I probably don't have the bandwidth or energy for a big public exchange about this kind of thing right now but...sometimes it boggles me to pieces to encounter people who seem to really get it with regard to one kind of privilege, but then (seem to) totally fail when it comes to other kinds.
I know everyone is different, and that peoples' unique experiences can shape us to a far greater degree at any given moment than what demographic(s) we could be sorted into. I also definitely don't expect everyone to agree with me, let alone on everything, and certainly not immediately! I realize that really explicating some kinds of issues takes time, and it takes moments when you just wonder why you bother, and it takes making mistakes, and it takes sometimes going off about something even when you don't have the most subtle and articulate words at your disposal.
And...as someone not exactly known for subtlety (I seem to tend toward saying nothing or saying too much...such is the way of things for some of us), I've definitely had to interface with the question of what the difference is between being blunt versus being a jerk. I don't want to be a jerk, and I try not to be.
[Also I know I have a tendency to focus on my own "stuff" when I write. But really, the only reasons I do this are (a) I don't need to ask myself for permission to do so, and (b) I am not so much into interrogating others; I figure they will share what they want to share if they think it's relevant.]
I also realize that nobody likes to be checked on their privilege, or assumed to even have privilege in a given area (goodness knows I've not found it pleasant when I've experienced it).
And I realize that in attempts to call people out on what looks like it could be privilege talking I could be wrong (e.g., the person could actually turn out to be a member of the same demographic as me in some context only I assumed they weren't for whatever reason).
In summary, while I may not really care what people think of me socially (as in, I don't care a lick if people think I'm "cool" or not, or if they think I'm a big dork or whatever) I do aim to be respectful and ethical in my dealings with others. If I fail at this I certainly want to know, but hopefully it is not too much to ask that people offer the same considerations in return.
In other words, if I attempt to point out the potential negative consequences for [group] of saying [x] (e.g., "all people with [diagnosis] need [Therapy Q] otherwise they're inevitably going to be institutionalized!"), this does not mean I am trying to censor you, or "sugarcoat" anything, or that I don't have the first clue how bad things can get for certain people, etc.
Additionally, I am not assuming that you yourself are horrendously ignorant and obviously have no experience with [subject] when I attempt to offer my perspective on [subject]. I am just simply offering my perspective, not even demanding a response, not demanding anything, just hoping (and, in some bold cases, requesting) that you at least take what I've written into consideration.
This doesn't behold you to anything, obviously...I guess I just hope that at some point, human groupings that want to call themselves "civilizations" will have higher standards for what they consider to be "civilized". Toward this end I certainly invite and encourage people to call me out on it when I am acting as part of the problem in this regard -- and hopefully if I presume to attempt the same on occasion, this will not be taken as my trying to "dictate others", etc.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Funny, this is why I took down my own blog!
Keep in mind that there are a lot of people on the internet who are just looking for an argument and will chime in for or against anything whether they believe what they are writing or not.
I particularly love it when I use a phrase like "in general" right up front, and then some bozo accuses me of generalizing.
This sounds fair.
I also think that, if you do choose to write or speak about some type of oppression you don't experience directly, there's a balance to be struck between "paying attention to _____ issues" and "using your ______ privilege to barge in, dominate the discussion and annoy everyone with your ignorance".
(I'm afraid I've paraphrased a lot here from the OP, but hopefully the perspective makes it worthwhile.)
I think people tend to start out with a certain information set that they're operating with, and circumstances coach how well they can modify it in real time. The duality of communication seems to be the degrees to which a vocalizer explains and a listener ascertains. These 2 roles are swapping constantly with every type of mistake and miscommunication imaginable, and it's work to try to align both human minds.
Thinking of it this way, I have to agree that it's necessary at times to completely blow past what a recipient is currently equipped to handle. This can really really agitate people, but hopefully we make the good decisions to do it when it's better to get everything out there, sloppy or not.
Your frustration reminds of younger days when I noticed that people around me were able to willfully acknowledge that it was wrong to hate a man because of the color of his skin (that's racist!), but couldn't stop themselves from making fun of the fat kid or the girl with weird hair.
I couldn't guess the cause in any specific instance, but I think it's affected by level of comprehension of the concept (which may suffer from memorization and exhaltation independent of understanding) and extrapolation/application. The other factor inhibiting this is whether they have any drive to do so, as purportting has it's own social and psychological rewards regardless of connection to truth.
After years of arguing with a significant other of the time, I gradually realized that I was largely being argued with for the sake of dominance displays and posturing. I was coming at the conversations with an expectation of information analysis and exchange. My debatee came at it as an attempt to assert theirself. Hence: declarations are considered under coloration of what the statement might mean about the listener... or something like that - it's not my basic perspective.
I have since discovered rhetoric for the first time as a cognizant adult, which from youth I had intuitively avoided as unfactual. But so much human interaction is about assertion (me big, you little, me smart, you dumb) that people reflexively include a fight/flight response to challenging presentations.
It's especially difficult to avoid accepting the role of attacker when someone's mindset has already labeled you for that role. It's an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. 'I'm going to treat you like you're a jerk and then you're going to get all angry and controversial because you're a jerk.' So, the best way to handle it seems to be very aware of my own REAL attitude (which may or may not be jerk 8) and communicate that honestly and clearly.
At any rate, frustrated communication sucks, but I keep rallying for the sake of good intentions. I remind myself that I also fail to make logical connections constantly, and try to see what good stuff I can learn from someone else's knowledge set.
Post a Comment