War Handwavium

In 1 Corinthians, Chapter 9, Verse 19-23, Paul talks about how he transforms himself so as to identify with the people he is preaching to, to become like them so as to understand them, to be able to relate to them so as to connect with them. He summarizes: “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”

That is one meaning of the phrase “all things to all people”. Another meaning is a meaning often attributed to politicians. A famous example is the “If by whiskey” speech a politician gave in response to a question as to whether he supported prohibition against whiskey or not. His reply could be summarized as this: “If by whiskey you mean the drink that tears families apart, then I oppose that. If by whiskey you mean the drink that lightens a man’s burdens and lifts his heart, then I support that.”

Still another meaning of the phrase “all things to all people” would be something like the term “privilege” and all the different meanings all the different people will give it when asked. The most recent and blatant example of this was the “Privilege Denying Dude” meme. Anyone could create a caption to go with the privilege denying dude. But since each person wrote their own caption, they demonstrated their own personal definition of the word “privilege”. And of the 217 captions I read before PDD was taken down, I saw at least 6 different definitions of the word “privilege”.

(1) Detrimental discrimination (discrimination yes, but it wasn’t privileged)

(2) apathy or lack of awareness

(3) denial of the existence of discrimination

(4) hypocricy of some kind

(5) non-sequitors (for example: global warming???)

(6) instances of reverse discrimination against the dominant group

And the one definition I did NOT see???

(7) discrimination that lifts a class above the equality waterline.

And of all 217 captions for the Privilege Denying Dude, I didn’t see a single example of a caption that pointed to a specific example that actually met a strict definition of “privilege” of a benefit that raised the dominant group above the equality waterline due to discrimination.

For a deeper discussion of the “Privilege Denying Dude” meme, see this:

http://www.warhw.com/2010/11/18/humpty-dumpty-privilege/

The term “privilege” has come to mean all things to all people.

And that’s not a good thing.

Here’s an exercise for you: Find any thread on the internet about privilege that has a large number of public comments. Read through the comments. Figure out how many different definitions people are working from. Assign to each person a working definition of privilege that is reflected by their comments (possibly one of the 6 definitions above). Put each person into a “team” of all the other people who use the same definition of privilge.

Then look at how many “teams” disagree with each other over the definition of privilege.

What I have seen thus far is people on team 1 through 6 operate with completely different definitions, yet, none of the members of those teams correct each other for having a different definition. People using privilge to mean (2) apathy generally don’t get into arguments with people who use privilge to mean (3) denial of the existence of discrimination.

It seems that privilege really does mean all things to all people. At least for anyone using definition 1 through 6, they all seem to allow every other definition of privilege without argument.

The only disagreements between “teams” I have seen on public forums discussing privilege can be broken down into three categories: First, someone with definition 1 through 6 of privilege arguing with someone demonstrating that definition. Second, people arguing over, usually without distinguishing, individual versus systemic issues. And third, people looking for a workable definition of privilege (i.e. definition 7) arguing with someone holding another definition.

The first category are people who hold one definition of privilege arguing with someone who is demonstrating that definition. For example, someone with definition (3) of privilege might be disagreeing with someone who is denying that discrimination exists in whatever area that the first person says it exists. Someone denies discrimination is the root cause of a problem ends up arguing with someone who defines “privilge” as “denying the existence of discrimination”.

The second category is something I see often in discussions of discrimination. It basically comes down to people disagreeing over the differences between systemic versus individual discrimination. An example of this would be someone saying that all men are privileged, you’r ea man, you must be privileged, getting into an argument with someone pointing out that that’s a dicto simpliciter fallacy. Another example of this is when an individual police officer makes the news for arresting a black man, and some people immediately condemn him as committing racial profiling, while others say it hasn’t been proven for this particular case yet. The existence of systemic racial profiling doesn’t mean every white cop arresting a black man is profiling.

The third category would be people who are groping around for definition for actual privilege (a benefit that raises a group above the equality waterline) arguing with people using definition 1 through 6 or some other definition.

Category 1 arguments are valid debates other than the fact that they use “privilege” when they mean something else.

Category 2 and 3 debates end up being problematic because someone trying to distinguish the difference between systemic and individual discrimination is usually dismissed as one of the 1 through 6 definitions of ‘privilege’. i.e. 1: they are really racist, sexist, homophobic, and are trying to DERAIL the conversation. 2: THey’re just not AWARE of how privileged they are and this is just another example of their privilege coming through. 3: They’re DENYING that this is discrimination and that’s just privilege. 4: They are being HYPOCRITES in some way. ALternatively, the person trying to make the distinction between individual versus systemic discrimination might be accused of making the “TONE” argument. Or of being a “concern troll”. Or of winning another space on some “privilege bingo” card:

http://lakarune.tumblr.com/post/1090286813/white-privilege-bingo-card-considering-printing

Because, you know, no one who disagrees with any of the “all things to all people” definitions of privilege could possibly be anything but a homophobic, racist, sexist, asshole in need of a bingo card.

So, here’s the conversation I’m interested in having: What definition of “privilege” are you using? I’ve got 7 definitions to choose from above. You can make up your own if none of them satisfy you. If you’re using any other definition other than “a benefit created from discrimination that lifts a class above the equality waterline”, then I would say that what you’re talking about isn’t “privilege” and you should call it whatever it really is.

If the definition you’re working to is “a benefit from discrimination that lifts a class of people above the equality waterline”, then I’d say we agree and can move on to discuss whatever you wanted to talk about.