding between them, the blame is solely laid at the feet of the dog. Is this a fair characterisation?

I don't know if blame really comes into it.
Dad was an artillery spotter in the Korean Conflict.
He made sure I never had any desire to be in the military,
but do I really understand what he went through? Can I?

Either there exists evidence of his experiences that both of you can understand, or there is not.

If there is evidence of his experiences that both of you can understand, then the term "Privilege" is meaningless, as it refers to something that does not exist.

If there is no evidence of his experience that both of you can understand, then the term "Privilege" just refers to something like "The Sky is Blue" that cannot ever be changed, and is pointless to try.

If we have a situation that is like the first case, then we need to work to find the evidence that allows others to understand the situation.

If we have a situation like the second case, then we need to work to build a work that allows these distinctions to not be in conflict.

Both of those situations carry with them some rather dark consequences.

Matthew Bailey

rEvolutionist wrote:

He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn.

So, for the nth time, who is this parable directed to if you don't have any hope of getting the people it is apparently directed at to learn anything from it?

You're reading that sentence in such a peculiar way. It is not saying that the dog can never understand, just that the dog can easily avoid understanding without much penalty. The dog can go on failing to grasp the concept of "cold" and he's still just fine. Only the gecko is harmed. That's why the sentence is "forced to learn" rather than "able to learn."

Also, again, the advice to not be like the dog at the end of the parable makes no sense if understanding is impossible.

Matthew Bailey wrote:The Dog and Gecko Parable is fatally flawed. It is dealing with a tautology: That Dogs and Geckos are different.

No, it deals with the fact that circumstances are weighted in the dog's favor and that the dog will easily view those weighted circumstances as "normal."

Matthew Bailey wrote:If you accept this, and then claim "But it's trying to show that the one cannot understand the other, then you are left with a contradiction (or another tautology).

As noted above, several times already, the point is not that the dog cannot understand, rather that the dog won't understand initially and can easily go on not understanding. Understanding is possible, but only if the dog expends some effort trying to do so. Sadly, there are a lot of "lazy dogs" out there.

(The rest of your post is built on these misconceptions, and is thus irrelevant.)

Kurt H wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn.

So, for the nth time, who is this parable directed to if you don't have any hope of getting the people it is apparently directed at to learn anything from it?

You're reading that sentence in such a peculiar way. It is not saying that the dog can never understand, just that the dog can easily avoid understanding without much penalty. The dog can go on failing to grasp the concept of "cold" and he's still just fine. Only the gecko is harmed. That's why the sentence is "forced to learn" rather than "able to learn."

Also, again, the advice to not be like the dog at the end of the parable makes no sense if understanding is impossible.

BRAVO!

And this is exactly why the concept of "Privilege" and the Tale of the Dog and the Gecko is fatally flawed as an example of privilege.

Or... Rather,

The Tale is the perfect example of why the concept of Privilege leads to either a Tautology (as you have pointed out: If the understanding is impossible, it makes no sense), or a Contradiction (if Understanding is possible, then the difference in "understanding" is non-existent, as the two can understand each other).

Matthew Bailey

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:The Dog and Gecko Parable is fatally flawed. It is dealing with a tautology: That Dogs and Geckos are different.

No, it deals with the fact that circumstances are weighted in the dog's favor and that the dog will easily view those weighted circumstances as "normal."

And, as you have pointed out, if the dog is capable of understanding, then the difference is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the Dog's ignorance, not the biological fact that he is built for cooler weather.

That is akin to arguing that there is a big problem with the sky being blue. It is arguing against a tautology.

Why not, instead of attacking the fixed issue of the biological fact of the husky being a warm-blooded mammal, instead attack the fact that the dog seems to be a pig-headed bigot for ignoring the plight of another?

That is a much less loaded argument. It is a much more powerful tool, and it doesn't lead to Identity Politics or Post-Modernist positions that entail a denial of facts and objective realities.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:If you accept this, and then claim "But it's trying to show that the one cannot understand the other, then you are left with a contradiction (or another tautology).

As noted above, several times already, the point is not that the dog cannot understand, rather that the dog won't understand initially and can easily go on not understanding. Understanding is possible, but only if the dog expends some effort trying to do so. Sadly, there are a lot of "lazy dogs" out there.

(The rest of your post is built on these misconceptions, and is thus irrelevant.)

Again, they are not misconceptions. They are built upon 20 years of personally studying Identity Politics and Post-Modernism, and upon over 50 years of other's academic work on these same issues.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Identity Politics

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Feminist Epistemology

The Stanford helpful in that it provides critiques of the fatal flaws of these philosophies, of which Identity Politics has many, as does Epistemic Privilege.

And, to spell this out. You can't talk about Privilege as if it isn't Epistemic Privilege without the term becoming just a definition of a fact: That two people have lived different lives.

So what if two people have lived different lives?

The issue involved is that the power-differentials involved create an ignorance that is not unbridgeable (which is what Epistemic Privilege attempts to say). If the power-differentials and knowledge of two people, two groups, one person against a group, or a group against one person is capable of being bridged, then "Privilege" is a poor tool to address this issue. It denies that an objective reality exists in which these two opposed sets (person-person/group-group/person-group/group-person) exist.

I understand that the philosophical implications of this are complicated, and I find myself appalled that I know this material as well as I do (I HATE Philosophy - unfortunately, it does have a place in dealing with truth and knowledge). But there is a long and deep history of this term, and it has survived solely because of a small group of people cannot let go of it.

Even a professor I have worked for at UCLA who deals with issues of Social Justice and Communication finds himself slipping and using the term "Privilege," when his main class is the one that teaches that this term has largely been discredited due to the fact that it does no real work, and attacks something that is either non-existent (because understanding is possible) or that is akin to attacking the sky for being blue (because it simply is blue, and there isn't much we can do about that).

So it isn't that the word "Privilege" has no meaning, or is useless in defining some aspects of a person, or group.

It is that using it as the main category for attacking injustices is problematic. It does not get to the root of the problem. It is putting the cart before the horse. It is counting chickens before they are hatched, etc...

Matthew Bailey

Matthew Bailey wrote:(if Understanding is possible, then the difference in "understanding" is non-existent, as the two can understand each other).

False! There is a difference between being capable of understanding and being likely to understand. Recognizing privilege is not automatic.

Matthew Bailey wrote:And, as you have pointed out, if the dog is capable of understanding, then the difference is irrelevant.

No, you argued that. I recognize that being capable of something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

Matthew Bailey wrote:Why not, instead of attacking the fixed issue of the biological fact of the husky being a warm-blooded mammal, instead attack the fact that the dog seems to be a pig-headed bigot for ignoring the plight of another?

You mean like the part of the parable where people are instructed to be aware of their privilege and care about the plight of others? Why are you so insistent on arguing against a straw man version of the parable?

Matthew Bailey wrote:Again, they are not misconceptions. They are built upon 20 years of personally studying Identity Politics and Post-Modernism, and upon over 50 years of other's academic work on these same issues.

Oh, I see. You are trying to steer the argument to some pet peeve of yours. That seems pointless. Perhaps you could address the ideas as presented rather than trying to tie them in to a grand post-modernist conspiracy to destroy objectivity.

Matthew Bailey wrote:The Stanford helpful in that it provides critiques of the fatal flaws of these philosophies, of which Identity Politics has many, as does Epistemic Privilege.

So, I read the critique sections and discovered that the main critiques are of versions of feminism that were in vogue in the 80s and are now generally rejected by feminists. So, way to keep up with the times there. I'm glad that you are opposed to versions of feminism that feminists themselves have rejected for almost a generation. Got anything new?

Matthew Bailey wrote:If the power-differentials and knowledge of two people, two groups, one person against a group, or a group against one person is capable of being bridged, then "Privilege" is a poor tool to address this issue.

How does this follow? Are you still confusing the potential for understanding with the achievement of understanding? Seems like it.

Matthew Bailey wrote:It is that using it as the main category for attacking injustices is problematic. It does not get to the root of the problem.

Well don't hide the secret man! If you have a superior way of framing social justice issues, do tell.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

dancer_rnb wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:Another thing I find a bit annoying about the parable is the phrase 'The dog doesn't know what cold means' (paraphrasing). Now I know this isn't actually referring to a language issue, but more an internal feeling issue; but I can't help feeling that it's taking away the onus on the women to properly/adequately/(?) explain the hurt she is feeling. Instead of coming to the conclusion that both the dog and gecko could be at fault for the lack of understanding between them, the blame is solely laid at the feet of the dog. Is this a fair characterisation?

I don't know if blame really comes into it.
Dad was an artillery spotter in the Korean Conflict.
He made sure I never had any desire to be in the military,
but do I really understand what he went through? Can I?

Either there exists evidence of his experiences that both of you can understand, or there is not.

If there is evidence of his experiences that both of you can understand, then the term "Privilege" is meaningless, as it refers to something that does not exist.

If there is no evidence of his experience that both of you can understand, then the term "Privilege" just refers to something like "The Sky is Blue" that cannot ever be changed, and is pointless to try.

If we have a situation that is like the first case, then we need to work to find the evidence that allows others to understand the situation.

If we have a situation like the second case, then we need to work to build a work that allows these distinctions to not be in conflict.

Both of those situations carry with them some rather dark consequences.

Matthew Bailey

This is an interesting line of reasoning your have been presenting, Matthew. But I'm thinking you may not be quite right on your usage of "privilege". Outside of the silly parable, I don't think "privilege" means that men and women can't ever understand each other on a particular issue. It just means that the 'privileged' one has to work harder to understand the non-privileged one due to a difference in life experience. It's supposed to be (as far as I can tell) about opening peoples eyes and minds to some of the injustices in the world.

Kurt H wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

He has no idea what he’s talking about, and he will never, ever be forced to learn.

So, for the nth time, who is this parable directed to if you don't have any hope of getting the people it is apparently directed at to learn anything from it?

You're reading that sentence in such a peculiar way. It is not saying that the dog can never understand, just that the dog can easily avoid understanding without much penalty. The dog can go on failing to grasp the concept of "cold" and he's still just fine. Only the gecko is harmed. That's why the sentence is "forced to learn" rather than "able to learn."

Also, again, the advice to not be like the dog at the end of the parable makes no sense if understanding is impossible.

But what is the parable if not an attempt to force men to learn about this issue?

I understand what you are saying regarding your interpretation of the parable, and I think that not an unworthy point to make. I just think it is worded badly, particularly if the target is men.

I have 2 general sentiments on this topic. The first is related to the more recent posts.

I can understand a woman's fear of being raped. So can every man. Just get in to a discussion about prison rape. While it's not 100% analogous, I am fairly confident that a man would be as traumatized by being violently raped by another man as a woman would be.

Secondly, the term "privilege" is just a another word for "advantage". We all have advantages and disadvantages. We all have differing experiences. My being who I am is purely luck of the draw as it is for everyone else. Yes, this is completely true. So what? There is no useful conclusion to be derived from this.

Eldin Alvere wrote:I have 2 general sentiments on this topic. The first is related to the more recent posts.

I can understand a woman's fear of being raped. So can every man. Just get in to a discussion about prison rape. While it's not 100% analogous, I am fairly confident that a man would be as traumatized by being violently raped by another man as a woman would be.

I can personally attest to this statement being true. I spent over ten years in a suicidal depression due to this.

Eldin Alvere wrote:Secondly, the term "privilege" is just a another word for "advantage". We all have advantages and disadvantages. We all have differing experiences. My being who I am is purely luck of the draw as it is for everyone else. Yes, this is completely true. So what? There is no useful conclusion to be derived from this.

Eldin,

This is exactly my point. The word does nothing but describe a tautology (something that is true because it is true).

At the other end of the spectrum is where the term derives a contradiction. This occurs when someone tries to say that this difference is Essentialist; that there is an inability to understand the difference; that there is a qualitative difference.

Occam's Razor would tend to shave off the term "advantage" and go straight to the meat of the problem:

Ignorance.

If a person is "Privileged," "Advantaged," "different," etc., then the problem is not that difference. The problem is the lack of knowledge about other's situation that is the problem.

To attack them for being "Different" (i.e. advantaged, privileged, or whatever you want to call it) is to attack them for being a dog that is covered with hair (to use the analogy everyone seems to be so fond of).

So what if a person is different?

What matters is whether they are bigoted and ignorant, and refuse to learn.

That is a much more important matter than if there is indeed a qualitative difference between two people or groups.

This is the exact same thing as dealing with believers.

The fact that they are believers does not make them problematic unless that belief causes them to refuse evidence put before them.

In those situations, due we hammer at their privileged position re: faith?

Or do we instead attack their ignorance by providing them with facts about a given issue (evolution, the Flood, cosmology, Biology, Math, Science, etc...)?

Matthew Bailey

Matthew, you are still ignoring what people are saying.

Priviliege is the fact that the dog can go through life being ignorant of cold and it won't harm him, he has that privilege. There is no contradiction or tautology there.

Prvilege, in this context, is not synonymous for advantage, it refers to a specific type of advantage which it is worth raising people's conciousness of.

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:Matthew, you are still ignoring what people are saying.

Priviliege is the fact that the dog can go through life being ignorant of cold and it won't harm him, he has that privilege. There is no contradiction or tautology there.

The claim above very much is a tautology. It is a claim that is true because it is true.


Again, if it is ignorance that is the problem, then using the word "Privilege" just puts another layer of unnecessary burden upon the claim.

Why bother with a fact about the world that is irrelevant to the ignorance?

You would just be describing something that is the case because it is the case (that a dog can go through life ignorant of the cold).

Matthew Bailey

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:Matthew, you are still ignoring what people are saying.

Priviliege is the fact that the dog can go through life being ignorant of cold and it won't harm him, he has that privilege. There is no contradiction or tautology there.

Prvilege, in this context, is not synonymous for advantage, it refers to a specific type of advantage which it is worth raising people's conciousness of.

Dogs get cold. They are aware of what cold is. There are very few things that happen to women that don't happen to men and they are all related to anatomy.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:Matthew, you are still ignoring what people are saying.

Priviliege is the fact that the dog can go through life being ignorant of cold and it won't harm him, he has that privilege. There is no contradiction or tautology there.

The claim above very much is a tautology. It is a claim that is true because it is true.

This makes no sense. So someone can't make a claim that has the purpose to enlighten and educate, because that claim is true?

Again, if it is ignorance that is the problem, then using the word "Privilege" just puts another layer of unnecessary burden upon the claim.

Why bother with a fact about the world that is irrelevant to the ignorance?

Because the ignorance doesn't describe the problem. Ignorance is the symptom, not the cause. 'Privilege' is the cause. By all means address both, but you can't address 'ignorance' on a society wide basis. Well, you can, but the way to do that is to highlight the reasons for ignorance so that those reasons can be addressed.

eta: to clarify a bit further, each persons individual reason for ignorance is going to vary across society, depending on their environmental circumstances. But there is one thing shared in common between all people that affects them all (although not equally), and that is the concept of 'privilege'.

Well, that's how I understand it at this point, anyway.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

Cuduggan2K2 wrote:Matthew, you are still ignoring what people are saying.

Priviliege is the fact that the dog can go through life being ignorant of cold and it won't harm him, he has that privilege. There is no contradiction or tautology there.

Prvilege, in this context, is not synonymous for advantage, it refers to a specific type of advantage which it is worth raising people's conciousness of.

Dogs get cold. They are aware of what cold is. There are very few things that happen to women that don't happen to men and they are all related to anatomy.

Yeah, it's a silly parable on a number of fronts. I think it could be valuable, if it was reworked and rephrased.

I have to agree with Mathew on this one.

Just to make things simpler, I'm going to set up a different situation with clearer lines: A person who has been blind from birth, and a person who has what would be considered normal human vision.

The blind person could consider the sighted person as privileged. There are simply aspects of the blind person's experience that the sighted person cannot know in the same way as the blind person does.

Yet, how can this 'privilege' be addressed?

We could poke out the sighted person's eyes, but does that really do any good? That is one weakness of this example, as typically when discussing issues of privilege there is no way to level the playing field. However, even when there do exist such ways of leveling the playing field, those ways tend to try to answer injustice with more injustice.

The simple fact of the matter is that the person who is considered privileged lacks the same kind of knowledge that the person who is not privileged has. They are ignorant of it, and there is no way for them to get it in the same way that the person who is not privileged does. If there were an acceptable way for the privileged person to get what the person who is not privileged knows, then privilege would not be an issue at all. The problems with privilege would not exist. You can't address the problem of the privileged person's ignorance by conferring knowledge upon them, no matter how willing they might be.

The sighted person could appreciate that the blind person has experienced life and learned to cope with it in ways radically different than the sighted person has. This, more than anything, seems to me to be the point that Mathew has failed to articulate well. While there exists no epistemological solution to ignorance brought about by being different, humans have brains capable of empathy, compassion, and understanding. This gives them the ability to realize that they don't and can't know things in the same way that someone else does. In the dog and lizard example, if the dog had even an ounce of compassion, it would have been able to take the lizards word or observe that it was in pain, and attempt to correct that problem. This wouldn't require the dog somehow being able to experience cold in the same way that the lizard does.

Is it really useful to call this privilege though? The issue is ignorance brought about by the fact that different persons with different bodies and different circumstances don't, and in many cases cannot, know what something is like for someone else. The only way to address the privilege issue head on would be to make these different persons with different bodies and different circumstances as similar to each other as possible... which could only really happen by racing down to the lowest common denominator, or by having everyone get upgraded into cyber-persons (PC conversion of a doctor who race). This, as I mentioned earlier, only increases injustice. What if not everyone wants to be the same? Furthermore, privilege seems to be used more as a concept for insult and dismissal than anything else. I think one could argue that the framing of the concept as 'privilege' tends to promote stereotypical thinking and bigotry rather than decrease it.

We already covered that you cannot address the issue epistemologically. We can't confront it on ignorance grounds, as Mathew seemed to be suggesting.

Again, what the concept seems to be promoting when used well is that we should be AWARE of and APPRECIATE the perspectives and experiences of others. We shouldn't blame others for being different, or dismiss them for being different... in either direction. We should value each other's differences and attempt to work together in our diversity.

I think we can accomplish that goal better by focusing on that goal instead of getting hung up on the issues that make that goal worth focusing on.

Dar wrote:I think we can accomplish that goal better by focusing on that goal instead of getting hung up on the issues that make that goal worth focusing on.

This!

That all sounds a bit airy fairy. 'We've got to work together and respect one another' etc... Fine in principle, but how are we going to achieve that in practice? Especially when a chunk of the population doesn't think there is a problem? We've first got to get them to acknowledge there is a problem before being able to solve it.

rEvolutionist wrote:That all sounds a bit airy fairy. 'We've got to work together and respect one another' etc... Fine in principle, but how are we going to achieve that in practice? Especially when a chunk of the population doesn't think there is a problem? We've first got to get them to acknowledge there is a problem before being able to solve it.

Who said: 'We've got to work together and respect one another' etc... ?

I said:

Dar wrote:Again, what the concept seems to be promoting when used well is that we should be AWARE of and APPRECIATE the perspectives and experiences of others. We shouldn't blame others for being different, or dismiss them for being different... in either direction. We should value each other's differences and attempt to work together in our diversity.

I think we can accomplish that goal better by focusing on that goal instead of getting hung up on the issues that make that goal worth focusing on.

Well, we raise awareness that different people have different perspectives, and that as a consequence someone may be able to inform you of something you were not aware of. Easy to say. Harder to do. Even harder to do with people who tend to use ad hominen and misrepresentation. I suppose part of it is resource allocation. You can't get everyone to agree on anything. If you keep trying, you might manage to raise a few person's awareness a little bit.

I didn't mean you literally said it (I tend to use single quotes for paraphrases and double quotes for accurate quoting), just that this statement: "We should value each other's differences and attempt to work together in our diversity", is functionally equivalent. I.e. a bit airy fairy. In principle, good; in practice, probably fairly useless.