The privilege paradigm

The status of white privilege is a big issue in Democrat politics. But before we can analyze white privilege (assuming that's a meaningful category), we need to grasp the concept of privilege in general. Let's consider a few examples of what might constitute people from a privileged background. Terence Tao is on the short list of greatest living mathematicians. His mother received a first-class honors degree in physics and mathematics at the University of Hong Kong. Actress Anjelica Huston is the daughter of renowned American director John Huston. Harpsichordist Igor Kipnis was the son of renowned opera basso Alexander Kipnis. The father of mathematical physicist Roger Penrose was a geneticist and Fellow of the Royal Society. Ed Witten was the son a theoretical physicist.

What these example have in common is how the background of these individuals contributed to their success in their chosen field. It's not coincidental that they had that kind of background. Their background proved to be advantageous in their career choice. In that respect we might say they were privileged kids.

Suppose we compare that to a cowboy in Montana. Let's say he grew up on a ranch, adjacent to a small town. He was cut off from "civilization" growing up. So it might well be said that he's underprivileged. He never had the advantages enjoyed by the individuals I just mentioned.

But here's where the definition of privilege becomes relative or circular. The privilege paradigm is goal-oriented. It reasons back from success in a particular field to the background of the individual, which in some cases gave them an unearned competitive advantage.

So our cowboy is underprivileged, at a disadvantage, provided that his dream is to become a movie star, physicist, mathematician, or classical musician. Suppose, though, that was never his ambition in life. He hates big cities. He loves horseback riding. Loves the out of doors. He drinks in natural beauty. Rivers. Fields and streams. The Grant Tetons. The starry night, undiminished by light pollution from the big city. He relishes the freedom to make his own schedule, rather than punching a clock.

So in that respect we can reverse the comparative advantages. In relation to what he cares about, what he finds fulfilling, he has a privileged background in contrast to Kipnis, Penrose, Witten, Huston, and Tao, who–by comparison–are underprivileged. If the aim is to enjoy the lifestyle of a Montana cowboy, then their background puts them at a nearly insurmountable disadvantage, by prejudicing them against ever considering that alternative.

Put another way, your background often has a conditioning effect, not only on what you're likely to succeed at, but on what you wish to succeed at. They'd have to overcome their background to appreciate ranching in Montana. And they wouldn't have any skills, honed from childhood, suiting them to that lifestyle.

It's striking how much of the American mythos is bound up with what progressive academics would regard as an underprivileged background. Take Mark Twain's valorization of his childhood as a country boy. Nostalgic memories of summers at his uncle's farm. Life on the Mississippi. Exploring the local caves. Or consider the Western in American mythos. Admittedly, that's often romanticized. 

My father grew up in small-town Yakima, in the 20s-30s. He was dying to escape that and make it to "civilization" in Seattle. Because we had relatives in E. Washington, we made frequent trips there. It was a nice change of pace. Stretches of E. Washington are bleak and barren, but it also has some majestic landscape, like the Columbia river gorge. Spokane is a handsome town. 

I was once talking to a cousin who grew up in E. Washington. He waxed wistful about hunting and horseback riding. A different lifestyle. But for him, that was good.

I didn't grow up in Seattle, and I dislike the urban lifestyle. On the other hand, some folks revel in the urban lifestyle. So there's no one-size-fits-all ideal. "Privilege" is person-variable. 

So the privilege paradigm is analogous to the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, where you begin with the outcome, where the dart lands, then draw a circle around the dart, exclaiming that it retroactively hit the bullseye. By the same token, the privilege paradigm begins with a hypothetical ideal outcome, then reasons back to an advantageous or disadvantageous initial conditions, where achieving or missing the outcome is impeded or facilitated by one's background. That, however, typically trades on a provincial and elitist preconception of what is best in life. If, to get the best out of life, it's be better to be a movie star or physicist than a cowboy, then a boy with a rural background is underprivileged. But the assignment of what's ideal is arbitrary. It tacitly mirrors the values of academics who formulate the privilege paradigm.