This is from Doug Muder's Free and Responsible Search site -- his more  contemplative works.  It's about ways to think about privilege that  don't alienate those whose privilege you are pointing out to them.   
  Find it here:    
  http://freeandresponsible.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-web-of-privilege.html        --Kim    
Thursday, December 20, 2012
  
  
presented at First Unitarian Church  of Athol, Massachusetts
  December 9, 2012
  Opening Words
  "What you believe depends on what you've seen, -- not only what  is visible, but what you are prepared to look in the face." --  Salman Rushdie  
Meditation
  from Leo Tolstoy's novel 
Anna Karenina:    
  - Levin had often noticed in arguments between the most intelligent  people that after enormous efforts, an enormous number of logical  subtleties and words, the arguers would finally come to the awareness  that what they had spent so long struggling to prove to each other had  been known to them long, long before, from the beginning of the argument,  but that they loved different things and therefore did not want to name  what they loved, so as not to be challenged.
 
 
- He had often felt that sometimes during an argument you would  understand what your opponent loves, and suddenly come to love the same  thing yourself, and agree all at once, and then all reasonings would fall  away as superfluous; and sometimes it was the other way round: you would  finally say what you yourself love, for the sake of which you are  inventing your reasonings, and if you happened to say it well and  sincerely, the opponent would suddenly agree and stop arguing.
 
 
First Reading
  In Sacred Ground , Eboo Patel quotes Jesse Jackson saying this to  a Muslim group in the wake of 9-11:     
  - You have a choice to make right now: You can talk about an America  where your people don't get sent to the back of the bus, or you can  talk about an America where no one gets sent to the back of the  bus.
 
 
Second Reading
  Last summer, Wayne Self's  
Owldolatrous blog suddenly  went viral because of a series of posts about the Chick-fil-A  boycott.
  Chick-fil-A had long supported "family values" organizations  that not only work against gay rights in this country, but also try to  make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or even death in  countries like Uganda. The company's policies finally came to public  attention when their president, the Founder's son Dan Cathy, went on a  talk-radio program and said that supporters of marriage equality for gays  have a "prideful, arrogant attitude" and are "inviting  God's judgment on our nation". That led to a boycott against  Chick-fil-A, which Wayne Self, a gay man, wanted to promote. 
  Now normally, the way you promote something like that is you stand on the  barricades and yell about what evil bastards the people on the other side  are: We're the good people; they're the bad people.
  But Self did an unusual thing: He didn't just try to rally the troops who  already agreed with him. He decided he wanted to convince people who  either hadn't been involved in this issue, or maybe even had been leaning  the other way.
  So he didn't write rants. He wrote fables, he told stories, he had  heart-to-heart dialogs with the commenters on his blog. Most important of  all, he did not put himself on a pedestal and demonize his  opponents.
  Instead, in 
this post,  he talked about an attitude we all have to struggle against,which he  called supremacy and defined as "the habit of believing or  acting as if your life, your love, your culture, your self has more  intrinsic worth than those of people who differ from you." And he  focused not just on denouncing heterosexual supremacists, who think their  relationships have more intrinsic worth than gay relationships, but also  on his own struggle to overcome supremacist attitudes:    
  - I grew up in the rural South. I never hated African-Americans. I  never knowingly said or did or voted in any way that hurt  African-American people. I even had African-American friends. But I'd be  lying to you if I didn't admit that some white supremacy seeped into my  thinking at a very young age. This is a painful thing to admit. Even now,  I find I can't go into specifics, from sheer shame. ...
 
 
- Some people turn supremacy into an over-arching philosophy. For most,  it's just a habit of mind. As a habit of mind, supremacist ideas can  spring up in anyone. Being liberal doesn't make you immune. Being gay  doesn't make you immune. Being a minority doesn't make you  immune.
 
 
- You don't have to hate people to feel innately superior to them.  After all, what kind of threat are your inferiors to you? You may be  annoyed by them, from time to time, or you may even like them. You can  even have so much affection for them that you might call that affection  love.
 
 
- The dangerous thing about a supremacist point of view is that it can  accompany even warm affection. [But] supremacy turns to hate when the  feeling of innate superiority is openly challenged. 
 
 
- Like many habits, supremacy can be unconscious. Sometimes you don't  know you're doing it until someone points it out. ...
 
 
- I'm 43 years old now, and I've had time to change my supremacist  habits of mind. I did it by knowing more African-American people, by  listening instead of talking, by humbling myself and not demanding that I  must agree with everyone in order to support them,and, most importantly,  by admitting that other people's real lives were more important than my  mere beliefs. 
 
 
Sermon: The Web of Privilege
  I went to college in the Seventies, when feminism was raising women's  consciousness about all the ways that traditional gender roles work  against them. So naturally, I heard a lot from female classmates about my  male privilege. And I couldn't very well argue, because they were right,  I did get unfair advantages from being a man. But all the same, those  lectures used to annoy me, so let me try to explain why. 
  I grew up in a working class family. The factory my father worked in was  loud and dangerous and full of nasty odors that stuck to him when he came  home. 
  He had that job because he didn't go to college. But he had graduated  from high school, and he was proud of that, because his father had only  graduated from eighth grade. And grandpa was proud too, I imagine,  because it probably wasn't that many generations back that the Muders  were all illiterate.
  My sister and I were the first generation in our family to go to college,  and eventually I would be the first to get a Ph.D. I will never forget  meeting my parents after the graduation ceremony and seeing my father go  misty-eyed. "Dr. Muder," he said, as if only a miracle could  have brought those two words together.
  So while I was getting that education, even though I recognized the  injustice of discrimination against women, it still grated on me that  daughters of professors and daughters of millionaires could only see my  unfair advantages.   
  Now, I'm not trying to start an argument about whether classism or sexism  is harder to overcome, or how either compares to racism or religious  prejudice or some other variety of unfairness. Quite the opposite, I  think we've already had too many of those arguments. Throughout American  history, it's been way too hard to get people united against unfairness  in general, and way too easy for the Powers That Be to play one  disadvantaged group off against another.  
  Before the Civil War, for example, the abolitionist movement split over  whether or not women could hold leadership positions. And after the war,  the women's suffrage movement split over the 15th amendment, which gave  the vote to black men. (Two famous Unitarian suffragettes parted ways on  that. Lucy Stone supported the amendment and Susan B. Anthony  didn't.)
  As best I can tell, there has never been a widespread movement to treat  everyone more fairly, and to battle unfairness wherever it appears.  Instead, we typically look at privilege one dimension at a time -- as  racism or sexism or some other Ism. That simplifies things by letting us  draw sharp lines between the privileged and the disadvantaged: white and  black, native and immigrant, straight and gay, men and women.
  But today I'd like to suggest that the Isms oversimplify our notion  of privilege. Once you have drawn a line, it's easy imagine a wall there.  On one side are the victims, and on the other the oppressors. 
  Packaged with that metaphorical wall is a complete set of emotions for  each side. On the victim side you're supposed to feel resentment, anger,  and envy. On the oppressor side, guilt, but also fear of all those angry  people, and anxiety about the possibility of losing a privilege that you  have had all your life and may not know how to live without.
  Fear and anxiety can tempt a person to adopt the attitude that Wayne Self  called supremacy. You can start to rationalize that the wall is good  and natural, and I deserve to be on this side of it, because I am more  important or more deserving than the people on the other side. Nothing  personal, but there's a very rational reason why I have to be here and  they have to be there.
  Today I want to use a different metaphor for privilege and unfairness,  one that I think better captures its multi-dimensional nature. 
  Privilege isn't a wall, it's a web. 
  We all have a complicated relationship to privilege. Everyone, in some  aspect of life, is treated unfairly. And everyone also, in some other  way, benefits from unfairness. There are many ways to cut that web in  two. But depending on who makes that cut and what kind of unfairness they  single out, any of us might find ourselves on either the disadvantaged  side or the privileged side.   
  Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that it all evens out. I stand  here today as a straight, white, American male. I am able-bodied, happily  married, well educated, and over six feet tall. It would be ridiculous  for me to claim that it all evens out, just because I face an occasional  disadvantage here or there. No, all I'm claiming is that privilege is a  subtle issue. 
  And while I believe nearly everyone -- even people like me -- could be  happier in a fairer world, that progress will not come for free. We're  not going to get to a fairer world just by claiming our rights in the  situations where we are treated unfairly. We'll also have to raise our  consciousness about the ways that we benefit from unfairness.   
  One problem with thinking of privilege as a wall comes from the  villainous stereotypes we have of the people on the oppressor side: Simon  Legree driving his slaves; Scrooge, asking why the poor can't be sent to  prisons or workhouses; or even hotel magnate Leona Helmsley saying,  "Taxes are for the little people."
  If that's how we picture the privileged, then how are we going to react  when someone draws the line in such a way that we wind up on the  privileged side? 
  Not well, probably. You know you don't get up in the morning planning to  be a villain, so if someone seems to be saying that you are one, your  instinctive reaction is going to be: "No. That can't be right."  
  Stung by the charge, it's tempting to turn the whole thing around, to  point back at the people who are pointing the finger at you and say,  "They're the ones who are being unfair. They're persecuting me  with these vicious accusations."
  And so, Rush Limbaugh feels terribly persecuted by the people who say  he's a racist, and by all the "feminazis" who say he's sexist.  They're the villains, not him.
  An even better example is Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A. I don't doubt that he  sees a good, Christian man in his mirror. He creates jobs. He generously  supports what he calls "family values", but what gays like  Wayne Self see as heterosexual supremacy.
  So when gay-rights supporters boycott Cathy's restaurants, that just  proves to Cathy's allies how oppressed Christians are in this  country. Mike Huckabee sees the boycotters unfairly trying to punish  Cathy for doing nothing more than speaking his truth and living the  values of his faith. A wall of privilege separates Christians from  secular society, and to Huckabee it's secularists like Wayne Self who  are on the privileged side. Dan Cathy -- that straight, white, male,  Christian, millionaire CEO -- is oppressed.   
  Today I'd like to suggest a different stereotype of privilege, something  a little less villainous than Scrooge or Simon Legree. It comes from the  movie Pleasantville, which some of you may have seen. 
  In this movie, a teen-age brother and sister get hold of a magic remote  control and are zapped into a 1950s TV show, one of those family comedies  like Ozzie and Harriet or Leave it to Beaver. Suddenly, they are  the son and daughter of the Parkers, a perfect TV family living in the  perfect TV town of Pleasantville.
  Naturally, things start to change all around. The teens learn a few  things from their new experiences, and the people of Pleasantville start  asking the kinds of questions that characters on such shows never asked,  like "Do I like my life?" and "Why do things have to be  this way?" In particular, Mrs. Parker discovers that being the  perfect housewife is not really what she wants out of life, or at least  it's not all she wants. 
  And that sets up this scene:
  George Parker, the father of the perfect TV family, comes home from work.  He opens the door, hangs his hat on a hook like he always does, and  announces, "Honey, I'm home", expecting his beautiful, smiling  wife to come out of the kitchen and his perfect children to bounce down  the stairs to greet him, like they always do.
  Today, though, the house is dark and silent but for the thunder of a  storm outside. And George looks like a magician who has said the magic  words, but is still waiting for the puff of smoke and the rabbit to  appear in his hat. 
  So he says the magic words again, "Honey, I'm home." Nothing  happens.
  He wanders through the house, and into the kitchen where nothing is on  the table. "Where's my dinner?" he wonders. He looks in the  oven, inside the kettles. "Where's my dinner?" Uncomprehending,  he goes back outside, into the rain, and pleads with this suddenly  unsympathetic universe: "Where's my dinner?"   
  Remember: George Parker is somebody's idea of the perfect Dad. He never  intended to be a bad guy. All his life he has tried to be a very good  guy, and he thought he was doing a decent job of it. Society gave him a  role to play, and he played it to the best of his ability. That's how he  thought life was supposed to be: I play my role, you play your role, and  it all works out.
  Now, if you could sit George down and make him think about it, maybe he'd  realize that his role as a professional-class husband and father is a  little easier and more pleasant than some of the other roles in  Pleasantville. 
  But he doesn't think about it, because he doesn't have to. He's never had  to plot with the other professional-class husbands to oppress his wife or  the characters who do Pleasantville's menial jobs. That's just how the  social roles work out. And he assumes that because he's happy in his  role, other people must be happy in theirs.
  George's example points out several aspects of privilege that may make  our own privileges easier to see. First, the privileged are usually not  evil, they're just oblivious.
  Saturday Night Live brought that home in a skit a few months ago:  Geeks on a technology show are picking apart the flaws of the new iPhone  5, when the host unexpectedly brings out three workers from the iPhone  factory in Shenzhen. 
  Suddenly, all the complaints dry up.
  "We understand," sympathizes one of the Chinese, who makes a  tiny wage for doing debilitating work in unhealthy conditions.  "Apple Maps, it no work. You want Starbucks, it take you Dunkin  Donuts. Must be so hard for you."   
  You probably don't think about it very often -- I know I don't -- but  every time you walk into a store, you are playing a privileged role as an  American consumer. All over the world, underpaid people are breaking  their backs or even risking their lives so that you can pay $10 for a  pair of jeans or have fruit in the middle of winter.
  It's so easy to forget that. 
  The whole retail environment conspires with our obliviousness.There's no  workshop in the back where you can see production happening. You just see  a product and a price. The product doesn't come from anywhere. No one  makes it. It just appears on the shelf by magic.    
  And that points up a second way in which our privilege resembles George  Parker's: It's more systemic than personal. 
  If you've ever bought clothes at WalMart or Sears, they may have been  made at the factory that burned down last month in Bangladesh. Over 100  workers died in that fire because there were no outside-the-building fire  escapes. Those deaths were easily preventable if the factory hadn't been  under so much pressure to keep costs down.
  Now, you didn't want anything bad to happen to those workers. You didn't  demand that WalMart squeeze that last fifty cents out of the cost of your  shirt. Like George, you just played your role in the system.
  George never wanted his wife to be unhappy. He just wanted dinner. And  there's nothing actually wrong with wanting dinner, just like there's  nothing wrong with wanting an iPhone or a Chick-fil-A sandwich or a good  deal on a pair of jeans. What's wrong is that attitude of supremacy, that  feeling that our needs, our desires, our inconveniences are so much more  important anybody else's.
  And because privilege is so systemic, even if you manage to overcome your  obliviousness and root out that attitude of supremacy, it's not always  clear what to do. 
  Last January, a series of articles called attention to the abusive  conditions in those Chinese factories that make Apple's gadgets. I paid  attention because I have an iPad and a MacBook that might have come from  there. In a year or two I might want a newer model.
  But what should I do? Throwing my iPad away accomplishes nothing. Buying  a competing product accomplishes nothing, because they're all made in  similar factories that treat workers no better. And if people like me  forgo electronic gadgets entirely, the workers won't be treated any  better, they'll just lose their jobs.
  If you want electronic gadgets, and are willing to pay someone a livable  wage to make them for you 
 the market doesn't offer you that option. In  the comments on the online versions of those articles, many people  wondered: Why can't Apple -- or somebody -- make an "ethical  iPad" and charge a little more to recover the higher costs?
  But of course that would break the spell of the Apple Store. If the  ethical iPad were displayed next to the "unethical"  iPad,everybody who chose between them would have to think about where  these products come from. 
  The magic of retail would be lost.
  So the market doesn't offer that option. With only a few exceptions --  like Fair Trade coffee or vegetables at the farmers' market -- it rarely  does. The workers are treated the way they're treated, and you either  want the product or you don't. No personal choice you can make will solve  the problem. And if you feel guilty about it, that doesn't change  anything either.   
  So far what I'm describing is more tragic than malicious. So of course it  can't be the whole story, because the history of privilege and oppression  is full of malice. It's full of wars and riots and lynchings and beating  up people who try to organize the underprivileged. Where does all that  come from? It starts with how you react when your obliviousness gets  challenged, when the under-privileged begin to raise their consciousness  and tell you that this is unfair, or when they stop cooperating and  disrupt the system of privilege. 
  When that happens, I imagine that everybody's initial reaction is the  same: We notice our own inconvenience first. George may eventually learn  to empathize with his wife, but the very first thing he notices is that  he has no dinner. Dan Cathy notices that his restaurants are getting bad  publicity. I notice that people are making me feel guilty about owning an  iPad.
  And because we never planned on being villains, there's a strong  temptation to deny everything to tell each other stories that make us  feel better. After the fire in Bangladesh, Fox News told us how happy  those workers were to have those jobs. People have been telling stories  like that for generations: The slaves were said to be happy on the  Southern plantations, and 19th-century women were content to let their  husbands worry about difficult issues like voting or owning  property.
  Sometimes the stories even say that the victims deserve what they get,  like those evil gays and lesbians who break God's law, or those pushy  women and uppity blacks who insist on going where nobody wants them. As  Wayne Self wrote: "Supremacy turns to hate when the feeling of  innate superiority is openly challenged."
  Even when you have to admit that you've been benefitting from privilege,  it's tempting to hold up your own inconvenience, your  doing-without-dinner, as if it were equal to other people's lifelong  oppression. 
  In another post, Wayne Self shoots down the idea that Dan Cathy's  public-relations problems are in any way equivalent to the problems faced  by gays: "This isn't about mutual tolerance," he writes,  "because there's nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on  this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I  don't."
  Yes, the privileged suffer too, but on an entirely different scale.  "Men," Margaret Atwood observed, "are afraid that women  will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill  them."   
  So, to sum up, you were born into an unfair society, just like everybody  else. But it's not unfair in just one way. The ways that unfairness works  against you are usually pretty obvious. But it's easy to remain oblivious  to all the ways it works for you. 
  You're not responsible for where in the web of privilege you were born,  but you are responsible for whether or not you remain oblivious to it.  And you're responsible for how you respond after you become aware. Do you  make amends where you can? Do you work for systemic change when personal  change isn't enough? Or do you make excuses for your privileges and blame  the victims for the inconveniences you suffer when they try to improve  their lot? When you are treated unfairly, do you regard those who are  privileged over you as villains who don't resemble you at all?
  It would be pleasant to think that once you see the light, there's a  simple way to go and sin no more. But very often there isn't, because  your privilege is baked into the system and you can't just give it back.  
  That's why it's so important that when you have an opportunity to  make the world fairer, you do something with it. And when suffering  people come to you with a plan to change the system, listen hard and give  them a little benefit of the doubt, even if their issue seems distant or  their plan seems unlikely to work. Because the system does need to  change. A lot of the unfairness in the world isn't going to be fixed just  by individuals deciding to do the right thing.
  And finally, it's important not to forget either side of the experience  of privilege. When we benefit from unfairness, it's important to recall  how it feels to be taken advantage of. And when we suffer from  unfairness, we need to remember how shocking it can be to suddenly  recognize a privilege that you never thought about and never asked for.  
  Holding both those experiences in mind can help us stay in dialog with  those whose privileges are different, and make us more effective in  working with them for ever more fairness.
  Closing Words   
  The closing words are by President Lyndon Johnson. 
  In March of 1965, after violence in Selma had killed a number of civil  rights demonstrators, including the Unitarian minister James Reeb,  Johnson convened a joint session of Congress and asked them to pass the  Voting Rights Act. 
  Johnson was never known as a great speaker, and many Northerners had  trouble believing that anything worthwhile could be said in that rural  Texas accent he had. But that day he gave a remarkable speech, and it  built up to this conclusion:
  "It is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must  overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall  overcome." 
  Posted by  
Doug Muder  at  
  9:29 AM    1 comment:      ![[]](//img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_email.gif)