Are the views and opinions of the disadvantaged always superior to those of the privileged?

[Silent3]

Certainly privilege can blind people to some aspects of reality, it can cloud their thinking. But does being disadvantaged only add greater clarity to one's world view, or can disadvantage also distort perception and thought?

I think it's very important that people who enjoy privileged positions in society recognize and acknowledge their privileges, that they try to take into account what they might be missing, what people who don't enjoy their privileges have to say.

When the issue of privilege is discussed here on DU, however, I think there's often an unspoken subtext that says, "If you're privileged, accept what the disadvantaged are saying is true. If you don't agree, please shut the fuck up and keep it to your privileged self. You cannot possibly be right because you haven't been there."

[sorefeet]

1. I came into this world with nothing

and I still got most of it.

[el_bryanto]

2. Obviously it can go both ways. Everybody is shaped by their life experience

Whatever that happens to be. The privileged have one set of advantages and disadvantages understanding and interpreting life; the under-privileged have another set.

That said, often times when I see the privileged asserting their point of view, it's a bit cringe worthy, particularly in areas of racial advantages or sexism. The fact that you might not realize how being white has benefited you doesn't mean that it hasn't.

Bryant

[Sheldon Cooper]

3. The privileged aren't always wrong.

The problem is when the privileged insist that the not-privileged don't know discrimination and bigotry, and only Big White Daddy can really define that. I have seen things said by other groups here that I do not necessarily agree with, but my white hetero privilege doesn't require that I challenge those ideas. To me, I try to shut up and learn.

[OceanEcosystem]

4. Agree.

I also find it troublesome when some invoke emotional argument to advocate some sort of policy or proposal on behalf of the "disadvantaged" that is not necessarily fair or logical.

[RobinA]

5. No One Group

has a monopoly on idiocy OR thinking straight. Neither group mentioned here does a very good job of understanding the other's point of view, and half the time they don't even understand their own point of view.

[Quantess]

6. For example, most white males are now in the same boat as the rest of us

economically.

The layer of previously middle class has sunk to lower-middle-class and poverty levels. There is more to unite us than there is to divide us, when you look at it that way.

[Recursion]

7. It's not that the disadvantaged are "more right", it's that they are "less heard"

The privileged are heard so exclusively that many of them take any instance of "please let somebody else talk for a minute" to mean "YOU ARE BEING SILENCED!!!!"

[LisaLynne]

9. Excellent summation. nt

[Silent3]

14. Do you think "please let somebody else talk for a minute" is really the tone...

...that most DU citations of privilege take?

[gollygee]

8. I'm not a fan of "always"

No one is always right.

The thing about privilege is that most people don't see their privilege. I've been called "elitist" a few times on DU, and I do have a lot of money, so when people say that I check what I've said and my assumptions, and I seem to at least most of the time find that they have a good point. Then I try to learn from that. While privilege is invisible when we have it, it becomes glaringly obvious when we don't have it.

If you have a group of people made up primarily of a privileged group telling a group of people made up primarily of a disadvantaged group how the disadvantaged group should feel about something, the privileged group is probably wrong. That doesn't mean every single privileged person is always wrong, or that every single disadvantaged person is always right, but that there is a trend.

It's always IMO a good idea to check yourself when someone accuses you of not seeing something due to privilege, though. Even if you evaluate what you've said and thought and don't agree, it can still be worth a good effort to see things from the disadvantaged person's side. And if you're finding disadvantaged people, or a group primarily made up of disadvantaged people, are consistently thinking you have mistaken beliefs due to privilege, there probably is something to it.

That doesn't make you a bad person, just human. Just like me needing to checked on my wealth privilege doesn't make me a bad person. The key is to be open to what people negatively affected by privilege are saying and try to learn from it.

(Please know "you" here is used generally, and not about you specifically.)

[LisaLynne]

10. Very thoughtful and spot on post.

Thank you.

[Silent3]

12. I used the exaggeration of "always" deliberately...

...because most people will see that and realize, "Well, of course, not always!"

But when you add the heat generated by a specific issue of privilege (wealth, gender, race, etc.) , rather than keeping this more abstract, I think a lot of people act as if the privileged position is always wrong.

Once an issue of privilege has been pointed out, that's rarely treated as merely helpful advice, an invitation for someone to process that input and see where it leads. Pointing out privilege is quite often treated as a trump card, the thing that ends all useful and important discussion, with anything else that follows merely being the bleatings of a privileged asshole who doesn't know when to shut the hell up and stop embarrassing him/herself.

[gollygee]

13. Well, if you look around DU anyway,

when disadvantaged groups talk about privilege, they are shot down and called names. And I'm not just talking about women. I've seen it with LGBT DUers and African American DUers too. When people routinely get piled on and called names when they point out privilege, they start out assuming that's what'll happen.

[Silent3]

16. There are factions that "pile on" loudly one way or another for many issues

That's just the nature noisy internet discussions, I'm afraid.

[gollygee]

18. Then you know why the discussions are like they are. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I believe the privileged can and should recognize the outrage of the "disadvantaged."

I don't always like that word but I understand why you would use it as a general catch phrase. However, having researched an issue close to home where there is outrage enough to go around, but no one seems to agree on the reason for its existence, what I have learned is that those who were abused by the system, were abused by people who had the power to do so. We'll call those people privileged. In that position, they continued to take advantage by withholding information, and worse, adding misinformation to discredit those who were coming close to the truth.

So, the "privileged" may have the answers that we would all want to hear, but they may also have a good reason to withhold it since they know they are responsible for the unhappiness around them.

The "disadvantaged" may have every reason to be upset, though they might not have the access to the information to find the correct cause and effect of what is creating their situation. They might even make things worse by blaming the person that is trying to give them the answers, which they might not like to hear.

So, listening is always a good start.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Not always

For example, you can be disadvantaged and ill-educated or quite limited mentally, which will not help on some topics. You can be mentally ill. You can be advantaged with the same traits. Any single individual is doomed to be wrong about a lot of things. You can also just not know what you are talking about.

The key is knowledge, and if you don't have your own experience to meaningfully understand a particular situation, communication. The gaps that any one individual has are made up in a working society by interaction and discussion between individuals and different groups.

The problem arises when we all go in our bunkers and isolate ourselves from other groups, so the discussion and exchange of experience doesn't happen.

The fact is that understanding an injustice exists is an important precursor to action, but it doesn't automatically give you the background to know how to fix the injustice. As social mobility declines in a population, this is more likely to happen.

[Zax2me]

17. In the case of critics of the Oscars crowd, I say YES!

[NCTraveler]

19. People from all walks of life have something to learn from one and other.

The voice of the privileged, more often than not, is the voice setting policy and is loudest.

The disadvantaged need a voice that can be heard just as loudly as the privileged.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Not necessarily; but they are generally better witnesses to their experience of disadvantage

Unfortunately, disadvantaged groups can sometimes be led to blame other disadvantaged groups, rather than an unjust system, for their disadvantages (e.g. low-paid working people versus the unemployed; poor white people versus people of colour; Jews versus Muslims; religious minorities versus gays; etc. etc.) And this is often encouraged by politicians and media figures who have every interest in 'dividing and ruling'.

More generally, just because someone is disadvantaged doesn't automatically make them wise, just as being privileged doesn't make someone wise.

However, dismissiveness toward other people's disadvantages, and assuming that because you've not experienced something yourself it doesn't happen, or must be the disadvantaged person's fault, is generally cruel and unjust. It is wrong to assume that people must be lying or exaggerating about their experiences, or worse, that they must have done something to bring their disadvantages on themselves, or that they 'choose victimhood', or (to use one expression that I find particularly exasperating) 'you can't change other people's behaviour; you can only change how you react to it' .