General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Study: White people react to evidence of white privilege by claiming greater personal hardships [View all]Orrex
(67,116 posts)This isn't simply a matter of white dudes not wanting their feelings hurt; it's a legitimate concern about the framing of a discussion as it pertains to the intent.
If the discussion starts by claiming that one party is "privileged," then it is reasonable to expect that the party will first respond to that claim, rather than immediately and openly considering the underlying issue. What is the value of using a term that predisposes the listener to reject the proposed discussion? Frankly, it seems as though the term was calculated to yield exactly that effect.
Proponents of the term might claim that the intent is not to belittle or harass, and this truly may not be their intent, but that's subordinate to the real-world reaction engendered by the term. Regardless of their intent, the term creates a barrier to discussion. To what beneficial end?
Alternatively, they might claim that the term is intended to provoke a strong response in hope of kick-starting the discussion. That's not an unreasonable expectation on their part, if indeed that's the case, but again it creates a barrier to discussion. To what beneficial end?
I recognize white privilege, and more specifically white male privilege or even white cis male privilege. Hell, off the top of my head I can list a dozen ways that I've benefited from it in the last 48 hours. But my own understanding of the concept was initially hindered by the term, and--as we've seen many times over--my reaction is far from unique.
I'm not sure that a quick soundbyte of a term is needed or appropriate here, especially if that term sabotages the subsequent discussion. But if we must have one, how about "institutional discrimination" as an alternative? Rather than inspiring defensiveness, that term would invite the question "what do you mean by institutional?" and the conversation will be off and running.