Tag Archives: privileges

Checking Your (Unearned) Privilege: An Exercise in Intellectual Archaeology

What follows is a short example of what is more generally termed “systematically distorted communication” – a term coined by Jürgen Habermas – a leading figure in the Frankfurt School which is itself a major force in the development of Cultural Marxism. [Aside: The term “cultural marxism” is itself being treated as a form of systematic distortion. For those interested in exploring this thread it is reasonable to begin with the Wikipedia entry here and compare it to the link provided previously.]

This example does not originate with Habermas but comes from an Australian academic who is actively teaching his ideas to his students.

The exercise proposed here deals with the Index (and the index alone) to the book “Undoing Privilege” by Robert Pease published by Zed Books in 2010.

Before going ahead it might be worthwhile to clear up the meaning of the term “intellectual archaeology”.

Regular archaeology uses the material objects left behind by societies to determine what those societies were actually like. Tools, utensils, dwellings, buildings, roads, docks, ships, vehicles can all let us infer things about what kinds of people lived in a place and what their values were.

This presentation of only the index of a book permits a bit of “intellectual archaeology”. The index allows reader to make educated inferences (and these inferences are contingent on the education of the individual making them) about the writer, the writer’s worldview, and the worldview of those who may read it.

If we infer the “personality” of individuals from the way they speak or act, of if we infer the cultural affiliations of individuals from the way they dress or gesture, then we also engage in the intellectual process of theoretically guided inference from  so-called objective evidence.

Carrying out this task inappropriately can lead to charges of “jumping to conclusions”, “stereotyping”, and various kinds of either “-ism” or “-phobia” depending on the inference and the audience.

And how the “audience” infers the motives of the person making the inference.  The social legitimacy for people in specific categories to make  judgements is not symmetrical. Only certain kinds of individuals, for example, are permitted to make specific “-ism” charges. Only certain kinds of individuals, to extend this, are vulnerable to specific “-ism” charges.

That being said we can continue with the exercise.

In the last few years we have been exposed to the phrase “check your privilege”. There are many ways to be privileged. There is also the growing suspicion that the idea of “unearned privilege” may be an application of “partial rationality” because if all “unearned privileges” were simultaneously abolished the resulting set of social relationships would have no history, no path to the future, no plan for progress, and would therefore be an evolutionary dead-end.

The Appendix this post is long. It is the Index (scanned and tidied up reasonably well) to a book which is a veritable litany of all the kinds of “unearned privilege” and many of the groups which have arisen to combat them.

What examining the index allows us to do is gauge not only what is there but what is not there. We can see not only what kind of world the author is trying to build but also the kinds of themes which are sufficiently peripheral or marginal as to require either not mention at all or only negative depictions.

It is not fair, of course, to find fault with the book that was not written.  It is unreasonable to attack a book on poetry for its insufficient discussion of world economics.

What is fair is to examine a book advocating thoroughgoing social change and massive challenges to the existing social order with three questions: (a)where do you want to go? what kind of world do you want to build? (b)how can we get there from here? how long will this journey take and at what cost and who will bear the cost and who will benefit? (c)once this promised land is achieved will it be stable? will human beings as we know them to be through the scientific study of evolution and psychology be able to sustain this kind of society?

Two of the items missing from Pease’s index are “children” and “parents”.  Despite the frequent appeals to moral outrage there is no discussion at all of “ethics” or the need for education of the young (those missing children) into the habits of virtue.  White people are never the victims of racism. Men are never the victims of sexism. While “homophobia” is mentioned no hint to the possibility of “heterophobia” can be found. (My spell checker has put a red underline beneath “heterophobia” but not “homophobia”. No surprise.) Anti-Islamic views are in the index. Anti-Christian views are not there.

The lack of any kind of historical perspective prevents us from asking about any patterns of imperialism, colonialism, or hostility to outsiders other than that shown by White Europeans.

The subtitle of the book is “Unearned Advantage in a Divided World”. This obviously leads to the question of what an “earned advantage” might be. It also dovetails with the question of the missing “family” idea. The word “family” only shows up in the book as the name of the Dulwich Family Centre. What a “family” is does not factor into any analysis in this book despite the fact that some “privileges” are “inherited” because they were “earned” by the parents and the children inherited them.

Words such as “property” and “inheritance” as well as “culture” are missing.  Patriarchy is prominent but matriarchy is likewise absent.

Is this book in any way an attempt to describe a single “better world” to which we might aspire to travel? Or is it just a shopping list of grievances rooted in emotion, devoid of ethical coherence, and fully resistant to logical reconciliation?

I could go on. But I’ll let the Index speak for itself.  The overarching questions relate to what terms are not defined, what relationships not examined, and  what possible future scenarios are not entertained. The “margins” of the narrative tell us as much by what is excluded as what is kept in.

APPENDIX

Index

able-bodied gaze, 161

able-bodied privilege, 143-4; construction of, 157-60

able-bodied/disabled binary, 160

able-bodiedness: compulsory, 161; normativity of, 158; privileges of, 158-9; temporary, 160

ableism, xi, 149-65; challenging of, 163-4; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 156; studies in, 158

Aboriginal people, 108,122-3

academics, privilege of, 32

accountability, models of, 182-3

additive analyses, 19-20

affluenza, 49

African experience, validation of, 54-6

Afrocentricity, 55-6

ageism, 155

aggression advantage, 88

aid, alternative to, 48

allies of oppressed groups, 180

anger, constructive use of, 186

anti-colonialism, 52-4,58

anti-gay attitudes, 133-4,138

anti-globalisation struggles, 6o

anti-Islamic views, 45

anti-oppressive theory, critique of, 21-4

anti-racism, 5, 125,127

Australia: Aboriginal reconciliation in, 114; discussion of whiteness in, 115; labour movement in, 68

Australian Association of Social Workers, 112

beauty, cultural views of, 151

black nationalism, 169

black women, 55

bodily normativity, 159

body: as form of social currency,  159-60; interest in, 150; multiplicity and fluidity of bodies, 164

Bourdieu, P., 26-7, 65

Bush, George, 45

capitalism, and class division, 118

caste, 52-3

class, 79-81, 143; concept of, marginalised, 69, 70, 71; construction of, 65; constructs identities, 85; impact of, on women’s lives, 19; intersectionality of, 79; marginalisation of concept of, 65; non-fluidity of, 69; personal narrative of, 6z-4; theorising of, 64-5

class analysis, reinvigoration of, 83

class-based oppression, 81-3

class consciousness: critical, 63-4; negative, 72

class elitism, 62-85

class mobility, 64

class privilege, benefits of, 77

class relations, challenging of, 70

classism, 81-3; meanings of, 82

coalitions, against oppression and privilege, 181-2

cognitive justice, 51

colonialism, 51,52,53, 54; research as part of, 57

colour blindness,

conscientisation, collective, 187

consciousness, individual, changing of, 170

consumption: conspicuous, 49-51; in North, reduction of, 50

corporate accountability, 61

critical psychology, ix

critical reference groups, 183

critical sociology, ix

222 Index

cross-class alliances, 78-9

cultural capital, 65

cultural competence, iii

cultural institutions controlled by men, 99

cultural studies approach, 64

decentring of Westerners, 59

decolonisation, 44, 48, 51, 60; of methodologies, 58

democratic manhood, 107

development, poverty of, 46-9

dialogue: across difference and inequality, 176-8; right to, 177

difference, 71; devaluation of, 13; in coalitions, AI; listening across, 178-9; seen as essential, 14

disability: as product of capitalist relations, 152; defining of, 152; fear of, 162.; feminist writings on, 154; gendered nature of, 154; intersectionality of, 154-5; seen as personal failing, 150; social model of, 151-4,157,164; tragedy model of, 152, 1624 use of term non-disabled, 160

disability awareness programmes, 164

disability people’s movement, 153

disability studies, 144, 158, 164

disabled people: non-homogeneity of, 154; use of term, 152

disablism: aversive, 156; challenge to, 164; cultural construction of, 155-7; definition of, 155-6

discrimination, concept of, 4

distribution, politics of, 84

diversity awareness, 111-12

diversity industry, 112

division of labour, in family, 98, 1o6

dominance: challenging of, xi; doing of, 33-5; internalisation of, 25-7, 76-8; Northern, 58-9; reproduction of, 7

domination: definition of, 26; matrix of, 21; relations of, 3-16

Dulwich Family Therapy Centre (Adelaide), 183, 186

ecological footprint, 49-50

ecosystem, destruction of, 50

Ehrenreich, Barbara, Fear of Falling…, 74

elite, concept of, 3, 7

elite domination, approval of, 7-8

elite studies, vii, 7-9

elitism, compatibility with democracy, 8

emancipatory interests, development of, 1745

emancipatory participatory action research, 183

embodiment of privilege, 149-65

entitlement: discourse of, 95-7; sense of, 15-16

epistemicide, 51

epistemological humility, 60

epistemological imperialism, 12.8

epistemological multiversity, 60

epistemological privilege, 5I-2

equal rights, and gay politics, I41-2

equalisation of incomes, 106

ethical listening, 179

ethical resistance, 174

ethnocentrism, 42, 53

Eurocentrism, 39-61; moving beyond, 43-4; term questioned, 44

fair trade, 60

false consciousness, 5

Family Centre (New Zealand), 182-3

feminine, denial of, 92

feminism, vii-viii, 19, 22, 71, 79, 80, 86, 106-7, 125, 139, 145, 158, 169, 179; black, 19; critique of, 18; engagement with psychoanalytic theory, 92; lesbian, 140; men’s support for, 29; postcolonial, 18; radical, 17-18, 80; second-wave, 5, 86; support for, 6

feminist standpoint theory, 27-31

fitness, preoccupation with, 120

foreign aid, question of effectiveness of, 47-8

Fraser, N., 245

gay constructivism, 12.9

gay essentialism, 129

gay liberation, 5, 169

gay marriage, 140-1

gay politics, 140-2

gay rights, 147

gay theory, 12.9

gender, 54, 106,118 143; as code word for women, 13; intersectionality with whiteness, 117

gender difference, 87-90

gender domination, 24, 139-40

gender equality, 107

gender order, 86-107; theorisation of, 97-100

gender role beliefs, 142

gender studies, 87

gendering, of class, 79-81

globalisation, 57; challenge to, 60

greenhouse emissions, reduction of, 50

habitus, concept of, 26-7

health and appearance, as obsession, 150

hegemonic consciousness, 22

heteronormativity, 24, 136, 146

heteroprivilege, 128-48

heterosexism, 24, 134, 155

heterosexism awareness, 144; training workshops, 144

heterosexual privilege, 137-9

heterosexual/homosexual binary, 140-1,144

heterosexuality, xi, 34, 81, 99,

178; advantages accruing to, 137; and gender domination, 139-40; and masculinity, 142-3; compulsory, 136, 139, 143, 144; concept of, recent invention of, 131; construction of, 130-3; critique of, 141; deconstruction of, 12.8; destabilising of, 144; institutionalised, 128-48; intersectionality of, 143-4; non-homogeneity of category, 138; normalisation of, 130-I; pluralising of, 146; privileges of, 148; queering of, 146-8; reconstructing of, 106, 145-6; theorising of, 129-30

Index 223

heterosexuality questionnaire, 132-3

hierarchy, perceived naturalness of, 14

Hill-Collins, Patricia, 19, 21

homo-hatred, 135

homophobia, x, 6, 13, 17, 23, 55, 128, 1334, 135, 142, 143, 144, 146, 152; among black people, 22; internalisation of, 5

homosexuality: construction of, 130, 140; natural, 129; regulation of, 130

housework: division of, 106; men’s participation in, 86, 91

identities, multiple, 181

identity, 71; in communal space, 54

identity politics, 18, 72

ideological hegemony, 5

ideological justifications for social orders, 185

Ignatieff, Noel, 120

illness, seen as personal failing, 150

impairment, 156, 160; definition of, 153-4; fluctuating experience of, 160

imperial knowledge, 42

imperialism, 46, 57; concept of, 39-40

indigenous knowledge, 56-8

inequality: costs of, 3; in world systems theory, 39; legitimation of, 4; mobilisation against, 7; naturalness of, 14-15; responsibility for, 171

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 40, 48, 49

intersectionality, xi, 18-24, 186; in construction of African identity, 56; of class, 79; of disability, 154-5; of privilege, 35; whiteness and, 117-19

Jefferson, Thomas,x

Johnson, A., 137

Kimmel, Michael, 1845

knowledge, ecology of, 51

knowledge systems, diversity in, 51

224 Index

Latham, Mark, 68

listening, 180; as condition of democracy, 179

local knowledge, promotion of, 44

male crisis discourse, 103-4

male domination, 17-18

male entitlement, 104; internalisation of, 92

male privilege see privilege,

male male violence, 9, 15, 31, 86, 89, 90, 96, 98; prevention of, 183

marginalised, role of, 5

Marx, Karl, 73

Marxism, 17-18, 24, 26, 28, 53, 55, 56, 645, 667, 73, 75, 79, 80, 84, 92, 118, 143, 169

masculinity, 85-107, 142-3; complicit, 89-90; costs of, 103; dimensions of, 88; hegemonic, 89 (unlearning of, 119); hierarchy of, 90; institutionalised, 88; non-Western, 102; research, internationalization of, 102; social construction of, 87-90; straight queer, 147-8

masculinity studies, white Western bias in, 59

May-Machunda, P., 158

McIntosh, Peggy, 9, II, 77, 116-17

men: as agents of women’s oppression, 80-1; coalitions with feminist women, 181-2; deny reality of privilege, 102; natural entitlement of, 15; profeminist, 178, 180; resistance to change, 104-5; social divisions among, 101-3

Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA), 180, 182

men’s groups, 86

meritocracy, myth of, 67-70

Messerschmidt, J., 33

micro-enterprise lending, 60

middle class: activism of, 72, 78; black, 79; concept of, 67-8; new, 73; privilege of, 76-8; radicalism of, 75

Mills, C. Wright, 7-8

missionaries, 55

modernisation, 41, 46, 47

multi-issue coalitions, 169

negative identity, construction of, 175

neo-liberalism, 39

neo-Marxism, 53

new social movements, 71, 72

non-disablement, pathology of, 161-3

normal, politics of, 141

North, division and inequality in, 61

Occidentalism, 45

oppositional consciousness, 5; differential, 6

oppression, 3-16; challenging of, 172; class-based, not discussed in US, 66; complicity in, 186; consequences of, 82; elimination of, 170; interlocking, 34; internalisation of, 5; non-class, 79; personal experience of, 173; racial, 56; reproduction of, 4; responsibility for, 171; self-identification as oppressed, 186; single cause theories of, 17-18; social construction of, 84; strategies for challenging of, 169; theories of, 83

oppressor, concept of, 171

Orientalism, 445

othering, process of, 13

partnership model of social organisation, 185-6

patriarchal dividend, 86-107, 117

patriarchy, 6, 20, 30, 81, 88, 92, 93, 145; and control, 96; and systemic domination, 93-5; challenge to, 107; critique of, 105

patriarchy awareness workshops, 86, 180, 182

Peavey, F., 179

pedagogy of the privileged, 171-4

phallocentrism, 93, 95

physical capital, 151

physical difference, fear of, 162

political economy, 62-85

positionality, viii, 2731, 39, 40, 58, 62, 109, 147, 149, 176, 186; of the privileged, 177

post-Marxism, 71

postcolonial studies, 52-4

poststructuralism, 53

poverty, vi; link to affluence in West, 49; reduction of, 48

privilege, x, 3-16, 176; able-bodied, 143-4 (construction of, 157-60); access to, 21-22; accompanied by oppression, 23; advantages of, 9; and positionality, 27-31; and sense of entitlement, 15-16; appropriated, 26; as function of power, 7; as structured action, 33-5; challenging of, xii, 184, 185, 187; concept of, 7; damaging effects of, 174; defence of, 28; education about, 172; embodiment of, 149-65; emotions associated with, 123; epistemological, 51-2; generation of, 6; globalising of, 40-1; heterosexual, 137-9, 178; historically specific, 20; institutionalisation of, 170; internalisation of, 25-7; investigation of, 35; invisibility of, 6, 9-12; male, vi, 27, 86, 200-1, 155, 175, 178; middle-class, 76-8; moral humility required, 178, 179; naturalisation of, 12-15 (challenging of, 170-1); of academics, 32; of activists, 172; of class, 83 (benefits of, 77); of men (consequences of, 103-4; theorising of, 90-3); of silence, 31; outside speakers for, 30; personal, interrogation of, 32; relinquishing of, 27, 183-5; reproduction of, challenged from within, 169; requires recognition, 115; social construction of, 14; social dynamics of, 17-35; strategies for challenging of, 169; to be made visible, 4; Western, 49; white, 43, 100, 111 (complexity of, 127); recognition of, 115-17; rejection of, 121,relinquishing of, vii, ix, 122; resistance to change, 123-4) see also pedagogy of the privileged

Index 225

professional work, proletarianisation of, 75-6

professionals, 64: class politics of, 62; contradictory class location of, 74; hybrid identity of, 76; in service occupations, 75; politics of, 72-6; theorisation of, 73

proletariat, as force for political change, 62

pronouns, reflecting power relations, viii

queer theory, 140-I, 144

queering, of heterosexuality, 146-8

race: as ‘other’, 111-12; impact on women’s lives, 19; invisibility of, 10; social construction of, 108; theory of, 71

race cognisance, 113

race relations, teaching of, 112

race theory, critical, 117

race to innocence, II, 173

race traitor, 120 see also traitorous identities

racial formations, 108-27

racialised gaze, 114-15

racialising of class, 79-81

racism, 6, II, 13, 20, 22, 79, 108, 109, 155; as prejudice, 109-10; as prejudice plus power, 111; aversive, 111; experience of, 126-7; institutionalised, 127; levels of, 121; see also anti-racism

radical scholars, challenge to, 32

recognition, politics of, 84

reconciliation circles (Australia), 186

redistribution, theory of, 245

relations of ruling, 170

research epistemologies, critique of, 57

respectability, as normative standard, 77

revolutionary force, 62

Rich, Adrienne, 139

Rochlin, Martin, 132

Rudd, Kevin, 115, 122-3

226 Index

Said, Edward, Orientalism, 44-6

self-interest, 174-5

Sennett, Richard, and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class, 63

sexism, vi, II, 13, 17, 23, 55, 93; and coercive control, 95-7; use of term, 4

silence, privilege of, 31

slavery, abolition of, x

social dominance orientation, 28

social mobility, 67-70, 78

social sciences, perceived as universal, 58

social theory, ethnocentricity of, 58

social work, professional imperialism in, 57

social workers: as working middle class, 74-5; code of ethics for, 112

socialism, 66-7

Southern theory, 58-9

speaking for others, 30

stratification theory, 64

subaltern studies, 52; impact of, 53

subjectivity: different understanding of, 56; reconstruction of, 184

subsidies, agricultural, 48

symmetrical reciprocity, 178

third way approach, 68

traitorous identities, 29-30; construction of, 175-6

transnational capital, 39

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), fall of, 66

unionisation, 76

unmarked status,10

‘untouchables’, in India, 52.

victims, blaming of, 5

violence, male see male violence

wealth, inequality of, 46

Weber, Max, 64, 73

Weinberg, George, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, 133

West: as divided entity, 46; challenge to supremacy of, 42-3; idea of, 41; opposed to Orient, 45; seen as pioneering modern world, 42

Western dominance, 39-61

Western model of progress, 47

Western social work: challenge to, 57; models of, 55

white identity, autonomous, 119

white man’s burden, 48

white supremacy, 108-2.7

whiteliness, 121

whiteness: and intersectionality, 117-19; as invisible norm, 113; as privilege, 109, 125; connected to Western dominance, 43; critical, 114; defence of, 123-4; diversity within, 118; doing and undoing of, 12.0-2; internalisation of, 121; intersectionality with heterosexuality, 143-4; list of advantages of, 116; mediated by gender, 118; politics of, 124-6; positive identity of, 120; recognition of privilege of, 115-17; relation with heterosexuality, 143; theorisation of, 115; transforming of, 119-2.0; visibility of, 112-15 see also privilege, white

whiteness studies, 113, 12.4-5

Wittig, Monique, The Straight Mind, 139

women: autonomy of, 106; earnings of, 98-9; experience of oppression, 79-81; notion of privilege of, 23; struggles of, in USA, x; subordination of, 97;  white, privilege of, 18;  working-class, 82

working class, 83; living conditions of, 69; new, 73; radicalism of, decline of, 70; white, and racism, 119

World Bank, 40, 48, 49

World Social Forum, 25, 61

world travelling, 60, 176

youth, eternal, fantasy of, 162

Whistleblowers: The NIMBY People

If you’re going to complain about unethical, illegal, immoral, belittling, harassing, or otherwise obnoxious conduct then make you do it anonymously. If you personally are the victim of this conduct then make absolutely certain you are not in any of the same social groups or networks as those causing you the trouble before you go to the higher authorities.

There is a reason for why all of those hotlines for reporting crimes, thefts, and other unacceptable actions all assure anonymity.

Whistleblowers are “NIMBY People”.

NIMBY — Not In My Back Yard — describes how we all feel about police stations, fire brigade detachments, commuter-train stations, and any number of public amenities which make our communities better places to live. We all want to be near them. We just don’t want them to be too close to us. We want these facilities to be close enough to us so we will get the full benefit of their existence, but far enough away so that we don’t have to put up with the traffic and the exposure caused by everyone else making use of these options.  We want maximum benefit with minimum risk.

Whistleblowers. NIMBY people. We all want corruption exposed, bullies denounced, criminals reported, incompetence revealed, and powerful people kept wary of abusing their power. But we don’t want the people who carry out these socially beneficial actions too near us personally.

This is reasonable. If we are taught that only those among us who are without sin should throw stones it follows that each of us has one or two things we would rather not  be generally known to the world. We don’t mind so much when whistelblowers are going after people who are causing trouble for us personally but we also worry just a little that one day the whistleblower’s attention may be directed in our direction.

A whistleblower like this — who complains about a personal difficulty — can be written off as a whiner who can’t accept the same kind of harassment and abuse which the older members of the group had to endure. These people may not have “the right stuff”.

There are other kinds of whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers are also possibly not “team players”. A team player is one who is loyal to the team whether or not it is personally beneficial or whether the team is engaged in illegal or unethical conduct as a group. Honest people who work in companies where dishonest things are taking place are in a triple-bind. They can, first, try to benefit from the dishonesty. If many are taking bribes then taking bribes is not going to cause any of out workmates to expose us. Also, if we don’t take the bribes they may start ridiculing us as seeing ourselves as “superior”. We also become threats because we may have the information necessary to expose the wrongdoing without personal harm.

International Law accepts that people do not have to follow “illegal orders”. The consequences of disobeying an illegal order may result in execution for disobedience but eventually a war crimes trial will show you to have been virtuous.

Loyalty to the tribe or group is an essential aspect of human survival. If you are hired into a group which presents itself as ethical and productive and if after a short time you discover the group is deeply corrupt, you are often told to “go along to get along”.

We are all aware of the fact that whisteblowers are not as likely to be hired by other employers as well.

“Why did you leave your last job?”
“I noticed my workmates were corrupt, lazy, and stupid.”
“Thank you. We’ll be in touch.”

A third reason for blowing a whistle is the failure of the group or corporation or tribe to live up to a “higher” set of standards. This situation arises when the whistleblower personally examines the “spirit” of the laws and finds the group to be in violation of them.

First: we can look at the case of Australian physician Caroline Tan.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31808512

Caroline Tan was effectively blackballed in the profession of medicine and her career was ruined. Why? Because very early in her first job she was asked for sex by a senior physician. She not only refused but she made her complaints public. Surgeon Gabrielle McMullin states her views this way: “What I tell my trainees is that, if you are approached for sex, probably the safest thing to do in terms of your career is to comply with the request.
“The worst thing you can possibly do is to complain to the supervising body because then, as in Caroline’s position, you can be sure that you will never be appointed to a major public hospital.”

Caroline Tan blew the whistle and her future career at the same time.

It is highly unlikely that every major public hospital in Australia is staffed by sexual predators who don’t want Caroline Tan on staff because she will report them next. Neither is it likely that her sex or the nature of her complaint were totally determinative of her fate. What makes her case so egregious is the realisation that even something which in some ways is the moral equivalent of rape is not enough to justify whistleblowing. Even this excuse is not enough to gain forgiveness.

Second: we have the case of Roger Boisjoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly

Roger Boisjoly was a mechanical engineer working on the Space Shuttle project. Part of his professional responsibility included assuring the safety of the booster rockets which were used to put the craft into orbit. Boisjoly determined that the Space Shuttle Challenger launch should be delayed because the overnight temperatures were so low some of the o-rings on the boosters could fail to provide an adequate seal. He desperately tried to prevent the launch but failed. A few minutes into the flight the o-rings on a booster section failed and the Challenger was destroyed with the loss of all lives. Boisjoly’s attempts to prevent the launch subsequently resulted in his being fired from his position. He never again was employed as a mechanical engineer.

Technically, Boisjoly exceeded his authority when he tried to prevent the launch. Since he had given his recommendation to his superiors and they had approved the launch his professional responsibilities had been discharged. His error was apparently to overstep his rank and to show disrespect for the chain of command.

Third: we can look at Edward Snowden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Edward Snowden’s case is widely known. He discovered the National Security Agency was violating the US Constitution in the way it was collecting intelligence from electronic surveillance measures. Because he had sworn not to divulge the things he learned at his job with the NSA he is regarded by some as a traitor. Because the things he divulged were violations of the US Constitution which takes precedence over the specifics of the NSA’s regulations other people see him as a hero.

The exact constitutionality of the laws Snowden felt were violations of the Constitution has not been finally decided. Only if Snowden goes on trial for treason and only if his lawyers argue the laws he broke were themselves unconstitutional will this interpretation ever be resolved.

What Snowden did do, however, was to place himself in the role of Constitutional Authority. He exceeded his own personal authority.

International Law as interpreted by the International Court of Criminal Justice seems to suggest individual soldiers on the battlefield are legally competent to know if their orders are violations of the principles of the Geneva Convention.

Snowden’s detractors apparently do not believe that individual computer experts working for the NSA are legally competent to know if their job actions are violations of the principles of the US Constitution.

Snowden is still living in exile in Russia and will almost certainly be deported to the US where he will face trial and imprisonment should he ever find himself back in the USA. Even if he avoids conviction and imprisonment it is unlikely he will ever work in a “position of trust” again.

Three thought experiments can now be carried out: one for each of these cases.

Let’s assume that Caroline Tan actually complied with the sex-request, went on to become a successful hospital administrator, entered politics, and then found herself named as Minister of Health. Let us further assume she then gives a speech in which she confesses her submitting to sexual blackmail, names her assailant, and demands that massive legal and cultural changes be undertaken.

She would no doubt get many offers to speak at graduating classes for medical students, be asked to write a book, a movie deal is not out of the question, and perhaps even a national medal will be awarded to her in the future.

The Prime Minister will express outrage and may promote her to being the Minister of Justice so she can be better able to make the needed changes.

A Roger Boisjoly thought experiment can be less dramatic. Assume Roger is a senior official in the same company, not part of the direct line of responsibility for approving the launch vehicle’s fitness, but of higher corporate rank than the senior engineer. Let us further assume Roger knew enough to spot the potential danger and call of the launch. Much annoyance at the delay and the cost. Roger will be called in to explain himself. Expensive experiments will be carried out. Roger’s concerns will be deemed “plausible” and a redesign undertaken. Roger gets promoted. He may even get a medal.

Edward Snowden can be given a role in a Tom Clancy novel. A Congressional hearing is taking place. Snowden’s concerns are made known to a senior member of the Washington political establishment. Snowden is given a subpoena, given immunity and testifies. Everyone is shocked. Snowden becomes a hero. He is elected president.

What changed? The rank, the power, the authority of the person blowing the whistle.

The takeaway lessons?

First: Virtue is a luxury. It is a privilege. Sepp Blatter won a fifth term as FIFA president. He is in a position to punish those who wanted to remove him from his post.

Second: If you wish to make serious criticisms of the rich and powerful you must be at least as rich and powerful as those you offend.  You should also have sufficient means to allow you to live the rest of your life without having a real job.

Third: Not all whistleblowers are ultimately justified in their complaints. A few may mental-health issues and others can be honestly misinformed. The ones described above are sympathetic and otherwise normal members of society.

Whistleblowers are ambiguous figures in society. Everyone knows of injustice, inefficiency, incompetence, corruption, harassment, bullying, and similar things taking place around them.

Sometimes the phrase “it’s not my problem” is appropriate. Sometimes we are well-advised to stay out of the fray for reasons of self-protection. What we also know is: if nobody ever complains about anything then progress will grind to a halt. We need whistleblowers to play this role.

Just not too near us.

I wouldn’t hire a whistleblower.

Would you?

Which brings us back to the problems we all face. The world is imperfect. Crime does indeed pay.

To recall the words of Thucydides in the Melian Dialogue as found in the Peloponnesian War:

“The strong do as they please. The weak endure what they must.”

This applies to Whistleblowers as much as anyone else.

Postscript: The three different types of whistleblower presented above are adapted from the three kinds of appeals made in Classical Rhetoric. The three levels of emotional appeal are “emotion”, “tribal concepts of character” (ethos), and “logic”. They were first discussed in detail by Aristotle in The Rhetoric..