any sort of leftist who isnt trash (and soon to be liquidated by the JDPEN) at some point or other will find him or herself involved in discussions that collide with internalized oppression and privilege in some shape or form. if you've read graeber's ethnography on the american anarchist movement (y'all should really read it, its interesting) he sort of goes into the problems this often causes for them as they are 1) trying to actually stage different sorts of actions, 2) trying to make those actions equal and free of racism/sexism and such, which obviously actualizes the question of what behaviors they have and what structures they use fit this norm and ought to be changed.
ive been tooling around a lot with these questions of privilege for a while now. fact is, privilege is often a very hard thing to discuss. who gets to have a say in the conversation, to begin with? often, you end up with a situation where theres a tacit agreement for people who have privilege (are white, cis, male, whatever) to shut up, sit down, and "learn", as its reasoned that a male by virtue of his position of privilege simply can't contribute to a discussion of feminism, or at least can't contribute anything of value. theres this really weird culture thats sprung up around "allies" of various causes and a lot of the time it devolves into this incredibly disgusting act of insincere whining by insecure "nice guy" white people whining how they hate being white. the whole self-flagellation thing that then ensues is often a completely pointless waste of time that just serves to perpetuate these privileges. in the end i guess its somewhat like modern imperialism: while europe today whines and whines about how its the source of all evils in the world and taking total responsibility for africa being a fucked up continent, when push comes to shove, its still realpolitik as usual. third world leaders messing with the status quo still get punted, except now they get punted by an imperialist power loudly proclaiming how evil imperialism is.
a lot of the time though, this sort of thing makes sense from a practical perspective. if you want to have a discussion on X, and you need to accept ABC in order for X to make sense, its often expedient to simply dismiss any sort of questioning of ABC as arguments made in bad faith by people who simply arent interested in actually discussing anything, and a pretty big chunk of the time, this is also true.
the flipside here is that there's an incredibly large risk of institutionalizing a lot of very problematic assumptions once you do decide to declare certain assumptions out of bounds for expediency's sake. take feminism: i see a lot of discussions where the approach is simply to say "this is the basic level of proficiency you need before your input is even relevant, and these are the statements you absolutely must agree with. read this and this book and then come back." the problem here is that the books themselves are not some sort of neutral "base position" that you can easily universalize as much as you want to.
when someone establishes this or that author as the basic canon of feminism (again, this is an example, we could just as well talk about racial issues), given that it might very well be written by, say, a white woman in academia with a very comfortable class position, the end result is often that you simply exchange one set of privilege (that of patriarchial relations) with another set of privilege (that of white, cis, upper middle class women) that is immune to examination as part of the ground rules for any "meaningful" discussion. its a huge, huge problem with american feminism for example that all the conferences seem to be.... filled with white, often upper middle class women! given that privilege isn't binary, these people can have a very complex relationship to, say, racist societal structures and imperialism. they might want to change some parts of it and leave the other parts (the ones that allow for their comfy class position) intact, even if leaving those parts intact might be to the direct detriment of say, black lesbian women. there's an element of cynicism inherent in a lot of the downplay of "complicated" or "divisive" issues such as economic and class relations, as im sure people realize that any honest assessment of the elephant in the room would raise the uncomfortable possibility of having to conclude that, say, black and white women are not allies in a lot of areas and whats good for the latter is often directly harmful to the former in the context of the society we currently live in!
how do we deal with this? its one thing to want to establish some "ground rules" for a discussion, but its another thing when those ground rules ultimately end up enshrining a very particular worldview that itself is a produced by and reproduces a very certain set of privileges at the expense of other people. im more and more coming to the conclusion that there needs to be almost a sort of intellectual "permanent revolution" when it comes to how we think about and discuss privilege. the way privilege works is by rendering itself invisible through establishing a sense of "normalcy", as in its normal for cops not to beat you up because of your skin color. its "normal" because it doesnt happen to white people, and anything that happens to people that arent white is made to disappear through the universalization of the white experience onto everyone else.
so with that said id really appreciate some thoughts re: this isssue, whatever it is that comes to mind for you really. what are your experiences with discussing these issues, what do you think works and what do you think often doesnt work? heres a picture of a wet owl.
Edited by Tinkzorg ()
modnote: Don't troll.
DRUXXX was banned for this post.
- i think some interesting parallels could be drawn to problems in philosophy of science and specifically the way in which the notion of 'scientific consensus' is used
- although i agree that abstract clashes between 'i accept assumptions abc' vs 'i reject assumptions abc' are a major portion of the issue, i also think a significant element of the phenomenon you've described has to do with clique/herd/mob-formation, sycophancy, and other factors stemming from interpersonal and/or mass-psychology
Lets read this book: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.html
animedad posted:
there's a problem with debate itself imo, it's self-defeating. why dont we just do things, and if people follow that's cool, if not then we know we haven't struck the right chord? i dont judge a person based on a few mistaken opinions, but in a debate id be forced to take a microscope to everything. if someone makes a good point then i dont see the problem with reconfiguring my neurons. this is why i dont like those general assembly things
Ban this bigot imediate. Mods make this hate creature's internet a Mexian type
babyfinland posted:
It's the problem of historicizing ideology, I think. What we call 'privilege' is the individual embodiment of an ahistorical universalization (i.e. "Westernization") that mystifies exploitation.
Lets read this book: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.html
this just sounds like jargon to me
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
It's the problem of historicizing ideology, I think. What we call 'privilege' is the individual embodiment of an ahistorical universalization (i.e. "Westernization") that mystifies exploitation.
Lets read this book: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.htmlthis just sounds like jargon to me
words have meaning
babyfinland posted:
words have meaning
well as someone with no background in postcolonial vocabulary i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of that post. i think what you're saying is something like "privilege as a concept is flawed because it falls prey to errors inherent in the Western tendency to universalize the Western experience" but i'm not even sure that's the correct interpretation, let alone why you believe this, whether you're right, and so on.
babyfinland posted:Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
It's the problem of historicizing ideology, I think. What we call 'privilege' is the individual embodiment of an ahistorical universalization (i.e. "Westernization") that mystifies exploitation.
Lets read this book: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.htmlthis just sounds like jargon to me
words have meaning
so do other words.
germanjoey posted:babyfinland posted:Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
It's the problem of historicizing ideology, I think. What we call 'privilege' is the individual embodiment of an ahistorical universalization (i.e. "Westernization") that mystifies exploitation.
Lets read this book: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8507.htmlthis just sounds like jargon to me
words have meaning
so do other words.
some do not
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
words have meaningwell as someone with no background in postcolonial vocabulary i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of that post. i think what you're saying is something like "privilege as a concept is flawed because it falls prey to errors inherent in the Western tendency to universalize the Western experience" but i'm not even sure that's the correct interpretation, let alone why you believe this, whether you're right, and so on.
did you read that link, you should read that link
animedad posted:
there's a problem with debate itself imo, it's self-defeating. why dont we just do things, and if people follow that's cool, if not then we know we haven't struck the right chord? i dont judge a person based on a few mistaken opinions, but in a debate id be forced to take a microscope to everything. if someone makes a good point then i dont see the problem with reconfiguring my neurons. this is why i dont like those general assembly things
that kind of doesnt work when the wrong people are getting their brains changed, unless im mistaking you and you're saying that communication itself should be wholly subordinate to immediate action, like in the case of resisting oppression where any unsanctioned act serves its purpose as an act of resistance,
It can't really be transposed into other cultures even in the abstract because it's a method of circumlocution that exists in reaction to repressions specific to first world discourse
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
words have meaningwell as someone with no background in postcolonial vocabulary i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of that post. i think what you're saying is something like "privilege as a concept is flawed because it falls prey to errors inherent in the Western tendency to universalize the Western experience" but i'm not even sure that's the correct interpretation, let alone why you believe this, whether you're right, and so on.
I don't know why you think it's appropriate to derail a discussion on the basis of your inability to understand a post due to your not reading the material linked in the very same post. I'm not especially versed in postcolonial vocabulary either, matter of fact.
You misunderstand me completely. I don't criticize the concept of privilege at all. I simply defined it in historicized terms. My reference to "Westernization" is a) in reference to the linked material, which you did not read, and b) an example of an ahistorical universalization that mystifies social relations. Someone who is "Westernized" has discursive privilege due to their "Westernization". This is a) circular and b) mystifying (I've been using this word a lot lately) the social relations, in particular to the general system of exploitation, that actually produce this "privilege". So to read this as a critique of "privilege" is neither here nor there. I take no issue with "privilege" as a concept as such, but with ahistorical claims. Privilege, by definition (my definition, in the previous post), is a mystification of social relations via ahistoricism. To utilize privilege is to maintain ahistorical ideological mystification of exploitative relations. To "have" privilege is to embody these mystifications, for example, to be White grants one, by virtue of the hegemonic ideological structure, the ability to mystify racial oppression (e.g. Tink's example of police brutality). However, properly historicized, Whiteness is emptied of its discursive privilege. If that were not the case, we wouldn't bother debating these issues at all: the hegemonic ideology would simply override any attempt to resist its mystifications, and exploitation would remain forever concealed beneath its overcoding. If social relations in their material reality are exposed via historicism, then they can be dealt with in a non-oppressive manner. The relations do not disappear upon historicization, but they are then discussable in a way that that does not reinforce exploitation social relations or the hegemonic ideology that perpetuates them. (This all assumes that the goal in the end is to end exploitative social relations, or at least to understand extant social relations enough to organize them anew).
cleanhands posted:
Privilege isn't an argument for or against anything, it's basically a flowery way of saying 'youre really stupid pls get out' to racists, sexists etc
it's not necessary. one can make an argument against most any particular belief of an alleged racist or sexist fairly easily, and in the rare case that one can not there is the distinct possibility that either they are not really a racist and one is just being a lazy ideologue. people claim that they either "don't have the time" to argue with positions they disagree with, or that it's "not their job to educate, read a book," etc. both of these are openly lazy. the second one is more so and implies a very poor grasp of both rhetoric and the subject matter, while the first is simply a lie: the notion that someone who spends 10 hours a day on the internet just does not have the time to bang out a half-paragraph in defense of an allegedly basic and unassailable position is openly absurd.
cleanhands posted:
in short, a strawman argument
donut sigh on you our post an ting
cleanhands posted:
thats bullshit though you can only characterize someone as lazy in the first place if you expect them to do something for you, indeed you think it is their job to educate you. youve assumed a dominant position in the discourse which doesnt exist - in short, a strawman argument
i do expect someone to do something when involved in a political conversation whether with me or someone else, which is being amenable to discussing their opinion, and other opinions they do not agree with. anything else is merely lazy self-righteousness
Goethestein posted:cleanhands posted:
thats bullshit though you can only characterize someone as lazy in the first place if you expect them to do something for you, indeed you think it is their job to educate you. youve assumed a dominant position in the discourse which doesnt exist - in short, a strawman argumenti do expect someone to do something when involved in a political conversation whether with me or someone else, which is being amenable to discussing their opinion, and other opinions they do not agree with. anything else is merely lazy self-righteousness
agreed. i personally enjoy writing out long essays on America or tsarism or whatever, and i suspect the same sort of feeling goes on down the line other people with other fields. if a person is really at the point that they feel like they simply ~cannot~ discuss things any longer with people who disagree with them, then a private forum seems the obvious answer.
az jan jananam posted:Exponential Decay posted:
How is it exclusionary to attempt to protect the well-being, mentally and physically, of an oppressed class so a conversation between the oppressed people and the oppressors may occur?
Well, there are quite a few similarities I can discern.
1- Appeal to a near-mystical intellectual force that contaminates the mind. In Islam of course this is Shaytan, in leftist feminism this is "patriarchy". Both ideologies use the concept as a shorthand for "bad things people do" but then take it further into claims of definability but there end up being thousands of interpretations and stretching of what it actually means, which is why we have Egyptians claiming posting nude pictures of yourself is a manifestation of Shaytan and we have feminists here who accused others who self identify as "feminist" of misogyny for criticizing the manner of debate.
2) The idea that you can overcome said intellectual contaminant through "training", specifically through respected texts. In Islamism of course it is the Qu'ran and leftists tend to suggest a somewhat marginal corpus of academic feminist texts.
3) Antagonism towards scientific examination. Both ideologies have supporters that variously claim "bias" on the part of scientific examination of claims without positing how their methodology is superior.
4) Antagonism of the opinions of "outsiders", despite claimed inclusivity. This is variously justified through stretched and nebulous claims of oppression (imperialism, "mansplaining")
5) Universalization of a fairly narrow philosophy. Both Islamists and leftist feminists variously claim that their ideologies can describe and prescribe action on a global level despite only having appeal and relevance among a certain sector of the global population ("intersectionality", "al-ummah")
6) Attempts at excomunnication over fairly trivial differences , despite claims of inclusivity . Of course in Islam this is "ikfar", and in leftist feminism we have things like a blogger calling another anti-woman for disagreeing with flirtation etiquette.
This makes me interested if there is any formal study as to how leftist feminism borrowed from theological practice.
az jan jananam posted:
It's quite possible that despite your certitude about first principles of the debate, that the fundamental attitudes and discourse of leftist feminism are not at all authoritative as you seem to believe. Academic feminism is a constructed philosophy that allows (mainly first-world, leftist) women to frame their experiences in a way that might be useful and empowering to them personally. It is, however, full of self-reference and bias and relies on completely fluid and near-useless methods of describing reality, most obvious in the reliance on closing off the terms of debate based on indeterminate measurements of 'privilege', which is why we have posters here talking about the presence of "supposed self-identified feminist posters with internalized privileged beliefs" which seems similar to me in the same way people talk about exorcisms. Academic feminist theory is also almost completely divorced from actual global action being taken towards bettering the condition of women; there was a comparison to economics earlier, which is interesting because Feminist Theory professors are not polled or really at all consulted before enacting policy.
Goethestein posted:cleanhands posted:
thats bullshit though you can only characterize someone as lazy in the first place if you expect them to do something for you, indeed you think it is their job to educate you. youve assumed a dominant position in the discourse which doesnt exist - in short, a strawman argumenti do expect someone to do something when involved in a political conversation whether with me or someone else, which is being amenable to discussing their opinion, and other opinions they do not agree with. anything else is merely lazy self-righteousness
imho it's a sign that whoever you're talking to doesn't even have a good grasp on the issue themself, like someone who reads a book and remembers agreeing with the arguments at their face without actually remembering the arguments, just the conclusions
TO ADD that's why people will instinctively belch out "i'm not going to talk to you until you read these books!", like unless it's some postmodern thing jumping over a million topics you should be able to at least summarize the point the book is trying to make and then say "to see the argument & evidence in depth read xyz"; no one really expects someone to go out read 500 pages and come back for the sake of an argument so it's just another way to make someone shut up
Edited by crustpunk_trotsky ()
crustpunk_trotsky posted:
TO ADD that's why people will instinctively belch out "i'm not going to talk to you until you read these books!", like unless it's some postmodern thing jumping over a million topics you should be able to at least summarize the point the book is trying to make and then say "to see the argument & evidence in depth read xyz"; no one really expects someone to go out read 500 pages and come back for the sake of an argument so it's just another way to make someone shut up
i just want to say that I think its astounding that people do this and that I always assume complete ignorance when I'm writing a post, such that someone who hasn't read any of the things I have should be able to understand what I'm saying, even if I'm using vocabulary and arguments lifted from certain texts, and I try to reference things in a useful way as best I can. But I also expect the reader to be intelligent and critical enough to make use of the content of the post if provided in such a way, I am a stickler for precision and rigor so I hate "dumbing" things down because usually that means over-generalizing.
aerdil posted:
all i know is that bein rich and white fuckin owns, postin on my macbook air rite now ya boy
