White Privilege, or a Concept by White People for White People
Perhaps some of you are already aware of what has now been termed Race Fail '09 (a brief summary) within the science fiction community. I'm not going to provide any commentary on the issue itself, as basically all that can be said has been said, with varying degrees of vehemence and offensiveness. Not surprisingly racism is an emotional issue, and accusations of such, no matter how warranted, rarely go over well. I would go even further to suggest, that the idea of race [and ethnicity in general] is an emotional one too, as there is little evidence for inherent biological differences based on skin colour. In short, racial identity is mostly a social construction enforced by instinctual and unconscious psychology about fearing the unfamiliar.
Racism, defined here as “holding prejudices against an individual or group based on ethnic identification,” has been around a long time, and is still alive and well today. To varying degrees, all of us have racist beliefs, often without realizing it. They can be very hard to shake off, as they may be ingrained in one's culture, but the fact that racial discrimination is generally not considered a good thing illustrates that some progress has been made in the right direction.
Racism is a form of hierarchy, which has existed in all human societies, based on language, religion, economic class, gender, skin color, [insert difference here]... Dominant groups enjoy benefits from being on top, often without realizing it, seeing it as normal or desirable. One's cultural background instills many social constructs that individuals fail to notice, particularly when they do not look outside their culture. This is all very unsurprising if quite terrible.
Anyway, the discussion dragged up the term “White Privilege” (pdf), from [white] feminist theorist Peggy MacIntosh's 1988 essay of the same name. In short, the concept of “white privilege” alleges that white people enjoy unearned benefits simply because of their skin colour. This differs from actual prejudice, as the white beneficiary does not necessarily hold racist beliefs, or even is aware that he is a beneficiary of these privileges. Mary Anne Mohanraj has written a helpful post on John Scalzi's blog Whatever about white privilege in the context of Race Fail '09.
I had encountered the concept of white privilege long before this controversy, although I spent much more time thinking about it and reevaluating my original view of it, as well as racism in general. In short, the concept of privilege (unearned benefits you have that others don't) has a fair claim to truth, but “white privilege” is an extraordinarily unhelpful name that describes a very particular historical context - that of the United States.
The fact that nearly all of the work on this concept has come from the US should perhaps set off some alarm bells. The concept was developed in a particular historical context, and it is very problematic to interpret non-American experiences through its rubric. Even the use of the seemingly neutral term “person of color” is American context sensitive and politically loaded. The majority of the world's population are “people of color”, and I doubt very many at all would self-identify with the label. The label implies there is some sort of unity in being “non-white”, and that “white” is not a skin colour.
This is not to say that racism, dominance and privilege are exclusively American, but rather that the American experience of these things is exclusive. Even other “white” cultures have differing experiences with racism, not to mention all the “non-white” ones. The British in India, the French in Algeria, the Japanese in Korea, the Chinese in Vietnam, etc, etc... Hierarchy based on racial identification cannot be easily understood through the concept of “white privilege,” if at all.
Furthermore, the label “White Privilege” is distracting, and more than a little patronizingly racist. The fact that the large majority of human societies following their own more or less oppressive hierarchies with attendant privileges, have waxed and waned without ever seeing a pale face doesn't seem to factor into the concept. It elevates one form of dominance over all others, and centres on "whites", turning all "non-whites" into mere victims of oppression, much like how Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness reduces the natives to metaphorical objects to illustrate a psychological point for Europeans. Both seem to condemn racism, but tacitly support it by basically ignoring the perspectives of non-Europeans. In short "White Privilege" tells you nothing about racism beyond a very limited perspective in a very particular context.
Now I'm not much of a fan of Derrida, but the whole concept of “White Privilege” is just ripe for deconstruction, and not in that superficial art school way. The concept is a mass of contradictions, and its structural integrity melts away upon examination. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions: What exactly is race and how do we define which race someone belongs too? What exactly are these privileges and how do they operate? What exactly is the nature of power? What about societies that have no experience with different skin colours? Is race the primary determinant of one's life experiences?
Racism and privilege do exist, but deciding to call it “White Privilege” completely obscures the issue with a loaded term, essentially shutting down any sort of useful discussion. And finally racism is a symptom of, not the cause of hierarchies and privilege.
The only comment on the whole affair I will offer, is the absurd irony of one white male haranguing another about being “blinded by his privilege.”
As a final thought to chew on, I will tell you a few things about myself. Just by looking at me, you will see that I am a white male in my mid twenties of slim build. Have you figured out what sort of person I am yet? Some things you would not know just by looking at me are that I am heterosexual, an atheist who was raised Catholic, ethnically Gaelic, English speaking, Canadian citizen, poor and unemployed but from a rural middle class background, partly university educated, politically left wing, etc. Have you managed to pin my persona down yet? Maybe I can tell you about my interests...
I don't think I could accurately describe myself in 1000 pages, let alone be able to accurately describe someone else based on their income and skin colour. While these influence a person's identity, they are not accurate for determining individual identity. Consciously or unconsciously, by telling you demographic categories that apply to me, I have managed to influence you as reader, on how seriously you will take the content of this post.
Racism, defined here as “holding prejudices against an individual or group based on ethnic identification,” has been around a long time, and is still alive and well today. To varying degrees, all of us have racist beliefs, often without realizing it. They can be very hard to shake off, as they may be ingrained in one's culture, but the fact that racial discrimination is generally not considered a good thing illustrates that some progress has been made in the right direction.
Racism is a form of hierarchy, which has existed in all human societies, based on language, religion, economic class, gender, skin color, [insert difference here]... Dominant groups enjoy benefits from being on top, often without realizing it, seeing it as normal or desirable. One's cultural background instills many social constructs that individuals fail to notice, particularly when they do not look outside their culture. This is all very unsurprising if quite terrible.
Anyway, the discussion dragged up the term “White Privilege” (pdf), from [white] feminist theorist Peggy MacIntosh's 1988 essay of the same name. In short, the concept of “white privilege” alleges that white people enjoy unearned benefits simply because of their skin colour. This differs from actual prejudice, as the white beneficiary does not necessarily hold racist beliefs, or even is aware that he is a beneficiary of these privileges. Mary Anne Mohanraj has written a helpful post on John Scalzi's blog Whatever about white privilege in the context of Race Fail '09.
I had encountered the concept of white privilege long before this controversy, although I spent much more time thinking about it and reevaluating my original view of it, as well as racism in general. In short, the concept of privilege (unearned benefits you have that others don't) has a fair claim to truth, but “white privilege” is an extraordinarily unhelpful name that describes a very particular historical context - that of the United States.
The fact that nearly all of the work on this concept has come from the US should perhaps set off some alarm bells. The concept was developed in a particular historical context, and it is very problematic to interpret non-American experiences through its rubric. Even the use of the seemingly neutral term “person of color” is American context sensitive and politically loaded. The majority of the world's population are “people of color”, and I doubt very many at all would self-identify with the label. The label implies there is some sort of unity in being “non-white”, and that “white” is not a skin colour.
This is not to say that racism, dominance and privilege are exclusively American, but rather that the American experience of these things is exclusive. Even other “white” cultures have differing experiences with racism, not to mention all the “non-white” ones. The British in India, the French in Algeria, the Japanese in Korea, the Chinese in Vietnam, etc, etc... Hierarchy based on racial identification cannot be easily understood through the concept of “white privilege,” if at all.
Furthermore, the label “White Privilege” is distracting, and more than a little patronizingly racist. The fact that the large majority of human societies following their own more or less oppressive hierarchies with attendant privileges, have waxed and waned without ever seeing a pale face doesn't seem to factor into the concept. It elevates one form of dominance over all others, and centres on "whites", turning all "non-whites" into mere victims of oppression, much like how Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness reduces the natives to metaphorical objects to illustrate a psychological point for Europeans. Both seem to condemn racism, but tacitly support it by basically ignoring the perspectives of non-Europeans. In short "White Privilege" tells you nothing about racism beyond a very limited perspective in a very particular context.
Now I'm not much of a fan of Derrida, but the whole concept of “White Privilege” is just ripe for deconstruction, and not in that superficial art school way. The concept is a mass of contradictions, and its structural integrity melts away upon examination. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions: What exactly is race and how do we define which race someone belongs too? What exactly are these privileges and how do they operate? What exactly is the nature of power? What about societies that have no experience with different skin colours? Is race the primary determinant of one's life experiences?
Racism and privilege do exist, but deciding to call it “White Privilege” completely obscures the issue with a loaded term, essentially shutting down any sort of useful discussion. And finally racism is a symptom of, not the cause of hierarchies and privilege.
The only comment on the whole affair I will offer, is the absurd irony of one white male haranguing another about being “blinded by his privilege.”
As a final thought to chew on, I will tell you a few things about myself. Just by looking at me, you will see that I am a white male in my mid twenties of slim build. Have you figured out what sort of person I am yet? Some things you would not know just by looking at me are that I am heterosexual, an atheist who was raised Catholic, ethnically Gaelic, English speaking, Canadian citizen, poor and unemployed but from a rural middle class background, partly university educated, politically left wing, etc. Have you managed to pin my persona down yet? Maybe I can tell you about my interests...
I don't think I could accurately describe myself in 1000 pages, let alone be able to accurately describe someone else based on their income and skin colour. While these influence a person's identity, they are not accurate for determining individual identity. Consciously or unconsciously, by telling you demographic categories that apply to me, I have managed to influence you as reader, on how seriously you will take the content of this post.