This might not be the smartest thing I ever wrote but for some reason I do feel the need to write about this once (and only once 😊).
Let me just set the scene: I’m a middle aged (European)
man, largely in favour of the woke & decolonizing global health agendas
(long overdue), I don’t need much convincing that structural/systemic racism
remains widespread in pretty much every country in the world, although it’s in
some countries worse than in others. I wouldn’t describe myself as “woke”
though – some things are beyond me, plus I aimed to be, at a certain point in
my life (like many in my generation), J Krishnamurti-style “aware” (instead of “awake”
😊). In case you wonder, that didn’t really happen.
So, with that out of the way, I wanted to briefly offer some thoughts on a
practice that seems to become more
common (last week, for example, I noticed it at a Decolonize Global Health seminar
I attended): to make one’s privilege(s) explicit, before you start talking.
Now, I
certainly get the idea of ‘privilege’: I probably experienced it most during my
travelling years (2000-2003) and when teaching English in China. Now in Covid
times, very much so as well, obviously. But of course, in many ways, I had been
privileged all along, even if I wasn’t fully aware of it at the time (white, male, stable upbringing,
safe country, relatively good governance, social security,… you name it).
But although I understand why it can be
useful to indicate one’s’ “positionality” in a debate, I don’t really see the
point of making one’s privilege explicit before starting to talk in a session. Or
rather, if one does so, I would like to see it broader. Let me explain why.
For one, it’s blatantly obvious for most of
us in these sessions that many of us are ‘privileged’. I admit, it provides
some interesting (and sometimes necessary) info. But check somebody’s social
media, and you will know as much (if not more).
Two, it feels a bit like the self-flagellation
from the Middle Ages, a sort of purifying ritual (that especially Americans
seem fond of). Or if you want a metaphor from another part of the world, it also
smacks a bit of “neo-Mao style self-criticizing” (like Jack Ma had to do in
recent weeks versus Xi Jinping).
Three, for some reason, it’s always the
well-meaning public health students or soft-spoken young social scientists who
seem to be willing to declare their privilege, I never see this being done by the
posh medical students heading for their first Tesla, let alone by the ‘top dogs’
in the system. I’ll be all for declaring one’s privilege in sessions if Bill Gates, Seth Berkley, Peter Sands, Albert
Bourla, Emmanuel Macron (not to mention Jeff B) do so too, when kicking off their
High-Level meetings and replenishments.
Four: it’s mainly young people who seem bent
on declaring their privilege. When you get older, that sort of thing doesn’t
come that easily anymore, it appears, perhaps because by then, one day you feel
privileged, the next day, nah… not really. Maybe also because you increasingly
realize that we human beings are actually a mix: of (1) privilege (and
some of us are certainly far more privileged than others), (2) struggle
(“life happens to you, your family…”, and you can’t really blame anybody for it
… (eg disease, tragical accidents, choices you made that turn out the wrong
ones…)) and (3) exploitation by a ruthless capitalist/patriarchal/... economic system (unless you belong to the 0.00001 % (and even
then)).
My point is: unless you start talking about
all these dimensions, your self-introduction – focusing on privilege only - remains
a bit fragmentary. I don’t think that in
a scientific session you need to go into the ‘struggle’ dimension, but discussing
‘privilege’ should be complemented by talking about ‘exploitation’, in my
opinion. Even if I’m very well aware
that the ‘exploitation’ suffered by participants in most of these sessions doesn’t
even come close to the exploitation of the ones “really” hit (and often
destroyed) by this economic/patriarchal/… system. But this sort of ‘race to the
bottom’ benchmarking is one of the favourite legitimizing mechanisms of our neoliberal
global system, and there’s no need to give in to it.
As make no mistake, many of these
well-meaning global health students won’t feel as ‘privileged’ when they have
to hit the labour market, or more in general, join the rat race where ever more
needs to be done with fewer people for reasons of ‘efficiency’. When some of
them become Deliveroo or Uber Eat-deliverers, previous talk of ‘privilege’ will
feel empty. And I really don’t need to go into the way many public health
people in LMICs, even some of the relatively ‘privileged’ ones, are now being
hit by budget cuts, often coming from the North.
Also, I
feel “privileged” to have grown up in a time where the massive size of the ecological
crisis & planetary emergency wasn’t that obvious yet, I still had a few ‘innocent
decades’ in that respect. It’s anything but “a privilege” to have to face the
climate & biodiversity crisis, as a young generation, and clean up the mess
(if it’s even possible).
Finally, unless I’m mistaken, “global health”
& academia have a fair amount of exploitation itself, both being quite neoliberally
run “businesses” at times, including towards relatively privileged young people
based in the South, so better to also include that in the “picture”.
So here’s my suggestion:
Let’s indeed declare one’s privilege at the
start of a session or even plenary, but (1) let the bigwigs do so first, and
let them also make explicit why they continue to take the decisions they take
to sustain a ruthless economic system; (2) when you, as a humble global health
student or staff member, do so, make it something “creative” in which you also
include the exploitation dimension.
Like: “ ‘I’m privileged in many ways, … but
having said that, I’m not as privileged as (and no doubt more exploited than)
Bill Gates ( who doesn’t have any ‘deliverables’ or KPIs apart from
self-imposed ones, as far as I can tell), I don’t have Seth Berkley’s or Peter
Sands’ salary package, neither do I have billion dollar signs in my eyes like Albert
“Pfizer” Bourla, “breathe” privilege like Emmanuel Macron … and I certainly don’t have Jeff Bezos’
privilege to exploit hundreds of thousands of employees, while getting filthy
rich with it”.
For the ones among you who prefer three dimensions
(and who doesn’t in academia? 😊) ‘white supremacy’, a term
that is used a bit too easily in woke discussions, in my opinion, could be
added to the equation. That is no doubt
a continuum as well, not a binary thing.
Let’s call it perhaps ‘supremacist thinking/mindset’ (as
obviously, this is not just a white ‘privilege’)
So when we exclude ‘struggle’ from the
discussion (even if there are, obviously, links with ‘privilege’ & ‘exploitation’
dimensions, see the whole SDH debate), we could then go for a “3-D
declaration”.
Let’s call it the woke equivalent of the UHC
cube. You would make explicit:
-
The amount of privilege (so far in your life)
-
The amount of (capitalist/patriarchal/…) exploitation you suffer in your
current job/life
-
The amount of supremacy thinking
(my guess: most of us in global health score very low on this dimension,
in the year 2021, but happy to be proven wrong)
That should make for interesting “3-D introductions”,
I think. And for the many cube fans among you, you can even visualize it 😊!
PS: I’m well aware that there are many more
dimensions (see also the intersectionality debate), but at my age, I’m not that
intellectually flexible anymore : )
PS: let me repeat this again, for good order:
I know the ‘exploitation’ doesn’t come close to what marginalized people in
LMICs (and, increasingly, HICs) suffer. But I don’t believe in this sort of ‘race
to the bottom’ benchmarking, which is too often used by “the powers that be” to
sustain their system. We shouldn’t let them.
And in Covid times even less.
