I rarely find time to listen to podcasts that are longer than 10 minutes. But I found the following description intriguing:
Pointing to a recent Twitter thread from a progressive detailing his white male cisness, Bob shows how narrow the focus is on only particular “privileges” and not others. More generally, the effort to demonize white men is causing young people great harm, whether white or otherwise. The movement is based on power politics and relies on economic ignorance.
Bob Murphy is a friend but that’s not typically enough to get me listening. In this case I was glad I did.
The podcast is titled “Identity Politics Is Hurting Young People–Of all Colors,” July 9, 2020.
If you’re in a hurry, start at about 1:30 and go to about 15:00. You’ll get his most important message. But also I thought that the material in the last 5 or 6 minutes, where he discusses the U.S. women’s soccer team, was very good also.
UPDATE:
Once the diversity trainers have established this basic conceptual framework, they encourage white employees to “practice self-talk that affirms [their] complicity in racism” and work on “undoing [their] own whiteness.” As part of this process, white employees must abandon their “white normative behavior” and learn to let go of their “comfort,” “physical safety,” “social status,” and “relationships with some other white people.” As writer James Lindsay has pointed out, this is not the language of human resources; it is the language of cult programming—persuading members they are defective in some predefined manner, exploiting their emotional vulnerabilities, and isolating them from previous relationships.
This is from Christopher F. Rufo, “Cult Programming in Seattle,” City Journal, July 8. It supports Murphy’s claim that it isn’t just about privilege and advantage but is also about guilt. That relates to the discussion in the comments below between Mark Z and me.
READER COMMENTS
Joseph Sternum
Jul 10 2020 at 9:28pm
Emphasis on certain group dynamics over others in political discussions has to do with the amount of resentment these groups feel for each other, and the degree to which they are central to peoples’ identities. Not “importance” in any sense. People don’t focus on class or age groups in 2020 because people don’t identify as strongly with class or age groups as they do their race or gender.
Mark Z
Jul 10 2020 at 11:27pm
I think one response to this is that ‘privilege’ and ‘guilt’ aren’t the same thing. Acknowledging privilege doesn’t amount to conceding that one has done anything wrong and deserves to be punished. Now, discussions of racial/gender privilege often do explicitly or implicitly impute guilt (sometimes phrased as “responsibility”, which I would say usually implies guilt) to the ostensibly privileged party, but conceptually at least, privilege doesn’t necessarily imply guilt. I agree with Murphy’s commentary, but it may be orthogonal to the theoretical argument of the twitter threat he discussed.
I think the greater weakness of such claims is that they are largely dependent on personal anecdotes or conventional wisdom, not actual evidence. For example, one of my privileges as a male, supposedly, is that people don’t expect and tell me to smile… except, people (especially women, ironically) often do ask/tell me to smile. It’s quite common. I’m not sure how it became accepted that this is something that only happens to women. Maybe I’m just a particularly dour person. I’m also pretty sure it’s just a way of saying ‘cheer up’ rather than anything sexist. Going through any ‘privilege checklist,’ it’s easy to find items that in my experience have not applied to me that are supposed to. Much of it seems extrapolated from personal experiences plus confirmation bias rather than data. Some putative privileges may be difficult to test experimentally, but the absence of good data doesn’t justify extrapolation from bad data (like selections of anecdotes).
David Henderson
Jul 11 2020 at 9:31am
You wrote:
Good point. I noticed that jump too. But then you got where I got when you wrote:
That’s why I didn’t highlight the jump. But you’re right to point it out.
Rob Weir
Jul 11 2020 at 6:46pm
I think the immediate problem is that the word “privilege” is a loaded term. Historically, there were the things that were seen as widely-held rights. That was normal. Then there were those who had a detriment, who got less than a full dose of what everyone else got, say convicted felons deprived of the right to vote. And then there were those who got an extra portion compared to everyone else, say the privileges of titled nobility in 18th century France.
A key part of the American Revolution was eliminating privileges. We created a large swath of “normal” with substantial rights that applied by default. Yes, there were those who had a detriment, and those groups were many, at least initially, slaves, women, Catholics, etc. But our view of history was that we worked to bring all groups up to the base level of normal, in terms of de jure rights.
I think then it is intentionally provocative to reframe this view of society, one that I’d assert has been commonly understood since at least 1776, and collapse it into only two categories: those with privilege and those without. It becomes then a zero-sum game, rather than a project of ensuring our original understanding of rights is consistently respected. This reframing is more propagandistic than rational. It also is an example of a “persuasive definition” (a.k.a. a definition fallacy), used to bring along the emotional attachments of one definition of a word and apply it to an entirely difference meaning.
David Henderson
Jul 11 2020 at 7:51pm
Rob,
You put this so well. Thank you.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 11 2020 at 10:57pm
I don’t see any essential difference between saying that groups A,B, and C suffer certain disadvantages and to say that group D is “privileged” but it may help motivate the D to try to remove the disadvantages of ABC people more than “disadvantaged.”
.”
zeke5123
Jul 13 2020 at 10:36am
Because frame matters.
Saying A, B, and C are disadvantaged suggests the solution is to remove the disadvantage. It sees D as the norm.
Saying D is privileged vis-à-vis A, B, and C suggests the solution is to remove the privilege. It sees A, B, and C as the norm.
The first frame is building; the second frame is razing.
KevinDC
Jul 12 2020 at 4:08pm
This is also my experience. Throughout my life I’ve been told I “need to smile more” all the time. And even when I am smiling, I still get told I still need to smile “for real” because apparently the way I actually smile isn’t good enough. (Looks too much like a smirk, or something.) I didn’t even realize until fairly recently that this was considered to be something women in particular are unusually subjected to. When I heard that, out of curiosity, I asked my guy friends if they also get told they don’t smile enough or should smile more. And all but one of them said the exact same thing – they all hear it all the time as well. The one exception is a friend who is just a really cheery person and is always grinning all the time anyway.
Another privilege I’m told I have, as a white person, is that I don’t get asked questions like “where are you originally from?” Except, well, I’ve been asked that question thousands of times. As mentioned, I’m lily white (unless exposed to direct sunlight longer than four minutes, in which case I’m bright red), but I’ve had some version of this conversation my entire life:
Them: “Where are you from?”
Me: “I grew up in Washington.”
Them: “No, I mean, where is your family from?”
Me: “My Mom was from California and my Dad was from Texas.”
Them, getting annoyed: “No, I mean what’s your nationality?”
Me: “I’m American.”
Them, highly exasperated: “No I’m asking where your family was from before they came to America.”
This has been an extremely common conversation for me, since elementary school through the present day. And it’s hardly surprising. It’s a well worn line about how America is a nation of immigrants, and every schoolchild learns about how families have come to America from every corner of the world to become Americans. And that, for better or worse, is a major part of the current American psyche. The people I was in conversation with thought it was terribly interesting to know that I’m “Irish American,” but you don’t hear a lot of people north of the border making sure people know they’re “Italian Canadian” or whatever.
Apparently, this question is perceived differently when you ask someone who isn’t white. When you ask someone who looks like me, it’s taken as an interest in someone’s family history, but if you ask someone who isn’t white, it’s said to convey a sense of suspicion, like a way of saying “You obviously don’t belong here. Where are you really from?” I’ve managed to avoid offending people in this particular way, luckily, because it’s a question I never ask. I find the fascination with national backgrounds boring at best and irritating at worst, so I tended to avoid the topic.
Vivian Darkbloom
Jul 11 2020 at 3:04am
I suggest that you tell those persons that you are smiling inside.
Mark Z
Jul 11 2020 at 4:07am
I usually give a brief awkward forced smile, then they tell me on second thought maybe I should stick to frowning (not really, but I’d get a laugh out of it if they did say that).
john hare
Jul 11 2020 at 4:47am
I am careful about people with that type advice. Asking for a smile regardless is basically demanding a fake expression at some level. An honest smile is great, but a fake one is often a lie.
john hare
Jul 11 2020 at 4:55am
I do have one privilege/advantage over a woman or minority in business. If I get screwed over by someone that is unscrupulous, I know it is because that person is a crook. As an older white male, I normally don’t have to wonder if it is because of race or gender. Someone that doesn’t have that advantage is more likely to give up in the face of real or perceived discrimination. That I have been in business for decades without becoming wealthy can be attributed to the face in the mirror, and knowing that is an advantage as I know where to look for the cure.
David Henderson
Jul 11 2020 at 9:33am
You wrote:
I don’t follow. Can you explain?
john hare
Jul 11 2020 at 2:55pm
I haven’t exactly failed, but I am a long way from where I thought I would be by now. I have only myself to blame for any shortfalls. I have a reasonable chance of addressing my shortcomings and blind spots because I know they are mine. I wouldn’t be able to do that if I thought the system was “out to get me”.
TMC
Jul 11 2020 at 10:57am
A different spin on this is that you don’t blame racism for your troubles, where some people do even though there is no racism involved. The racism excuse is invoked many more times than actual racism is involved. It gives the person an ‘out’ as to why they failed. An outside source of failure is more palatable. I have tenants who over the last 20 years have told me they lost their jobs due to some kind of discrimination or another. I usually remind them that maybe it’s that they don’t often show up for work.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 11 2020 at 12:35pm
Identity politics is an odd concept. Why should (even “too much”) awareness of one’s racial, religious, gender, or ethnic identity lead to any particular policy position regarding carbon taxation, trade restrictions, structural deficits, immigration, reform of policing, financing of health insurance, or the degree of progressivity of income/consumption taxation?
SaveyourSelf
Jul 11 2020 at 12:38pm
Love it. Great sentiment. Full of real humility and abundant arrogance at the same time. The contrast is delightful. Reminds me of Socrates.
Tyler Wells
Jul 11 2020 at 10:29pm
I think John Hare has an excellent point. Imagine anytime that someone is rude to you thinking that it might be because your race. Anytime you don’t get the job or the contract you know that there is a chance that it is because your race. Mind you, it could also be for all the normal reasons people are rude or don’t get jobs and not due to race at all, but there would always be a doubt.
I think that there is an even more important advantage/priviledge that John has over an African American (black) person who is similary trying to be succesful in this world, he doesn’t have to deal with the racism from within his own race. An African American trying to “make it” as a business owner, or in economics as is the case of the young man Bob was talking about, might very likely face pressure from their own community to not be an “oreo” (black outside, white inside) and be urged to “keep it real.” Couple that with negative messages from popular culture, 15 minutes of listening to the lyrics of the most popular rap songs will make you think that Ozzy Osbourne wasn’t that antisocial after all, and the pressure to conform heaps on. Finally, if you don’t make it, your friends will always be happy to tell you that it is because of “the system” or “the man.”
My sister is African-American and was adopted and raised in a white family. The real culture shock came for her when we went to middle school and were bused to the inner-city so that she could be around other African-americans. My sister is brilliant and, in the end, she became a master at switching her speach and dress to meet the occasion, to sound “black” when required or “white” when it benefited her. However, it was very painful, sometimes literally, for the both of us to make the adjustment.
Floccina
Jul 13 2020 at 2:13pm
I liked the podcast because it seems to me that at least 98% of USAera are poorer due to slavery. That has seemed true to me but people seem to say the opposite, that the slaves were more productive than they would have been as free men. That’s hard for me to believe.
A complication would be that slavery did increase the population and therefore the division of labor, but I would think that would have had much smaller effects than the inefficiencies of slavery AND division of labor is never mentioned in discussions about slavery.
Comments are closed.