Personal Privilege Analysis the First

Personal Privilege Analysis

The first chapter, Rodney King's Question revolves around the issue of "Why can't we all just get along?" Johnson's premise is that there are groups that enjoy specific privileges, those privileges inherently come at the expense of other groups and that people have trouble addressing this issue in part because much of the language to discuss the issue is considered to be loaded. Johnson notes "the trouble…can't be solved unless the people who have privilege feel obligated to make the problem…their problem." This chapter sets the tone for the book, tackling the issue of why privilege is an issue in society, why it persists at being an issue and also the role that language plays in the perpetuation of this issue.

These issues relate to my life. Johnson touches on the tendency to become defensive about the language used in the debate, which is something that I feel as a white male. He introduces the premise that the language should not induce defensive feelings, but to this point fails to outline why this is. He wants to get the point across that by removing defensive feelings we are in a better position to discuss the issue. I guess for me it is somewhat awkward to have to watch my language and feeling that this might not be reciprocated -- but I understand the point he makes later on in the book about the way that privilege is embedded in language. So I suppose it is more an issue of not really knowing what boundaries should exist and where they are. I probably would have benefited from having some of that guidance.

Johnson also points out that "a trouble we can't talk about is a trouble we can't do anything about." I notice this myself in daily life -- this is not an issue for most of us. In particular, the issue is not raise in conversation between members of underprivileged groups and those who are said to have privilege. I would say that in general, the subject of privilege simply does not come up. For one thing, when members of the same group get together, we do not have much reason to talk about it. For another thing, I think that few people really have a good framework for talking about it. This chapter for me highlights the importance of having such a framework, and hopefully later on that framework is laid out a little more clearly. We also don't talk about it with people from other groups either -- basic human relations tell us that this is an uncomfortable situation. I guess what I take away from this chapter is that yes, there are problems at a fundamental level in communicating these issues, but I am still left to wonder if we have solved those problems, given what Johnson says about people of all types being uncomfortable. Maybe we haven't found the right way to talk about it yet, and need to keep searching.

I would ask Johnson, about this chapter, how one is to not become defensive about words that are specific action verbs -- to oppress is an active verb so to suggest that somebody is an oppressor is a direct accusation of action. I would be curious what Johnson thinks of the specific words that we use to describe privilege issues, and whether those words are ill-chosen for the purposes of creating discussion where people do not become defensive. The reason I ask this is because we are highlighting the importance of having a framework and a specific lexicon to facilitate the best quality discussion. Yet, if the first concern is that the words we are using are causing people to immediately become upset, should not the best response be to find different words, at least to start with, so that we can begin the conversation. Like I said, this conversation doesn't really exist in my daily life. If we want it to exist, then all participants should be comfortable and have good ways to express themselves, rather than simply being told to shut up and nod our heads in agreement.

Chapter 2: In this chapter, Johnson outlines the definition of privilege. He introduces the idea of the diversity wheel that outlines the two different levels of privilege. At the center of the diversity wheel are the big -- isms (race, gender, age, etc.) and on the outer rung of the wheel are less phenotype-based points where privilege can be ascribed, such as parental status, education, income and religious beliefs. While I'm not sure about religious beliefs because of overlap between religion and ethnicity (Jews, Sunni vs. Shia Muslims), in general the outer rung are traits that we make judgments about based on, but are less outward and not as strong a form of privilege as the traits we see on the inner rung.

Another concept introduced in this chapter is that privilege is a social construction -- the predominant culture defines the level of privilege that each individual receives in that culture. Johnson also defines privilege as "when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to" and introduces the idea of two types of privilege: unearned entitlements and conferred dominance. The former refers to things that all people should have, but do not always have. The latter refers to power that is given to one group over another, using the example of the expected male domination over women. He argues that these types of privilege are social constructs, things that we have created in our society and have the affect of defining how we allocate privilege. He uses the example of blackness, that "no one is white before he comes to America." We have to remove the American-centric framework to truly understand the concept: each human society sets its definitions of where people stand within the culture. In a society where everybody is of the same race, there is no race-based privilege. But when one enters a society where race is important, then privilege emerges as a means to control access to resources. While there are no universal rules regarding gender-based privilege, there are always rules because there are always two genders. It is important when dealing with privilege in our society that we understand all the different ways that it manifests in our society, so that we know it when we see it. This puts us in a better position to the discuss the issue.

The views of James Baldwin presented in this chapter resonate the most with me, especially the quote "To be white in America means not having to think about it." This to me highlights the concept of privilege more than anything else, putting the issue into the perspective of those with fewer privileges. We don't always see the world from the points-of-view of others. That is sort of the point -- someone like me doesn't think about it. It reminds me of a Chris Rock standup bit where he argues that even the one-legged white janitor wouldn't switch places with him, even though he is rich and famous. It makes you think a bit what it would be like to be black. Baldwin is right -- some of us have the luxury of never having to think about it.

What I would ask Johnson about this chapter, in particular reference to pages25-32, is how such issues manifest themselves in other cultures? Where Johnson takes an American-centric view where only whites can be racist, I would ask how this manifests in other cultures? Certainly, racism and privilege exist in other societies, and I would want to know if the theories he is espousing are universal or just created to explain American culture? The reason I ask is that I know, for example, that Japanese have negative views about Koreans; Cambodians against Vietnamese; Shia and Sunni don't like each other…basically Johnson doesn't explain the limits of this writing. I think the core concepts can be applied but there are times when I wonder if Johnson isn't too myopic on the U.S. To make a more effective point. By focusing on U.S.-specific examples, he seems to be dancing around the underlying issue, as I understand it (privilege assists in the control of resource). U.S.-based race issues are just one manifestation of the underlying concepts, any maybe by focusing on them Johnson is missing an opportunity to really get to the heart of the matter.

Chapter 3: The third chapter highlights the role that the capitalist economic system plays in relation to the concept of privilege -- or at least white privilege. The roots of capitalist society, he argues, are the roots of white racism, as in the United States the agricultural revolution brought about the condition of mass slavery. The trend that blends capitalism with white racism continues today, albeit with more subtlety. What Johnson is explaining here is the concept that privilege is a social construction, and he is explaining how that construction came about. I guess at this point he is losing me a bit. The core concept is still that privilege is about controlling access to resources and using physical traits (the first rung of the diversity wheel) as the most powerful means of doing that. I just find that it is hard to see the point he is trying to make in this chapter because he is pretending that there is no world outside the U.S. Privilege has existed in every human society. If the arguments he is making here are difficult to understand, it is because they are tangential to a genuine understanding of what privilege is. He needs to stop pretending that the U.S. is the only country in the world if he wants to make sense of privilege. Privilege existed long before slavery.

This chapter probably has less personal relevance for me than some of the other chapters. It is hard to find any resonance in this chapter. Johnson doesn't really understand capitalism that well, and he doesn't draw good linkages between it and privilege. That's probably because while there are elements of our society that strongly reinforce privilege, the specific examples again are kind of tangential to the core of the issue. His weak understanding of economics and his insistence on ignoring non-American examples just undermines this chapter completely. I guess he figures the way he uses American viewpoints is supposed to make it easier to understand for the audience but for me it distracts from the issues at hand.

It is only when he gets back to the core issues that he starts making good points again. The way people subconsciously ascribe privilege (or take it away) on the basis of physical characteristics is the strongest point in this chapter and should have been the focus all along. I have seen that among some people I know overtly, and Johnson argues that it can also be subtle as well, so that we don't know we are doing it. We all do it -- I do it every day. I make little subtle judgments about people based on very little information. The mind, in the absence of real information, fills in the blanks using various shorthand techniques. One of the easiest such techniques is to use stereotypes. Sometimes I don't even realize it until what I thought is shown to be wrong -- I made a judgment about somebody and they had to surprise me before I realized that I had even made that judgment at all. What I mean is, nobody you meet can possibly have a clean sheet in your head. You always think something about them, and when you have no information your brain cheats and sometimes you don't even know it. I wish he would have talked more about the psychology of all this, because this latter part of the chapter is where the real meat is.

I would ask Johnson, about this chapter, how his theories of the relationship between capitalism and privilege apply overseas. His premise is based on the American experience, but there are nations with wealth that are not predominantly white and do not have a slave history. There are systems of privilege that exist even in nations that are not overtly capitalist -- even Communist/socialist nations like China, Cuba or Venezuela have issues with race and privilege, yet are based on entirely different economic systems. So I would ask him how his theory applies beyond the United States.

Chapter 4: In this chapter, Johnson explains how privilege manifests itself. He points to subtle examples found in speech, in appears in open hostility, and for those without privilege that lack of privilege is something that is an everyday occurrence. He also points out that there are negative consequences of privilege that apply even those from privileged groups. Now, there are issues with seeking to define every action or lack thereof as oppressive -- seeking to reinforce privilege even unknowingly -- this is as loaded as any such actions themselves. But the point Johnson is making is that privilege is everywhere. While privilege is about power and resources, the way it manifests itself may have nothing to do with those things. The ways in which privilege manifests are ingrained in culture on so many levels. When little things are put together, they add up to cultural reinforced of the prevailing systems of privilege. We don't do things specifically to reinforce anything -- we do them "just because" -- but they add up. I am presuming that beyond this chapter these arguments are woven into an action plan for re-building society. Johnson certainly wants that to happen when he says that the wounding must stop before healing starts.

It is that section that has significant impact on me. Johnson provides examples such as male fear of aggression or fear of showing emotion; of using derogatory language for homosexuals to emasculate straight men. He also shows how privilege manifests itself negatively in organizations, again something to which I can relate, as we can see how in business good people sometimes fail to excel, in part because they are unable to truly learn from others. It's probably an effective rhetorical tactic to discuss how males do this to each other, because that is certainly an audience that Johnson wants to reach, and it is easier to identify with both sides when he makes points about how we interact with each other. When you have a better sense of how privilege works, it becomes easier to identify it.

About chapter four, what I would ask Johnson is where one draws the line? In this chapter he provides numerous examples of how language and behavior that is privilege-loaded contributes to negative outcomes for all people. This raises the question of what a world would look like without any privilege, or classification at all. I realize that Johnson is not seeking necessary to answer question, but the fact that is it so difficult to answer, I think, shows how much privilege is embedded in our society. We have trouble conceiving a world without it. I would love to hear Dr. Johnson's take on what such a world would look like, and what it might be like to exist in that world.

Chapter 5: This chapter outlines some of the issues in dealing with privilege. Some of the reasons why those with privilege are disinterested in the subject are given, how there is very little sense of ownership of the problem. One of the themes Johnson repeats frequently in this book is that the problem of privilege is everybody's problem, yet he notes that nobody really seems to want to do anything about it. We all have our own reasons, and Johnson outlines some of them here. Those with higher levels of privilege may not really know the issue exists in the first place -- those with lower levels might be aware of it but not be aware of a common framework for discussion. Also, it is hard to take a societal problem and make it personal. Not only is there a sense that one person is not responsible for the creation of the problem but there is also the sense that one person cannot really do anything about the problem. It is hard to see how the individual snowflake turns into an avalanche when you are just another snowflake. We relate only to those immediately around us, and therefore we have a more difficult time sorting out what exactly we can do about a societal issue. This sense of powerless can paralyze even the most sympathetic person.