I'd also be curious to hear more about the ways in which you think the colloquial use of the word 'privilege' differs from the way it's used more 'technically' in feminist (etc) contexts.
Well, I think the colloquial meaning is something like "David Cameron", and the technical meaning includes the following points:
1) conferred by society on groups 2) largely invisible, or perceived as "normal", by the beneficiaries.
This blogger (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/) doesn't include point (2) in her one-sentence definition, but does include it in her "in a nutshell" pull-quote. I think it's pretty crucial (more on that below), though I'm aware you're much better read than me in this field.
I've been immersed in feminist, anti racist etc writing online for years and don't particularly remember having 'aha! this doesn't quite mean what I assumed it meant' moments around the word 'privilege' myself.
I'm fairly new to this stuff, and had exactly this misunderstanding (and subsequent ugly argument) when I first encountered the term.
I wonder if some of the resistance that you're attributing to genuine miscommunication around the signifier is at heart more to do with resistance to the concept being signified.
Quite possibly, yes. These days I deliberately look for opportunities to treat disagreements as miscommunication, because (a) they very often are, (b) it does wonders for my blood pressure, (c) trolls often get bored in the face of my earnest explanations and wander off, (d) carefully establishing terms early on makes it much easier to have a sensible discussion over the real points of disagreement, whatever they turn out to be.
But! This is where point (2) comes in. A feminist might say "You are privileged", meaning "through no fault of your own, your viewpoint has become warped and untrustworthy; you need a reality check". But what is heard is "you are David Cameron, the vile recipient of unearned largesse". This is hard to accept, even if true. But the crucial point, the one about unreliable viewpoints, is much less uncomfortable (I think). Does that make any sense?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Well, I think the colloquial meaning is something like "David Cameron", and the technical meaning includes the following points:
1) conferred by society on groups
2) largely invisible, or perceived as "normal", by the beneficiaries.
This blogger (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/) doesn't include point (2) in her one-sentence definition, but does include it in her "in a nutshell" pull-quote. I think it's pretty crucial (more on that below), though I'm aware you're much better read than me in this field.
I've been immersed in feminist, anti racist etc writing online for years and don't particularly remember having 'aha! this doesn't quite mean what I assumed it meant' moments around the word 'privilege' myself.
I'm fairly new to this stuff, and had exactly this misunderstanding (and subsequent ugly argument) when I first encountered the term.
I wonder if some of the resistance that you're attributing to genuine miscommunication around the signifier is at heart more to do with resistance to the concept being signified.
Quite possibly, yes. These days I deliberately look for opportunities to treat disagreements as miscommunication, because (a) they very often are, (b) it does wonders for my blood pressure, (c) trolls often get bored in the face of my earnest explanations and wander off, (d) carefully establishing terms early on makes it much easier to have a sensible discussion over the real points of disagreement, whatever they turn out to be.
But! This is where point (2) comes in. A feminist might say "You are privileged", meaning "through no fault of your own, your viewpoint has become warped and untrustworthy; you need a reality check". But what is heard is "you are David Cameron, the vile recipient of unearned largesse". This is hard to accept, even if true. But the crucial point, the one about unreliable viewpoints, is much less uncomfortable (I think). Does that make any sense?