The Privilege of Privilege

In class on Tuesday, when Dr. J asked the ways that white people are privileged, it was a lot quieter than one would think.  The examples given were examples of how non-white people are discriminated against.  Yet, as much as Dr. J pointed this out, it kept happening.  This was interesting to me because it showed that the overarching privilege the privileged people have is that they don’t realize their privilege.  Growing up, a privileged person is not aware of their privileged status because they do not know any better.  Exposure to the outside world and outside the world of people like you is the only way to recognize your advantages.  Whether your social class makes you privileged, your skin color, and so on, the harsh reality is that we just don’t know until we see something different and even then, we may not consciously acknowledge the differences.  This same way of thinking can be applied to the unprivileged group.  They too may not recognize how they aren’t privileged in comparison until they step outside and see.  Chances are, the group without the privileges will notice much faster but the same initial thinking is somewhat applicable.  There are many examples of how people are privileged based on different things but the harder part is how does this automatic privilege stop when the people with the advantage do not realize and the other people do not have the power to instigate much change because they lack the advantage.  It seems like awareness is the best shot we have but this is much easier said then done.  The exercise in class showed how even though we may recognize differences in the way different people are treated, we see them as subtle differences that are isolated when really they are huge factors all contributing to a system.  

The first step in change is realization

One of the most difficult things to do in philosophy is to think objectively, and stand as strongly against irrationalities that benefit you just as much as the injustices of the world that negatively affect you.  True philosophy in my opinion, is the unbiased pursuit of truth, reason and justice.
I really enjoyed the exercise Dr. J put us through in class, because it challenged us to notice covert inequalities that benefit the majority of our social structure at rhodes. I thought it was a healthy self critique exercise.  Opening these doors only allows for progress to be made for our society, the first step of change is realization.
As a white person, being aware of the unfair advantages we have is a healthy self critique and I think is a good thinking habit to get into. However this way of thinking is one of the most difficult things to do, because naturally, we see the small picture first and we want to better ourselves, but usually we fail to see that fairness, equality, and being a team player is what is going to advance us further in the long run.
     Since equality / equal opportunity is clearly the goal in any functioning society, why does inequality exist in the first place? Why is it even an issue still? What can we do on our campus to take back some of the unnecesary physcological stress we place upon race, religion, sexual orientation etc? How can rhodes be a smoothly functioning society with out discrimination being an issue, and having the campus not only open and tolerant, but supportive of all races, religions and orientation?
It's the little things that are the most effective. Racism still strongly exists, but it is just different from what it was 100 years ago or even 10 years ago, it's underground, covert and not easily noticible.  I think the first step having the mind set to speaking out against any irrationality. Simple tolerance is not good enough I think, tolerance allows for segregation, but support, unity and team work is the next step.

White Privilege

White privilege as defined by Wikipedia: refers to societal advantages that white people are argued to benefit from beyond those commonly experienced by people of color in the same social, political, or economic spaces (nation, community, workplace, income, etc). Our discussion in class was very awkward at first because in every class at Rhodes, even this one, there are more white students than there are black and for the white students to have to sit and think about how they are privileged was something that very rarely happens. Like Dr. J said, it is a whole a lot easier to talk about how a group of people are oppressed and discriminated against so to have to look at it from a different perspective was something that I was not used to. Most people are used to the idea of affirmative action or white burden and how they are trying to make up for white privilege. I guess since I come from a household of black and white I never really grew up with race. I mean my parents just taught me to love all people and race never became something that was relevant until I reached about the 6^th grade. In middle school I started to notice white privilege more often. White students never had to worry about getting in trouble for cheating or being accused of stealing or even having their phone taken away for having it out in class. In some classes it was obvious that the teachers treated the white students better, but in others we were all just students trying to get an education. Throughout my college decision process looking for a place where I knew everyone was going to be seen as equals in the eyes of professors was something that was very important for me. Rhodes gave me that vibe, but out of all of my colleges I had to choose from Rhodes was also the most diverse. Which is honestly kind of sad because this Philosophy of Race class is the one class where it’s not just me or me and another person of color in it.

            White privilege is something we all live with and acknowledge, but it is a lot easier to admit to being the oppressed than the oppressor. Not saying that all white people are oppressors but white people clearly benefit from the history of being the oppressor.

White Privilege

About a month ago, I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine about his day, etc. In general, he likes to make up nicknames for all of his friends. Sometimes the connection can easily be made and other times I have to ask how the nickname was born? As I was listening to one of his stories, I remember him mentioning someone new that I had never heard of before. His name was White Boy. I knew right away that the chance that this individual was white was probably less than 5%. So, I felt compelled to ask him where this term of endearment had come from. Why would anyone want to be called White Boy – it would be too vague for an actual white and nonsensical for any other race.  Apparently, however, this name was not one that my friend had created. Rather, this individual had been dubbed his nickname by his own family, and it had stuck. I do not know if anyone else can guess why, but I was certainly stumped… White Boy’s name, I learned, was given to him because he was the youngest child in a family of ten. His sibling claimed that as the youngest, he was spoiled by his parents and other family members. His name, in other words, is a testament to the existence of white privilege and a (sub)conscious reminder of the structural realities of our society to others who interact with him on a daily basis. It was not until after class on Tuesday that I realized the power of this man’s name. The structure of racism that frames our social experiences gives his name meaning, without the existence of this type of system his name would never been what it is.  

In our discussion about White Privilege in class on Tuesday, we focused our attention on the concept of white privilege as a system of structural inequalities that constantly works to reproduce and reinforce itself through the allocation of unearned rewards. The power of privilege for whites is that we do not even have to think about ourselves as raced individuals! It is much harder therefore to admit and give up privileges than it is to advocate for equality and call for justice. The mere ability to be shocked at injustice is a privilege in and of itself. The list of examples given by McIntosh just grazes the surface of the multiplicity of privileges that exist for whites within our own society.  The first time that I read this essay by McIntosh my freshman year in intro to sociology, I can remember the shock I felt upon reading some of these truths. The one that stands out most sharply to me, even to this day, is that something as common and simple to daily life as a band aid continues to reflect structural inequality based on race. This old Band-Aid box is particularly insightful. Beneath the picture of the happy white nuclear family the box states that this box contains “The modern transparent bandage that blends with your skin.” As this image illustrates however, the transparent bandage that is meant to blend with your skin is still of a peach like hue…

     Today, the official Band-Aid website advertises the following: “BAND-AID^® Brand Adhesive Bandages have long been a staple in a family’s first-aid kit as a source of healing, comfort and protection. And as the brand has expanded over the years, so too has the technology and innovation behind it. BAND-AID^® Brand has moved from being strictly a bandage to becoming a brand that offers a wide variety of products to meet the diverse needs of today’s active families and their lifestyles.” Diversity of skin tones of their products, however, is still lacking. From simple household products to the names of individuals, white privilege permeates all aspects of our society. Simply acknowledging the existence of our privilege, however, is not the same as giving it up. Racial inequalities will continue to exist both overtly and covertly as long as the system remains in place. Knowing that the break-down of this structure is necessary for effective change, what can we as individuals do to aid in that process?

The Weight We Carry

I regularly listen to a podcast called The Moth, where people tell stories about their lives.  The people are sometimes famous and sometimes not, and they generally talk on a theme.  The podcast a few weeks ago made me think of our class.  Here's a link to the story.

http://themoth.org/posts/stories/let-that-weight-go

Here's a brief summary.  It's told by Walter Mosley, who discusses his different experiences with racist language.  He tells one story about a job in a school in California where a woman said the phrase "you boys" to the group of young black men when giving directions.  One of the men becomes extremely upset, and the woman doesn't understand why.  There was a major difference in the way that the young man understood the word as a black Southerner and the way the woman understood the word.  Mosley then moves to the present, where he sees a young gay man handing out flyers.  A black man approaches, takes a flyer, and asks, "Are there going to be any bitches there?"  The man replies with something along the lines of "No, just us niggas."

Mosley is confused about how to respond to this situation.  He ultimately concludes that he does not need to confront the language because it is his own perception and not the perception of either of the other individuals that creates the problem.  This reminded me of our conversation in class the other day.  What do we do about this language?  I think Mosley is particularly interesting because he gives examples of a number of different contexts and responses, noting his own change in understanding over time.

I was asked if I would raise my children to have the same opinion about the n-word that I do.  Can I let go of my own context to help to change things?  Or would I only be perpetuating, especially as a white woman from the South, the problematic power dynamics and hatred associated with that word?  To continue our conversation: When should we step back in cases where we hear problematic language?  Should we ever?  How do we distinguish between the context?  Should we distinguish at all, or should it always be that when problematic or potentially problematic language is used, we demand clarification  and discussion?

Sorry for so many questions.  I'm interested to hear what y'all think about the situations presented by Mosley.

(Repost) Another Case: Biracial Woman who wants to be White

We have been discussing the cases in chapter three of Mills' book, and the most recent case was that of Mr. Oreo. As Mills states in his essay, "Mr. Oreo cannot even think of passing, being quite dark with clearly black African features and with known black ancestry. But he is unhappy with his racial designation, so he fills 'white' on bureaucratic forms, identifies himself as white, and rejects black culture." When Dr. J asked the class if we thought Mr. Oreo was white, black, or both. A great majority of the class argued that he is black. However, one of our classmates said that is actually white. We never really came to a conclusion about Mr. Oreo. On one hand, he resembles that of a black person, but if he rejects his black culture and says he is white, what is he really?

We then briefly discussed case nine, which focuses on biracialism. As Henry stated in his Precis, people who are biracial "disturb our metaphysical understanding of race." They do not identify with one particular race but two. In the book, Mills states, "The U.S. racial system has been polarized mainly between white and black, with blackness being demarcated through the one-drop rule." So, due to the one-drop rule, people who were mixed with white and black were actually considered to be black. However, the biracial population is increasing. With this in mind, Mills poses the question, "Would such people really become another race, or, because of their interactions with the larger society, would they really just stay black?

After class I had a conversation with Taylor about one of my close friends who is mixed. Her mother is white, and her father is black. She was raised by her mother, but she has always identified with black culture. Thinking about the topic, I also remembered this video I'd watched on YouTube about a girl who is mixed with black and white, only accepts her white "side", but physically looks black. Sort of like Mr. Oreo, but then again, not really, because the girl actually claims to be mixed. Although some of her reasons for choosing only to accept her white side are a bit far-fetched, she does make a valid point when she mentions white privilege to a certain extent. I don't want this post to be too long, but I just thought it was pretty interesting that even though the girl wasn't able to clearly explain why she wanted to be white, she knew that being white would make life a little easier for her so to speak.

So what do you guys think? If she is biracial, is she a part of a separate racial category? or is she black just because she looks black? or is she white because she identifies with and practices white culture?

Oh, and disregard the title of the video.

Finding the Mean between Extremes

In speaking of a philosophy of race, time and time again, we have been made aware of the importance of considering the significance of historical/environmental contexts in shaping reality. We cannot adopt a color blind stance because color exists as a social concept/construct. It is a part of our social reality regardless of personal desires/intentions.

  

In his lecture on the "Ethics of Appropriation", Anderson spoke about the significance of history and cultural/context. He positioned himself as a medium between two extremes in regards to the ethics of appropriation. For Anderson, the Cosby view is too strict in that it grants too much power to language and the environment by making us a slave to the historical use of the word. This view argues that it is because of its historical/cultural context that the interpretation of the word can never be positive. On the flip side, there is the more liberal stance that seeks to completely redefine the word as a word of endearment (transforming hate into love) and remove it from its past. However, this stance gives too much control to the individual. Meaning and language are collective facts; they are socially understood and maintained. The relationship between language and the individual is one of reciprocal influence. Language is objective in that its exits despite the fact of the individual; it both pre-dates and will post-date each one of us. But, at the same time, we influence the transformation of language over time. It is not static and immune to change. thus, Anderson argues for a middle view in terms of appropriation. Attempts at neutralization only work to hide the reality of history. What needs to happen for this word as well as for the concept and reality of race within society as a whole is a recognition of the reality of both the historical and the current contexts/meanings. People need to become actively engaged in subverting underlying oppressive structures and meanings, but this can only be done when the actors involved can reasonably be expected to accept and understand this as the ultimate aim.
More generally, the meaning which has been attached to race in the past necessarily affects our understanding of race in the present and in the future. Mills' argument in Revisionist Ontologies: Theorizing White Supremacy testified to the same power of history and cultural meaning. Mills speaks about the notion of White Privilege and the existence of global white supremacy. In justifying his claims about its significance he states, "even if global white supremacy were completely a thing of the past, it would still be a political system of historical interest." Furthermore, the extent and power of global white supremacy, its scope and recent reality, make its abolition regardless of the existence of a (hypothetical) complete and unanimous desire to abolish the existence of global white supremacy highly unlikely. The effects would (and do) continue to affect our own reality and daily experiences. In terms, of history, we can never un-know/un-do something that has already occurred. Time does not allow for any movement other than forwards. Though de jure white supremacy may no longer exist in its original form, this does not mean that a transformation of the same principles do not continue to exist in the form of a new de facto global white supremacy. This becomes most evident when we look at capitalism and who suffers/benefits under the current patterns of consumption, production, and exploitation.

I do not know if it is just me, but whenever I think about the process of globalization and its relation to capitalism, I find myself thinking about Marx's theory. He believed that the capitalist mode of production was bound to fail due to ever increasing exploitation of laborers. His predictions did not, however, take into consideration the possibility of the effects of globalization granting longevity to the mode which he could not have accounted for. I wonder what would happen if this capitalist system which upholds, reifies, and normalizes global white supremacy came to end because of some sort of revolution? What type of revolution would it be? Would it be a unification of all oppressed workers regardless of race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. Or would it be upper class academics? How inherently linked are our economic operations and social/political structures which are so strongly linked to our historical and cultural past? Can the transformation within one domain occur without a similar transformation within all the rest? Where is the middle ground?

What Would Mills' New Philosophy Look Like?

I have been wondering for a while about how Mills' theory (at least what theory we have been shown) would be manifested in reality. That is, what the new line of philosophical thought, with race issue at its core, would look like. I'm reminded of a course on Ethics that I took last semester with Professor Shade, in which we studied the standard forms of ethical thought across history (Aristotle through Kant, Hegel, and Mill) but ended with an entirely different type of work, a study of Nel Noddings' "care ethics." Noddings wrote ethical theory that stood out as incredibly different from everything else we had studied up to that point, because it was in line with theory being developed by staunch feminists who had placed "gender" at a focal point in the foundation of their theory and taken off form there- just as Mills states is necessary for a rebirth of the philosophy of race.

So, if female philosophers in the 1970's and 80's focused on "caring" as the basis for their ethical theory, what would black philosophers create, as an ethical system, and how would it differ from those of our famed white philosophers (and now, our feminist ones as well)? As perhaps the least qualified person to make predictions on this topic, I will now try to do just that, briefly.

One topic that would seem to be a likely focus in the *New Racial Philosophy* is Faith. While there has been much philosophical thought about religion over the course of history, "Faith Ethics" would have stood out in the same way as "Care Ethics" in Professor Shade's class. That is, at the halfway point of my time at Rhodes as a Philosophy major, the faith/religious theory that stands out most belongs to Descartes, and surely-as Dr. J pointed out in class- the comfortable, white, warmed-by-the-fire Descartes would raise different questions and answers about faith than a black philosopher might. Faith could be a trope of this new philosophy, for it has strong links to many types of situations, historically, that could shape the questions being asked and answered by black philosophers. In the Bible, the story of Job is pointed to as an explanation for why faith needs to be tested, and how testing one's faith brings out the true nature of their subjective faith, as well as faith as a whole. When looking at two groups of people, one historically the persecutors and one the persecuted, it is obvious which one would have a higher investment in (and, subsequently, the more robust account of) faith.

Another possible philosophical, but perhaps not strictly ethics-focused, topic towards which black philosophers could gravitate and provide a unique account on, is Power. Again, that group that has historically not had "the power," might be more inclined to study the nature of that particular human element. These are just a few of my thoughts on the subject, I would be welcome to any criticism or addition to these hypotheses. Hopefully I have not gone too far- obviously great generalizations have been made in this blog post- in attempting to visualize a new race philosophy from the black perspective.

Yesterday, I read a New York Times Op-Ed entitled "The Good, Racist People." Wonderfully written by Ta-Nehisi Coates, who regularly contributes to The Atlantic, this piece comments upon a recent incident involving Forest Whitaker and a paranoid delicatessen employee. In summary, Forest Whitaker entered a well known and respected Manhattan Deli (close to Columbia), where, after presumably perusing the aisles for a tasty lunch, the Deli-Man (this is how I will refer to him in the rest of this post) proceeded to accuse him of stealing. (Strange, given that Forest Whitaker has appeared in several highly successful films and probably has the $ 7.25 to cover a hoagie, but, alright Mr.-Deli-Man-Sir, Whitaker could be a kleptomaniac. I wouldn't want to deprive him of that freedom.) After the accusation, the man proceeded to publicly interrogate Whitaker and then Whitaker's pockets. Finding nothing, he let Whitaker go, but, at least for many people, the story did not end there. Clearly, for most, this incident symbolizes the oft forgotten reality that America remains racist (forgotten by the privileged that is, code for whitey). Rhetorically, the anecdote carries quite a bit of emotional weight, but, without the statistics Coates quotes, the whole ordeal might seem a little blown out of proportion. After all, one incident, one crazed shop-keeper, who, by the way, may have just "innocently" thought Whitaker was stealing, does not necessarily suggest in and of itself that America has somehow (a) forgotten its racist tendencies, (b) is totally inhospitable to all African-Americans, even those with a tremendous amount of cultural capital, or (c) that this shop keeper should be burnt at the stake. Coates argues that it would have been inconceivable to substitute a famous white movie star in for Forest Whitaker, which I'm not necessarily willing to grant. The movie stars he names are Sean Penn and Nicholas Cage, which are not necessarily good examples to choose. Although Forest Whitaker is an Oscar winner, his films are for the most part lesser known, and he is not nearly as prolific as either Sean Penn or Nicholas Cage. The latter of which will sign on to project, no matter how bad. I only comment on this point because Coates puts so much emphasis on the shake down being worse because Whitaker is so well known. From this, we must ask ourselves, "what made this shopkeeper think that Whitaker was stealing?" Given that he was not in fact stealing, we can safely assume that there was some kind of conscious or unconscious racial (which may have been associated with class) bias playing into his assessment, grounded upon projection as opposed to actual observation. In the comments section of the page, many people weighed in with their opinions, some giving anecdotes of their own about mistreatment. One of which I have to take issue with concerns basically the same situation with the subject being around the age of thirteen. The father of this kid was outraged that his son could be accused of stealing, noting that the shopkeeper, after the incident, felt incredibly ashamed about his actions--an admission of guilt which may give credence to the man's case; however, without that indirect admission of racism, what is so unlikely about a teenage boy or girl, no matter what race, being tagged for shop lifting. Kids sometimes steal. When I was young, I was accused a couple a times a year of steeling, unjustly I should note, but that was just kind of par for the course. I obviously looked sketchy; I was young and had pockets. I'm not necessarily willing to make the leap that this gentlemen was willing to make. I, of course, sympathize with Whitaker and the author, who loved the Deli in question and can no longer can stomach going in there, I have to wonder about the way in which the author disseminates his larger point about how good people--while claiming to be non-racists--are the very ones benefiting from and supporting the system of racism they claim to be against.

I am just a little bit confused about America. If we live in a racist society, that necessarily mean that every act is racist? Can there not be just assholes? Or, perhaps, a good deed done too? Perhaps this post is a little too opaque. If so, I apologize. If nothing else, I truly hope everyone takes a second to read this Op-Ed. I think it is thought provoking and compelling stuff.

Recognizing Bias

In class on Tuesday, we talked about the whiteness problem and the Whiteness problem that exist in the field of philosophy.  The two seem to feed each other, with the universalization of a white perspective alienating non-white students of philosophy.  While, as Mills notes, things have begun to change over the past few decades, Dr. J mentioned that 87% of philosophers are white even today.  Given the argument that Mills presents, this is not shocking.  If a field refuses even to recognize its bias, a necessary step before anything can be done about that bias, then those who are not being considered would have an extremely difficult time.  Assuming universality means erasing or demoting to subpersonhood those whose experiences and questions fall outside the “view from nowhere.” 

The first step in finding a solution to the problem of Whiteness in philosophy is recognizing that it is a problem.  If philosophy is really about love of wisdom, then it would, hopefully, be extremely concerned with a severe flaw in its understanding of what it means to be a person and how people approach and understand the world.  Currently, however, Mills argues that while there is progress, things remain mostly the same. By presenting whiteness as the universal perspective, philosophy continues to conceal the fact that whiteness is a very particular perspective and to deny the oppressive implications of adopting that viewpoint as the norm.

Mill also writes about the difficulties of helping white students to understand what he’s saying about race and privilege.  It’s difficult to understand myself as privileged and worse, as someone perpetuating all kinds of isms through that privilege and through other biases, conscious and unconscious.  The other day I was reading an article on Jezebel called “If You’re Biased and You Know It, Clap Your Hands (and Then DoSomething About It).”  The author linked to Project Implicit, which is a series of tests provided by Harvard that give the participant a breakdown of his or her various biases.  The author discusses her own bias and how she worked to fix it.  Here’s an interesting snippet from the article about the process of discovering and fighting bias:

“Turns out that if people are faced more with counter-stereotype images and assumptions — "the opposite of the one the culture typically pushes us towards" — it can greatly affect their thinking. Asking people to think about the other person in a positive way doesn't work, but interventions that relied on giving counter examples ended up producing large shifts.

Banaji mentions how she built a screensaver that had counter-stereotype images in it — including a New Yorker cover with a construction worker woman in a hard hat breastfeeding her baby. The hope is that seeing enough images like this will make her more open, and that when a young woman comes into her office with a great idea, she'll be more inclined to not judge the woman for her youthful voice, dress, whatever, and instead be able to focus on the woman's ideas.”

I just signed up to start taking some of the tests.  The first one is a short game.  Anyway, I’m interested to see what y’all think of this method as one way of changing the way that we see each other.  It’s a person-by-person step rather than a systematic step.  Philosophy as a field can’t really take the bias test, and neither can our government.  Still, it's something.  

What other things can we do to make ourselves confront our biases (and then hopefully work to change them)?