Excellent analysis, and it fits right in with how anti-racists frame the narrative: you can't simply be not racist. You're either racist or actively anti racist. This is how they launder that absurd but strangely effective and dangerous notion: via language and emotional manipulation, as effective abusers do.
An example where the establishment (illegitimately) won an argument by changing the way they used words is in the medical definition of death. It was changed in 1968 from permanent cardiopulmonary collapse to whole brain death. They did this so that people with whole brain death could be declared dead and therefore pulled off life support (“organ support”) so that their organs could be donated.
Many bioethicists objected, including Peter Singer, because people in whole brain death still preserve a lot of biological function, including digesting food, being warm, having a pulse, even gestating a pregnancy. Yes, people in whole brain death have permanently lost all personality and psychological properties that make them a person, but that actually happens in way more cases than people are comfortable harvesting organs from, such as in higher brain death and even late dementia.
Singer’s point was that it’s fine to take these people off support for organs, but let’s be honest: doing so kills them. You can’t win an ethical debate (is it okay to take these people off support) by changing the way we use words (turns out they were already ‘dead’; how convenient). He blamed the conceptual confusion on the sanctity of life ethic--see his “Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?” Bioethics 1995.
Let’s take the existing word “privilege” out of it. Change it to some other word. Or even replace it with a variable.
Now, describe those situations where some people are able to live moment to moment without ever having to contemplate that variable, versus others who have that whatever-it-is omnipresent and an obstacle.
Do you deny the existence of those obstacles, or those situations?
It might be useful to think about the origin of the word privilege, which is "private law". It's a special set of rules that applies only to certain individuals. Diluting that down to mean nothing but "advantage" is not productive - the word advantage is already there to use!
I don't think that's right. If all the word privlege served to do was to convey the message that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing then it wouldn't be particularly threatening.
I'm not a huge believer in feeling guilty but all the old starving children ads that implicitly tried to make one feel guilty for being well off Americans were at worst annoying not pernicious. The problem is that privlege is too often used to imply that, because you haven't experienced the issue yourself, you lack the epistemic or moral authority to dispute the views of those who have.
On its own the idea that one might have a moral responsibility as a result of being better off isn't really an issue. It's the coupling of the concept to the idea that those with privlege aren't allowed to have a legitimate view of their own on the matter. This allows the word privlege to be used to delegitimize even the views of people who have worked to solve problems for decades if they don't have the right views.
> Do woke activists really think they can guilt lots of normal people into joining their crusade? Probably not. They’re goal, rather, is to guilt lots of normal people into shutting up.
Maybe. But if so, I think it's not a conscious decision. Few people are consciously that cynical.
I expect it's some mix of Motivated Reasoning, as described in "The Elephant in the Brain", and/or a speech pattern that's evolved as a successful way to win debates.
I agree that using 'check your privilege' to shut people up is bad, and while I've never actually seen it used that way off the internet, not denying it happens. When I see it used it's typically as a reminder: to remind someone that their opinion is likely coloured by their experiences in a way they don't realise.
***in what I have done and in what I have failed to do***,
(strike breast) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
-------
*** Commenters Emphasis***
Christianity really doesn't have a concept of being "OK". While it expects people to not be perfect, it inspires perfection as the ultimate goal. There is both good and bad in this, as the wisest Christians have noticed in the past (worth noting that holy men are both the saints and villains of the New Testament, while the state literally washes its hands of the matter.)
Personally, I think in the utterly brutal reality that existed up until very recent times in the developed world, Christian mercy tended towards marginal improvement more often than not.
But in our soft times I think at least abstracted christianity is a failure mode, moreso then any point in the past. Mercy has something to add to interpersonal relationships, but systematized mercy has gone off the rails.
Well said! I’ve joked that if somebody told me to “check my privilege”, I would reply “It’s fine! Thanks for asking!”
Excellent analysis, and it fits right in with how anti-racists frame the narrative: you can't simply be not racist. You're either racist or actively anti racist. This is how they launder that absurd but strangely effective and dangerous notion: via language and emotional manipulation, as effective abusers do.
An example where the establishment (illegitimately) won an argument by changing the way they used words is in the medical definition of death. It was changed in 1968 from permanent cardiopulmonary collapse to whole brain death. They did this so that people with whole brain death could be declared dead and therefore pulled off life support (“organ support”) so that their organs could be donated.
Many bioethicists objected, including Peter Singer, because people in whole brain death still preserve a lot of biological function, including digesting food, being warm, having a pulse, even gestating a pregnancy. Yes, people in whole brain death have permanently lost all personality and psychological properties that make them a person, but that actually happens in way more cases than people are comfortable harvesting organs from, such as in higher brain death and even late dementia.
Singer’s point was that it’s fine to take these people off support for organs, but let’s be honest: doing so kills them. You can’t win an ethical debate (is it okay to take these people off support) by changing the way we use words (turns out they were already ‘dead’; how convenient). He blamed the conceptual confusion on the sanctity of life ethic--see his “Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?” Bioethics 1995.
Brian, I’m not sure I agree.
Let’s take the existing word “privilege” out of it. Change it to some other word. Or even replace it with a variable.
Now, describe those situations where some people are able to live moment to moment without ever having to contemplate that variable, versus others who have that whatever-it-is omnipresent and an obstacle.
Do you deny the existence of those obstacles, or those situations?
Typo: *They’re* goal, rather...
It might be useful to think about the origin of the word privilege, which is "private law". It's a special set of rules that applies only to certain individuals. Diluting that down to mean nothing but "advantage" is not productive - the word advantage is already there to use!
"words masquerading as arguments". That's a great description of the general MO of those bullying non-activists.
I don't think that's right. If all the word privlege served to do was to convey the message that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing then it wouldn't be particularly threatening.
I'm not a huge believer in feeling guilty but all the old starving children ads that implicitly tried to make one feel guilty for being well off Americans were at worst annoying not pernicious. The problem is that privlege is too often used to imply that, because you haven't experienced the issue yourself, you lack the epistemic or moral authority to dispute the views of those who have.
On its own the idea that one might have a moral responsibility as a result of being better off isn't really an issue. It's the coupling of the concept to the idea that those with privlege aren't allowed to have a legitimate view of their own on the matter. This allows the word privlege to be used to delegitimize even the views of people who have worked to solve problems for decades if they don't have the right views.
Since when is merely keeping your own hands clean sufficient to lead a moral life?
> Do woke activists really think they can guilt lots of normal people into joining their crusade? Probably not. They’re goal, rather, is to guilt lots of normal people into shutting up.
Maybe. But if so, I think it's not a conscious decision. Few people are consciously that cynical.
I expect it's some mix of Motivated Reasoning, as described in "The Elephant in the Brain", and/or a speech pattern that's evolved as a successful way to win debates.
What a world you live in, Bryan, where the main problem is people making you feel guilty.
And your main purpose is to make straight white men feel fine about being privileged.
Yeesh.
Great post.
Just one minor objection: You perhaps mildly accept the idea of wealth as privilege; I don't accept that idea.
I agree that using 'check your privilege' to shut people up is bad, and while I've never actually seen it used that way off the internet, not denying it happens. When I see it used it's typically as a reminder: to remind someone that their opinion is likely coloured by their experiences in a way they don't realise.
Well-said. The whole concept of "privilege" has truly jumped the shark many years ago, and has become a self-satire.
-------
I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
***in what I have done and in what I have failed to do***,
(strike breast) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
-------
*** Commenters Emphasis***
Christianity really doesn't have a concept of being "OK". While it expects people to not be perfect, it inspires perfection as the ultimate goal. There is both good and bad in this, as the wisest Christians have noticed in the past (worth noting that holy men are both the saints and villains of the New Testament, while the state literally washes its hands of the matter.)
Personally, I think in the utterly brutal reality that existed up until very recent times in the developed world, Christian mercy tended towards marginal improvement more often than not.
But in our soft times I think at least abstracted christianity is a failure mode, moreso then any point in the past. Mercy has something to add to interpersonal relationships, but systematized mercy has gone off the rails.