People concerned about issues related to the arts and equity (funding is just one area) have used many terms to describe the juggernaut that is the world of symphonies, ballet companies, museums, and theaters. Most of the terminology used is either offensive or absurdly complex (and/or unwieldy). “Mainstream” illustrates the former. It implies this Eurocentric world to be the standard, the “normal.” It places it at the center, marginalizing those organizations that, by use of the term, are outside the mainstream. Another descriptor, one of my favorites–European aristocratic cultural tradition preservation societies–illustrates the latter (and is also, of course, a “bit” confrontational).
For the record, I do understand that many members of the symphony/ballet/museum/ theater world do not consider themselves juggernaut-worthy. Most are painfully aware of their constant struggle for funds, recognition, etc. and cannot imagine themselves to be “big dogs.” But their perspective is from the top of the food chain. It is only those arts organizations that are profoundly under-resourced in comparison that can see this.
Recently I have begun to experiment with a new label. The issue here is the historic preference given to presenters of a particular cultural tradition in the context of a rapidly diversifying society. Eurocentric arts organizations receive (and have received) the lion’s share of resources (financial, human, “infrastructural”). The system favors these institutions. “Systemically privileged” reflects that preferential treatment. It also names the issue in a fairly straightforward way. So, for the time being, I’m going to give this a whirl: systemically privileged arts organizations. I invite–with some trepidation knowing how fraught this topic is–your thoughts. What am I missing? What invisible (to me) assumptions does this include? (I am well aware that I have many blind spots.) In other words, what are some of the ways that this is as unworkable as so many of the other labels we attempt to use? Of course, if you like it, feel free to use it yourself.
The continuation of the level of privilege these institutions enjoy is socially and politically untenable given the demographic upheaval we are experiencing. (It is also, of course, morally indefensible even if historically understandable.) But until we have good ways of naming it and discussing it we will be difficult to make any significant changes.
Engage!
Doug
Photo:
Some rights reserved by Dr Stephen Dann
You write this in the interest of landing on a better ‘label’ for these institutions, but I am worried. It might be worth considering the difference between descriptions and labels.
While “systematically privileged” is an accurate description in these circumstances, its use as a label might suffer from also coming off as confrontational. The truth of the description is one significant part of the relationship we are examining, and in *that* *circumstance* *alone*, as a description, it seems appropriate. However, as a general label for referring to institutions that are in this isolated way subject to that description, if fails to capture anything but the negative.
There are other descriptions for other purposes, some more confrontational, others less. The danger with using a description as a label is that we have captured only one of the many aspects, have reduced a plurality to a monism, and whitewashed diversity, oddly enough in the name of promoting diversity. Be careful of promoting labels. Accurate descriptions serve noble purposes, but labels rarely do.
There is the question as to the purpose of the label. “systematically privileged” comes across as a desire to shame the organizations and the donors into different actions.
For the institutions it appears to de a desire to move them toward being less Eurocentric, less traditional American Symphonies, Ballets, Museums, and Theaters. (Tradition being only what a group has done over time- but notice also has a different rhetorical stance.)
For the donors, it appears to say that your money should not go here unless you are spreading about in a more diverse fashion. That these are overfunded institutions that receive a greater share of the pie than is their due.
The point is, the desire for the label appears to be confrontational. You want people to confront something and you want them to change. By desiring someone to change, you are saying that something about them or their organization is currently unacceptable.
Some people will feel under attack because they depend on that funding for their wellbeing and they believe in the mission of their organization makes them a good person. The label you put forth says that they currently are not, or at least not as good as they “should” be. I bet a lot of people will not notice that difference though.
You are not looking for a pure descriptive label. You are looking for a political one that helps you achieve the change you desire.
For me, white privilege and male privilege were both enlightening concepts that I believe make me more empathetic person than I was before. I am better off checking my privilege. That is a change in me, maybe not a huge one bleeding heart liberal that I always was but a change. That I believe I am a better person for.
I also think that more people and organizations should be more aware of privilege. That this is a change in them that I desire.
But I will not say that those terms aren’t meant to call out people or society. But be honest about the intentions. Your label is a rhetorical argument. It’s ok, be honest and work for change. Sometimes we need to argue. Don’t weasel word it, and think your creating a purely neutral descriptive label which is disingenuous to your reasoning for the label. That is not what I think you mean, nor what I think you want.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are right that a central issue is the use of the description. I’m constantly having to address this in workshops and most of the alternatives are either confusing, don’t adequately describe the situation, or are offensive to those not a part of the “systemically privileged” arts world. I will in the not too distant future revisit this in a blog post.