Boomer here -- came from comfortable, but not rich background. Went to flagship state universities for undergrad and grad degrees. It's all great to ramble on about "privilege", but I wonder if the way to deal with this is to seek to have a life dedicated to service. Become a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter, a police officer.I spent my career as an early childhood educator. I personally believe that working with young children and their families is an important contribution to society -- low status, low pay -- but so rewarding. And I was only able to do because my husband also chose a low paying professional level, service-oriented job as an Episcopal priest.
We were raised by a generation where our fathers had mostly served in WW II. I dislike the generational titles that assume more value to one generation than another -- we're all made up of people -- but rather than grimacing about the privilege one possesses, I think you can leverage that privilege to serve others.
As an elderly academic, I was irritated, though perhaps the commentary is well-suited for college students. I find Mr. Deresiewicz's comment "...go into banking or consulting or law or medicine or tech...all of which... are highly lucrative, and four of which do much more harm than good" annoyingly glib. The guy has a point, and says it with style, but the embedded assertion is that banking, consulting, law, and tech do much more harm than good. I suppose a case could be made for this claim, but one could make a pretty good argument to the contrary for most of these. What I find especially annoying is that this and other assertions are rhetorically phrased in ways that make it difficult to question or debate.
Another message to college students is for them to drop their generational chauvinism. They may part of a great generation, but they have not done anything yet. Remind students at elite schools that they are standing on the shoulders of the principled and unprincipled, the honest and the dishonest.
"A friend of mine who teaches in the Ivy League once told me that her students do indeed talk a lot about making the world a better place, but their idea of how to do so invariably involves some version of getting to the top: becoming a federal judge, writing for the New York Times, founding a tech company, running a socially conscious investment fund. So be honest: if you had to choose—either money and/or status, or changing the world—which would you go for? I thought so."
But you or your "friend" never put forth "changing the world" alternatives to the aspirations you scoff at. What are they?
Maybe changing the world is the wrong goal, or at least needs to be spelled out. I would suggest any service to another poor, disabled, or struggling human being on a face to face, one on one level- changes the world writ small. Teach someone to read, or ride a bike, or dribble a basketball. Help someone get a job. Train a therapy dog and bring it to the VA. Dish out hot meals. Volunteer to be a mentor to a kid in foster care. Instead of writing a check to deductible charities in December, set aside one or two freaking hours a week to ENGAGE.
And here is the great secret of direct altruism: you share the benefit more than you’d ever dream.
I don't even think it needs to be service to the poor or disabled. It simply needs to be service thought of as service. Many jobs involve service to a fairly broad set of people. There is honor and value in that, even when the people are not somehow disadvantaged.
Can one not aspire to an elite college/university because one wants an elite quality liberal education and has the intellectual chops to merit and benefit from it? And is that an OK motivation, Mr. D? Or am I missing something here?
I liked the article. Agree that it is irreverent, even snarky, but I took that as a reflection of the irreverence and snarkiness of those telling others to 'check' 'priviilege.' Rich, coming from many of those the most privileged in our society, as noted in the article.
Do have to add that many others at elite institutions did not come from the top 1%, 10%, or 20%. There is still some attempt to include a few from the first in the family to graduate college - I was one of those in the 1970s who got into Yale Law, where I went to become a 'change agent.' Some of us volunteered for legal aid while in law school, some continued after, and a few of us did become teachers - not just in elite institutions, but in our public K-12 schools as well.
Still, I get the sense that most are still 'privileged' and have no real intent in letting go of that privilege - for many that is the primary purpose for going to an elite institution in the first place - to stay privileged.
This piece has cleared up the meaning of "check your privilege" for me, assuming the author's own understanding is correct.
I really had never known whether the "check" of "check your privilege" was the same as in "check your battery" or as in "check your impulses" or as in "check your six-shooter at the door." Each meaning works to some extent.
So "check your privilege" means "take a look at your privilege and understand how much you've got." Or doesn't it? I'd like to understand the phrase correctly while it's in vogue.
It’s usually used as a way to shut someone up. Telling a person to “check their privilege” means you believe their race/religion/sexual orientation etc renders their opinion meaningless.
Exactly. "Check your privilege" is an inherently ad hominem argument. The response should almost universally be "My privilege is irrelevant to my point."
I don't know what the coiner had in mind, but I figure "pay attention to" (like in "check this out"), "restrain" (like in "hold in check") and "set aside" (like in "check your coat") would all work, but the true understanding is what @Adrienne Scott wrote: "Shut up."
Boomer here -- came from comfortable, but not rich background. Went to flagship state universities for undergrad and grad degrees. It's all great to ramble on about "privilege", but I wonder if the way to deal with this is to seek to have a life dedicated to service. Become a teacher, a nurse, a firefighter, a police officer.I spent my career as an early childhood educator. I personally believe that working with young children and their families is an important contribution to society -- low status, low pay -- but so rewarding. And I was only able to do because my husband also chose a low paying professional level, service-oriented job as an Episcopal priest.
We were raised by a generation where our fathers had mostly served in WW II. I dislike the generational titles that assume more value to one generation than another -- we're all made up of people -- but rather than grimacing about the privilege one possesses, I think you can leverage that privilege to serve others.
As an elderly academic, I was irritated, though perhaps the commentary is well-suited for college students. I find Mr. Deresiewicz's comment "...go into banking or consulting or law or medicine or tech...all of which... are highly lucrative, and four of which do much more harm than good" annoyingly glib. The guy has a point, and says it with style, but the embedded assertion is that banking, consulting, law, and tech do much more harm than good. I suppose a case could be made for this claim, but one could make a pretty good argument to the contrary for most of these. What I find especially annoying is that this and other assertions are rhetorically phrased in ways that make it difficult to question or debate.
Another message to college students is for them to drop their generational chauvinism. They may part of a great generation, but they have not done anything yet. Remind students at elite schools that they are standing on the shoulders of the principled and unprincipled, the honest and the dishonest.
You wrote:
"A friend of mine who teaches in the Ivy League once told me that her students do indeed talk a lot about making the world a better place, but their idea of how to do so invariably involves some version of getting to the top: becoming a federal judge, writing for the New York Times, founding a tech company, running a socially conscious investment fund. So be honest: if you had to choose—either money and/or status, or changing the world—which would you go for? I thought so."
But you or your "friend" never put forth "changing the world" alternatives to the aspirations you scoff at. What are they?
robertsdavidn.subsyack.com/about
robertsdavidn.substack.com
no edit feature
Maybe changing the world is the wrong goal, or at least needs to be spelled out. I would suggest any service to another poor, disabled, or struggling human being on a face to face, one on one level- changes the world writ small. Teach someone to read, or ride a bike, or dribble a basketball. Help someone get a job. Train a therapy dog and bring it to the VA. Dish out hot meals. Volunteer to be a mentor to a kid in foster care. Instead of writing a check to deductible charities in December, set aside one or two freaking hours a week to ENGAGE.
And here is the great secret of direct altruism: you share the benefit more than you’d ever dream.
I don't even think it needs to be service to the poor or disabled. It simply needs to be service thought of as service. Many jobs involve service to a fairly broad set of people. There is honor and value in that, even when the people are not somehow disadvantaged.
What you have done has helped locally and there is honor and value in that. That's something to be proud of.
Well said!
I go back to the Talmudic maxim I love so much: "it's not your responsibility to save the world, but you can't desist from it either."
Direct altruism is a wonderful "deal," for everyone involved.
robertsdavidn.substack.com/about
Can one not aspire to an elite college/university because one wants an elite quality liberal education and has the intellectual chops to merit and benefit from it? And is that an OK motivation, Mr. D? Or am I missing something here?
I liked the article. Agree that it is irreverent, even snarky, but I took that as a reflection of the irreverence and snarkiness of those telling others to 'check' 'priviilege.' Rich, coming from many of those the most privileged in our society, as noted in the article.
Do have to add that many others at elite institutions did not come from the top 1%, 10%, or 20%. There is still some attempt to include a few from the first in the family to graduate college - I was one of those in the 1970s who got into Yale Law, where I went to become a 'change agent.' Some of us volunteered for legal aid while in law school, some continued after, and a few of us did become teachers - not just in elite institutions, but in our public K-12 schools as well.
Still, I get the sense that most are still 'privileged' and have no real intent in letting go of that privilege - for many that is the primary purpose for going to an elite institution in the first place - to stay privileged.
This piece has cleared up the meaning of "check your privilege" for me, assuming the author's own understanding is correct.
I really had never known whether the "check" of "check your privilege" was the same as in "check your battery" or as in "check your impulses" or as in "check your six-shooter at the door." Each meaning works to some extent.
So "check your privilege" means "take a look at your privilege and understand how much you've got." Or doesn't it? I'd like to understand the phrase correctly while it's in vogue.
It’s usually used as a way to shut someone up. Telling a person to “check their privilege” means you believe their race/religion/sexual orientation etc renders their opinion meaningless.
Exactly. "Check your privilege" is an inherently ad hominem argument. The response should almost universally be "My privilege is irrelevant to my point."
Yes, that's true. However, I was just wondering about the meaning of "check".
I don't know what the coiner had in mind, but I figure "pay attention to" (like in "check this out"), "restrain" (like in "hold in check") and "set aside" (like in "check your coat") would all work, but the true understanding is what @Adrienne Scott wrote: "Shut up."