In the Q&A period at the end of the Jordan Peterson talk I recently attended, Peterson addressed the issue of privilege. He agreed that there is such a thing. I do too, but he didn’t take F. A. Hayek’s and my approach, which is that privilege occurs when government, including the legal system, gives someone special treatment.
But enough about my view. I want to talk about Peterson’s. He agrees with the left-wing, and increasingly mainstream, view that privilege has to do with wealth, upbringing, etc. Peterson stated that if someone accuses you of being privileged, you can agree with the point but then point out what you’re doing with the privilege: helping people, being productive (which also helps people), etc. But then it’s on you to go the extra mile—help people, etc.
Let’s say that I agree with Peterson’s view of what privilege is. I don’t, but I want to see where it leads.
Most of the time I’ve seen people being accused of privilege, it’s in response to a policy position that they take. Here the answer should not be the one Peterson gives—look at the good I’m doing with it. The answer, typically, should be that the charge is irrelevant.
So, imagine that I’m arguing against the minimum wage. I point out that the minimum wage prices a lot of unskilled workers out of the labor force, and I note that this disproportionately harms young black people.
In response, the person I’m talking to says that he or she (from now on, I’ll use “he”) shouldn’t pay attention to what I’m saying because I’m privileged. He might also say that I wouldn’t know what it’s like to work at a minimum wage job because I’ve never done so. (Actually, I did, during the summer of 1972.) But let’s say he doesn’t make that faux pas and simply dismisses my argument based on privilege.
What should be my response? It should be that my privilege or lack of privilege is irrelevant to the issue. Let’s say I’m a billionaire. Does that in any way affect the elasticity of demand for unskilled labor or any other aspect of potential jobs for unskilled laborers? No. Therefore it doesn’t affect the results of the minimum wage. Or take the extreme: I can’t have privilege if I don’t exist. So, imagine I didn’t exist. Would the elasticity of demand for labor he higher or lower? Neither.
The accuser has simply made a category error. Privilege does not matter for the argument I’m making about the minimum wage.
In the next few days, I’ll say more about what I think privilege is and I’ll talk about the main way that I, and most readers of this blog, are privileged.
Thanks to Charley Hooper for helpful discussion.
READER COMMENTS
Bill
May 20 2022 at 5:27pm
Re your “He might also say that I wouldn’t know what it’s like to work at a minimum wage job because I’ve never done so,” I’m reminded of a Milton Friedman response to an audience member who claimed Friedman had no credibility to talk about issues faced by the poor, since he (Friedman ) had never been poor (which wasn’t true, as Friedman pointed out at the end of his response.) Professor Friedman asked the questioner if he would only allow a doctor to treat him for cancer if that doctor had personally been struck with cancer.
David Henderson
May 20 2022 at 7:25pm
Great answer! That’s our Uncle Milty. Thanks for the story.
Bill
May 20 2022 at 7:46pm
Start at about 6:45
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/video-of-the-day-milton-friedman-highlights/
Phil H
May 21 2022 at 12:20am
Yes, the claim that someone is only saying X because of their privilege is a claim that X is wrong, or that the person isn’t arguing for X successfully.
It can be a criticism of the arguments: because person P is too privileged (in general or in some specific way), P lacks specific and necessary knowledge about what life is like for those who are not privileged, and as a result of that ignorance, P is making poor arguments. So that might be, not understanding how difficult life is for people without a lot of money or skills (a Tory minister recently advised people struggling with the high cost of living following high inflation to get a better job – this argument seems to reflect ignorance of the fact that it is difficult to obtain a job with a higher salary); or not understanding how difficult life is for women, or non-white people, or queer people.
Privilege can also be a heuristic: if P is in fact privileged, like a straight white male in a developed country, then it is highly unlikely that P has many of the experiences that other people have, such as being discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, nationality, or sexual orientation. Without such experience, P is unlikely to have useful insights into the problems of people who have suffered discrimination, so it saves some time to not bother listening to P on these subjects.
In either case, DH is right that you can defeat a claim of privilege by demonstrating that your arguments are in fact good; and you can defeat the heuristic use by providing some evidence that you have relevant experiences (like his minimum wage job).
Sorry, that was a bit of a big long-winded way of saying I agree!
Jon Murphy
May 21 2022 at 1:19am
Be careful here, as you seem to have missed the key message. You write:
That gets the argument backward. David’s point is not that privilege can be defeated by good arguments. The point is privilege is no claim at all! Privilege is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. Even in the examples you use, privilege is irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
JFA
May 21 2022 at 7:50am
Yeah… I think Jon has it right. This focus on privilege is privileging (irony intended) rhetorical devices rather than valid and sound argumentation. It also leads to people competing for oppression points (since if you are not privileged, you are oppressed, which (to some) makes ones argument more true). Yet, there are so many ways in which people differ and might be seen to have “privileges” in life. Indeed, a black trans person who lives in the US today is certainly privileged (using Peterson’s definition) relative to at least half the world’s population. And should we ever measure privilege relative to the past? As a sociological concept, privilege is pretty muddled (at the very least) and should be done away with as a rhetorical rebuttal.
Jon Murphy
May 21 2022 at 8:37am
Another point to add, JFA, is that “privilege” as a rhetorical argument is quite arbitrary. To say that the wealthy person’s “privileged” status refutes (or reduces) their argument also implies that the poor person is “privileged” as they have access to privileged information/experiences. Prima facie, it’s not clear why one sort of privilege invalidates one’s argument and another sort validates.
Zeke5123
May 22 2022 at 7:54am
If the whole point of privilege is that individuals only have their subjrcrive experiences and therefore it colors their understand of the other, I guess I agree.
But of course that is same for the other too (eg you say straight white men often don’t appreciate the challenges faced by women because straight white men are not women but the reverse is also true — women often don’t appreciate the challenges faced by straight white men because women don’t have straight white men experience). Your privilege argument starts out with (1) the assumption we can objectively determine which group is “privileged” but then (2) moves to the subjective (ie can’t understand the other so don’t criticize or offer solutions etc). That seems inconsistent.
Peter Gerdes
May 21 2022 at 5:44am
I agree with your point that privlege should be irrelevant to evaluating an argument. Indeed, it shouldn’t matter if the argument was made by a person or spit out by monkeys with typewriters.
But, I don’t understand this business about agreeing or disagreeing about what counts as privilege. I mean, no one doubts some people grow up with more money or access to education than others so if people want to use the word privilege to refer to that property I don’t see how it’s a thing one can disagree with. I suspect the real difference is over what kind of implications or attitudes that fact should entail.
JFA
May 21 2022 at 7:57am
It’s not just about wealth. It also mixes in gender, race, sexuality, mental and physical ability, looks, body type, immigration status (you see how convoluted it can get) and what “society” deems as “better” (with most of the emphasis on race). That’s why a significant number of people who use this concept would consider a working class straight white man as having more privilege than a black tenured professor.
Zeke5123
May 22 2022 at 7:58am
But even that strikes me as incomplete. Imagine a wealthy dysfunctional family (eg being a child Kardashian). Is that a privilege upbringing? You get a lot of wealth, sure. But is it an environment the fosters Eudaimonia? Could a pecuniarily poorer upbringing still be better? I think yes.
JFA
May 22 2022 at 2:10pm
Indeed.
Jose Pablo
May 21 2022 at 2:46pm
I agree in principle that using “privilege” to disregard your argument is textbook example of ad hominem fallacy, but I do have problems with the particular example you picked to illustrate your case:
The demand for labor seems to be infinitely inelastic if you look at Card and Krueger (1995) Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage”
and it seems to be infinitely elastic if you look at Card (1990) “The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market”
So, since you have very good arguments to adopt any position regarding the “elasticity of the demand for labor”, the position you actually adopt among so many rational ones at your disposition, depends mainly on the strength of your prior which are, very likely, related with the fact of you being “privileged”
David Henderson
May 21 2022 at 2:54pm
You’ve got me curious.
If I am privileged in that sense, then, according to you, which elasticity do I choose? And why?
Jose Pablo
May 21 2022 at 3:14pm
Any one you choose would be based on your personal “a priori” (since the empirical evidence seems to be all over the place).
Your “a priori” have to be, since you are human, influenced by your personal experience. A significant part of this experience would be your “privilege” (I am assuming you are privileged for the sake of the argument not in any way affirming you are. I don’t think such a thing even exists).
Following this rational it does not matter what position you adopt. In any case it would be caused by your “privilege”. And your ad hominem critic would be (accidentally) right
[The argument regarding the contradictory Cards empirical analysis on this topic is taken from Caplan’s “The Miopic Empiricism of the Minimum Wage” and “An Infinite Contradiction”]
David Henderson
May 22 2022 at 9:42am
That’s a copout.
Infovores
May 21 2022 at 4:05pm
I recently attended a Jordan Peterson lecture as well. I thought it was quite good, particularly on the topic of education:
Q: Is it important to pursue a college degree given the state of today’s society?
What do you mean by today? While I do think the university has in some sense become corrupted, it’s also the case that when I went to university many of my classes were not very good either. What I had to do was largely seek out the people I could learn from and the experience I needed to get to where I wanted to go.
Your question is too ideological. It obscures what you really need to figure out which is, what experience do you need to get where you want to go? What does [a college degree] mean to you specifically? How does it relate to your goals? What do you want to do with your life?
https://infovores.substack.com/p/partial-q-and-a-transcript-from-jordan?s=w
Andrew
May 21 2022 at 6:23pm
I think Peterson’s view of privilege isn’t really shaped at all by politics, nor by how it can be used in an argument. The fundamental thing missing is that he is a psychiatrist rather than a politician or economist. He focuses on framing concepts in ways that can help people in their every day lives, not in political theorizing nor in winning arguments. His view of privilege, when looked at from this angle, makes much more sense. You should be grateful for what you have (even if it is unearned) and you should let this motivate you to be more responsible (earning it).
Infovores
May 22 2022 at 8:23pm
This exactly, well said.
Monte
May 22 2022 at 8:51pm
I think this discussion is better informed by distinguishing between the different types of privilege. Peterson, I believe, is referring more to micro (individual) and mezzo (group) types of privilege, where the Henderson/Hayek view is more macro type (government). Lower levels of privilege are generally earned or inherited. Macro levels, OTOH, are bestowed by government and have extraordinarily destructive consequences (deadweight losses from anti-competitive practices, Leibenstein’s x-ineffeciencies, rent-seeking, loss of innovation, cronyism, etc.). In either case, we can define privilege in terms of wealth, opportunity, or preference.
Monte
May 23 2022 at 10:58am
I think it’s important to distinguish between the different types of privilege here. Peterson, I believe, is speaking more to micro- and mezzo-levels of privilege (individual and group), where the Henderson/Hayekian view is more macro-level (government). Lower levels of privilege are generally earned or inherited, providing wealth and opportunity. Macro levels, OTOH, are bestowed by government and are much more destructive (deadweight losses from anti-competitive practices, Leibenstein’s x-ineffeciencies, rent-seeking, loss of innovation, cronyism, etc.) in terms of giving preference.
Mark Brady
May 23 2022 at 1:40pm
In discussions like this, my first port of call is to consult the Oxford English Dictionary.
2. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by an individual, corporation of individuals, etc., beyond the usual rights or advantages of others; spec. (a) an exemption from a normal duty, liability, etc.; (b) enjoyment of some benefit (as wealth, education, standard of living, etc.) above the average or that deemed usual or necessary for a particular group (in plural sometimes contrasted with rights).
Hayek is talking about privilege in the first sense, but it is also correct to use the word in the second sense.
Here is a related use of the word privilege that has both literal and figurative uses.
2. b. The special licence, prerogative, or immunity attaching to a specified office or rank. Also figurative and in extended use.
The OED cites the philosopher David Hume using the word in its figurative use.
1740 D. Hume Treat. Human Nature App. 305 “I must plead the privilege of a sceptic, and confess, that this difficulty is too hard for my understanding.”
I contend that Jordan Peterson is using the word privilege as it has been used for hundreds of years.
Ian Fillmore
May 31 2022 at 2:30pm
I think this phenomenon of dismissing arguments on the basis of a person’s “privilege” is a classic example of Bulverism.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bulverism
Comments are closed.