Vulliez Blogs

In early 2012 after Occupy had more or less drawn down to a close, I met with a friend for coffee to talk about the successes and failures of the movement. I knew my friend Michael through the Pirate Party and he had been someone whose opinions and perspectives that I admired. He was very intelligent and often knew more than me about subjects that I cared about. He was often two steps ahead of me, but always gave my point of view fair consideration. He also laughed at my jokes. It was probably January or February at this point. We were talking over and the subject of identity politics came up. I can’t remember exactly what I said that pushed him off, but I think I made a joke about how privileged people can’t see their own privilege. “A privilege is something that can be taken away.” He responded very forcefully, “Walking alone on the streets at night without fear of being attacked is not a privilege. It’s a right.” I don’t think I was able to articulate a defense of the use of the word at the time, and we moved on to other subjects. His Facebook feed was dominated by critiques of ‘the left’ for the next year or two. Then one day he announced to me in private: he was done with activism. The system works well enough. There are other more appealing options than fighting it. Why did he no longer want to donate his time and resources to changing the world? I. Unearned Advantages (Privileges) For the sake of this blog post I am going to use the simplest definition of privilege I know: a privilege is an unearned advantage. For a more in-depth 101 of the concept of privilege in a social justice context, I recommend Peggy McIntosh’s Invisible Knapsack. There are two main types of analytical errors embedded in language: (1) creating a distinction where there is none (2) not creating a distinction where there is one. I believe that we, social justice folks, are making the latter error around the definition of privilege. I believe there are 3 forms of privilege that are interconnected, sometimes overlapping, but inherently distinct. I also believe that we’re making a serious error in analysis when we conflate the three for simplicity’s sake- or for the sake of winning arguments. I am (and we are) still learning to speak ‘social justice.’ There are going to be mistakes and errors along the way. It’s an unfinished process. I worry if we do not address these contradictions and errors with bravery, and incorporate legitimate critiques into our analysis by ‘expanding to include’ - we are going to participate in an ongoing process of polarization which is ultimately detrimental to both the spirit of open discourse and collaborative analysis, but is also crucially going to undermine the justice that we seek to achieve. The purpose of an argument in public discourse is not submission/victory (win-lose), it is a progress of mutual understanding (win-win). We have to acknowledge that when we oversimplify we create tension. The tendency is to blame those who speak up about the tension as disruptive- but a better strategy is to accept our liability for the tension and adapt our strategy. When we lash out against that tension- we’re either going to seed oppositional defiance (anti-SJ Trump supporter types) or we’re going to create submission in the place where understanding could have been. Neither is desirable. The 3 Types of Privvy-Priv. (1) Human Rights Partially Denied (Universally Possible Privileges) Unearned advantages that all people should ideally have a right to. Currently these unearned advantages are unevenly distributed based on arbitrary class/gender/racial lines. While it is true that these advantages are not earned- this does not mean that we should call for people to have to earn them- or seek to abolish them where they already exist- exactly the opposite. We have a right to these advantages, and if we do our job right, they will not be advantages anymore. These ‘advantages’ are the lifeblood of a free society. Eg. Access to education. The right to walk down the street at night  without fear of violence, harassment, or abuse. The confidence and bravery to speak up when you are challenged. The right to a basic living standard. The right to a living standard that includes luxuries. The right to be seen as an individual and not be responsible as a representative of a group. The right to not be pigeonholed by the actions or beliefs of others. The right to have your input in a discussion taken seriously based on the merit of your ideas and not your race or gender. The right to make your own choices. Believing in yourself and taking your own experiences seriously. (2) Zero-sum Privileges Unearned advantages that by their very nature can never be universalized. Currently they are distributed arbitrarily mostly along class/gender/racial lines. These advantages have no place in a free society. Redistributing them does not get to the root of the problem. They have to be abolished or decentralized. Eg. Large-scope Property Claims, Resource Extraction Claims, Issuing ‘Real’ Currency, Media Control,  Unilaterally Deciding the Race/Gender of God, Unilaterally deciding the Race/Gender of Stock Protagonists, Supremacy (3) The Passive Ideology of Privilege It’s very easy for successful men to underestimate the lack of social capital women are given in certain contexts. People generally take the path of least resistance- so it’s very possible and common to not notice, for example, that black men are racially profiled by police. It’s common to not notice that women and men are, from a young age, socialized to have completely different and sometimes contradictory expectations from one another. It’s these types of insights that the privilege discourse is extremely useful for. There is a type of blindness that comes with unearned advantages and it is absolutely essential to confront this blindness.  When we “check our privilege” we are not simply taking a rundown of the (1)’s and (2)’s that we have access to. We are confronting the distorting effects of (1)’s and (2)‘s on our analysis of the world. Confronting the ideology is the underlying purpose of privilege discourse- because it is the first step in universalizing human rights and distributing competitive privileges. Imprecise language is betraying this goal - creating the defiance/submission dichotomy that causes anti-SJ folks to cry “authoritarianism.” The passive ideological strains of  privilege are the result of not being able to see the damaging effects of inequality at all. By encouraging a fair and robust discourse on (1),(2), and (3) we can better confront them than we currently do: by tacitly treating (1), (2), and (3) as a single thing. Eg. “I’m colorblind” (even though the police and judicial system empirically aren’t), “I think Native people get too much from the government” (because I don’t understand how little they actually get compared to provinces, the rights they are denied, etc.), “If women want to be treated as equals, we should be allowed to hit them.” (because I don’t understand that violence is inherently hierarchical regardless of gendered power dynamics and therefore the literal opposite of equality), “Affirmative Action is racist.” (I use a definition of racist that does not contain an acknowledgement of existing power conditions) etc. etc. II. On Earned Advantages An earned advantage is not a privilege. It’s never a privilege in itself to know how to code HTML5. No one is born knowing it. You have worked to learn to do it. You have earned the skill. However, it *is* a (1) privilege to have the time and resources to code in your free time. It *is* a (1) privilege to have access to ‘code bootcamps’ or other types of education, such as an eager coding parent. It *is* a (1) privilege to believe yourself worthy enough to take on new skill. It’s not a privilege to run a small business successfully and build it from the ground up.  Again, if you have worked hard to make it a reality, it is an earned advantage. However, it *is* a (1) privilege to have access to the resources to understand how start-ups are successful. It *is* a (1) privilege to have access to loans, and help from others in your community. It *is* a (1) privilege to believe that you are worthy and capable of starting a business. It is not a privilege to know a lot about the history of politics and economics. You studied, you did the work, and you legitimately earned that knowledge. However, it *is* a (1) privilege to have the time and resources to learn in your free time. It *is* a (1) privilege to have access to University or other types of education. It *is* a (1) privilege to believe yourself worthy of the title of expert. As long as the inequality exists, they will be privileges in the first category. When dehumanizing inequality is eliminated, they will no longer be privileges at all. III. Conclusion I have been considering the notion that we have an inversion of priorities embedded in the language. The problem of category (1) is, at it’s root, the current lack of universality for certain rights. In the context of existing inequality it is technically correct to call them unearned advantages, but I am increasingly sure that stigmatizing them is damaging. Perhaps confronting privilege is better phrased as the elimination of unearned *disadvantages* rather than the confrontation of unearned advantages. We want to eliminate anti-privilege (unearned disadvantages) by bringing people with unearned advantages to terms with the passive ideology of dominance (3)- we don’t want to make people feel guilty for having access to human rights while others do not. In some cases it may be necessary to decrease one’s access to a zero-sum privilege (2) to ensure that people without access get access, because those privileges are competitive. But it is a wrong and destructive ideology to also eliminate existing instances of non-competitive privileges in some type of anxiety-insecurity-creating Harrison Bergeron scenario. We want them to use their human rights as a platform to work to universalize those human rights. When we do not distinguish between these 3 types of unearned advantages, we are accidentally attacking our inherent human rights as collateral damage in the war on unearned zero-sum advantages and the passive ideology of unearned advantages. In the examples of earned advantages- the fact these undercurrents that allow one to gain earned advantages are currently (1) privileges should not be used to condemn/disregard those who currently have access to (1) privileges and their achievements. That makes them hate us. There is no good argument for doing it either- it’s clearly seeding stronger opposition to our very important ideas. I’m a long standing believer that we are better served criticizing the social context rather the individual beneficiaries of that context. We neither want defiance nor submission from these individuals. We should seek to grow their understanding honestly, without coercion. The information is compelling. Facts are on our side. As with any political struggle, seeing 'the enemy’ as a collection of ‘individuals-who-are-bad’ instead of a collection of ‘bad-patterns-that-hurt-individuals’ is crummy analysis with ultimately damaging social consequences. SV - Dec 11 2015

"he should have been careful" MIGHT FIND IT BENEFICIAL TO - used to indicate benevolent concern, or remind someone of existing expectations, typically when providing friendly feedback. "he might find it beneficial to have been careful"

Listen to the new episode of my podcast! It's pretty good! I love you! Aaron and Shawn explore our growing dependency on social media in light of the rise of the smartphone, the neurochemistry of compulsive behaviors, and their own detrimental habits. http://srslywrong.com/ep-9-new-media-and-addiction/

There was once a political party on the left that feared the unfair framing of their opponents. And so they tried so hard to not fulfill the prophecy of their opponents by doing the dance that their opponents demanded. In the end of the fairy tale it is futile because the bad narrative stuck for specific voting demographics with or without evidence. The party just watered themselves down for no reason and lost every important election because they made their base utterly dispassionate. The End.

this is a beautiful, perfect, immaculate joke. bless you, george carlin.

Do not listen to the doubters would would tell you otherwise, Please go shakespeare. sv

597 The affected manner of speech associated with rising in hierarchy. "I've been practicing my 597 before I go talk to the landlord" "It makes me sick to see you drop that 597 shit in front of your boss. Why can't you just tell him how you feel?"

10/1/2013