Privilege is defined (by your average dictionary) as a special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all or a prerogative: a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right). There are many who believe that privilege does not exist in our society. There are even more who claim ‘we are all equal’. Then there are those few who believe that our differences do not matter. Some of the main reasons for these beliefs have been shoved down our throats since we entered kindergarten. As children during the holidays we all made Christmas trees with construction paper and glue or sang Christmas carols to show our holiday spirit. During Thanksgiving we dressed up as Indians and Puritans to show how well everyone liked each other while giving thanks for our many blessings. These examples are normal and non controversial in many classrooms across the nation. As we got older we leaned about history, where Christopher Columbus is a hero and slavery is non existent therefore racism does not exist anymore. We also learned about the constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are more examples of how equal and fair the United States is to everyone.
In every example I’ve given you there is some form of exclusion and portrayal of privilege, therefore I would like to argue that our differences do matter. Within the United States we are not all equal because privilege does exist. Peggy McIntosh, an author and researcher for Wellesley College has described privilege as: “…an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was "meant" to remain oblivious.” Privileges are unearned assets that are given to you because of the category you fit in. Those who receive privileges are most commonly those who dominate our society. The most obvious categories that receive privileges are individuals who are white, male, Christian, heterosexual, middle/upper class, first world nationality (i.e. American), young age, and the physically and mentally able. The more categories you fit in the more privileges you receive. Do not misunderstand me; receiving privileges does not make you a bad person or even a hateful person. You are merely a component within our society of privileges and underprivileged. It is important to see how and where you fit within this society, regardless if you wish to receive anything. The nature of privilege is to be given without consent or awareness which makes it invisible. Privilege and oppression go hand in hand. In order for someone to receive a privilege someone has to be oppressed. Peggy explains this with race: "They take both active forms, which we can see, and embedded forms, which as a member of the dominant group’s one is taught not to see. In my class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth."
Some examples of privilege are:
• I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.
• When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.
• I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.
• My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.
• I have never had to worry about going hungry or finding a place to sleep at night
• I can or my parents can afford daily living expenses (food, water, electricity, clothes, personal hygiene, shelter, transportation, etc.)
• I can or my parents can afford health insurance
• I can or my parents can afford to send me to a private school, charter school, and/or a university.
• I can access buildings without delays, help, or being handicap accessible
• I can move around freely and perform daily tasks without problems or preventions or help (shower, eat, restroom, etc.)
• I can hold hands in public with the person I care about without stares, remarks, or feeling unsafe
• Religious holidays which I identify with are widely accepted and celebrated as a national holiday (i.e. Christmas)
• Schools and institutions can accommodate me for my religious practices and/or traditions without trouble or hesitation
• I can practice my beliefs without being judged, criticized or continuous attempts to be converted
• I can walk alone at night without fearing for my safety
• I can expect to be paid more then a women who holds the same position as I do
• I can expect my voice to be heard and respected without being called moody, PMSing, or a bitch.
It seems that the existence of advantage is kept strongly silenced in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. This keeps most people unaware that freedom of choice and confident action is there for just specific groups of people. Through discussion and exposure it is possible to identify and understand privilege and oppression. In order to understand the system that produces the disadvantaged, oppressed, and underprivileged, it is important to also know how and who is benefiting from the same system.
Additional information by Peggy McIntosh
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html
6.06.2005
the existence of privilege
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Excellent point! This is a free country, but that doesn't mean everything is equal. The people working with the government have brought it much closer to being equal, but there is little chance that people will be 100% equal. Within a society there are certain rules that must be played out for it to survive: there must be those that head and run the government, those that bring in money for the government, there are many different job types that must be filled, there are many different intelligent levels and areas of intelligent, there are many factors that play in putting people where they are now and a main one is majority. Just because I say this doesn't mean I think it is right, but it is what I have noticed and what goes on. MOST of the time the majority will take control. They are the ones that starts a society; example is the pilgrims who where mostly white men. These people will attract more of the same race. Eventually more races will get involved but in lower numbers and after the original foundation has been set. Within the struggle to form a balanced society, some will be forced into lesser positions. These lesser positions; which may not be lesser but with pay, prestige, and the main focus privilege contains less than others, are often filled by the minorities. The majority, white men as in the case of the US, often pushes the minorities into these rules to protect themselves and their statuses. Once the foundation is set, it is very hard to break. Within the US there have been great strides like with slavery. It was abolished, but then they had little to bring them up. They were forced into the rules of manual labor and low privilege. Through time they have slowly grown into higher levels, but they still have an oppressed status. Why, because those in control want to stay in control and the customs so engraved into our minds throughout history holds them firmly lower. Now I am not saying everyone holds this. I for one don't. But many in this society hold them in such positions. Partly, out of the fear of change, some out of hatred through family lines, others out of egotistic views and yet some may not even realize that they push them down because it is just "a part of society."
In summary, privilege and oppression has a lot to do with history. It is caused by the need of the roles in society to be fulfilled and the conquest of those in power to stay in power. Will there ever be a society without the existence of privilege? I doubt it. There are always roles that need to be filled and different privileges to be filled.
I find it mildly amusing that democracy professes equality, when in fact oppression and "privilege" (of the majority) are inherent in the system itself. It is, however, difficult to assess alternatives. Is it better for fewer people to be "privileged", as in the ages of kings and bishops? Is an absence of privilege necessarily an oppression? If privileged is an undeserved benefit, is it to be removed with as much fervor as an undeserved persecution? It reminds me of the question that occassionally comes up in school, when a teacher offers extra credit for an activity that not all students can afford or attend. Those who complain are rebuked with the assertion that the opportunity does not hurt any student. Is it fair? Probably not. But the larger question is, is it right? On the other hand, is it right for the unprivileged to deny privilege to others in the interest of "equality"?
If your privelege is taken away, how does someone get the privelege to take it? Who has the privelege to grant others privelege? I think priveleges had to start somewhere, like with a dictator like a trillion years ago. Then the dictator died but people granted priveleges by him passed them on and it goes on nonstop.
I don't think priveleges would even exist if everyone was treated equal. They''d be more like favors or suck-ups.
Eriatlov i could not agree with you more. The questions you raise are significant ones, and have been the focus of democratic political ideology critics; Henry David Thoreau in particular. Many testify to the infallibility of the democratic system and to its impeccability in theory and application, however there are those who purport otherwise. Equality and freedom in this specific case breed inequality and "oppression" (if i may).
At first glance i find that perhaps it is the concept of democracy which is flawed, which is why it falls short of its goals in practice (ex. privilege, underprivilege).
However , it may very well be that human nature itself manipulates the 'perfect freedom and equality' conditions preset by democracy in order to obtain more power. With this as my thesis let's continue.
In a democracy we find people sharing thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Groups (majority's) are assembled upon the basis of common ground and are thus subject to exclusivity. Those who hold discrepant ideals and thoughts are excluded from these groups, only to form their own.
Subsequently these groups obtain power incarnated in political and economic sway. Each group holds a different status and degree of the aforementioned. Ideals of equality are replaced by ideals of inequality.
Don't misunderstand me, i believe democracy to be the most sophisticated and efficacious of the political ideologies (both in theory and practice) however it, as does anything else, has it's failures. It's failures are subtle and often go undetected and unobserved. Many will claim that all Americans are Equal, but are we really? (emergence of the plutocracy). It's inherent failures assume a clever guise misleading us to believe that they are shortcomings of the concept of democracy.
Democracy fails not because it is based upon equality and freedom, but because it has made robust assumptions as to human nature which might very well be incorrect.
Democracy has been established upon these assumptions.
Man wants equality.
Is this what man wants?
I think a more accurate and substantial assumption would be
Man wants power and hence inequality, and oppression.
So my point is:
A democratic system composed of the core primary values of equality and freedom, might well be constructed upon a shaky foundation.
If we assume that Man wants power (will to power, Adler).
Then democracy cannot work as effectively as we thought.
Any thoughts?
I agree. One of the main (but far from the only) reasons democracy fails is because it is founded upon ideals that cannot, or will not, be achieved due to discrepancy with human nature. N.'s will to power, if not, perhaps, the sole motivator of humanity, is at least a tangible one that can be historically supported in countless circumstances. It is, of course, unfair to single out democracy in this regard, as other systems suffer (perhaps even more) from the same foundational inconsistencies. Some socialists, our esteemed fellow Albert Berriz included (though I do not speak for him, and could be mistaken), would likely argue that capitalism and societal support of competition leads to the "will to power" that ultimately causes social inequality, but I feel it is fairly clear through an overwhelming supply of practical, empirical, historical evidence that man by nature desires inequality in his favor and is willing to go to great lengths to achieve it. Though I am not primarily a social philosopher, it seems to me impossible to form a fully functional society based on premises which are practically (and, I would argue, theoretically) unfounded.
Eriatlov,
Thank you for helping clarify that the democratic ideology is not alone in those conditions which foster the will to power. History has demonstrated on numerous accounts that inequality and the will to power are features of both the democratic and socialist doctrines alike. Having made this point only helps strengthen our contention that the desire for inequality is deep-seated in human nature (having eliminated variants and differences in both socialism and capitalism/democracy) as we have seen great inequality in countries practicing either or. I was to make this point, however, i figured it would be understood.
As i said in my earlier post, democracy fails not because of the shortcomings of the democratic thought, but because of the shortcomings of human nature.
If humanity placed equality and freedom as most desirable, democracy might in fact be more effective than it is. Evidence suggests the contrary.
No man wants to be equal.
The reason why i state that the democratic ideology in particular suffers from these symptoms, as opposed to other political doctrines, is because it lays the theoretical platform of equality (of which the others hardly do)upon which every man has the equal opportunity to pursue power (money?). When every person is presented with this, every person (if our theory of human nature being defined by the will to power is correct)will attempt to become more powerful than the other in whatever way, by whatever means. Hence, every man becomes unequal. The veil of "democracy" (what it is supposed to symbolize, what we claim it symbolizes, and what we are supposed to adhere to) just ensures that inequality is better concealed as opposed to other political systems.
Great comments.
I look forward to more.
@jay: "The reason why i state that the democratic ideology in particular suffers from these symptoms, as opposed to other political doctrines, is because it lays the theoretical platform of equality"
I am not a political science student, but, isn't communism and socialism also based on the basis of equality, on a degree more than democracy/capitalism, so that serfdom is abolished and all have equal privileges?
As George Orwell put it:
"Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics."
Many well made points. However, many overlook that democracy does not boast every man to be equal in the end. Democracy is based on the assumption that every man is made equal, and then progresses or regresses in status. There is no possible way for a state's populus to be completely equal, and the ancient Greeks as well as the framers of our own constitution knew this very well; they had slaves and servants, respectively.
Capitalism and democracy could not coincide if democracy functioned on the idea of equality. Since capitalism runs on the philosophy of "what is best for one is best for all," equality would make such an economy completely stagnant. Capitalism only works if there is inequality, priveleged and underpriveleged, rich and poor.
Furthermore, if all were equal, then political candidates would all receive equal support from a constituencies and no election would have an outcome. This supports my earlier claim that democracy relies on the inequality that we make for ourselves.
(On a sidenote, I have not thoroughly read all the comments for this article, so if I am repeating something that was said already, I apologize.)
@Outlightened: From your statements, "Democracy is based on the assumption that every man is made equal..." and "Capitalism and democracy could not coincide if democracy functioned on the idea of equality.", then,
1) Since, US is a capitalist country, is democracy at work here?
2) Are we trying to form a political system where capitalism works?
I am not against capitalism; in fact I feel, at present, it is the best system, but we shud not block our minds by saying that it is the only system.
Arun,
The United States is neither capitalist nor a democracy. This is a common misconception. The US is a mixed market economy and has been since the Great Depression (and arguably from the start). The US is also a Republic, not a Democracy. Republics and Democracies are very similiar and ostensibly have many of the same ideals as one another, but are essentially different types of governments. A republic is representative of the people; a democracy has the direct voice of the people.
I believe that our government has come to the realization that capitalism, like communism, only works in theory, and thats why we are not a capitalist state. It is difficult to say if our government is attempting to make our economy capitalist. It appears so far that our government is continuing a mixed market, although with the pressure from president Bush to privatize social security, we could be headed back to more traditional capitalism.
Oy, i don't think the existence of privilege is really the problem at all, I think the real problem is jealousy. If we'd stop worrying about what we don't have, then we could beging to enjoy what we do have. You can't hold it against other people for being better off then you.
Hi everyone, this is the first post I've made on this site, and it is a great site! I just thought that I'd point a couple things out. I do not believe that it is inherent human nature to want power. You may not know this, but there are several societies that exist in the world in which there is no government and no ruling body. Sounds impossible, but it's true. One example that comes to mind is the San in Africa. They form the political system of "band," or a small group of nomadic people. They typically do not have any personal possessions, and it is frowned upon in their society to have personal possessions or to be greedy. Granted, on a world scale, they don't have much power, but I feel that we cannot overlook the existence of these groups of people and write off the need for power as "human nature." The more complex the political system, the more privilege and need for power exists. This is generally explained to be because as population grows, the need to keep control and prevent chaos grows, gradually leading to an establishment of a ruling elite, government, etc. So, while I believe it is true in Western society that the need to succeed and gain power is innate in each of us, it is not an issue of human nature. It is simply our culture bearing down on us from the day we were born. Thanks for the posts, I love this blog!
Interesting point, jill. I do agree with you to an extent. However, the skeptic in me asks if perhaps the need for power is inherent in humans and these societies are the exceptions; extreme cases that show otherwise. It is obvious that societies that promote greed and lust for power are more prevalent in this world, so would not that make greed more likely to be a natural human trait? Think of this animalistically. Our rudimentary needs are for food and shelter, both for self preservation. This leaves selflessness out of the picture. In times of desperation, we choose to put ourselves above others (excluding our own children, and despite whatever hollywood wants us to think). One could surmise that humans have taken this innocent need for self preservation a step further and created greed, lust, and the corporate ladder.
These societies such as the nomadic San of Africa are equally as likely to learn this selflessness as we to learn selfishness. Not to attack your argument, but one cannot say that greed is not a integral part of human nature based on such limited and circumstantial evidence.
Outlightened, I'd have to agree with you on your main points. I would say that the basic needs of food and shelter drive us to either selflessness or selfishness, depending on our situation. If I was living with 20 other people (in a band, say), it would be much more advantageous for me to work with the other people, share everything I have, and be selfless, because that small group of people could not possibly survive on its limited resources if each member wanted to be greedy and keep things for themselves. Conversely, a large group of people, such as the society we live in, would rather each of its members be greedy and want a piece of the pie for themselves because the amount of people is so great that if you aren't greedy with your share, you're bound to lose it. Here's where privilege plays a big role. Since our society has so many people, the need for a ruling elite, or government, is necessary. The rise of a class system ultimately results, meaning an uneven distribution of resources. The privileged, or higher class, get more of the available resources than the unprivileged. So, Outlightened, thanks for your post because you definitely made me rethink my argument. In short, I believe that the animal drive in each of us to survive leads us to adapt to our living situations in such as a way as to give us the best advantage in survival, be it selflessness or selfishness.
Finally a blogger that shares the same insights that I would share if I were more enlightened. Please check out my blog and see what I am talking about.
This is a very interesting truth about privilege. Not everyone can be a leader; because then there'd be nobody to lead. That would result in equality, you say? But, everyone is different. Everyone has differing levels of intelligence, physical prowess, discipline, etc. With difference comes some division, and the stage is already set for inequality. For example, in the animal kingdom, it's all about survival of the fittest. Even those who are privileged today who did not earn it through prowess, etc., inherited it from someone who did earn it. Therefore, privilege comes to a person in two ways:
1. Inheritance.
2. Survivability skills (prowess, intelligence, etc).
There is no way anyone can be equal to everyone else, and I personally think that's the way it should be. I should also note that for those who gained privilege through inheritance, they retain it by using survivability skills, as well as by using the power inherent in privilege.
As far as society and government goes, having a class system is in the best interest of everyone. However, I feel that everyone should be allowed the opportunity to reach their full potential based on their survivability traits. Sometimes, this is denied to those in the lower classes because resources go elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that if a lot of these inner-city schools got the funding they needed, several future CEOs or astronauts could be coming from these areas. So, why not divert funding to education (for example)?
Because then you are potentially taking privilege from those who gained privilege from inheritance. Truly, there is only so much pie to go around, and those who inherited their privilege are unwilling to lose it.
Quote from above: “No man wants to be equal.” True. Not everyone wants to be a leader, though, either. As I said earlier, we all have different traits that we are born with. For many, just making enough to be comfortable is enough. There is nothing wrong with modifying the system so that those who only want this much can get this much. The only true threat to the status quo are those with high survivability skills that want the highest level of privilege. You give lower classes the resources they need to be just comfortable—fulfill their basic needs—and I guarantee that some of these people will seek more out of life (so says Maslow). Therefore, funding does NOT go to education or social reform, because those with privilege—both gained by inheritance or prowess—don’t want to lose what they have. I’m not sure how anyone can rectify that problem, but there you go. I personally think there’s nothing wrong with a little healthy competition; so the people with inherited privilege should start getting their game on and allow the survivalists in the lower classes a chance to at least rise to a level of tolerability and comfort.
Another quote from above: “There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics." How do you do that? The status quo is pretty well entrenched. Only one of three things (in my opinion) can change the status quo:
1. A major cataclysm takes place (meteor hitting Earth, nuclear war, etc).
2. A new society is formed on a distant planet, utilizing the knowledge and wisdom garnered through the ages.
3. Jesus returns in glory (the “Second Coming”) … for those who believe in that.
Essentially, some dramatic event is the only thing that will allow society to “press the reset button” (as it were). When that happens, there is little or no inherited privilege anymore. Only the strong and intelligent will gain privilege; and as long as society is tempered with the knowledge and wisdom it needs to ensure everyone is allowed to pursue self-actualization, then there will be a society that is just and compassionate while maintaining a necessary class system. I wonder how that society would look, exactly…
All right, I’m done rambling.
Excellent, love it!
» » »
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! »
Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP »
Post a Comment