![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There has been a strident and noisy "debate" (and I use that term loosely, because a true debate entails as much listening as speaking) that erupted in the aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown last summer, and the recent Grand Jury decision not to indict the police officer who shot him. Much of the rhetoric about this sequence of events is about whether race played a role, and the extent of any role it may have had. Many argue that a young white man in a similar situation would not have ended up dying on the street, a beneficiary of "racial privilege". This idea of "privilege" is subject to attack by others who deny that it exists.
This morning I read an article I found via Facebook that directly addressed some of this conflict. There were a number of points raised that caught my attention. First, there are a wide range of categories of "privileged" groups, and it is possible for someone to belong to many different groups. I fall into several: I am white, male, middle classed, straight. Each of these conveys privileges on me, just for being me. People outside of these groups often encounter barriers or challenges that I will never have to face. The problem with belonging to one (or more) of these privileged groups is that it is often difficult for someone in the group to see how they benefit. It is easier to see the privilege from outside the privileged group. Which is probably the most important point of the article. If someone tells you that you are the beneficiary of some group privilege, you may not initially appreciate the truth of that statement. You may have worked hard to get where you are. Privilege does not take that away from you, but it does mean that those outside your group would have to work even harder to get to where you are, because they have additional hurdles placed in their way.
I have recently read several books and articles that have convinced me that different people can often see the world in radically different ways. These wildly divergent points-of-view create real barriers to effective communication, because we interpret what we hear from the other side through our worldview, so that what we hear is often not the same thing that the speaker meant. Civil discourse (which is sorely lacking and desparately needed these days) requires that we make an honest effort to step outside our worldview and inhabit the other side's point-of-view. Only then can we hope to understand what they are saying and begin to build bridges over the chasm between us.
This morning I read an article I found via Facebook that directly addressed some of this conflict. There were a number of points raised that caught my attention. First, there are a wide range of categories of "privileged" groups, and it is possible for someone to belong to many different groups. I fall into several: I am white, male, middle classed, straight. Each of these conveys privileges on me, just for being me. People outside of these groups often encounter barriers or challenges that I will never have to face. The problem with belonging to one (or more) of these privileged groups is that it is often difficult for someone in the group to see how they benefit. It is easier to see the privilege from outside the privileged group. Which is probably the most important point of the article. If someone tells you that you are the beneficiary of some group privilege, you may not initially appreciate the truth of that statement. You may have worked hard to get where you are. Privilege does not take that away from you, but it does mean that those outside your group would have to work even harder to get to where you are, because they have additional hurdles placed in their way.
I have recently read several books and articles that have convinced me that different people can often see the world in radically different ways. These wildly divergent points-of-view create real barriers to effective communication, because we interpret what we hear from the other side through our worldview, so that what we hear is often not the same thing that the speaker meant. Civil discourse (which is sorely lacking and desparately needed these days) requires that we make an honest effort to step outside our worldview and inhabit the other side's point-of-view. Only then can we hope to understand what they are saying and begin to build bridges over the chasm between us.
Tags:
