Trackbacks & Pings

1. Open Thread: On Interlocking Privilege and Oppression | Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop culture « cool memories on 09 Oct 2009 at 2:55 pm

   [...] Open Thread: On Interlocking Privilege and Oppression | Racialicious – the intersection of race and pop culture too often, we get caught up in debates about authenticity (a word I despise) and whether one is qualified to speak on something based on what combination of oppressed identities they can dial up. It’s one reason much of the progressive intelligentsia has lost touch, I think, with the labor movement. via racialicious.com [...]

Comments

1. Slush wrote:

   Damn. I thought intersectionality was interlocking privilege and oppression. What is it then?

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:52 am ¶

2. Elton wrote:

   Many in the media and those who cling to the old power structures have a vested interest in a “divide and conquer” strategy that convinces oppressed people to become agents of their own oppression. It baffles me that many older people, immigrants, people from economically depressed areas, etc. actually support causes like the Republican Party who would seek to maintain the status quo.

   As an Asian American from the South, it saddens me to think about our history of racial segregation, when it is obvious to me that poor blacks, whites, Asians, and Latinos have much more in common with each other than suggested by the artificialities of race division. And instead of thinking about how intertwined the lives of recent immigrants are with families who have lived in the South for hundreds of years, those who would seek to divide spread xenophobic fear, hatred, and jealousy.

   They like to complain about the “race card” and other such claims about division, when they are actually the primary beneficiaries of division. Divide and conquer. It’s the oldest trick in the book.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:25 pm ¶

3. atlasien wrote:

   I think addressing negative communication dynamics is really important in this area. So much unproductive stuff happens when people just bounce back and forth between two extremes:

   1) Quit complaining, because we all have a more important goal. Your minority issue is not as important as the majority issue, fixing the majority issue will benefit your minority issue anyway, and addressing your minority issue in any way will take away from the goal and act as sabotage.

   2) My minority issue is more important on a moral scale than your majority issue. Advancing your majority issue in any way will not help us and simply means siding with the oppressors, so I refuse to work with you on it or trust you in any way.

   And almost any issue — e.g. affirmative action, gay marriage, global warming — can be both a majority or minority issue, based on which group of people are relating to it.

   Any coalition is going to fall apart or be riddled with inequity unless some kind of medium is found between the two extremes.

   On a related note, I think it’s pretty important to train yourself not to have super-high expectations of people. If you expect anyone who comes from a different background to quickly be able to understand your concerns and listen to you, you’re going to be really disappointed all the time and burn out really fast in whatever your mission is. We should keep having high standards, but couple them with realistic expectations.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶

4. atlasien wrote:

   Oh, and I’m reminded of low expectations every time I watch a Youtube video and glance downwards at the comments. They’re so bad… the comments always seem to default to a string of misspelled racial slurs. The only way I can ever look at them at all, even briefly, is to keep repeating to myself, “low expectations, low expectations…”

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶

5. BayanIzumi wrote:

   I don’t think that one individual can be oppressed more than another individual. Oppression is oppression. But I also think poor white people have an advantage over poor black people in terms of racial privilege. So since many of us are both the oppressor and the oppressed I think it’s important to have education from the ground up, recognize your own privileges, which to me are roadblocks to being able to work with those who are underprivilged. How do we get poor racist whites to work with poor non-whites? How do we get middle class non-whites to work with poor whites? And are the perceived consequences for the former greater than it is for the latter? I dunno… I’m just processing out loud. I don’t even know if I made sense. Wonderfully thought provoking question though. Thank you!

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:00 pm ¶

6. Jess wrote:

   Part of the problem with terms like “intersectionality” is that it’s one of those polysyllabic high-falutin’ terms that may be precise, but makes a lot of people turn right off.

   It’s like “deconstruction” and “male gaze” and a lot of theoryspeak. It’s precise and moves the discussion along between people in the know, but I found that if you talk to anyone who isn’t steeped in it it sounds like obscurantism, like you are deliberately trying to leave people out.

   Damn you, Hegel!

   So whenever I talk about this stuff with people I absolutely avoid any such words. If I can’t explain something without them, I try to figure out why.

   I take a lot of this from my father, who was a labor organizer (and probably one of the only ones in the business with a PhD at the time, for all the good it did him). He had read his Marx and Fanon, of course, and all that stuff that would be pretty familiar to people here.

   But he never once mentioned it — or used much of the vocabulary — when organizing. And he had to do it across race and gender lines quite often.

   Instead of saying “We are workers and suffer from an intersection of systemic white privilege and class” he would say “We all work at the plant, we all need to get paid, and if you let ‘em screw with the black guy on the line GE is going to screw you next. Last time I checked you were in a union.”

   One of the shop stewards was Susan Shepherd. You may remember her as half of the first gay couple to get married in Massachusetts. She never once got into the politics of being a lesbian, that I remember. She was just a damned good steward. When elections came up she just said, “I’m your steward and I’ve been straight with you on grievances. Got a problem with that?” She won every time. In a city of socially conservative Catholics, not one person I remember ever brought up the subject of who she slept with.

   I think too often we lose sight of what people care about when we get caught up in our own lingo. When someone tries dog-whistling race or sex, we often take the bait, rather than saying right out, “Yes, I screw men/women. So what?” or “I’m black, that’s right, look at it, kiddo. But I am here to get you paid more and decent health care for your kids, that okay with you?”

   If your union will defend you — say, preventing you from getting fired for your sexuality, or race, or whatever — then the status of the person doing the defending doesn’t matter much, does it?

   But too often, we get caught up in debates about authenticity (a word I despise) and whether one is qualified to speak on something based on what combination of oppressed identities they can dial up. It’s one reason much of the progressive intelligentsia has lost touch, I think, with the labor movement.

   I mean, I remember reading a paper by Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. And I was thinking, “Holy shit, I can’t think of anything less relevant to most womens’ lives.”

   I’m sorry, I know I am coming at this with a labor bias. But even looking through the posts and comments on this site, while I love the stuff, a part of me can’t help thinking, “Would this make any sense whatsoever to the my father’s friends at GE?” and the answer is often no. And that saddens me.

   I take my cues also from Paul Trumka. The UMW has had serious deep and painful issues dealing with race. His message to the workers during the 2008 campaign was simple: “Get Over It. Obama is a black man. But that black man is not going to screw you over the way Bush did or McCain will. You wanna get screwed? Fine. But your white skin won’t save you when you get black lung and have no insurance.” People responded to that.

   PS — Message to Randi Weingarten: I have never met a teacher who cared that you were a lesbian, even before you took on the president’s job.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:54 pm ¶

7. PPR_Scribe wrote:

   Bravo, Jess. One of the main privileges that some of us (myself definitely included) need to deal with is privilege based on educational attainment. So few people in the world have had as much education as many of us reading blogs like this one. Sometimes we can be real jerks, but then we wonder why no one will listen to or organize with us.

   Those of us who are POC or are otherwise in an “oppressed” group can be particularly unaware of this privilege as we often feel/actually are still so marginalized in our work places/academic institutions so we do not fully appreciate how powerful our degrees have made us…

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:30 pm ¶

8. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   I would caution those who make assumptions about the readership and authorship of this blog to remember that:

   1. The regular commenters do not always reflect those who are reading. Many people who are regular readers do not post comments here (which is the general way of the internet), but, in addition, may feel as though it takes them too long to think through the ideas to feel as though they can contribute to the conversation.

   2. Please don’t assume that everyone who contributes here has a degree. It’s about 60-40, and only two of the regular contribs have degrees in anything remotely resembling sociology. One of the reasons we have for basing Racialicious in pop culture is that pop culture is accessible to a much broader range of people than is academia.

   3. This blog serves everyone from high school students to scientists. I’ve had teachers, youth coordinators, and prison outreach advocates all ask to use pieces as part of their work. I am always amazed at the willingness to underestimate the intellectual capabilities of certain audiences.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:51 pm ¶

9. atlasien wrote:

   Good one, PPR_Scribe. My own initial comment regarding Jess’ comment has not yet made it out of moderation. Perhaps it never will (in that case, no hard feelings, moderator!).

   I will try again.

   I, also, feel properly chastened for having gone to college and studied, among many other things, feminist theory. I thought some portions of this theory had application to my experiences as a woman, experiences which happened to include long stints working physically exhausting, entry-level jobs in the food service industry since the age of 15 while dealing with extensive racial and sexual harassment. I was entirely wrong. It was useless. Useless!

   I will remember, in future, that high-falutin’ college education is to be scorned. Except for journalism.

   I will also remember that the labor movement, contrary to my previous conception of it as a complex, multiracial mosaic, is actually composed of stereotypically gruff Archie Bunker types.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶

10. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Points taken, Latoya. For the sake of argument, however, how many people across the world even have the equivalent of a high school diploma?

    The idea that some of us can be highly educated, but refuse to want to acknowledge the privileges associated with that because we are also (a) from a poor background, (b) a POC, (c) female, (d) or anything else kind of…proves the idea that intersectionality can entail both routes of being of both oppressed and oppressive groups *and* how defensive that can make folks. Which…often makes coalition building difficult.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶

11. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    Not sure where you are getting the idea that I “scorn” educational attainment, atlasien, or think that anyone else should. High educational status bestows certain privileges, and those of us who have it are privileged in ways we do not always recognize. When we move into diverse circles that include people who do not have this privilege status, our inability or unwillingness to acknowledge our own privilege can hamper efforts to be allies, build coalitions, etc.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:14 pm ¶

12. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @PPR Scribe –

    The idea that some of us can be highly educated, but refuse to want to acknowledge the privileges associated with that because we are also (a) from a poor background, (b) a POC, (c) female, (d) or anything else kind of…proves the idea that intersectionality can entail both routes of being of both oppressed and oppressive groups *and* how defensive that can make folks.

    I agree that this, in many situations, is the case.

    However, the assumption here:

    For the sake of argument, however, how many people across the world even have the equivalent of a high school diploma?

    Grates on me a bit. There seems to be an assumption that the less educated someone is the less able they are to understand complex ideas, which I fully reject. Many of us feel the burn of things like “the male gaze” or “the model minority myth” or “systemic racism” even if we never find the words to articulate those feelings. In addition, this line of argument tends to fall into lines of reasoning, normally put forth by the privileged, that the masses will never use this blog/this technology/this library system/this type of experience, so it does not have worth.

    However, given strange quirks of society like the innate ability of humans to share ideas, advances in technology designed for the privileged but adapted by others, and the everlasting drive most of us have to experience our world, no matter how small that world feels, I find it difficult to look at an issue of access or literacy and not see it as something fixable and resolvable. However, those debating with me see these quantities as fixed.

    Poverty is fluid, but that concept doesn’t make sense to someone who sees it as fixed. So if one is talking about “the poor” (monolith) it is easy to start condescending, unless they understand “the poor” as a changing, vibrant community of people climbing out and sliding back in on what sometimes feels like a daily basis. It’s a different way of seeing possibility and evaluating potential.

    But I digress.

    proves the idea that intersectionality can entail both routes of being of both oppressed and oppressive groups *and* how defensive that can make folks.

    I agree with one part of this point – no one wants to be the oppressor, and therefore denials ensue. But what about when people are acknowledging they have common ground?

    Back to the example I used up top.

    I, feeling uncomfortable at this predominantly white conference, immediately began seeking out other visible minorities.

    Andrew, feeling equally uncomfortable, did not seek out other poor whites, as he surmised they were not present. For a while, he antagonized people – but he also made a point to show up at panels that discussed inequalities and access.

    Upon meeting there, we determined that we had similar goals and chose to organize together. But that would not have happened if either of us had rejected the other as a potential ally on the basis of race.

    So I suppose, in some ways, the question is, how do more of us get to neutral ground, where we can listen to each other, acknowledge the inequalities between us, and move forward?

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:29 pm ¶

13. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    There seems to be an assumption that the less educated someone is the less able they are to understand complex ideas, which I fully reject.

    As do I. This is not an assumption I make. I do think that sometimes people with more education tend to “complexify” things to a greater degree than is necessary. Feedback I have gotten from non-academic audiences is that this is frustrating: “If you mean X, then just say X.”

    how do more of us get to neutral ground, where we can listen to each other, acknowledge the inequalities between us, and move forward?

    That is an extremely important question. Often, too much bad vibes have gone between so that folks never get to the point that you seem to have gotten to with Andrew. Perhaps another question is not how to get to “neutral” ground, but how to work together on ground that is, and may continue to be, non-neutral–uncomfortable, awkward, sometimes even annoying.

    Thanks for a great discussion and food for thought.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:41 pm ¶

14. atlasien wrote:

    @PPR_Scribe: I was aiming at Jess and misfired at you. I was not entirely sure whether or not you were being sarcastic. Personally, I don’t take it well when someone tells me exactly which vocabulary I should use, how I should talk, or what theory is or is not applicable to MY OWN FREAKING LIFE. I especially don’t take it well when someone who is not a woman lectures me on how applicable feminist theory is to my life as a woman.

    The more general point about vocabulary is something quite separate from such insulting, deeply patronizing and instructions about how to interpret our own lives. In fact, I don’t use words such as intersectionality, essentialism or male gaze in my own blogging. I don’t even use the phrase “white privilege” all that much.

    Elitism sucks. So does anti-intellectualism.

    @Latoya: “There seems to be an assumption that the less educated someone is the less able they are to understand complex ideas, which I fully reject.”

    I agree 100%. I believe that theoretical constructs that are really valuable are the ones that can be taken apart and explained in chunks, using near-universal concepts such as respect, wellbeing, harmony, honesty and integrity.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:50 pm ¶

15. Jess wrote:

    altasien, I am not saying a college education should be scorned, or that feminist theory is terrible (though I think like any academic discipline — journalism included, it can get awfully caught up in itself).

    I am saying that when talking to people across class and gender lines it’s just important to make sure you are offering something people can relate to. Preferably the maximum number of people, as a matter of political strategy.

    The labor movement is a complex mosaic, and my father’s experience reflects that — as does Susan Shepherd’s.

    She fought damned hard for the rights of women in the workplace, recognizing at the same time that fighting for those rights was part of the struggle for workers generally.

    But the point is, she concentrated on what she was for. She focused on things that would address the concerns of the workers she was with — whether male or female. She — and my father — recognized that identity politics is useful. But it can also be a hell of a way for the powers that be to divide us.

    If you are going to fight that, you have to get people working with you first. If you say “I can’t have the same concerns as you because I am (insert here)” then you are doomed from the start. You pointed that out yourself.

    If everyone came to the table with the same economic power, for instance, that goes a long way to dealing with the problems of race/gender — which are, after all, abut power, no? It doesn’t solve them, but it sure helps –otherwise we wouldn’t give a damn about getting universal health care.

    Getting health care is about as race-independent a goal as I can think of — nobody gets a magical cure for cancer because they are white or whatever. We all can break bones. We all get the flu. The outcomes differ, and access differs (hence the outcomes) but if everyone had equal access, that would make a gigantic difference. I submit that if we had a single-payer system the differential between non-whites and whites in infant mortality, for instance, would probably shrink (and that differential IS smaller in other industrialized nations).

    Does it solve the racial issues in care provision? Hell no. But it sure helps. And were I running a local campaign for universal care, that is how I would frame it.

    Your two points about extremes are part and parcel of that, I think.

    Applying certain kinds of theory after the fact can be useful, yes. But I found that when you ar e in it, things look a bit different. There’s a lot of theory I learned that I can apply after the fact to my family’s experience — but watching the organizing happen it never seemed all that concrete, nor was much of it all that helpful.

    But I don’t claim to understand people well. (It’s why I initially studied physics — politics was fascinating but in a train-wreck sort of way). Maybe that’s the problem.

    (I didn’t see the first comment you posted when you posted it — and so we may have ended up talking past each other a bit. I should say that I agree very much that the two extremes you describe are the twin demons of organizing and that is part of what I am trying to describe).

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 5:08 pm ¶

16. atlasien wrote:

    Oh and one more note… I think oppression is an easy concept to understand. “Privilege” isn’t. Some people just use it as a synonym for oppression. But according to other definitions, it’s also connected with things like skill, knowledge, and practice. You can have earned privilege and unearned privilege, and distinguishing between the two with true 100% certainty is really impossible… unearned vs. earned is obvious at the extremes, but it bleeds together in the middle.

    Maybe one approach to the question at the end of this post is to let the concept of privilege be open to different definitions according to context, and not automatically treated as a moral negative.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 5:28 pm ¶

17. 9jah wrote:

    @PPR_Scribe,

    I agree that education does bestow a privilege. But privilege of itself is not necessarily problematic, I don’t think. The fact is unless you are the absolute most worse off person in the world, you derive some privilege from your experience that another does not. I guess I am wondering what it is exactly about the privilege of educational attainment that some of us need to deal with?

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:13 pm ¶

18. DreaD wrote:

    This is such an important topic…thanks for bringing it up.

    For me, it’s hard to have a convo about the intersectionality of privilege and oppression. This probably means I need to be having this convo/thinking about it, b/c it makes me squeamish. This is particularly true when I think of this in relationship to having these convos with white folks. I’ve just heard one too many white people pull the “race is not the issue, class is” card – conveniently easing their white guilt – to feel all that comfortable with it. But I can still recognize that talking about class IS so very important.

    I guess the question is how do you get past this? Not only with whites, but in general? How do I feel confident that addressing the larger issue won’t sweep my issue under the rug (esp. when it so often does. For example Civil Rights movement and its relegating Black women’s issues to the back burner)? I mean I get the whole divide and conquer thing, I understand it mentally, but acting against it is much more difficult.

    I can’t wait to continue reading this thread…

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:56 pm ¶

19. Tim Jones-Yelvington wrote:

    This is a very important conversation.

    To address a comment above, I don’t think I see privilege as a moral negative, I think the term is simply descriptive of a reality. What’s morally negative is the systems that create that privilege, and I think having that privilege (in my case, white privilege, class privilege, male privilege) gives me a responsibility to participate in transforming those systems.

    I agree w/ Latoya regarding less-educated folks and their understanding of complex ideas. Having moved from a really intellectual engagement w/ activism as a Women’s and Gender Studies undergrad into a more “on-the-ground” engagement with activists working on a variety of issues (I work at an organization that raises funds to grant, through a community-guided grantmaking process to community organizers and social justice activists), I definitely understand the limits of jargon… but Jess seems to be echoing a notion I think is prevalent amongst a lot of organizers — that folks can only understand one another’s issues through the framework of self-interest (”if you let ‘em screw with the black guy on the line GE is going to screw you next”), and that focusing on differences within social change groups is divisive. This framework may be effective for individual campaigns (ie a single campaign against an oppressive employer), but I’m concerned about the long haul, abt building a broader and longterm movement/movements for social justice, which I think can only happen if we have some commitment to collective liberation, which can only happen if we address the interlocking nature of privilege and oppression in our lives, and to solidarity — to caring about injustice that does not appear to directly affect us. I do not think these are rarefied or elitist concepts, and I’ve witnessed the power of popular education methods in helping folks use their own experiences of oppression as the basis for developing a broader analysis of how issues/communities/identities/oppressions, etc intersect.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 7:12 pm ¶

20. DreaD wrote:

    Sorry in advance for the verbosity, but this thread really interests me.

    Tim, I really liked your second point, about how self-interest can only take movements so far. At some point the “other” has to be recognized as equal to you, not just as a person/group whose oppression is just an extension of yours. Otherwise my investment in challenging oppression will only last until I get my piece of the pie. I also agree that paralleling oppressions is a good jump off point – though limited – in helping folks to see the struggle of the “other” in a more empathetic light.

    I’ll have to disagree with your first point, though. I think that on a fundamental level privilege requires there to be underprivilege. They don’t exist without each other. Privilege is systemic, and it means that a whole lot of othered people are getting screwed over, which is a moral wrong. I do think, however, there is such a thing as using your privilege to make the world more just.

    Finally, I wanted to jump in on the education convo. I think it’s important to recognize that there is a difference between begrudging your education and recognizing that because of your education, you have privilege. I could never bring myself to begrudge my education, though it is a privilege (especially since I belong to a group of people who have historically been denied education. Not to mention that my education has allowed me access to the history of African Americans in the US – by and large not taught in depth or accurately through the public school system – as well as to the words/theories/philosophies of marginalized voices that are, again, lacking in a public education system that still indoctrinates youth with white supremacy.) That being said, I begrudge the fact that not all people have access to this information, and that is what I work to change.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶

21. Andrew wrote:

    As the guy who had the lightbulb moment, I’d like to toss in my two cents.

    While I would agree with Latoya that I did antagonize people, I don’t think it was to no end. There was a clear division within the room between a number of political traditions (progressive liberalism, social democracy, a sort of anarchist/syndicalist tradition) that have different underlying principles and eventual destinations (and, I would argue, greater or lesser appeal to different class backgrounds). Trying to draw that out was not always a popular thing to do- the common complaint of focusing on what divides us came up a couple of times in conversation.

    I think this point is just as important as race and (more broadly understood) class issues, because it indicates the limits of what we can work together on. There is a point where those traditions diverge, and understanding where that is helps to shape the work we can do together.

    There also seemed to be more immediate resistance to discussing class explicitly than there was discussing race/ethnicity. I think the lack of obvious visual cues is part of that (”what, I need to feel guilty about white people now?”), but also because I think that class is erased in North American culture to an alarming degree. Whether that same level of resistance would have been present in a deeper discussion is something I’d love to have the opportunity to discover (although whether or not that would be productive is another story).

    And although I think Latoya and I did come to a more neutral place of discussion, I think PPRScribe’s description of the imperfect-but-workable place of conversation was something I recognized as having with some of the other POCs at the conference. It’s a place I’m growing to recognize. And, the perfect being the enemy of the good and all, I’m happy enough to get there with anyone who could end up an ally.

    As a final note, having never come across the term intersectionality, I was very happy to have a nutshell concept for some of the many issues I had been wrestling with in class and race discussions for so long. While I don’t plan to use it on the daily in the communities I work with, I do think it can be very useful to get to the heart of certain perceived disagreements. Also, it really pointed out how my lack of familiarity with feminist theory (past, like, early Greer and a light dusting of 70s Kristeva) is a problem I need to remedy. I blame the patriarchy.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:38 pm ¶

22. Tim Jones-Yelvington wrote:

    @DreaD – “I’ll have to disagree with your first point, though. I think that on a fundamental level privilege requires there to be underprivilege. They don’t exist without each other. Privilege is systemic, and it means that a whole lot of othered people are getting screwed over, which is a moral wrong.”

    I agree with this. I was attempting to place the “moral wrong” on the system — I was speculating (and it was sort of a new thought, not totally sure how I feel abt it yet) that when we say privilege is morally wrong, as opposed to saying the systems that create privilege are morally wrong, it sometimes sounds like we’re shaming the privileged individual as opposed to the system (not that there aren’t times when individuals who are complicit in systems shouldn’t be productively shamed) that privileges them, and this is where I feel like I’ve witnessed a lot of privileged folks (probably including myself) derailing or dominating the conversation by getting caught up in the guilt bullshit.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:58 am ¶

23. little mixed girl wrote:

    When I was reading through the comments, I saw Jess’s, and I have to say that I agree.

    I don’t see why people are getting on her(?) case. Jess didn’t say that people with “lower” educations cannot understand “complicated” issues. You are just putting your own ideas there.

    Basically, if you are using words like “male glaze”, you are using them because you understand where it’s coming from.
    If a person, regardless of their education level, does not understand what you are talking about, how are you going to reach them.

    I never heard of “male glaze” in university, and heard it the first time on this page.
    To be honest, I would never use it, either.

    And, if someone came up to me 3 years ago and said “The male glaze is totally having negative ramifications on the comic industry”, I’d be like “wtf is this person talking about?!”

    When I was growing up, my teachers always told me to write for an audience who doesn’t know anything (not that I’m all that good at writing in general).
    This seems like a pretty good idea when it comes to communicating with our fellow humans. I’m sure we’ve all been in situations where some people are talking about and making references to a TV show that we’ve never seen.

    Not getting the reference doesn’t mean that that person is stupid, it just means that it needs to be explained to them.

    If you want to use the words, then explain them and then move on.
    If you can’t explain them, then sit down and figure out how you CAN explain them.

    If you come from an upper middle class background, take time to listen to what us poorer people have to say.
    You guys say that you don’t judge, but a lot of people do…especially when it comes to the combination of money and education.

    The way I see it, the first step is understanding and putting yourself in the shoes of the other person.
    So many times people say, “They could never understand me”. Well, if that party could never understand you, and you’re not looking to help them understand you, then why look for their support?

    Help the other person understand where you come from, find common ground and from there, get into the history of the “why”.

    Finally, I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that having a university degree is something bad.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 2:46 am ¶

24. atlasien wrote:

    What about the definition of privilege as reward?

    For my son, video game time is a privilege. He has to earn it by good behavior in school. Because he happens to get video game time, that does not mean that some other kid is deprived of video game time.

    The fact that we have video games at all is more complicated, and involves class privilege (a usage which is totally different than an earned model). But the system to actually play the video games is simple, set up on egalitarian principles and doesn’t mean oppressing or “underprivileging” anyone else.

    I’m just saying that when people talk about “privilege”, there are going to be a lot of different definitions floating around, and a huge potential for miscommunication exists. So it’s a good idea to be sure that everyone is really using the same word.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 7:15 am ¶

25. Jess wrote:

    Tim Jones, I think you brought up something important and useful here. I was thinking in terms of the effectiveness of the campaigns I have seen, and perhaps not approaching it in as big-picture a way as Latoya was asking.

    And I should say your formulation of privilege is also something I think about a lot and try to address by just saying, “You/I benefit from privilege, but it isn’t your/my fault the system is like that. You/I didn’t make it that way.”

    By he way, it wasn’t all about self-interest, but about recognizing where you have interests in common — the two are rather different. And understanding that oftentimes, the issue that moves me, or you, or someone else — those will be different. It doesn’t mean you can’t work together. After all, not every issue is relevant every moment.

    And at others, altasien and Latoya in particular, let me say that the point isn’t that people without educations or using certain jargons are stupid.

    The point is — and I admit I react to stuff sometimes in a way that isn’t good — that I had a sort of moment of clarity where we were discussing some issue in the feminist theory class I was in, and realized that if you taped the conversation and played it back that to 99% of the population it might as well be in Mandarin. I don’t think it’s anti-intellectual to say you have to make yourself understood. Or that too many of my theory-oriented classes felt like Seinfeld episodes.

    I mean look at it this way: I think teaching kids science is really, really important.

    I could try to explain relativity by saying: “The curve of local spacetime is expressed by a tensor.” Which is absolutely correct. I could then write Einstein’s field equations on the board. Not one person would understand unless they had at least undergrad calc. I’m screwed before I even start.

    Or I could say that the faster you go the slower your clock moves and the heavier you get, and use the algebraic stuff — not necessary, but helpful — which is a lot simpler. And it avoids the jargon that just obscures things for those who aren’t intimately familiar with the subject.

    The latter, I submit, would go further in getting the point across. Even though every kid with an iPhone “experiences” relativity every day they use the GPS function.

    I’m not saying “don’t interpret your life this or that way.” I am saying don’t expect that anyone will understand you if you don’t break it down, you know? Part of organizing across various barriers is having people understand you in the first place.

    I don’t think that’s anti-intellectual any more than asking that the Bible be in the vernacular was, you know?

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:32 am ¶

26. Alex wrote:

    Just a comment regarding terminology–I think Patricia Hill Collins presents the best way of discussing multiple, intersecting, interpenetrating, but not interchangeable forms of privilege and oppression. Her term is “matrix of domination” involves interlocking and interpenetrating systems of oppression. Seeing race, class, gender, heterosexism, abilism, as interlocking but not interchangeable opens up possibilities of both/and rather than an either/or stance in which all groups possess varying amounts of penalty and privilege in one historically created system. As Collins puts it, “white women are penalized by gender but privileged by their race. Depending on the context, an individual may be oppressor, a member of an oppressed group, or simultaneously oppressor and oppressed.”

    Collins helps us to be self-critical and develop a nuanced ability to analyze and address varieties of privilege and oppression that are operative in specific locations within which we live and work. I try to use this approach to help myself and others nurture a sense of humility and compassion with ourselves and one another as a way of developing creative communication rather than stifling conversation, deep listening, and the possibility of change.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:01 am ¶

27. little mixed girl wrote:

    uhm..ar?
    my comment from earlier = still awaiting moderation means it’s just going to chill there?

    any particular reason?

    to further elaborate where i left off, i don’t think it’s impossible for people to collaborate across lines.
    the main point is understanding.
    if people are unwilling to understand the circumstances of the others around them, then there’s no way they can work together.

    along with that, people need to find common ground.

    next, i feel like too many people are focused on “getting mine”. when your goal is to get things that only help your group, then there’s no way to form bonds.

    interlocking privilege and oppression?
    i guess this would be the upper-middle class minority with a masters or other university degree?
    just like the above, you have to find common ground. be open. and if people have an issue, let them talk it out.

    sometimes people don’t get that the way they say something or do something offends or hurts another, so, people have to know that they can be free to speak on those types of issues, too.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 11:03 am ¶