Tell us, "What is oppression like?" All eyes turned to the oppressed person, or to the literature of the oppressed, and everyone expectantly waiting to hear the answer.
Privilege was a concept used to say this:
Oh, hey, there are these folks in positions of power and they tend to, you know, shape the world in ways that make sense to them. And the funny thing is, these people are pretty enlightened. They don't believe that women are inferior. They don't think people of different races, ethnicities, cultures, etc are actually inferior either.
SO WHY THE FUCK ARE THINGS STILL SCREWED UP?
And, at the time, people said, "And why was racism, sexism, ablism, heterosexism still a problem in countries that have done away with capitalism? Why do these systems of oppressive power still operate there? What makes them so darn pernicious that it is hard not to keep reproducing them?
The answer was not that they sat around plotting ways to make life miserable. Rather, they just sat around and made policies, rules, laws, standards, and set expectations that regulated everyday behavior that made the most sense to them, worked for them, made the least friction in their lives, and tended to uphold and reinforce the ways they already think.
My company always lets people out around 3 pm the day before every holiday. Go home, enjoy time with your families, says the CEO. All the senior level managers in the chain follow suit, with the same message to employees. A a boss, it's always good to be the one to hand out a paycheck or announce early leave. They teach you that at HBS and Wharton.
July 4th. Labor day. Memorial day. Etc. It is a norm in this company to let everyone out for that extra 2-3 hours, and all done so as way of saying that those holidays are for enjoying time with family.
so nice, right?
MLK day? Not a word from the CEO or any of the senior level managers. One unit, run by a black man, did send his employees home at 3 p.m. Since the white people running the company go home and see it as just a three day weekend with no special celebration, they assume everyone else in a company that employees probably 38% black people treats the holiday the same way, that they have no celebrations, etc.
Not having to deal with that slight, that affront, that reminder that most of the people around you don't think of history or nationality or public figures the same way you - that is an unearned privilege.
And if I or my friend, the manager, were to say to the bosses, "Hey check your privilege" we are simply saying, "Hey, we know that you know better. We think that, because you've never had to think about it, you inadvertently did something hurtful by not treating MLK the same as every holiday. So could you check your privilege and consider making policies that are all the same? Thanks in advance."
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> Some history could be written on the question Robert raises. "Chauvinism"
> was not infrequently used for a while in the '60s, and many groups spent
> some time arguing over whether it was an acceptable term. The history would
> have to come from documents, not direct memory. When I try to remember some
> of these debates I can't confidently differentiate what I believed then
> from
> what I came to believe since then. Some groups in the '60s did, I think,
> insist on using the phrase "male chauvinism"; that phrase covered up or
> avoided what (I just discovered yesterday) is still a problem. I was
> reading
> an account of a recent meeting in Chicago among with people from a number
> of different socialist groups as well as independent radicals attending. I
> quote one sentence from that report: " The facilitator was a woman, and two
> of the presenters were women. However, during their presentation, side
> conversations in the back of the room escalated." That's a complaint that
> was made thunderously (often to deaf ears) in the '60s. I think
> "chauvinism"
> would interfere with efforts to stop that 'practice.' Perhaps shag has a
> comment.
>
> So I can't really answer your question, but I suspect "chauvinism" does and
> _did_ have an individualist slant.
>
> All terms that refer to "attitudes" can be used for unprincipled attacks in
> internal debate.
>
> Carrol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of robert wood
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 7:17 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Check your privilege: Rise of the Post-New Left
> political vocabulary
>
> Carrol, I'd be curious where you see the difference between the language of
> privilege and the concept of chauvinism that was a significant framework
> for
> the CP in the 1930's. I have some ideas, but I'm curious about your take
> on
> the question. Thanks, Robert Wood
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > On Feb 4, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is babbling nonsense. "Check your privilege" is simple bullshit.
> > Or it
> > >> could be a deliberate attempt to sabotage political discussion.
> >
> > I'm strongly with Carrol on this one. 'Privilege' is the stinkiest red
> > herring ever dragged across the trail.
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>