'Privilege' Exercises

PAGE 4 OF 5

Margaret wrote:  "Done well, it can be quite enlightening to see
how even someone from an 'obviously' privileged/deprived group
can have a privilege level markedly different to that of their
nominal peers because of factors not apparent to us before the
exercise."

This is precisely what's wrong with the entire exercise. The person with a
"markedly different" privilege factor is a real live human being, one of our
students, and the teacher who imposes this exercise on students is messing
with his/her head. Some may call it "consciousness raising" but that doesn't
make it better.  It is not our job to intentionally mess with our students'
'consciousness' (psyche, emotions, soul-- whatever one wants to call it) in
this sense.  There's a world of difference between discussing these issues
at a certain level of abstraction and driving them home to our students in
their own skin (not an accidental metaphor). it takes a lot of arrogance for
a teacher to think their role is to do the latter, and it takes a lot of
dennial to not see this as an abuse of the teacher's position and
potentially of real harm to the students.

The facile phrase "the personal is political" has become a weapon allowing
important boundaries to be transgressed in inappropriate settings, with the
teacher-master of ceremonies piously calling the shots, convinced it's all
for the best.  Where have we heard that before??

DP



---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Daphne Patai wrote:
> It is not our job to intentionally mess with our students'
> 'consciousness' (psyche, emotions, soul-- whatever one wants to call it)
in
> this sense.  There's a world of difference between discussing these
> issues at a certain level of abstraction and driving them home to our
> students in their own skin (not an accidental metaphor).

I am a lurker who has chosen not to post in the past for two reasons. As a
working-class scholar and doctoral candidate I am still way intimidated by
many who post here. Such is life. But secondly, during my lurking tenure I
have seen battles, comments that seemed not to be thought out that I found
racist, and some folks who feel they have the right to pronounce some kind
of final word on things--none of which I felt I was ready to engage with.

But I cannot just keep watching this and not state that I am completely
dumbfounded at the position stated above. I've seen it posted repeatedly in
this discussion on privilege, but I have not seen those who voice this
opinion say anything that tells me why this is so.

We as mentors, instructors, professors, teachers should not intentionally
affect our students' psyche or get into their skin??! Why not???!!!?

As a student, when I saw films of Korean women being interviewed about being
raped by Japanese soldiers in the name of comfort, that messed with my
psyche and got into my skin. The first time and every time I have listened
to a professor of color discuss tenure issues, evaluations, stereotyping,
lack of authority, and other issues that as a white person I do not
experience, that gets into my skin. When I was in the 5th grade, for criminy
sake, and saw a film of Glen Canyon being destroyed to provide electricity
to California, that messed with my psyche and got into my skin. Last week I
sat in Seattle and watched hundreds of people march on I-5 in protest of the
murder of black man sitting in his parked truck with his son who was shot
and murdered by an off-duty, white, middle-class deputy who didn't think
this man should be in his neighborhood. That totally messed with my psyche
and it is under my very white skin.

If my teachers and life experience had not placed me in situations that
intentionally messed with my psyche and got into my skin and made me see my
privilege, then I might not today be doing anything to try and positively
effect change in this world. Not letting it into our skin is in fact in and
of itself a privilege. It is far easier for a middle- or upper-class white
person to read about racism, murder, oppression, or the flip side of
privilege, and then go home to their comfortable little life and do nothing,
than it is for anyone whose life is affected by the injustices of the world
(either because they are living it or they were fortunate enough to have had
someone who messed with their psyche and made sure it really got into their
skin).

If it is not my job as an educator to make sure that my students let this in
to their consciousnesses and maybe even hurt by it enough to perhaps DO
something--if it is only my job to politely tell them about injustice so
they can choose to comfortably walk away and ignore it--then I don't want
any part of academia.

If you can explain to me why we shouldn't want to make this level of impact
on our students, perhaps I wouldn't feel so dumbfounded. I just can't come
up with anything other than "privilege" to explain to myself why students
would not feel deeply uncomfortable about such issues.

Joan


-----
Joan Clingan
Humanities Core Faculty
Faculty Coordinator
Master of Arts Program
Prescott College
220 Grove Avenue
Prescott, AZ 86301
(928) 776-7116, ext. 3004
jclingan  @  prescott.edu

---
Prostitution and porn are the only industries in which women earn more money
than men.

----- Original Message -----

> We as mentors, instructors, professors, teachers should not intentionally
> affect our students' psyche or get into their skin??! Why not???!!!?
>
> As a student. ......<snip> When I was in the 5th grade, for criminy
> sake, and saw a film of Glen Canyon being destroyed to provide electricity
> to California, that messed with my psyche and got into my skin.
<snip>
> If you can explain to me why we shouldn't want to make this level of
impact
> on our students, perhaps I wouldn't feel so dumbfounded. I just can't come
> up with anything other than "privilege" to explain to myself why students
> would not feel deeply uncomfortable about such issues.
>
> Joan
>

Joan, the examples you provide were moments when learning upsetting facts
upset you.  This *is the right and hoped-for outcome of an education about
oppression and privilege. But what Daphne meant, I believe, is something
extremely different. It's one thing to be upset by learning upsetting
"issues," as you say. It's another to have your *own private life* treated
as the issue! When you saw that upsetting film about Glen Canyon when you
were in the 5th grade, you were sitting in a classroom watching a movie
about a canyon.  When students participate in activities like The Privilege
Exercise, they are  not "watching" anything, they are not learning "facts"
about a "place" or "some people." They are putting *their own* identities
out for public consumption, scrutiny, and comment.

This is the simplest metaphor I can think of. In my own WS classes, I teach
a component on sexual anatomy (which my students are shockingly ignorant
about).  I draw a picture of a woman's vulva on the blackboard, and I label
the parts. What I DON'T do, is make my students strip off their underpants
and spread their legs, so the person next to them can examine their
genitals.  Is the difference starting to become clearer now? One is an
object lesson. The other is personal. One teaches through external fact. The
other would teach through violation of privacy.

All your examples of "upsetting" moments in your education were examples of
external facts. That's the right way to get upset... by learning about
people, events, etc., that have an upsetting impact on you.  But having
*your*privacy* spread around the classroom is the wrong way to get upset.
And that *is a factual risk we take, when we use activities/exercises based
on our students' private lives. Perhaps you think my metaphor is wrong
because you feel that consciousness, or "psyche" as Daphne said, is not as
private as genitals. Well, Joan, all I can say is, for a LOT of people those
privacies are absolutely equal.  And that's why I, for one, retain some
ambivalence about such in-class exercises, even though I've seen them work
very well for some students.

Ilana Nash
inash  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu

Daphne wrote:

> It is not our job to intentionally mess with our students'
>'consciousness' (psyche, emotions, soul-- whatever one wants to call it) in
>this sense.  There's a world of difference between discussing these issues
>at a certain level of abstraction and driving them home to our students in
>their own skin (not an accidental metaphor).

I would certainly agree that there is a 'world of difference' (I
presume the pun was unintended) between the positions Daphne
contrasts.   But, with Joan Clingan, I must ask:  if it is not
the role of the teacher to structure the classroom experience
such that students experience the relevance of what they're
learning---then just what exactly _is_ the role of the
teacher--to be only a talking book, as it were?

I believe it's relevant for this discussion that the weight of
experience in communication fields is solidly on the side of
personalising anything that's meant to be actually learned.

As several others have remarked here, using an exercise of this
kind must be done thoughtfully and with respect for individual
differences in the students.   But to acknowledge that care and
respect are needed is not to indict the exercise as
inappropriate, I don't think.

Margaret

--
Margaret Tarbet / oneko  @  mindspring.com
--------------------------------------
Il felino pi· piccolo F un capolavoro.
--Leonardo da Vinci

A similar exercise to Dorothy Miller's called "MY FATHER'S WASP" by Helen
Bannan is included in the anthology _Teaching Introduction to Women's
Studies: Expectations and Strategies_ coedited by myself, Barbara Scott
Winkler and Carolyn DiPalma (Bergin and Garvey, 1999)

I too am  "dumbfounded"  -- that people don't realize the important
distinction between intentionally manipulating students' emotions in
particular ways vs.  exposing them to  knowledge and new ideas that may
indeed have an impact that is not merely cognitive.  The whole question is
how and where to draw the line.

I am simply arguing that we are TEACHERS at institutions of higher
education. We are not therapists or preachers.  And this distinction carries
a certain responsibility. That responsibility involves approaching our
students not as innocents waiting to be shocked into consciousness by
emotionally-charged exercises. Our students  are not blank slates waiting to
be  filled with our commitments of the moment.  Rather, they are (mostly)
young adults to whom our relationship is above all intellectual, not
visceral.

Nothing is easier than to inflame students' emotions. Has no one on this
list studied China's Cultural Revolution? Or Nazi indoctrination of youth?
Do you really want to argue that those were appropriate pedagogical models?

I assume the key difference between my position and that of the recent
posters is that the latter, like many  feminist (and other politically
inspired) teachers are quite certain that they KNOW which kind of
inflammation, in which direction, is to be pursued, whereas I am saying that
it is important to preserve an arena in which issues can be explored in a
more intellectual and less visceral way, in which manipulation by shock or
exposure tactics is NOT considered appropriate.  And that is precisely the
function of education.

Let's be direct:  Just how would those of you who seem to think my
perspective is beyond the pale feel about a teacher who showed anti-abortion
propaganda in class?  Brought in fetuses in jars and women to "testify" to
the awful mistake they made in pursuing abortion?  Are you prepared to
defend THAT in the name of having a profound impact on our students?  I am
not.

As far as I can tell, I am taking a consistent and principled position about
the appropriate role of a teacher and the dynamics of a classroom in a
university setting.  I cannot imagine what sort of case could be made for
raising "consciousness" on YOUR pet issues and not allowing every other
teacher to do precisely the same.  Then what would education have turned
into??? Being a university teacher involves not only rights but also
responsibilities. Intentional attempts to violate students' private space is
an abrogation of those responsibilities, and can lead to the abusive
situation described above, in which every class becomes its own kind of
nightmare, depending on the teacher's particular commitments.

As for the actual current practice, I expect that people on this list are
aware that various teachers around the country have been accused of "sexual
harassment" for merely *discsussing* subjects that some feminist students
deemed inappropriate--such as the rate of false accusations of rape (Alan
Dershowitz was threatened with such charges in his course on rape law.).  At
my own university a biology professor was accused of sexual harassment for
stating in a large lecture that from a biological point of view life begins
at conception.  It is rare for feminists or women's studies professors to
come to the defense of such professors and argue about the importance of
exposing students to a broad range of views (let alone targeting their
emotions) in the classroom. I can just imagine what the reaction would have
been if these professors had been engaging in "exercises" to promote their
understanding of these issues as opposed to merely conveying information.

Seems to me major double standards prevail in this whole discussion.  This
is one of the key things that gives women's studies teaching (the kind
exemplified in the current discussion by those who can't seem to understand
the problems with their "privilege exercises") a bad reputation.  Who needs
"backlash" when teachers themselves act like your local friendly therapist.

DP
---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

Ilana wrote: It's one thing to be upset by learning upsetting
"issues," as you say. It's another to have your *own private life* treated
as the issue!

Okay, so the third reason I have hesitated to post is that I always forget
to say something critical to my point.

Thanks for your response, Ilana, and I do understand this difference. You're
right, in one sense I did not include examples of times where it seemed that
the discussion was about my own private life. But in another sense, the
examples I chose to include do make me the text if I am willing to examine
my privilege. As a US citizen who can stand by safely during times of war,
my personal life is the subject and I'm grateful that my discomfort moves
me. (As I am in realizing that I personally benefit from the power that
comes from Glen Canyon Dam while others lost their land, or that I am able
to park my car in an elite neighborhood and not be shot). If we don't
examine and discuss our personal privilege and position in these
discussions, then yes, they are just abstract ideas about someone else.

I could also have given examples that would seem more specifically about me.
For example, those times in my life where my individual privilege was being
examined through the very exercises being discussed here or times in
multiethnic settings when the subject of "race" comes up. As is true for
everyone in those settings, I was the subject and my private life was being
examined. It is due to my discomfort in those situations that I am an
educator and that I hope my students will examine every topic on a personal
and uncomfortable level. My memories of discussing race in a multiethnic
group for the first time and hearing from people of color what my whiteness
meant to them will always be with me and will always make me feel
uncomfortable in my skin. Uncomfortable enough to know that I must insist
that we examine these issues on a personal level because that is where
change begins.

I have participated in exercises like the one being discussed here a number
of times. I have been very uncomfortable and the learning has been profound.
If my father had not bought a 900 square foot house in 1952 I would not get
to take one single step forward for those questions about privilege--I end
up as far back in the room as is possible. And yet, had I chosen to step
forward who would have known? I'm white. I'm a college professor. I can hide
facts of my life like others can't. I don't choose to examine that as an
abstract awareness and I hope that my students won't either.

Joan

-----
Joan Clingan
Humanities Core Faculty
Faculty Coordinator
Master of Arts Program
Prescott College
220 Grove Avenue
Prescott, AZ 86301
(928) 776-7116, ext. 3004
jclingan  @  prescott.edu

---
Prostitution and porn are the only industries in which women earn more money
than men.

Daphne wrote:

>Let's be direct:  Just how would those of you who seem to think my
>perspective is beyond the pale feel about a teacher who showed anti-abortion
>propaganda in class?  Brought in fetuses in jars and women to "testify" to
>the awful mistake they made in pursuing abortion?  Are you prepared to
>defend THAT in the name of having a profound impact on our students?  I am
>not.

Propaganda is propaganda, and always inappropriate in a
classroom.  But I don't see the original exercise as being
propagandistic, though I can appreciate the ways in which a
person with your political perspective legitimately might do.

I think a more accurate parallel with an abortion theme might be
one in which (and I'm making this up ad hoc) the students start
in a line and the teacher says

All those who have a close friend who's become pregnant
unintentionally take a step back.

If the pregnancy was welcome, take a step forward

If the pregnancy involved violence, take a step back

If the woman's family and friends were supportive, take a step
forward

If the pregancy was terminated by abortion, take a step back

If the abortion was urged on the woman by family or friends, take
a step back.

If the abortion was experienced as a relief, take a step forward

If the abortion caused emotional or spiritual upset, take a step
back

If the woman was able to get effective therapy, take a step
forward

If the emotional upset was prolonged, take a step back

...et cetera.   You can see where I'm going.

Different people have different levels of privilege (sorry, I
can't seem to escape that word), and those disparities have
important effects for better or worse.  One person might be
denied an abortion that she desperately wants, and finds her life
greatly limited by the sequelae, while another is coerced into an
abortion for which she later feels disabling sorrow and guilt
that ruins _her_ life.  In either case, I hope you'd agree that
it is not a good situation.

I really don't think it's propaganda to reveal what real life is
like, especially not to people for whom the university might be
their first exposure to values and circumstances unlike their
parents'.

Margaret

--
Margaret Tarbet / oneko  @  mindspring.com
--------------------------------------
Il felino pi· piccolo F un capolavoro.
--Leonardo da Vinci

No, it's not "propaganda" to reveal what "real life is like."  But, of
course, "real life" is many things and it's interesting to note which of
those many things are considered crucial in the feminist classroom.  We
choose which items to focus on in our teaching, of course, and we then
consider how to go about that teaching.  Making students "confront" one or
another of their supposed privileges or lack-thereof through a classroom
"exercise" is a pedagogical abuse.  The fact that it's popular in women's
studies is a sad statement about women's studies, not a justification of any
kind. Consciousness-raising exercises have no place in a university
classroom.

DP


---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

I'm a little confused as to how folks are using the word
propaganda.  What's that old saying? "We give information; our enemies give
propaganda."

As you know, I teach Latin American history. In a recent class (Graduate
Seminar in the History of U.S. Foreign Policy in L.A.) I was startled to
hear some of my students arguing for the necessity of using torture in
certain situations.  I have very strong convictions about this subject.
There was simply no way that they were going to walk out of that classroom
thinking that torture was acceptable under any circumstances
whatsoever.  Governments have been struggling with morality in
international relations for decades and international law forbids it but
some governments continue to do it. Nevertheless, I don't think that there
is any justification for it. Period. I showed them a short film about the
School of the Americas, and we discussed a number of testimonies of
torture. I told them about an experience I had translating for a woman who
had been tortured by the Argentine military. Does that mean that I fed them
propaganda?  Should I have found some pro-torture literature so I could
give it equal time?  What about slavery? Or child molestation?  Or the
problems with pedophilia in the Catholic Church?

Our values are present in every aspect of our teaching unless we are
teaching math or something equally abstract. Women's studies sprang from
political roots, from the Ms. *click*, from the consciousness raising
groups that validated women's experience, from a reaction to the
generations of scholarship that left women out of everything, from the
scientific studies that looked at men's bodies only but made assertions
about all people. Why should we retreat from the political implications of
our studies and beliefs?  As I see it, the reasons for women's studies are
all around us, from the billboards that use women's bodies to sell
everything in the world, to the heart-wrenching accounts of the Taliban's
treatment of their women, to the astounding number of men who kill their
families compared to the few demented women who go that route, to the
victims of sexual crimes in a church that doesn't find its women worthy of
the priesthood.

The objectivity that traditional scholars claimed was never really
objectivity.  How can an objective historical account ignore women, blacks,
native Americans, Asians, Latinos, and working-class people?  How can we
discuss the obvious effects of discrimination on all of these groups
without naming the oppressor? Why were Africans Americans counted as only
3/4 of a person in the U.S. Constitution?  Why did women have to wait until
1920 before they were allowed to vote in the U.S.? Who stopped them?  Why
can the U.S. test its missiles on the island of Vieques even though Puerto
Rico objects? How can we discuss rape without naming the rapist?

"Political correctness" isn't a strategy; it is a rhetorical buzzword used
by conservatives to attack and trivialize the real struggles that the
oppressed have fought against oppressors. We discuss hot button issues in
women's studies classes because they are at the core of the discipline
which, like any dynamic discipline, continues to evolve making mistakes
along the way.  Consciousness raising exercises used responsibly are just
arrows in our quivers along with many other tools.



Dra. Rosa Maria Pegueros, J.D., Ph.D.
Department of History
    & Women's Studies Program
217C Washburn Hall
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
         E:mail: pegueros  @  uri.edu
         Phone:(401) 874-4092
         Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Web pages:
http://www.uri.edu/personal/rpe2836u/
http://nick.uri.edu/artsci/wms/pegueros.htm
*****************************************************
"The pains of peace are preferable
         to the agonies of war." --Yitzhak Rabin.
*****************************************************