Thanks to an anecdote that a friend shared on Tuesday night at the student-led panel on race relations at Rhodes (props to our classmates Leah, Ian and Shaeffer for that one), I am better able to understand Peggy McIntosh's idea of the need for privileged classes to divest themselves of their unearned advantages in order to abolish oppressive systems of power. In class on Thursday, Ian reiterated our mutual friend's experience of white privilege. During a night of partying, our white, female friend waited in line to enter a crowded Memphis bar. Each of the individuals before her, most of whom were African-American according to her recollection, were checked for dangerous paraphernalia with the security guard's metal-detecting wand. When it was her turn, she stepped up to the guard, himself an African-American, expecting to receive the same treatment as the other patrons. Instead, the guard motioned for her to go inside, telling her that she need not be wanded because she has "that type of face." What type of face? she wondered. Then it dawned on her. A white face.
In this moment, our friend faced a weighty decision: 1) proceed inside for her night of partying without challenging the security guard on his racial-discrimination that privileged her and her whiteness, or 2) insist on being treated the same as the non-white patrons who were subjected to increased security measures because their skin colors are associated with "danger."
She chose the second option. In doing so, our friend acknowledged the less obvious component of white privilege that McIntosh discusses in her piece that we read for class. McIntosh explains how privileged individuals (whites, males, heterosexuals, able-bodied individuals, middle-class folks, etc.) can usually acknowledge the ways in which others are disadvantaged without realizing that they are overadvantaged. It would have been "easier" for our friend to walk into the bar and think, "Wow, those people are being profiled because they are black. That shouldn't happen." McIntosh suggests that this thought-process is all to common. She writes, "Whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow 'them' to be more like 'us'," (63). Instead, our friend pushed back against the privileged status society was (and always is) trying to confer on her whiteness by telling the security guard, "I want to be wanded. I'm packin' and I need to be wanded." By insisting she be treated by the same standards, she worked to weaken her own white privilege while simultaneously creating a space where power could be shared more equitably. If individual whites insist on receiving the same security treatment, for example, they can work to eliminate the idea that "blackness = dangerous/guilty" AND the idea that "whiteness = safe/innocent." Both components are necessary to combat oppression/privilege.
During our discussion of this incident in class, several students suggested that our white, female friend might not have been willing to give up her white privilege in that moment had she actually been carrying a weapon. I can concede that yes, this might have been true and is probably the case with many guilty persons who avoid punishment because of their white privilege. However, their support of the status quo does not render this tactic unsuccessful. Those individuals should still insist on being subjected to the same "profiling" and should suffer the consequences that a member of a nonwhite race would suffer if she/he is caught. This might not be practical, but radical steps must be taken to dismantle the master's house.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteIn class, it appeared that we all took this example as an instantiation of privilege divestment. However, I am not so sure that we can truly call this privilege divestment, and if it is at all possible for privileged individuals to divest themselves of their own privilege. In the skeptical spirit of Elyse Oakley’s blog post from the 24th of January, I will challenge the viewpoint that this example demonstrates self-divestment of privilege.
A motivating alteration to the original example: Suppose the white individual did not demand to be checked and walked through the security gate without hassle. Suppose as well that there is another individual who is black, who is directly behind the white individual, and who witnesses the whole thing. Suppose now that the proposed black individual makes the point to the bouncer that there appears to be a fundamental error is his judgment deeming which individuals should be checked. Let us say that the bouncer proceeds to call the white individual back to wand him/her. Would that situation have effectively divested the white individual of the supposed white privilege? Or is it necessary that the white individual acts to divest him/herself? Is it even possible for white individuals to divest themselves of their privilege?
Now this example may extend beyond the point I am trying to make so I will now clarify the question I am proposing. Is it possible for those-who-are-privileged to divest themselves of their privilege? The answer to this question is not as easy to find as it appeared in class. In class, I believe we simply assumed divestment as paired with this act. However, we also discouraged the idea that those individuals who possessed privilege could take advantage of that privilege and use it in the aim of dismantling that very system of privilege. I believe we made this argument on the basis of Lorde’s views. It does not seem consistent, then, to argue that a privileged individual could divest themselves of that privilege by choosing to act in a particular way as mentioned in the original, in-class example. That is, is it not by their very possession of privilege that those-who-are-privileged are able to choose to act in one of these ways? And that because of this, they are not actually divesting themselves of privilege but are simply using their privilege in a different way?
I will elaborate. The white individual does something interesting prior to acting towards the end of self-divestment. The white individual recognizes that he/she possesses privilege. This recognition itself does not remove the privilege. Then, the individual proceeds to choose another course of action after completing the act of recognition. This opportunity for choice is a direct result of the individual’s privilege. So if this person makes the choice to demand a check, then this person is doing so because they can. They have the option to make a choice, but this option is only present due to their privilege. Is this not what a system of privilege allows? Is this choice to act not a reflection of Beauvoir’s sentiment expressed here: “They have only gained what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only receive,” and thus only an example of the Subject asserting itself as Subject once again? Ultimately, my question is: is the choice to act against the perceived benefit of the privilege only a result of that privilege and thus essentially privilege itself?
To me, the idea of divesting oneself of white privilege seems more abstract- and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I keep flip-flopping on whether or not I think that it is feasible for one to actually get rid of their white/male privilege, and I think I have an idea about how it could work. Keep in mind this is with the implication that if the structure is going to fall, it probably will not wait for the last white male to give up his last white male privilege.
ReplyDeleteUsing the examples that we have gone over in class thus far, I have been trying to imagine how I would go about divesting myself of these privileges. The outlook does seem bleak... in the first place, there are just so many privileges to become conscious of. However, what I think could make the exercise useful on a mass scale is treating it like a relationship. Surely white males will not be able to divest themselves of all of their privileges; in reality, they will likely only be able to rid themselves of a fraction of them. That aside, the relationship that one cultivates with their "uncovered," privileged self could be beneficial in terms of increasing an empathy for those who do not have the same privileges.
Perhaps, on a large scale, something like that could make a difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I really wish there was an edit button)
DeleteHenry,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by 'actually get ride of their white/male privilege' or 'rid themselves of a fraction of them'?
The above example discusses an instance of divestment; however, our white friend will still pass as white in every circumstance. Despite her willingness to challenge the association between white skin pigmentation and safety, she still has that unearned privilege -- if she walked down the road to the next bar, it is likely that a similar situation may occur. Campus Safety will not profile her. If she is pulled over by the police, she will be assured it is not due to her race. etc. etc. Heck, if another white person went to that same bar with the same security guard two weeks later, then that may happen again.
If your question is "when does the structure fall?", then I wonder the same thing. Perhaps that officer -- or even someone else in line who saw her actions -- had an epiphany about their racial assumptions, and eventually similar realizations over time on a massive scale will help. However, it seems to take more than simple awareness to really challenge the network of oppression.
Nevertheless, It remains crucial to challenge those assumptions. (A fun way to do this is through language use. If you have any bi-racial friends, say 'my half-white friend' or when you describe a robbery where the robber is a white male, say 'large white man.' Replace abstract singular pronoun usage with 'she's' instead of he's', especially when discussing certain professions.) Actions like that seem to chip away at the structure, but it is a pretty large mountain to dig through.
I do agree with your notion that understanding your privilege and coming to terms with it could cause one to be more empathetic to those unprivileged.