Carrol, I agree with you that the whole "check your privilege" idea and lots of other parts of the new-ish vocab the article documents is irritating (if not quite nonsense, in my view), but I thought the author of the article did a nice job analyzing it, comparing different terms with New Left terms, and (ultimately) critiquing the fact that the new vocab ignores systemic issues. Here's his main explanation for the differences in the two vocabularies, for anyone who (like Carrol) didn't get past the nauseating bits:
"The vocabulary of the 1960s and 1970s grew out of and contributed in turn to the construction of broad-based popular movements, in which hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of people participated. By contrast, the vocabulary of today's activists emerged in a completely different, and arguably much less favourable context."
(I think I remember reading, years ago, a similar analysis of the idealist elements of Lukacs's views--that left theories (and rhetoric) emphasize different things (more inward, cautious, pessimistic, and individualistic) at historical moments when left activism/movements are seriously stalled. Of course Lukacs is hugely more sophisticated than the "check your privilege folks," needless to say. But it's an observation that I would think Carrol would appreciate--this is the vocab that arises when there is no left, as Carrol is always pointing out.)
I think the author's charitable (but critical) account of why people use the new vocabulary is a real virtue of the article; it is what allows him to give an explanation of where it comes from, and ultimately an account of what is lost when people adopt it and stop talking about liberation, systems, etc. I also finally found out why some young activists I know use the term "folks." I thought it was just an affectation.
Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:50:25 +0200
> From: Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Check your privilege: Rise of the Post-New
> Left political vocabulary
> To: LBO <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAKdnb5bkDJX-q+7jB+L6QXmz7qJoShbimmQrQWsBAKqT5K+ZeA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, JOANNA A. <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> The only case of privilege checking I heard of that made sense
> >
>
> There are other cases where it makes some kind of sense. One is dealing
> with Western activists who have an unhealthy attachment to "nonviolence" as
> a praxis in the context of someone else's struggle. There's one perspective
> on this from a Palestinian viewpoint here:
>
>
> http://electronicintifada.net/content/how-obsession-nonviolence-harms-palestinian-cause/11482
>
> In that case, most of the critiques of the "privilege" nomenclature
> actually describe its strengths. A good bludgeon is exactly what's needed,
> and about the best for which you can hope.
>
> --
> "Hige sceal ?e heardra, heorte ?e cenre, mod sceal ?e mare, ?e ure m?gen
> lytla?."
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> lbo-talk mailing list
> lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> End of lbo-talk Digest, Vol 2315, Issue 1
> *****************************************
>
-- Chris Sturr, Co-editor *Dollars & Sense* | Real World Economics | Triple Crisis Blog 1 Milk St., 5th floor Boston, Mass. 02109 phone: 617-447-2177, ext. 205 fax: 617-447-2179 email: sturr at dollarsandsense.org website: dollarsandsense.org blog: dollarsandsense.org/blog | triplecrisis.com