Of course I
immediately posted the article to Facebook, and I was immediately told that
comparing life to a video game is too simplistic. My answer to that was, yes,
of course it is. Analogies and metaphors are (hopefully) useful tools used to
help understand a complicated idea. Often that means the metaphor itself is
much simpler than the reality of the complicated idea you’re trying to explain.
In this case, the video game metaphor is meant to provide a very basic
framework to help explain social privilege. I certainly do not think that a
video game can really simulate real life, but hopefully video games can provide
a useful (if simple) metaphor to help us understand life, specifically social
privilege.
I was also
hit with a comment about how economic status is far more important factor in
how easy or difficult the “game of life” really is. After a bit of thought, I’d
have to say I agree to some degree. The metaphor of difficulty setting for
privilege is a bit off. If life were a video game, then economic class would be
the difficulty setting. After all, in the west we have what are mostly
capitalist economies, particularly true in the U.S. Everything is affected by
what economic class you belong to. Also, like difficult, economic class, can
theoretically be changed; albeit, not as easily as hitting Esc and shifting
through some options. Though, that’s not a perfect metaphor either, I suppose.
Anyway, I
don’t think that’s quite the end of the video game metaphor for privilege. To
my mind, privilege could be better compared to all the invisible systems in a
video game that affect the game world but that you, the player, don’t even see.
It’s like the random number generator (RNG) or the mob spawner. It’s like the
bits of code that determines what a randomly generated dungeon will look like or
which bits of dialog an NPC will say to your character. For the non-gamers out
there: it’s like bits of code in Tetris that determines which shape appears
next. The player doesn’t see the calculations made that determine what will
happen; the player just sees the results. Similarly, it’s often difficult to
see privilege at work. We may see the results, but sometimes we don’t recognize
that it’s privilege.
Mostly
though, the reason I think my analogy works a bit better, is because having
privilege (or not) doesn’t necessarily translate into having an easy or hard
life. What having privilege does mean is that in many situations, a person who
belongs to a privileged group will have certain advantages over someone who
does not belong to that group. So to bring it back to the video game metaphor
for a moment: it’s as if your ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
nationality, etc. determined how often you landed a critical hit, or how often
the simpler tetris pieces appeared. If you have more critical hits (or more
simple tetris pieces) does that make the game easier? It can, but it doesn’t
necessarily make the game easy. The player can still end up coming up against
an enemy that’s just too powerful (or end up with a mess of tetris pieces that
appeared in an unfortunate order). And whether a player is good at the video
game or not matters, of course. A player’s individual abilities also determine
how far in the game s/he gets.
So then, how
does this translate back into the real world? I’ll try to provide an example: a
transwoman and a cis-woman both apply for a job. The fact that one is trans and
the other is cis-gendered is known by the employer. The cis-woman, in this case
has privilege based on the fact that she’s cis-gendered. Does this mean she
will necessarily get the job? No. Does it mean that the cis-woman hasn’t had a
hard time landing a job until that point? Nope. It doesn’t even mean that the
cis-woman has had an easier life than the transwoman. What it means is that in
this case, the cis-woman is more likely to land a ‘critical hit’ (and get the
job), based on stereotypes and discrimination against transwomen.
This was also published at The Good Men Project.
No comments:
Post a Comment