Additionally, the vocabulary -- concepts such as privilege, white supremacist, male supremacist, ablist -- grew out of political struggle. For instance, in Kimberly Springer's study of the emergence of black feminism, she shows how it wasn't an outgrowth of, an adjunct to, white feminists such as NY Radical women. Rather, it was percolating and evolving at the same time. What often prompted their feminist radicalism was that, as black women, other black activists told them that they shouldn't align with the emerging feminists groups.
The response, from these black feminists (some of whom also were lesbian) was to say, "Hey what? You mean I'm supposed to identify as black and only speak to black issues, never black women's issues? What? I can pick apart my identity into discrete categories. Black. Straight. Woman.
Upon being told that they should shut down their interest in exploring feminist issues in the interest of a collective "we" - the civil rights and, later, black power struggle -- black women started theorizing how it could be that black men, oppressed as they were by racist oppression, could turn around and not recognize how they, themselves, were exercising male supremacy even as they were oppressed by race.
The issue was even more gut-wrenching, of course, for black lesbians.
And all of it was even more pertinent because, when they did band together with white feminists, they ended up learning that they saw things somewhat differently.
For instance, the first black feminist organization emerged because, in part, its founder wanted to speak about reproductive rights rather than a more narrow focus on *abortion* rights. (see e.g., debates among feminists in Chicago - 1968 was the date, I think)
Out of that practical organizing issues, women emerged to theorize why it was that not all women saw reproductive rights as an important issue. What made some women not even aware of the problem of forced sterilization. What made it happen that, even when they became aware, they were disinclined to include concern about it in their programs and platforms?
These theories emerged in the context of very real political struggles. Before or after a contentious meeting, people wrote letters to each other, voicing their positions. They gathered in meeting to hash out the problems. At Sandy Springs, white feminists got together to ask, among other things, should we invite black women? some at that meeting said "no" because, to their mind, a black woman involved in feminist issues was a traitor to the black struggle. Others separated from organizations to which they belonged and created new ones: in doing so, they wrote position papers expaining why, developing the very theories that created words like privilege, oppression, male supremacy, white supremacy, gender, safe spaces, etc.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Chris Sturr <sturr at dollarsandsense.org>wrote:
> I finally got around to reading the "Check your privilege" article, and far
> from finding it dumb, I thought it (the article, not the subject matter)
> was really illuminating.
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>