L.B. Neill
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB,
I have been involved in the family violence sector and other fields for over 20 years.
We used the term male privilege to identify men who use violence. It was used to assess gender based violence and its causes- and assist build a no to violence stance. It was used to identify the perpetrator, make them visible, and hold them to account.
It was designed to measure violence, get an understanding of who uses it, and then challenge it.
The article I posted shows how some use male privilege to exert power over women, but can be used to explain other forms of toxic power.
It was not a term to be used against people who oppose violence. Men, women and race are not homogenous, we are so deeply blended. The term is used to oppose violent narratives and their systemic origins.
There are systemic ‘isms’ out there. And should be challenged. I work within an environment where we are diverse (very diverse)- and we could not do the job we do if we looked at each other as the essentialist politics want us to be.
In privilege studies – a study of power-over- is to be used correctly, it focusses on systemic abuse and those who use it.
I feel that politics and partisan positioning has used/misused the science for better/for worse. The science was meant to be used to bring power-with to society ending violence and division of identity.
And there it is , It is measuring over modelling. If we measure this issue over generalising it, we ovoid putting it or all whites in the ‘same basket’ . That basket is essentialist thinking- and measurement of ‘personal risk’ is tailored to the person experiencing risk- but also measures and identifies those who cause risk When designing risk measures, the use of x /y markers help- it helps define the relationship over oppressor/oppressed with out using identifiable markers
x>y: is x has power over y. x<y: is x has power under y… and so on. It is a non bias assessment of personal risk. And yes it show it is not biological, and it has a political origin.
Currently, people are encouraged to compete to climb the apex structure. and x over y terms abound. Some will compete to get ahead of the others, all their lives, and arrive at a point that is still sub-alternative.
The analysis of personal and individual risk is not based on individualism- but on measuring risk according to those who use harmful activity, and use it with systemic legitimisation or historical based privilege (though lawed against- still continues).
“This does not mean that we should ignore racism, sexism, homophobia, we must call this out wherever it exists, however our case against these prejudices is two fold, like the reformists we oppose it because of the impact it has on the day to day experience of our fellow workers, but unlike them, we oppose it because anything which divides the working classes is an impediment to the long term solution of these problems, socialism.”
And I concur.
The term privilege was not intended in the field of social studies to divide- it was not meant to weaponise one against the other.
Initially, in the field of discursive psychology and semiotics it was intended to ‘unpack’ the discursive operations of people who use violence (a lot of research in family violence use these tools).
The term privilege refers preference positions of one term over another
Take one binary division: male/female connoting two signifiers of gender (in this one a basic binary of male and female
… Men who use violence against women and children because they feel it is their entitlement to do so is called male privilege. In this context a man will use linguistic power privileging of male over female, the right to control based on gender characteristics. They will use a discursive operation (think of it and act on it) to use coercive control and then harm.
The term is used to study various forms of violence where an individual/ group use oppression and power-over another based on characteristics, based on entitlement, and so on.
I have limited space here to say how it is used as a research tool- the reason why it is used, is to counter the toxic effects of privilege and stop the harm to those who experience violence. It is used to build a theory around observations. And then use that theory in program design so that we can end the division and bring power-with relations and end those ‘isms’ and hold users of violence to account.
The term privilege should not be essentialist, it was not designed to be. Essentialist ideas hold that white privilege harms- I am white- so I harm… This is a wrong use of the term.
It has been taken out of context in some way from its research and intervention origins- it is a useful tool, but is was not meant to be used as an essentialist profiling tool- you are this skin tone so you use it… that is not its design. The below article gives an example of family violence studies researching one aspect of toxic privilege, and the same research method also applies to similar forms of bigotry used by people to cause harm:
https://www.responsebasedpractice.com/app/uploads/Language-and-Violence.pdf
It is sad that people can live in oppressed working/living conditions, who do not use violence, and can be labelled privileged- this term was designed to make the bigot accountable, and disambiguate use of violence, naming its use for what it is.
Sorry for some of the edits- A full day of work has made the 5am feeling fall into the 5pm!
LB
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
Wez,
I know. And you have a point there.
Religions can be used as instruments of oppression that are part of the problem. They can also be a means of speaking out against oppression. The thing is- if we give over to a few who decide which is considered an actor in subjugation, there is a risk of setting up a ‘deciding committee’ that runs the risk of becoming oppressive itself.
Speaking out against oppression is crucial.
At some point, the historical conditions of the end to the history of the class struggle will reach that final moment of decidability- and the social totality will usher in a new period.
When I speak of a utopian social society, some think I am encourageable (an idealist believing in a tale). And again: the Two key signifiers converge (belief). One a community of conviction, the other, a community of conviction. A kind of Terry Eagleton posture.
When I stay in the domain of Social Science, there is a certain freedom in exchanging views.
But is it preferred, to stay in that domain, rather than express another- now that is a complex in itself.
I have found the current thread to be engaging and challenging and an expression of views that differ, yet have commonality. This is how debate offers newer positions and for me- a chance to interrogate and learn- and not take a statement for granted.
Changing the mode of production to socialism will benefit all, and the use of charity will end. It would serve no function. Right now that is with us: charity- and it is a barometer for the presence of inequality, and the use of money, and all other barbarities.
We can enter several domains of thought from technical knowledge to artistic, to even telos modes of veridiction. We a psychological flexible beings.
Here is to that eventful day- an end to struggle…
LB 🙂
“Myth and superstition have no place in the 21st century. And charity has done nothing to end poverty but perpetuate and sanctify it. Justice is the role of the state, not the church. But if you hear voices in your head and want to believe in sky gods, keep it to yourself, aiders and abetters of poverty.”
LT,
Religion as a social fact, expresses itself through world epochs and is an anthropological constant. It can’t just be wished away, nor silenced. And disregarding people’s belief system causes its own set of problems and hierarchies of who has the right to expression.
I do share with you that charity is a symptom of capitalism and other forms of coercive control. “If I feed someone they call me a Christian and if I ask why- they call me a communist” . I am caught between both these signifiers. Support and scorn in two traditions from people who want me to give up on one, the other, or even both.
In the classical tradition of Marxist theory, Karl Mannheim in Ideology and Utopia noted that no one should be caught by incredulity if they seek to teach an empty vassal (people) and find they are already filled with many meaning making practices.
I hope someday society, and not the state, construct notions of justice- by giving sole legitimacy to the state, we become subordinate and anterior to it.
Degrading people of faith, can only build resistance to socialism- turn them in to a ‘lower’ class of expression and alienate them from public discourse. You might express an incredulity to it in the Twenty First Century, but it continues in its patterns of narration.
Responding to assist is subjective. On my way to drop my kids at school today I noticed an older man fall. I stopped and helped- thinking it to be a medical emergency, it was a bad fall.
I disregarded the invitation to self-hood and drive past ‘everyone for themselves’. So I stop. A collective and positive trait, not charity in itself… He is okay, and thanked me for seeing he was okay. We all should stop for each other…
I hope you have a good week,
And be safe,
LB
Appealing to a our shared experience, our common factors is a certain start. Changing the mode of production is changing the mode. It is not insisting on a singular and uni-vocal society.. It will be vibrant and filled with many voices. Socialism by deep democracy will have a lively richness to it. This notion of changing the mode is just that: changing the mode from capitalism to socialism would help reduce nominal fears that its opponents negatively paint it with… But appealing to our common shared experiencing is a really good start.
I am a fellow worker, and I believe I mentioned too, of a faith community.
I was introduced to the long journey of socialism: from being informed by SPGB to books and Marxism. No discrimination against me at all. When we let our words hurt, liberals point to it as: see, religious oppression by socialists.
There are people of faith, like what Alan covered in his last post above, that are a point of convergence. There are people of faith who see socialism as a compelling step forward. Let us instead argue against the oppressor, and not let our words fall on the oppressed.
Alan you pointed out: “Is that the way we try to persuade fellow-workers who happen to be religious” I am a living, typing case study of being a persuaded fellow worker and belong to a faith community.
Be kind to ye good selves
LB any rules on smiley faces 🙂
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.915.5467&rep=rep1&type=pdf
An interesting take on Christian charitable social formations and their disaster relief functions: this is centred on Asian Catholic participation in disaster recovery.
Social Capital and group cohesion certainly conflate with welbeing activities.
An interesting look at the period of White Australia and the systemic racism sponsored by the State.
The article looks at the biological and cultural assimilation policies used by the state to interpolate the Aboriginal community into the capital mode of production through the ‘civilising’ process.
It seems this version of supremacy thinking is one of the instruments of capital discourse.
In the end, we are to be assimilated into wage slavery- our commonality no matter our race.
I had a vision of capitalism as the Borg on Star Trek.
I just looked at my previous post comments: what a tangential knot ! I had disclosed a personal experiencing that I could not go back and edit. But feel okay about it today. Just leave it there.
What a tangle, yet that tangle leads to focus
LB
ALB,
That is not it. There should be not pity- I know we should do it for ourselves- and for each other.
I will own the term ‘do good’. To be a good dad, a good partner, a good friend, and a good comrade.
Doing good is an act of kindness. Saying ‘Sorry LBN’ is a kind thing.
I am part of the group of male survivors, not wanting pity (if only I could openly declare my lived experience) and who speak for our experiences that no ‘do gooder’ in the derogatory term could account for- and we speak for ourselves. And some of us entered the space of health care- and we speak out.
Done. Said.
“We are do-it-for-yourselves-ers !” is great, but every now and then, we need help get there. And I am glad I got there too, but not by myself alone.
We may be discussing the same outcome, but with differing words.
Maybe ‘do gooder’ is the same complex as privileged- but it should not lead to disunity between us, but an asking of what it means according to our experience.
I did not mean any offence in my last post, I wanted to point to the the abusive forms of privilege.
And thanks
LB
ALB,
The term is complex: privileged.
Some times it depends on how it is used and its context.
In studies of power-over it is used as a sense of entitlement over an other: male over female, stronger over weaker, capital over labour… to name a few.
What it is in its base form is: use of violence over someone, some class over another.
If I prevent someone from harming a community member, I am not a reformist. I am doing good and doing good should be a term that is centred in socialist vocab… liberals use that term ‘do- gooder’ as if doing good is bad.
Come on- doing good is not reformism, it is being part of a social network of caring. I hate it when libs scorn people who are doing good, doing the sociable, socialism should avoid seeing helpfulness in genuine human need (very immediate and dangerous need) as do gooder ridicule.
The word privilege, is used in anti oppressive practices to define those who use violence against another because they are given some entitlement to do so, or feel entitled to do so.
Okay: one focus in my work is on family violence and my emotive reactions may seem ‘high affect’- but it is born out of the effects of privilege being used to exercise coercive control over another, and help those who experience it escape some of the worst forms of violence.
It is both theory and really hard practice for me, and others too.
LB
Hi Leon,
Glad you recovered from the axe in Mexico. Sorry, it is Friday, and I appreciate the pseudoname.
The thing is, racism exists. It can be measured, quantified and qualified.
Rather than trundling a series of facts, my last post (though irregular) was self reflexive. It was based on direct observation and experiential discovery (a social science tool of grounded theory): what you see- and what it is. And then build a theme around direct observation.
I have observed them/us/other violence and how groups use of power between human characteristic variations. I have observed it based on skin tone, on body weight, on gender, on sexuality, on class, and so on. These measures are mark points of antagonism, and show significant aggression used between and within groups that divide, segregative and incorporate who is a group member.
Class is not talked about much in liberal formations of democracy. They avoid the ‘class issue’ and instead consider the disparate competitions of gender, race, sexuality and religion- but class and its division is silenced.
Class should be primary. If socialism brings egality to the historical forces of the class struggle, then all the other struggles will fall into line.
It is a bi-directional sequence: if a=b=c, then b=c, or a=c and so on. (relational frames)
Yet racism exists and be observed. When we think of white privilege- we should think who supports it, and in the service of who. It can’t be dismissed from so many who have experienced its oppressive effects- but we can disambiguate it- point it out for what it is- like you said: the running dogs of capitalism.
Socialism based on true democracy will rhyme those ABCs. But we can’t ignore people’s lived experience of racism.
Be safe,
LB
“…saying “Only faith saves; good deeds won’t save you.” It is the antithesis of how ancient Romans and Hindus define religion. Catholicism and Anabaptism stress good deeds (St. James).”
Thomas, and is an interesting point. When Christians state that salvation is through the doctrine of faith: it liberates people of faith from ‘good works alone’. Can yo imagine the euphoria released in that knowledge, and the sense of liberation from a ceaseless penitential cycles. Of course good deeds occur due to faith.
It couples the terms “way of life’ with ‘faith’- Many faith communities express feeling of euphoria (Marx might say opiate), connectedness and fulfilment living a certain way- and it becomes an anecdote to capital material expressions- and an opposition to it….
That counter to capitalism shows that Rosa’s “socialism or barbarism” is a question that has many points of equivalence across political and social domains- there is a barbarity to capitalism- but a euphoria and utopia in the other
In evangelical expressions, Christianity is a belief/ a faith, not a religion.
Religion for the sake of it is a legalism: faith is a post legalism
Religion is considered a state of following a tradition, and is automatic thinking, almost nominal. And so faith is conscious attention to practising a way of life, decentred from non discursive reflections, It is active and cognised.
Communities of conviction are a way of seeing the world, of being in the world.
There is a conflation of people turning to communities of conviction as negative world events increase.
There is also an episteme (a cultural and repeating practice) and anthropological constant in expressions of faith in society that has been/ and so will be.
To belong is such a deep and socially entrenched need/want.
Capitalism and its social divisions excludes. I know Marx did not go further into theologies and social studies as we know them today (and other ‘oligies’)- but in this period of modern-and its elusive post modern- these issues draw us together or create oppositions.
There are so many points of equivalence that draw us together- socialism becomes a shared reality trip (non opiate reference) in so many communities. I once felt down as a kid, and read a text on socialism- and my mood for the world lifted.
Hi Alan,
I have worked in homeless communities where the most marginal are competing against one another for the welfare resources- both limited and competitive.
—————————————————————————
In some circles white power is dismissed.
White privilege is not essentialist: I am white- so white has access to power.
Some right wing commentators say poor people have no access to power and use imagery of the white homeless to say “what white power”?
—————————————————————————
But yet- in marginal groups, competition for scarcity occurs. I have seen the most disadvantaged complain that ‘other races’ have taken what is theirs. Usually expressed by ethnic Europeans who compete against newer, equally poor migrants from differing ethnicity.
It is metropolis over peripheral played over again: right through the social strata: from up high to the precariat (dare I say a new strata: the left out in the cold ‘unemployed, displaced, non-classed because of it”).
Metropolis (colonial) thinking is still systemic right through the divisions of society. That division tries to keep unity apart.
White privilege still comes up, and in communities without capital, competing for the rarity of any resource for the most disadvantaged.
Any race can be in a disadvantaged and marginal position- and it is sad that competition for daily living drives a wedge rather than unity of purpose.
But on a positive note: I have seen selfless acts of sharing and non competition too in diverse groups…
Does that make some sense?
Ask me to elaborate when COVID is over, but many forms of privilege run riot (male, capital, class,and race) throughout societies- long may we resist it.
-
This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by
