Privilege is a topic I have great difficulty with. In many
cases I can see the arguments of both sides and I can’t quite find a practical
way forward. By practical, I mean something that I can put into practice in my
life and in my action. The questions I ask in this blog are not rhetorical. I
want answers to them so if you have more of an opinion let me know. I am one of
the more privileged people out there, and that puts me in a difficult position
when talking about this stuff. But that is part of the point I want to address,
so let me have at it and if my privilege is blinding me then let me know.
What matters: who we are or what we say?
This isn’t an example of me being discriminated against but it got me thinking. A few years ago I went with my family to a taping of Any Questions and I submitted a question. My question was chosen as one of 9 potential questions that could have been asked on the show but it was not picked. Instead, all of the selected questions were from people who appeared to be over the age of 50 (as did most of the audience apart from me).
This isn’t an example of me being discriminated against but it got me thinking. A few years ago I went with my family to a taping of Any Questions and I submitted a question. My question was chosen as one of 9 potential questions that could have been asked on the show but it was not picked. Instead, all of the selected questions were from people who appeared to be over the age of 50 (as did most of the audience apart from me).
After the show my mother complained to the producer that my
question should have been selected to improve the representativeness of the
show and of Radio 4 generally. I disagreed with my mother: I thought that if my
question should be selected it should be because of the merit of my question rather
than who I was. Representation only mattered if I was going to say something
different to anyone else (my question was a politicsy question that any age
group could have written).
Was I right? I’m not sure. Partly representation matters to
show that the group doesn’t just care about its own issues. My question could
have shown that young people are just as much politics nerds as old people.
Declaring privilege
But youth is one of the less difficult areas as stigma associated with it is minor and it can’t be hidden. A far more complicated area is mental health. Personally I’ve had relatively good mental health and so am speaking here from a position of privilege. Elsewhere a brilliant blog post by Glosswitch was written on the subject of mental health and privilege (but it’s sadly now been deleted). The writer raises their personal dislike of declaring privilege, or lack of it, because they do not wish to be defined by their issues and their past. I completely agree that no one should be forced to declare their own history in order to make a more meaningful contribution to a debate. But by explaining my own privilege am I inadvertently outing others by their absence of such a declaration (especially in certain areas of debate where this kind of declaration is expected)? Should I therefore stop?
But youth is one of the less difficult areas as stigma associated with it is minor and it can’t be hidden. A far more complicated area is mental health. Personally I’ve had relatively good mental health and so am speaking here from a position of privilege. Elsewhere a brilliant blog post by Glosswitch was written on the subject of mental health and privilege (but it’s sadly now been deleted). The writer raises their personal dislike of declaring privilege, or lack of it, because they do not wish to be defined by their issues and their past. I completely agree that no one should be forced to declare their own history in order to make a more meaningful contribution to a debate. But by explaining my own privilege am I inadvertently outing others by their absence of such a declaration (especially in certain areas of debate where this kind of declaration is expected)? Should I therefore stop?
Nothing about us without us
In campaigning circles it is generally agreed that campaigns should include in a meaningful way those who the campaign concerns. From what I’ve seen, the reality of making this work is rather difficult. Unless the group or organisation already contains someone from that group it can be quite expensive to do this properly. For this reason I’ve seen groups not challenge an apparent injustice because they have no representation in that area and don’t feel they therefore have the capacity to speak about it. This troubles me, as an ideal we should include but surely we should do our best if we can’t?
In campaigning circles it is generally agreed that campaigns should include in a meaningful way those who the campaign concerns. From what I’ve seen, the reality of making this work is rather difficult. Unless the group or organisation already contains someone from that group it can be quite expensive to do this properly. For this reason I’ve seen groups not challenge an apparent injustice because they have no representation in that area and don’t feel they therefore have the capacity to speak about it. This troubles me, as an ideal we should include but surely we should do our best if we can’t?
A cheap and convenient way of doing this can be including
already existing qualitative research into a campaign so that the people from
that group’s voices are included but I’m not sure this sufficient. Is picking
and choosing a small portion of a group’s thoughts enough to count as
representing them? There are very few good examples that I’ve seen of a group
effectively campaigning whilst also being good at including. It often seems to
be the case that by putting more resources towards one a group becomes worse at
the other. Some of the most effective campaigns are the least inclusive.
Are you better at representing us by being like us?
To what extent parliament or politics in general is representative is seen as a very important issue. Polls in parliament have indicated that politicians are representative of the general population in terms of mental health. Possibly partly due to its hidden nature, many people have been elected who either have had mental health issues in the past or currently do so. However the number who speak up for mental health services is far lower. Are politicians with a history of good mental health but who campaign for better mental health services better representing their constituents with mental health issues? It seems that both are important.
To what extent parliament or politics in general is representative is seen as a very important issue. Polls in parliament have indicated that politicians are representative of the general population in terms of mental health. Possibly partly due to its hidden nature, many people have been elected who either have had mental health issues in the past or currently do so. However the number who speak up for mental health services is far lower. Are politicians with a history of good mental health but who campaign for better mental health services better representing their constituents with mental health issues? It seems that both are important.
Bill Clinton has been called the first black president but that did not diminish the importance of
Barack Obama’s election. But what if you have to choose between the two? If
someone who represents a group runs against someone who campaigns for that
group’s interest? What if Colin Powell had run against Hillary Clinton in 2008?
There is a hidden worry under this: what if you can only
fight an issue if you understand it, and can only truly understand it if you
have experienced it? But this is counter balanced by another problem: being
from that group might blind you to that group’s experience. Thatcher partly
thought that feminism was no longer needed because she was PM - and if she as a
woman could do it, then there couldn’t have been much of a problem.
As might be obvious from what I’ve written, I tend to think
that the issue matters more than person. However, I am worried that in thinking
this I’m blinded to parts of these issues by my own privilege. Like I said
above I’m not happy with any of my answers and I consider these questions still
very open and unanswered. I don’t however think they are unanswerable, so I’d
like to discuss them some more.
