is privilege the new bias?
i've noticed the concept of "privilege" seems to getting bandied about with some frequency lately (both among my friends and the feminist/anti-racist blogosphere more generally), often in place of the more hackneyed concept of "bias." and i'm certainly glad to be part of a community of people concerned with issues of social justice and willing to engage in dialogue about them -- and raise pointed critiques when necessary.
but i've also noticed that the bulk of these discussions hinge on a particular set of leftist theories about social order, usually based on originally Marxist critiques of power and ideology (as taken up by feminists, dependency theorists, postmodernists, and others). in this line of thinking, the dominant classes control dominant values and ways of understanding the world, restricting and containing all other perspectives. classificatory systems have emerged that institute social and cultural differences, which are then naturalized as biology (this process is linked specifically with the early modern period in Europe and the rise of capitalism). modern conceptions of race, for example, can be traced to colonialism and European encounters with indigenous peoples they were trying to control (this is especially evident in the Americas with the Spanish who instituted strict guidelines as to who had what rights according to their parentage, thereby establishing distinct racial groups based on geographic origin).
similarly, many feminists continue to show how the concept of gender functions to reinforce power and culturally constructed difference, and is then made to seem natural (think about how in the '50s, women were told that they were naturally mothers and nurturers and should leave the workplace, which they'd been occupying thanks to the war, and return home to raise children and care for their husbands).
these are all, of course, useful critiques of how cultural difference is naturalized, and there have been many excellent historical and theoretical analyses of these processes (Ann Stoler, Judy Butler, Foucault, etc.). but the downside is that theories of power very easily become explanatory models in and of themselves -- we can explain social injustice by reference to power, without having to analyze how that power is produced. i think it's easy to take up the concept of "privilege" as a shorthand for the ways these norms are internalized, particularly by those whose position in the social structure (ie, "subject position") places them at an advantage over others (i.e. white people, men, straight people, etc. etc.).
privilege may indeed offer a useful way to think about certain social issues and power, but it seems like it's being used increasingly as a tautology -- "you're just acting that way as a function of your unconscious privilege." we used to level the criticism of "bias" against people for articulating implicitly sexist or racist views, but bias tends to connote a semi-conscious subjective predilection that can be easily corrected with a good dose of "objective" reality. "privilege," of course, is harder to refute, as a function of one's subject position, but i'm not sure it's an effective way of responding to people in order to displace certain norms or power structures. furthermore, while Marxism can be very useful as a social theory, it doesn't offer a complete or total explanation of all social life or experience. many interesting new social science theories take on Marxism (and its materialist underpinnings) -- from economic critiques of "capitalocentrism," which seek to displace capitalism as the dominant form of economic life, to Actor-Network Theory which tries to explain the "social" through links of actors in networks, rather than taking social "ties" or "forces" as an a priori given.
anyhow, clearly i've been wasting too much time on the internet and/or reading too much critical science studies (aka Bruno Latour). but i'm curious about how other people perceive the concept of "privilege" and how it's being taken up in certain conversations.
but i've also noticed that the bulk of these discussions hinge on a particular set of leftist theories about social order, usually based on originally Marxist critiques of power and ideology (as taken up by feminists, dependency theorists, postmodernists, and others). in this line of thinking, the dominant classes control dominant values and ways of understanding the world, restricting and containing all other perspectives. classificatory systems have emerged that institute social and cultural differences, which are then naturalized as biology (this process is linked specifically with the early modern period in Europe and the rise of capitalism). modern conceptions of race, for example, can be traced to colonialism and European encounters with indigenous peoples they were trying to control (this is especially evident in the Americas with the Spanish who instituted strict guidelines as to who had what rights according to their parentage, thereby establishing distinct racial groups based on geographic origin).
similarly, many feminists continue to show how the concept of gender functions to reinforce power and culturally constructed difference, and is then made to seem natural (think about how in the '50s, women were told that they were naturally mothers and nurturers and should leave the workplace, which they'd been occupying thanks to the war, and return home to raise children and care for their husbands).
these are all, of course, useful critiques of how cultural difference is naturalized, and there have been many excellent historical and theoretical analyses of these processes (Ann Stoler, Judy Butler, Foucault, etc.). but the downside is that theories of power very easily become explanatory models in and of themselves -- we can explain social injustice by reference to power, without having to analyze how that power is produced. i think it's easy to take up the concept of "privilege" as a shorthand for the ways these norms are internalized, particularly by those whose position in the social structure (ie, "subject position") places them at an advantage over others (i.e. white people, men, straight people, etc. etc.).
privilege may indeed offer a useful way to think about certain social issues and power, but it seems like it's being used increasingly as a tautology -- "you're just acting that way as a function of your unconscious privilege." we used to level the criticism of "bias" against people for articulating implicitly sexist or racist views, but bias tends to connote a semi-conscious subjective predilection that can be easily corrected with a good dose of "objective" reality. "privilege," of course, is harder to refute, as a function of one's subject position, but i'm not sure it's an effective way of responding to people in order to displace certain norms or power structures. furthermore, while Marxism can be very useful as a social theory, it doesn't offer a complete or total explanation of all social life or experience. many interesting new social science theories take on Marxism (and its materialist underpinnings) -- from economic critiques of "capitalocentrism," which seek to displace capitalism as the dominant form of economic life, to Actor-Network Theory which tries to explain the "social" through links of actors in networks, rather than taking social "ties" or "forces" as an a priori given.
anyhow, clearly i've been wasting too much time on the internet and/or reading too much critical science studies (aka Bruno Latour). but i'm curious about how other people perceive the concept of "privilege" and how it's being taken up in certain conversations.