Going back to 'White Privilege', I saw the following on Thought Catalog and it explains the misconception of White Privilege better than I could:
'
White privilege refers to the myriad social advantages and benefits that come with being a member of the dominant race. In the book
Privilege, Power, and Difference (rated 4 stars on Amazon), we find that the author, Allan G. Johnson, (Ph.d. in sociology) "links theory with engaging examples in ways that enable readers to see the underlying nature and consequences of privilege and their connection to it."
This means that it links theory with people's personal experiences and what they have seen as institutional racism and how people with "privilege" can identify with them. However, one has to remember that a personal experience is seen as a
subjective observation—one that is not concrete and is thus subject to bias. An
objective observation would be something that can be observed independently of personal bias. However, suggesting that their personal experiences are invalid due to no concrete evidence and possible bias is to marginalize their personal experience and deem it unimportant. Fair enough, but what kind of scientific theory would rely on subjective observation rather than objective observation?
That would be
critical race theory. Also known as CRT, critical race theory is described as:
an academic discipline focused upon the application of race, law, and power.
Key elements of CRT include, but are not limited to: the critique of liberalism, revisionist interpretations of American civil-rights law and progress, essentialism philosophy, white privilege, appeal to emotion, and "naming one's own reality" or "counter-storytelling."
From a rational standpoint, CRT seems to utilize logical fallacies and aggressive tactics to argue issues of race.
Institutionalized racism can be described as "the structures, policies, practices, and norms resulting in differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society by race….It is structural, having been absorbed into our institutions of custom, practice and law,
so there need not be an identifiable offender."
The highlighted part above is worth considering; this is basically saying that institutionalized racism is so real, we don't need evidence to point it out. Not only does CRT admit to using appeal to emotion and "naming one's own reality," but, it also utilizes what is known as the "bandwagon fallacy"—appealing to popularity or the fact that because many people believe or do something, it must be true. It's the same as arguing, "If Bigfoot isn't real, how come so many people have seen Bigfoot?"
So where does this use of logical fallacies stem from? If you're getting confused, let me clarify. Modern racial politics engages discourse on the topic of institutionalized racism and white privilege, in which most examples in contemporary America are mostly proven by critical race theory, which itself utilizes logical fallacies and aggressive discourse tactics which originally stem from
critical theory.
What is critical theory? Well, there are
two definitions. You have the literary and the philosophical. Literary critical theory focuses on knowledge via interpretation to understand the meaning of human texts and symbolic expressions. The philosophical is defined as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. But why would it aim to challenge and change society as a whole? If you read the link, you'd see that the beginning of the second paragraph states:
In philosophy, the term critical theory describes the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s.
Critical theory, it shows, is a school of thought that was developed with a political ideology and possible social agenda in mind. Of course, that doesn't mean it's wrong. People have their issues with different political ideologies all the time. We've all seen how rabid Republicans and Democrats can get during debates. So critical theory is used in discourse to bring about social change.
But what exactly are the methods used by critical theory in order to come to conclusions for change? As shown in the
Qualitative Research Guideline Project, the methodology is focused on getting people to discuss and reflect on personal experiences, and the researcher provides a discourse for change. In short: using subjective observation to cause real social change. Not objective observation, but subjective—an observation we already know to be biased and thus not entirely reliable.
Using something that might not be real to change something that is real. That almost seems like circular logic. Why would it use logical fallacies to incite debate? The notion of modern institutionalized racism and white privilege can only be conceived and understood as narrative reality if one allows themselves to stop using logical reasoning and start jumping though illogical hoops with the triad of fallacies presented by critical theory and CRT.
It also shows that critical theory isn't a theory. It's a psychological tactic composed of handpicked logical fallacies with the purpose of destroying the very idea of opposition toward critical theorists from the mind of the critical theorists' target population. It also aims to degrade the social cohesion of the target population by convincing them that their social cohesion, indeed their very society, doesn't exist and therefore shouldn't exist. At the same time, it claims that social cohesion of the target population has created a social constraint toward the target's minority population that cannot be found to exist outside of one's own perception or illusion of reality.
When people who implore others to believe that modern institutional racism and white privilege exist, it's imperative to remember that they utilize these same flawed psychological tactics, for example:
Steve: You have offended me by being racist (appeal to emotion) as you have not recognized your white privilege (subjective observation).
Dave: You're making a subjective observation regarding my "privilege" and are using the appeal to emotion by claiming that I need to think about your feelings.
Steve: You are incapable of understanding because you are not thinking about my feelings (shame on you for not using the appeal to emotion) and are being biased in regard to your white privilege (shame on your for not using subjective observation).'
