Periodically I am having a conversation about race or gender or something, and I do something bad: I invoke the words of a woman or person of color as support for some point I’m making. It’s shady. Because that woman or person of color or person with a disability or WHATEVER did not give me permission to use their words to advance myself. It’s exploitative. I’m trying to check it.
To “check” one’s privilege is to stop and understand that you are exploiting a power differential, and that you need to stop. Men calling a woman a b**** (that’s a word men can use against women, but women have no such word to use against men). Straight people calling someone a f** (same deal). Checking your privilege is realizing that you’re exploiting that differential and stopping yourself, preferably before you start. But better late than never.
So anyway, I was looking back at some old posts, and came across this one, where I invoke the words of a veteran to prop up my support of the new GI bill. And it made me think: am I exploiting this person? The military preys on people with less privilege. That’s how they snare people: offer college educations to people who don’t think they can otherwise get one. Am I, a person who was basically handed not just a college education but multiple opportunities at graduate education, exploiting this person?
In the end, I decided: no. Because the veteran explicitly says that they are “spreading the word among my fellow vets and my family and friends, asking them to spread the word about Bush and McCain not supporting the GI Bill.” And so in reblogging their words, I’m doing something they ASKED me to do.
But what about this post, from a couple months ago, where I liberally quote Latoya Peterson and dnA, two people of color? I’m quoting them, with attribution and links. And in some sense, deferring to their analysis, without any real changes of my own. But I chose their voices out of many. And I chose to crop their voices out of the original context of their own blogs, and their own writing. And I chose to add my own voice, and post it on my own blog. And my friends read it, and I get some status from this whole thing, right?
So how messed up is that? What if I had just posted links to their entries, or the full content? Is that something I should be doing more of?
Or should I try to use my voice and my own writing to translate ideas for my audience?
Honestly, I’m not sure. Advice?
I think there’s a risk with quoting anyone else’s words regardless of gender or race. If you’re going to be careful of “invok[ing] the words of a woman or person of color as support for some point [you're] making” then you should be aware of the person who grew up in West Virginia or the person who’s mother died when they were four, or the person who owns a private jet because you’re not them, either.
As to you quoting people, go for it. It shows you’ve done your research and you’re not pulling your whole entry out of your butt. All I’m saying is if you’re going to give special consideration to two groups of people you should acknowledge EVERY person you quote or reference. The way you write this, I think to myself, “so he thinks it’s okay to exploit the words of white males because he is one?” That’s totally ridiculous, and I’m pretty sure that’s not actually what you mean.
Just be aware that in your acknowledgement of other genders and races that you are also ignoring your own gender and race.
We quote when 1) someone has said something in a way that we could not do as well, 2) to demonstrate research, and 3) to acknowledge authority. This is not a gender / race issue. As long as one is honest about attributing quotes and explaining context, I don’t see any issue. It’s actually kind of an honorable thing to do; you aren’t “stealing” or plagiarizing, and you are bowing to higher authority on an issue. If you are, however, using these quotes to “get some status from this whole thing,” though, you are being quite dishonest. Are you, or is that a byproduct?
I’m a queer vegan working-class feminist, and I actively put my words out there in an effort to get my perspective heard – so when folks (of any identity) quote me or link to me, I’m very happy about it! So my personal take on this is that if you’re doing it out of respect, and making it clear who your sources are, and they put it out there for public consumption in the first place, then you’re probably helping to spread their message and increase their visibility, and that’s probably a good thing.
*checks your privilege*
Nope, looks pretty tucked in from here.
A lot of the anger in attribution comes from people of color not being credited with the things we say and do – only to see those thoughts/ideas parroted by a white person and watch *them* receive accolades for *your* work.
Everyone quotes. I quote, dnA quotes, we quote each other. The key is attribution.
And think about it this way – you might be getting some status from writing, but you also introduce people to my work who may not have been aware of it before. That’s a service in itself, as I have found a lot of my favorite writers and bloggers through attribution. Just make sure you’re within the bounds of copyright (which I think you handle pretty well) and you’re good.
I think this is nothing to worry too much about. Generally speaking, we all have privileges … Women and minorities have them just as white-men do. Granted there are different kinds of privileges..
It’s one thing to check your privilege when offering a job to someone, or when making an assumption about how a person or a situation is for another without due regard to your own perspective.
It’s quite another thing to check your privilege when you are discussing ideas. Indeed, it sets a bad precedent. If we are all required to check our privileges before voicing an opinion – who does that hurt more, those who benefit from the status quo? Or those who don’t? Moreover, the kind of free flowing conversation you might want to have about “isms” is repressed by privilege checking.
Take your hypothetical racist redneck. There may be valid reasons behind her racism – at least from her perspective. If you cannot appeal to a person’s own perspective, you will not be able to convince her of anything! If she has to check her privilege when explaining her racism, you might never learn that the african american mayor of her small town made things hard on white people there.
And while I appreciate that privilege checking might help a person state things so as to appeal to another – the ACT of privilege checking in and of itself is so condescending, and such a forceful act of [wait for it] privilege – that it’s hard to imagine how anyone can understand a “privilege free” perspective.
So while I admire your self reflection, and, as usual enjoy the somewhat unusual perspective you are coming from, I think in this regard you would do well to go a little easier on yourself.
Kate said:
“so he thinks it’s okay to exploit the words of white males because he is one?” That’s totally ridiculous, and I’m pretty sure that’s not actually what you mean.
Actually, that sort of IS what I meant. But when you put it that way it’s obviously a silly way to think. Maybe I should apply the same consideration to everyone I quote.
Hi Mel,
When I’m blogging, I don’t think “oh, man, everyone will think I’m so cool for posting this” but people do tell me they like my blog and enjoy reading it, and I get some benefit from that. Plus it strengthens (I think?) my relationships with friends and family, and enriches my mind, and all this other stuff.
So I have my own “ends” which are different from whoever I’m quoting.
I was reading a book recently where there was a story about a man working at an anti-porn organization, and when another man wanted to volunteer, the first man basically said “If you’re here to be some sort of savior and have everyone know how great you are, we don’t want you. If you’re here because you want to help do the work that the women in this organization have laid out, you can stay.” Something like that.
I’m just trying to be honest when I say I don’t think I’m fully in that second camp yet. Part of me wants other people to know I’m an enlightened male. I think it’s gotten a lot better over the last year or so. Not that long ago when I would meet someone new, I would hope (ironically) for an opportunity to let them know that I was a feminist. That’s part of what I’m trying to check here.
Jonas,
I’m actually not nearly as interested in having a “free flowing conversation” as I am in having a conversation with many viewpoints. And the truth is, spaces where people blab freely without checking their privilege are often hostile to lots of people.
Furthermore, the point of checking ourselves is not to censor our beliefs. It’s more like double-checking than censorship. If you check yourself and you think you’re fine, then go ahead and say what you want to say.
Hi Latoya,
OK, thanks for the check.
Erik,
I think it is great that you recognize this, that you’ve seen it happening, and that you are actively engaging it. The male feminist “savior” thing is something I’m awfully sensitive about. It strikes me as being this strangely chivalric thing, almost unintentionally patronizing. Though it comes from a good place — the desire to help — one must be cautious that one’s ally is not posturing (and also that “help” is an loaded term anyway). Sometimes it is really difficult to tell this from your writing here alone (since I’ve not spoken to you directly in several months, this is what I have to go on). That said, you’re a smart cookie, so I’m not surprised you’ve given thought to it. I’m actually quite relieved to see that you have.