After Booman had chosen to refer to my views as "privileged" a little while ago, I had hoped that I could have drawn him out to explain himself just a bit more. Regrettably he chose not to do so. Had he taken a different road, I had some questions for him. He and I are roughly the same age - I believe he's in his mid-to late 30s and I just hit the big Four-Oh at the end of January, so we can assume both of us are born somewhere between 1966 & 1971. My little questionnaire for determining "privileged" status of Gen-Xers goes as follows,
Did you, growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s have or experience any of the following:
- Cable TV, perhaps including HBO?
- A VCR (whether Betamax or VHS)?
- The newest Atari, Colecovision, etc. videogame station?
- Go to rock concerts at huge arenas?
- Eat out at restaurants on a regular basis?
- Wear designer clothes - or if you chose not to, at least had parents who could afford those for you?
- A regular allowance?
- The knowledge that your family could afford to send you to the college or university of your choice?
- A private school education? Or if not private school, were the public schools you attended in the ritzier neighborhoods?
- Travel to really cool places, be it Disneyland or New Zealand?
- Have access to regular medical care?
- Have your own telephone?
The one thing we did have a lot of were books, and my parents - both would probably be considered "hicks" by our elites - had developed a love of classical music & big band jazz (took me a while to appreciate either, but that's okay). Without the cool videogames or the cable tv (btw, those antennas you stick on top of a tv usually suck), or the chance to catch the latest Rush concert, I'd open some books (my folks were stocked up with tomes by Hemmingway, Plato, Poe, etc.) probably to the background of some baroque something or other my mom was listening to at the time. Otherwise, I'd find whatever friends I had at the time to hang with, cruise the 'hood in whatever old wreck one of us would have to drive, or hang out & try to skateboard or check out the latest nudie magazines that one of my friends always seemed to have in abundant supply (I had not yet been exposed to feminism in its many diverse flavors). No A-list parties, but not too bad of a life really.
Okay, so if I'm not privileged in that sense, how about family background? I certainly had relatives who farmed - one had a fairly successful family farm operation, though most barely made a living at it. I also had plenty of relatives who worked in manufacturing or out in the oil fields. My dad was a first generation college grad, from a family where I don't think too many folks graduated from high school. Mom at least got her high school diploma. Niether family fared well during the Great Depression, from what I understand. So looks like I don't exactly have a blue-blood pedigree. How would you fare?
If I'm not privileged in that sense, could it be my vocation? You guys know me as someone employed at a small public university. Took me a bit of doing to earn the necessary degrees - had to start at a jr. college, then a state university for my BA & MA, then another state run university for the doctorate. In a sense one could say that I have the privilege to do a lot of the work I want to do at hours of my choosing (more or less). Making a living out of reading, writing, and telling some coherent stories about what is read and written is a luxury that I thought would be out of reach for someone like me - and I treasure that. Of course since I don't work at one of the big research mills, I ain't exactly rolling in the dough.
Being a white male living in the US I suspect that one could say I'm "privileged" relative to much of the rest of the world, and I would accept that description as accurate and I'd accept that an accident of birth has probably opened doors for me that would be closed to most as well as affected my outlook on life. That said, the same could be said for an ungodly proportion of bloggers (including our good pal Booman). Under the circumstances, then, use of the term "privileged" as a form of criticism from one that is ostensibly equally "privileged" makes no sense.
So although I can sort of gauge some ways in which I might be "privileged" as well as others in which I am not, I am still left wondering what in the Hell the guy meant by "privileged" and more importantly what in the Hell if anything it had to do with a conversation about being "anti-American" or on defending views that might be considered "anti-American."
Signed, dazed and confused.
20 comments:
What was your so-called "privileged" view that he took exception to?
Apparently this.
I remember that exchange.
At the time I really didn't get it and I'm not sure I do at this point. It reminds me of what right wingers say of lefties actually. Or about anti-war protesters during Vietnam.
I wonder, like DTF, if it has something to do with how ingrained American nationalism or exceptionalism is ingrained in the culture and how inconcievable it would be for some Americans to realize just how the rest of the world views the country and citizens. Of course there are good parts (i.e. the Bill of Rights), but on the whole with all the coups, etc. it is just impossible to talk about America and think it's the best country ever if you are not a citizen. I personally think we're still looking for a model nation (but I digress).
It reminds me of the argument I got into with Boo over his post about Islamofascism (I REALLY HATE THAT TERM - it is so goddamn ignorant of what fascism actually means... a more correct term in my view would incorporate theocracy. Fascism suits the US gov't more than Iranian in my view). He was talking about "imposing American beliefs" and how to "secure America's national security".
So I told him how I thought the US could achieve that -- apologize. That didn't fit into his world view much I don't think. I'm probably 'privledged' for thinking that as well.
As I've said before... the sun is setting on the American Empire and a lot of US citizens are going to be in for quite a shock that they aren't so "exceptional" anymore. The scary thing is that the majority, including "progressives" will fight tooth and nail to preserve it... even when what they are preserving causes harm to themselves and so many around the world.
I understand your confusion now, James, since you reminded me of that exchange again. The idea that somehow this is a question of privilege is baffling, since Booman also shares the same privilege - that of being an American. Although, perhaps one privilege you have over him is that fact that you allow your conscience to integrate criticism more readily than perhaps he is willing or able to (?) Everyone actually has that privilege. Some just choose not to use it.
There was some really strange stuff going on there about identity. It doesn't surprise me that they had the same difficulty in comparing speech about Americans to speech about inhabitants of other countries. They inhabit the centre; foreigners the periphery ,so I think it does become an apples and oranges thing. And there's a twisted sense in which they're right that it is apples and oranges, at least inasmuch as I don't think there is as much of the self-reverential nationalism/patriotism in other places -- at least not in the places I've been. With the exception of the BNP and the Tories, I don't think many people over here in the U.K. identify with nation in the same way that many U.S. people do. Though I strongly suspect -- hell, I know --that at least until the 1950s a great many did. Hmm. Which is a long-winded way of saying that I wonder whether this kind of identification is a function of where one positions oneself (and obviously where one has the option of positioning oneself, because it's not all about choice) vis a vis empire?
In terms of the privilege thing: I wondered whether part of what he was getting at was that if one was not privileged, one would not be able to reflect: one would have no alternative but to respond viscerally, from the gut, with outrage. In other words, the mere act of reflection is itself the evidence of privilege, which introduces a certain tautological stench to the proceedings.
(Though she says, recalling a memory of rare happiness, tautology doesn't always stink. ;) Nevertheless for the most part however, I do think it preferable and more productive to try and think with one's head instead of one's lower intestine, but that's just me and I shall resolutely and virtuously -- please note the virtue! -- step away from the obvious scatological analogies)
I think blueneck's diary about glocal exceptionalism is a great piece although, being a Buddhist who has taught herself to see things in rather simple terms, I think singing "We are the world" might have sufficed. :)
But, for those who have not been able to break through their own attachments to outside identities such as country, race, religion etc, I think he approached the subject from a fresh and new perspective. Hopefully, it will cause some to think about why their loyalties lie where they do and what the affects of those loyalties are on a larger scale.
In terms of the privilege thing: I wondered whether part of what he was getting at was that if one was not privileged, one would not be able to reflect: one would have no alternative but to respond viscerally, from the gut, with outrage.
Doesn't it then follow that those who share the same privilege, such as Booman, ought not be having visceral reactions (because, imho, that's exactly what he's been having)? Or have I misunderstood your point?
We may be at slight cross-meanings, though not necessarily cross-purposes. I was meaning that I thought Booman was taking 'not having a visceral reaction' as evidence of a kind of privilege that meant the views of those holding that privilege could be discounted legitimately -- hence the tautological stench, inasmuch as the non-visceral reaction is by definition privileged and illegimate on that account. But that could be my misreading -- but no, I don't think he considers himself to have that privilege and the evidence that he doesn't is, not surprisingly, his visceral reactions, which are the proof that he doesn't have that privilege and therefore qualifies him to speak.
It makes no sense, but neither does that position, so . . .
I see...I think. ;)
;)
Yep. The convolution is a sophisticated literary device designed to reflect the revolving nature of that argument. Well that's my line anyway, and I'm sticking to it.
The funny thing to me was that I understand the capacity to reflect on social information in the process of forming a perception as universal - all of us can and do use that capacity, given of course sufficient time and assuming we don't have a gazillion things on our minds at the time. That capacity is not limited to humanity's blue-bloods. Equally amusing to me is the fact that in a blogging environment, some sort of reflection is required to have any sort of dialogue - to limit oneself to visceral reactions seemed very self-defeating. I suppose it all depends on what kind of blog one wants. Maybe he wants a blogging environment that consists of "you're an asshole" "f*** off" "gbcw" etc. God, that would get boring in a hurry. So it goes.
I also found Booman's tendency to conflate national identity with racial and ethnic identities to be a bit odd. I know some tried to point out the distinctions to him, but that fell on deaf ears.
I guess if his take-home message was "dumb it down or dummy up" all I can say is that I don't play dat!
:) dove. I'm just very tired today so my brain cells are a bit slow, but I think I get what you're saying.
Nanette,
I just read your diary at BT.
You....are an amazing writer and expresser of what is...I'm a little speechless.
Thank you
I deleted it from BT when I bailed from there the first time a couple of weeks ago. It's still at MLW though. You need a link?
It's here.
I'd asked Boo to delete the rest, but he declined....
I'm short of brain cells myself tonight (that's why I was valiantly sticking to that line ;) )
I think you're right Nanette, that some of those visceral responses weren't necessarily terribly visceral: I think the section James links to probably is an atttempt to claim that visceral response though (or claim that that's the response which one should have).
And second supersoling on the Sanctuary diary
Monsieur,
Your post reminded me about the SYFPH months at dkos once Kerry was nominated when the 11th commandment was 'Thou shalt not utter one unkind word about the candidate'. That lack of willingness to criticize and the stronger willingness by some to actually toe that line in lockstep applies in many situations once someone or something (ie. one's country) becomes a symbol for one's deepest longings - even when that symbol cannot guarantee the personal security that might come with what one defines as 'success'.
There's definitely something to be said for not living for one's desires and actually facing each moment's reality. But, we are human, after all. When you pin your hopes and dreams on something you can't control (such as the symbol of 'country' that is affected by so many realities on a daily basis) or you hold on to some conceived notion of glory days past that you only know through sanitized history books and you cling to that as if it defines who you are, there can't be any personal satisfaction on a long-term basis.
It's looking outward for what must be found within.
I dunno, is it still meta if you all get this philosophical? ;)
I dunno, is it still meta if you all get this philosophical? ;)
META about Mo Betta Meta meta to make it Mo Betta :)
What's your vision, spidey?
Post a Comment