I really enjoyed reading the comments on my post from yesterday, and the many responses those comments engendered. Several people have already said much of what I would say to explain our references to privilege and the role it plays in mobilizing heterosexual allies.
One point I should be up front about: Straightforward is unabashedly written for an audience that is already on board with the idea of equality for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. The book does not attempt to marshal arguments against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We’re assuming that our readers already agree with us about that and now seek ways to put their beliefs into action. Readers who seek reasoned argument on this first point might find the following books of interest: Gaylaw by William Eskridge, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law by Andrew Koppelman, or Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan. But even if you’re not a gay rights supporter, our hope is that you’ll find some of the ideas we highlight this week in the blog to be thought provoking at the least.
I understand the resistance to a concept like “heterosexual privilege.” It can be difficult, even a bit threatening, to face the ways an unequal system gives us advantages that are denied to others. And this is true whether the advantage is based on sex, race, sexual orientation, or where our parents went to college (if they went to college). It just seems to be a fact of life that it’s a lot easier to see inequality when you’re on the disadvantaged side of the transaction than when you end up on top. So as a white woman, I don’t really see the way race affects my life, but I’m quite aware of gender (e.g., taking greater precautions when I walk to my car in a dark parking lot, or making a point at a meeting that goes unacknowledged until a male colleague repeats it). In our discussion of privilege, we’re challenging people of good faith to raise their awareness of the rights and abilities they have and take for granted as heterosexuals, and to see how these are sometimes denied to LGBT people. Our hope is that readers will stick with us through that challenging process and read on.
Jennifer Gerarda Brown
A couple of comments I found particularly helpful and with which I would concur:
Jens wrote:
“Privileges”, at least in this context, are not merely “rights”. Privilege is unequal access: “a special right … granted or available only to a particular person or group of people” [New Oxford American Dictionary]. Eliminating privilege thus means fairer access to rights.
“Heterosexual privilege” can be a tough concept to see. Two examples of a minor privilege come to mind. First: A bi female friend of mine once told me she was afraid to hold her girlfriend’s hand while they were driving [in Phoenix], because there were a lot of jacked-up trucks whose drivers could look down right into their small car and might yell insults at them, or worse. Second: my father, who is quite liberal, once mentioned that he was fine with people being gay, but on the streets in San Francisco why did they have to “flaunt it” by holding hands or kissing where people could see them?
Both illustrate a pervasive and invisible privilege: to be able to express affection to someone you love (or maybe just are flirting with), without the well-founded fear that you might as a consequence be yelled at, harassed, beaten up or even killed for it.
And Rob Rickner helpfully “unpacked the verbiage” this way:
The term “heterosexual privilege” seems to be used in this article to bring forward the benefits heterosexuals receive for being the dominant sexuality. Heterosexuals get lots of advantages … both legal and social. By calling it a privilege, the authors simply force heterosexuals to recognize the advantages they have, often unknowingly, received for most of their adult lives. This seems to be Step 1: recognizing the advantages you have. It may be a little alienating for an equality minded individual to have to admit they are higher on the totem-pole, but right now it is a reality we have to deal with.
Rob Rickner also cited as examples our points about Boy Scouts and “ambiguation,” and we’ll post longer entries about those soon.
Jennifer Gerarda Brown
Oh, your ivory tower debate is for the initiated only. My (last piece of) advice: stop the inbred, unresponsive-to-outside-input debate right now and change careers, all o’ ya. Your tin-eared jargon and unwillingness to deal with what litigators call “bad facts” is an intellectual turn-off. As such, it is hurting gays, rather than helping them. Until yesterday I thought I was a gay rights supporter. Now I find out that my concerns at the margins of the debate mean that I am not a gay rights supporter after all. I guess I just like my discussions a bit freer in more than just the beer sense.
Ever wonder why P.C. got such a bad name?
My difficulty with the term “privilege” (usually it’s used in the context of race, e.g. “skin privilege”) is that by choosing this word instead of “rights”, it defines down what human beings can reasonably expect.
Example: most of us think nothing of being able to walk on the street hand in hand with a lover/partner/spouse is just a given, although doing so can be highly dangerous for gay people. But does this make it a “privilege”?
Likewise for many things given as examples of “skin privilege”. We need to define the rights of gays and blacks up, not define the rights of straights and whites down, so talk of abolishing privilege is the wrong way to go about this.
Now the advocates of the term “privilege” mean well; they are trying to wake people in the better-off majority and make them more consciously aware that they take some things for granted that aren’t available to others. Still, it implies that the majority has to become worse off to make the minority better off, and it does not have to work that way.
“I really enjoyed reading the comments on my post from yesterday, and the many responses those comments engendered.“
Jennifer and Ian, please feel free to join in the debate in the comments section as it develops. Blogs are about debate, not about lecture (IMHO).
“I understand the resistance to a concept like “heterosexual privilege.”
The way I read it, the resistance was not to the concept, but rather to the ambiguous phrase. Apparently, some people understand something else by the word “privilege” than others do.
I hope everyone involved in discussion of the “Boy Scouts” and their anti-gay policies will remember that the issue is with the Boy Scouts of America in particular. That’s a specific organization, independent of the international Scouting movement. The Boy Scouts of America organization has a history of acting independently from other Scouting groups worldwide, and it takes a much more conservative line on both religion and sexual orientation than do Scouting organizations in other countries. Scouts Canada in particular has repeatedly taken anti-discrimination positions on both religion and sexual orientation; and inclusiveness and equality are basic values of the worldwide Scouting movement. Please don’t tar all “Boy Scouts” with the brush you’d apply to the BSA.
“The way I read it, the resistance was not to the concept, but rather to the ambiguous phrase. Apparently, some people understand something else by the word “privilege” than others do. “
This is to be expected. Whenever you are being open about reframing the debate, some people will get suspicious. Changing language in order to effect policy sets off people’s Orwell senses. It sounds like double speak. The way to deal with this is to be completely open and clear about why you are choosing certain language. Some (or most) didn’t read the chapter, and consequently, shouldn’t be expected to understand what’s going on. You have to be careful to explain that the words are chosen because they more clearly state what it is the speaker actually believes in. Otherwise, you end up with the “politically correct” style backlash we experienced in the 90s. Aferall, you asking people to voluntarily change their method of discourse, not cramming it down people’s throats.
However, many people on this blog have had a profoundly negative intial reaction to the terminology. Much of this seems to circle around the varying definitions of “privilege”, not the actual point that you are trying to make. Maybe the word “privilege” is causing too many misunderstandings. Is there another, more neutral, word that would have a similar meaning in context. Perhaps “advantage”?
“not the actual point that you are trying to make“
The point I am trying to make is not what I think it is?
“Is there another, more neutral, word that would have a similar meaning in context.“
I am afraid I will have to leave that to native speakers of English.
“not the actual point that you are trying to make”
No, the “You” in that sentence was meant to refer to the authors of the chapter, not a specific post. My mistake.
I think it’s fabulous that Professors Lessig, Ayres, and Brown have created a space for this dialogue to take place on such a well-established blog that people read for a variety of reasons. This is really inspiring.
Someone in the comments of another thread had asked what LGBTQ rights have to do with IP. While this blog is not meant to be restricted to IP issues, I think the progressive IP movement should become more explicitly informed by critical race feminism. This would better help to understand and explore the ways in which IP as well as the public domain can sometimes perpetuate or subvert power dynamics, so that IP policy could be shaped accordingly to maximize social justice. Professors Madhavi Sunder and Anupam Chander at UC Davis School of Law have written a fabulous paper to this effect.
On the resistance to so-called P.C., this is a great paper by James Boyle deconstructing the roots of the backlash.
On “privilege,” this article by Peggy McIntosh lays out some examples of white privilege, and it should be apparent how and why “privilege” in this context is distinguishable from “rights.”
Leena, I read that article and I’m sticking with my argument. For one thing, the author seems to suffer under the delusion that most whites are rich; for example, item #3 is not the common experience of most whites in California, or many metropolitan areas for that matter (the average person cannot afford to buy a home in the areas that have the most jobs, and might need to commute for over an hour if he/she wants a house similar to what his/her parents could afford). Many of the other arguments (like one’s skin color not creating an impression of unreliability) represent rights denied to blacks, rather than privilege granted to whites.
I agree that the article is useful in pointing out all of the issues that blacks experience daily that many whites are unconscious of, but for the vast majority of those issues, the problem is not that whites are granted a privilege, but that blacks are denied the fair treatment that is due to them.
I think that when it comes to seeing people like you represented on television or having teachers and community leaders of your background, those are privileges that men, heterosexual people, and white people enjoy over women, LGBTQs, and people of color, respectively (and it could go on with able-bodied versus people with disabilities, etc.). Ideally it should be a right to be represented in such a manner, but nothing of the sort is constitutionally or statutorily mandated. It is not just about blatant discrimination or unfair treatment per se; there are lots of other such subtle “micro advantages” that people coming from “majority” labels enjoy. I think that “privilege” is a good linguistic device to describe what the dominant group experiences in relation to the marginalized group, though, granted, identities are intersectional, and everybody is both marginalized and privileged on some level. I would agree that the lists should be more nuanced.
Joe Buck wrote:
Many of the other arguments (like one’s skin color not creating an impression of unreliability) represent rights denied to blacks, rather than privilege granted to whites.
Do you think that anyone has a right to have their skin color not be taken as a sign of unreliability? Or — does anyone have a right to have their gender not be taken as a sign of incompetence, or to have their sexual orientation not be taken as a sign of immorality? While most reasonable people would agree that everyone should be able to live free from prejudice, is “rights” really the correct framework for talking about discrimination based on individuals’ personal impressions of other individuals based on race, gender, or sexual orientation?