Two weeks ago, the Undergraduate Government of Boston College launched a photo campaign titled, “Never Have I Ever,” which aimed to generate dialogue about various forms of privilege. In a short amount of time, the campaign has attracted over fifty participants, nearly 1,000 likes on Facebook, and hundreds of shares.
Yesterday, a BC student criticized the campaign in an article titled “UGBC Takes a Shot at Privilege Awareness, and Misses.” As the title implies, the piece highlighted ways in which the execution of the photo campaign undermines its mission. The author raises a number of helpful critiques that will be used to improve the campaign moving forward. However, many of the criticisms are shortsighted and inaccurate; the lack of critical analysis only serves to further highlight the need for a campaign like “Never Have I Ever.”
The author began by defining privilege to demonstrate why the campaign is misguided. He explains, “Privilege is not about convenience or fortune, it is about benefiting from a social construct, like race or gender roles.” While this is true, the author goes on to say, “Being disabled to any degree can be a burden, but one created by misfortune, not social bias.” The reality is, society is structured around various sets of norms that benefit certain groups and exclude others. These are not limited to race, gender or sexuality; instead they extend to various other aspects of identity, including but not limited to ability, nationality, mental health and socioeconomic class.
The problem with his specific example is that disability is socially constructed. Disability is created because society acts in a way that assumes everyone is an able-bodied person. Therefore, disability only exists within the socially constructed framework of dominant norms. The fact is the university only has to “accommodate those with disabilities” because disability is socially constructed in the first place. This is true of many other examples that the author would disregard as examples of “misfortune, not social bias.”
Furthermore, the author’s assertions that many of the “Never Have I Ever” statements are conflating luxury with privilege is flawed. The examples he cites such as reliable access to hot water are indeed luxuries, but they are also a privilege rooted in real, systemic problems. In this same paragraph, he likens the statement “Never have I ever been told my lifestyle is too controversial” to the Westboro Baptist Church. However, his comparison ignores the fact that this photo is specifically about heterosexism, as indicated by the color scheme outlined in the “About” section of the campaign’s Facebook page. The author willingly obscures the reality that LGBTQ persons lifestyles’ are often dismissed or degraded as controversial. This is not only a careless argument, but a perpetuation of the system we aim to deconstruct.
The author also claims that, “By promoting black, white, brown, yellow, red-bone, caramel, pine cone, and olive faces as all being privileged in some way, UGBC sends the message that everyone can be privileged, and therefore no one is inherently oppressed.” This criticism contradicts his argument that people are not inherently oppressed, but rather oppressed through social constructions. It also overlooks the nuanced ways in which privilege operates in our society, nearly insinuating that racial privilege is the only kind of privilege that exists. This is simply not true.
As the author acknowledges earlier, there are other forms of social bias that create and maintain privilege, including gender norms. If this were a campaign specifically about male privilege, and we featured photos of men with black, brown, white and all-the-colors-of-the-flesh-colored-rainbow bodies, would he make the same argument?
Additionally, he further undermines his call for intentional action in social change by writing his own captions for “Never Have I Ever” images. In these captions, he makes assumptions about each of the participants, assigning their wealth, interests and opinions based on no real knowledge of the individual. This not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes, but highlights one of the reasons we created this campaign in the first place.
It is possible to be privileged in some spaces, and oppressed in others; the two are not mutually exclusive. In conversations of justice and equality, oppressed communities should not be pitted against one another. Too often, within and between oppressed groups, there are arguments over “who has it worse,” rejections of other people’s realities and denial of the various spaces in which we do have privilege. Because I am straight, able and cisgender I have certain privileges.
This does not refute or conflict with the fact that I experience oppression as a mixed female from a low socioeconomic background. To change the way the system impacts other people, I must first acknowledge the ways that society positively and negatively impacts me. The author specifically takes issue with the fact that the campaign highlights individuals with privilege. He asks, “How can we make people aware of those without rights, by promoting the faces of the privileged?” With this campaign, we have chosen a specific way to encourage reflection on identity and privilege.
As an anti-racist, I am well aware that there are many ways to be an anti-racist. I work diligently to advocate in various spheres of anti-racism because I recognize the importance of meeting people where they are at. To educate others about social justice, and specifically about privilege, we must first realize that everyone is entering into the conversation with different backgrounds, different identities and different experiences. These and various other parts of a person will ultimately determine what causes him or her to realize his or her privilege. The message must resonate, or it will not be heard.
“Never Have I Ever”’s target audience is an individual who has not yet recognized their privilege (racial or otherwise). It aims to raise the viewer’s consciousness about ways in which various aspects of their identity privilege them over others. This is only one small step in creating change, but it is a necessary one. From feedback that we have received, I would argue this has been at least moderately successful, although there is no tangible way to know how many people are critically thinking about the images we released.
That being said, if the campaign is not adequately fulfilling its mission, we do need to look critically at its execution. The author describes that many of the images indicate “a lack of perspective.” He explains that many of the statements can be read in more than one way, detaching the photos from the campaign’s mission. This is something we will keep in mind as we work with participants to develop their statements, and truly challenge them to put things into perspective.
Another valid critique is the author’s realization that despite the campaign’s dedication to privilege awareness, the Facebook page “doesn’t inform us of what privilege is, why it’s important, or what should be done about it.” It is difficult to meaningfully address this in a Facebook page description, but over the summer we will be working to develop an informative website to re-launch the campaign next year. In creating this website, it will be incredibly important to include all three of these explanations. This will ensure that the campaign’s message is not lost and its mission is fully realized.
The author also asserts that at Boston College we often, “hide the issue of power dynamics and social stratification behind a guise of multiculturalism.” This is a real concern as we enter into the complicated dialogue of privilege awareness, and one we have considered at length as the creators of the campaign. Without the proper context the photos run the risk of perpetuating “colorblind” philosophies that obscure the underlying issue. Moving forward, we will work to deconstruct this harmful ideology and emphasize the true roles of privilege, intersectionality and allyship both to participants and the audience. In our reflection and plans to improve the campaign, we welcome feedback and suggestions on how to more meaningfully engage students in this conversation.
In many ways, the author of the critical piece is right; regardless of our intentions, at the end of the day, this is about impact. Over the next few months, we will work hard to ensure that the impact of “Never Have I Ever” is positive, productive and maximized.
-Nanci Fiore-Chettiar, UGBC President 2014-2015
