When I first read this, I was confused and quite sure I must have missunderstood something. (That could easily be the case, as I'm not a native speaker. I excuse myself for mistakes and weird turns of phrases in the following text. It's quite late already...)
I'm currently in no fandom, and I never was part of an international fandom - I was not sure what "privilege" meant in this context. (And I'm still not sure - I felt like it was meant to say that people in "privileged positions" weren't allowed to openly speak their mind because of who they are.)
I don't even want to adress the issues here (homophobia etc.), because I think the rules of the discussion are unfair.
A discussion is, at least in my opinion, an open competition of ideas - in which the best arguments should win. Of course there are different ways to figure out which argument is the best.
We're in a discussion on a social issue. What's right or wrong lies in our perception of reality. The same thing can be right and wrong at the same time, for different people in different contexts. All we can do is discuss. Communicate. If I have another perception of reality than you and we must assume that both of them are true, we can only exchange our points of view and try to understand each other. We can, of course, try to convince others - as in this kind of discussion, the "winner", ideally, is the argument that can convince more people. (That's the idea behind democracy.) Everyone is free to try and convince as many people as possible.
But, and that's the important part for me here - it is, ideally, still - a competition of arguments and ideas, not a fight of one person against another. It doesn't matter who presents an argument. An argument is not more or less valid depending on who makes it. That was feudalism. In democracy, every voice a priori has the same worth. There's no "automatically better". That's at the very core of democracy.
Now, of course these are ideal condition and I'm aware of the difficulties of minorities. In institutionalised politics, there are ways to overcome these difficulties. Minorities can get more time to speak, we can create qualified majorities in order to include them, we can introduce quotas make sure they're adequately represented, we can make specific laws to protect them from discrimination. But this never, and I repeat NEVER means that "the argument of a minority is automatically more valid". Everyone, privileged, unprivileged, of any size and shape, has the same right to express his or her point of view.
I have no problem if someone tells me "from my perspective, it looks like this" or "I have made the experience, that x often is like this" - it allows me to add my perspective and reply based on my experiences. Ideally, I can develop greater empathy for others and their position. My own picture of reality can get richer, more nuanced - but also more complex. It's a way of self-reflection that's, in my opinion, crucial in our interconnected, highly complex modern world.
I have to be prepared that what looks totally obvious looking from the top of a mountain looks quite different when seen from a valley. Both perspectives are true. Both are "right". It's simply impossible to see the whole picture at once.
We can't re-evaluate our own stereotypes and prejudice (each and everyone has a set of these, me too), if we automatically reject the point of view of someone; even more so because of some random characteristics. It's hard, but generally possible, to try and understand how someone came to a specific conclusion - even if the reasoning feels strange from another point of view or others in the same situation reached another conclusion. It doesn't even mean that you have to agree to or approve of the opinion!
That's why I'm so confused by this "privilege" discussion. It's like introducing an autoritarian argument into an otherwise democratic discussion. I might be insanely optimistic - but I have faith in our human capacities to communicate and to empathize. I might not be able to see the world as you see it, but I can try to listen, to imagine myself in that position.
Please, don't sabotage it, by attacking the person instead of the argument!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-07-17 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm currently in no fandom, and I never was part of an international fandom - I was not sure what "privilege" meant in this context. (And I'm still not sure - I felt like it was meant to say that people in "privileged positions" weren't allowed to openly speak their mind because of who they are.)
I don't even want to adress the issues here (homophobia etc.), because I think the rules of the discussion are unfair.
A discussion is, at least in my opinion, an open competition of ideas - in which the best arguments should win. Of course there are different ways to figure out which argument is the best.
We're in a discussion on a social issue. What's right or wrong lies in our perception of reality. The same thing can be right and wrong at the same time, for different people in different contexts. All we can do is discuss. Communicate. If I have another perception of reality than you and we must assume that both of them are true, we can only exchange our points of view and try to understand each other. We can, of course, try to convince others - as in this kind of discussion, the "winner", ideally, is the argument that can convince more people. (That's the idea behind democracy.) Everyone is free to try and convince as many people as possible.
But, and that's the important part for me here - it is, ideally, still - a competition of arguments and ideas, not a fight of one person against another. It doesn't matter who presents an argument. An argument is not more or less valid depending on who makes it. That was feudalism. In democracy, every voice a priori has the same worth. There's no "automatically better". That's at the very core of democracy.
Now, of course these are ideal condition and I'm aware of the difficulties of minorities. In institutionalised politics, there are ways to overcome these difficulties. Minorities can get more time to speak, we can create qualified majorities in order to include them, we can introduce quotas make sure they're adequately represented, we can make specific laws to protect them from discrimination. But this never, and I repeat NEVER means that "the argument of a minority is automatically more valid". Everyone, privileged, unprivileged, of any size and shape, has the same right to express his or her point of view.
I have no problem if someone tells me "from my perspective, it looks like this" or "I have made the experience, that x often is like this" - it allows me to add my perspective and reply based on my experiences. Ideally, I can develop greater empathy for others and their position. My own picture of reality can get richer, more nuanced - but also more complex. It's a way of self-reflection that's, in my opinion, crucial in our interconnected, highly complex modern world.
I have to be prepared that what looks totally obvious looking from the top of a mountain looks quite different when seen from a valley. Both perspectives are true. Both are "right". It's simply impossible to see the whole picture at once.
We can't re-evaluate our own stereotypes and prejudice (each and everyone has a set of these, me too), if we automatically reject the point of view of someone; even more so because of some random characteristics. It's hard, but generally possible, to try and understand how someone came to a specific conclusion - even if the reasoning feels strange from another point of view or others in the same situation reached another conclusion. It doesn't even mean that you have to agree to or approve of the opinion!
That's why I'm so confused by this "privilege" discussion. It's like introducing an autoritarian argument into an otherwise democratic discussion. I might be insanely optimistic - but I have faith in our human capacities to communicate and to empathize. I might not be able to see the world as you see it, but I can try to listen, to imagine myself in that position.
Please, don't sabotage it, by attacking the person instead of the argument!