My understanding of what "privilege" means

[xiphias]

So, elsewhere on LiveJournal, I'm in an argument about the term "privilege". And I unfortunately finally lost my cool about it. Oops.

But it gives me an opportunity to see if I can't lay out my understanding of the concept, and get your comments on it.

First, I'd like to make a distinction between "ordinary privilege" and "extraordinary privilege". Because I think that's one of the first hangups that people get into.

There are people who never break the law, because, if they want to do something that's illegal, they can just go to the lawmakers, and change the laws to allow them to do whatever they want. I'm going to call that "extraordinary privilege". If a person has extraordinary privilege, they have the ability to do clearly unjust things without consequences. And I think when people start hearing discussions about privilege, that's what they're imagining. So, if a person is told that they are benefiting from privilege, they might imagine THIS sort of privilege, and be offended because they neither take unambiguously unjust actions, nor have the ability to do so.

However, in discussions of privilege, we're generally talking about what we might call "ordinary privilege". "Ordinary privilege" isn't the ability to act unjustly: it's the ability to be treated justly. So, when I say "privilege", THAT'S what I'm talking about.

Privilege is the state in which:
1. Official systems, such as the law and businesses, treat you justly, respecting your rights, and treating you as a being with full self-determination. The systems allow you full access to their use and benefits, without undue or unnecessary restriction or hindrance.
2. In unofficial systems, such as social interactions, you are treated with ordinary respect and reasonable benefit of the doubt. In interpersonal interactions, your ideas and actions are judged on their own merits.
3. You personally have internalized points 1 and 2. You have every expectation that you will be taken on your own merits in informal interactions, and in formal interactions. You have every belief that systems will work as designed to your benefit, or, at least, NOT to your detriment.

Privilege is the inverse of discrimination. In any situation in which there is any form of discrimination or prejudice, all people who are NOT subject to that specific form of discrimination or prejudice have corresponding privilege.

"Discrimination" refers to formal, institutional situations; "prejudice" refers to informal, interpersonal situations. Privilege exists in BOTH types of situations. Anti-discrimination laws can help mitigate the problems of discrimination, but do not help against prejudice. They are therefore useful, but not full solutions.

Privilege is multi-axis, and not unitary. EVERY form of discrimination or prejudice creates a corresponding privilege. You have separate privilege for each form of discrimination which exists to which you are NOT subject.

Privilege is exactly as situational, contextual, and societal as discrimination and prejudice. Moving from one situation to another changes your privilege based on what forms of discrimination exist in each situation. Privilege is not universal.

This doesn't mean that all forms of privilege are equally beneficial. Certainly some forms of discrimination are more widespread than others; some come with more serious sanctions than others. The worse the discrimination, the more beneficial the corresponding privilege. The more widespread the discrimination, the more widely-useful the corresponding privilege.

"Privilege" and "discrimination/prejudice" are the same situation: it's just that one term refers to ONE group of people in the situation, and the other term to the OTHER group.

Fighting discrimination and prejudice inherently fights problems with privilege.

"Privilege" is not, in itself, the problem -- rather, unequal distribution of privilege is. We use the term "privilege" to talk about situations in which some people have it, and some people don't. Once EVERYBODY has it, then the problem is solved. The idea isn't actually to get rid of privilege -- rather, it's to expand privilege until EVERYBODY has it, at which point, it ceases to be a thing that needs to be considered.

In a situation of justice, we could say that there is no privilege, but we can also think of it as a situation in which EVERYBODY has privilege.

It is extremely difficult to perceive privilege from a privileged position, because privilege is the state of things working properly for you. From your own point of view, you are receiving no unusual benefits, because all the benefits you're receiving are ones that you deserve. Because everything works for you, you assume that everything works in general -- and that therefore, people who are working WITHOUT that privilege must deserve it somehow. In YOUR situation, you would only lack those benefits if you DESERVED to lack those benefits; therefore, you assume that the group who lacks those benefits must DESERVE it.

It is not possible to give up privilege. Privilege is inherent to your position and characteristics.

What am I missing, what have I gotten wrong?

Comments

[submarine-bells.livejournal.com]

Most of what you say here is pretty good, but I think the last few paras really hit the nail on the head. I offer a couple of thoughts that spring from what you say here, but might help express it in a way that's a bit easier for some folk to get their heads around:

* Privilege isn't really about anything you do or don't do. It's about how *other* people tend to react to you, especially when they don't know you well.
* A lot of privilege is about whether or not what-you-are is the *default* state of how folk are expected to be, or whether you're a Special Case (that takes extra work or attention to accomodate, because stuff's designed to work around the needs of folk of the default grouping).
* Privilege can manifest in social situations like this: if you're interacting with a complete stranger, are they likely to approach you as an equal, worthy of respect? Or are they more likely to ignore/dislike/dismiss you based on your (presumed) appearance/ethnicity/physicality?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I think you hit the nail on the head with a comment about denying a privilege exists is one of the signs you have it.

And I stopped posting there because of the vitriol that was being posted in response to reasonable answers - reasonable answers which didn't fit the vitriolic persons preconceptions/desired answers.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything wrong with your explication, as long as one accepts your definition. Yours is the clearest and calmest explication I've come across.

I am not fond of this use of the word, and do not use it myself, because of the connotations it carries. For example, the phrase "the privileged classes" has existed for a long time, and it certainly did not refer to me or, I presume, thee. People who are disadvantaged in some area of their life are generally resistant to being told they have "privilege" (because of the connotations) even though they may completely agree that they are in the category "not discriminated against" in other areas.

I think this is my natural bent, but it was definitely validated and strengthened through years of parenting: I prefer to tell people what's wrong with a specific situation and how it relates to them, rather than simply apply a general--and possibly misunderstood--label.

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

I think this is a pretty straightforward explanation; I would quibble (and this is a nice friendly quibble, not a nasty fight quibble, because I don't have the spoons to fight with anyone about this, and I really don't want to fight with my friends!) is that in one way, privilege is universal; there is always someone you're more privileged than - I think there is a privilege continuum - I'm poor, yes, and female, and fat, and rural, so in some cases, I'm very much less than, but I'm white, and I'm well-spoken, and I know the expected behaviors to put authority figures at ease, and I don't present as threatening or visibly other, and that gives me a lot more free passes than someone for who that is not true. I don't know wherelse the conversation is happening, but the substance of what I see here makes a lot of sense to me.

[cellio]

Yeah, I think this connotation is a lot of the problem when people disconnect. "Privilege" used to me, and still sounds like it means, "elevated over most everyone else". There are three categories, not two, and people in the middle one don't like being ascribed a trait they don't have and can't put to use.

xiphias, I'm reading your post on its own, by the way; I haven't seen whatever conversation prompted this.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

Did the person who was so angry have less privilege than either you or xiphias? I suspect so.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

You're redefining a term that has a definition, and thus providing a great example.

Go read up on the concept. Stop asking other people to do the work for you.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Intersectionality. There exist privileges I have that she doesn't, and vice versa. And on average, worldwide, the privileges she lacks are more commonly more problematic than the ones I lack. Which of us is more personally affected is perhaps more of an open problem.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have read up on it. And what I'm writing is what I've understood from my reading. I'm asking if my reading is accurate. You're saying, I suspect, that it's not. It is in no way your responsibility to correct me, of course. I'm saying that, if you have a desire to correct me, here's an easy spot to do so. If you don't want to, that's also fine.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I think you make as good an expansion of "privilege" as any I've seen. That said, you penned a two-sentence item that encapsulates my difficulty with how the term is used to describe the state of affairs as they currently exist and might possibly offer an explanation as to why so many people who are soaking in privilege respond badly to being called on it. Again: not that your description is invalid or incorrect, just trying to work at why "privilege" does s badly in the marketplace of ideas. I think it is a logical fallacy on the part of the listener, but for people who are arguing against privilege to be effective, I think speakers should be aware of it and be prepared to address it.

Privilege is the inverse of discrimination. In any situation in which there is any form of discrimination or prejudice, all people who are NOT subject to that specific form of discrimination or prejudice have corresponding privilege.

The way this sounds to or is felt by the first-time listener is that if I'm in a situation of privilege, there is no null state where neither privilege nor discrimination occurs: I'm either the privileged or the discriminated-against. Further, it comes across as "If I, personally, have privilege then I, personally, am a discriminator." Again, logically fallacious, but emotionally resonant. I think this is where a lot of discussions get derailed because the speaker is approaching things from a logical content perspective and the listener is still processing the emotional content of "What does this say about me?"

To put it another way: People who speak about dismantling privilege have the privilege of understanding, both logically and emotionally, the nature of privilege, while the first-time listener does not. Address that situation and I think dialogue about privilege becomes more effective.

[lifecollage.livejournal.com]

there is no null state where neither privilege nor discrimination occurs

Thank you. I stopped up against that same set of sentences, and you've encapsulated my response. I'm a starry-eyed idealist, and I think that null state is actually a desired state to be in. To you according to your own merits, not my assumptions about them.

I don't have a longer response right now, xiphias, but yours is one of the clearer definitions I've seen. Your distinction between extraordinary and ordinary privilege is damned useful, because it does make the distinction from what's been called "the privileged classes" through time.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No, that's exactly correct. There is no null-state -- you are either the privileged or the discriminated-against. That's the nature of privilege -- that's what makes it more pervasive, more universal, and less visible than bigotry.

Bigotry is active, privilege is passive. And, yes, in every case where discrimination exists against anyone, you are either in the discriminated-against group or the privileged group -- that's exactly the point.

And, indeed, yes -- if you have privilege, you are part of the situation. It's maybe not fair to say that you are part of the PROBLEM, but you are part of the overall universal situation.

And, yes, "what does this say about me?" IS one of the things one is supposed to ask in this situation.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Again, we are in agreement on what you are saying, but I am curious to know if you think there are other ways of finding enlightenment other than via a verbal bo staff?

What you are missing:

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Privilege is a social construct. Nature and natural phenomena that are not conscious as we know it do not accord any special rights to particular people. Conversely, the perceived social merits and flaws of a particular trait are a matter of general social consensus for any given social group. Subgroups may break away from a main group in terms of social definition of a trait, but changing the main societal consensus takes time and effort.

If you are conscious of your privilege in a particular social arena, and you see the effects of the prejudice/discrimination suffered by those who lack that privilege, that is a minimum requirement for you to be able to work on evening out the distribution of privilege in that arena. It is also a prerequisite for being able to consciously walk away from your privilege, either to actively dismantle your privilege or do your utmost to not make use of it. Understanding privilege when you have it is difficult, but it is not impossible.

Depending on the society you are in, a person's privilege may be strictly based on personal inherent traits or some privilege may be gained through particular personal and/or societal actions.

[submarine-bells.livejournal.com]

If it's the conversation that I think it is, my impression was that while the angry person was certainly in a less-privileged position in many ways than the *some* of folk she was arguing with, that really wasn't the problem with the discussion. In general, I think that folk tended to agree that her circumstances sucked mightily. My recollection is that she seemed to be getting very angry with the idea that there might be some kinds of privilege that she might have but others did not, and that those others might want to talk about it (in a place where it was relevant, and on-topic for that community). I don't think that anyone was saying that her particular issues weren't important or worth talking about; but she was doing quite a lot of dismissal of other folks' opinions, and pooh-poohing the idea that she might be privileged in that particular, very specific way. It was all a bit "I've got a broken leg so nobody else is allowed to mention the fact that their shoes are too tight", if that makes sense.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I know it's not your job to educate us, but I wish you'd point us to the infallible text which absolutely and for all time defines the concept of privilege.

No ideas are above discussion. The process of defining and refining ideas is called philosophy. The belief that certain ideas are fixed and immutable and not to be questioned at all is called fundamentalism.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

It is possible to give up privilege, but only by changing your real or perceived self. So lots of people have had the experience of losing the privilege of being able bodied, for instance, transwomen have given up male privilege, converts to minority religions have given up religious privilege...

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know the situation, but I think what you're missing may be a point of ettiquette, not logic.

Never call someone who has, themselves, personally, been badly hurt by discrimination of any sort priveleged. One of the few ways to defend against discrimination is to complain about it; being called privileged is an obstacle to complaining effectively; as such, it's a threat to that person's well being.

Many people have faced "minor" forms of discrimination; discrimination which hurts but which is less traumatic, and does not cause the sort of automatic, gut-level response I'm talking about. It's sometimes hard to tell what you're dealing with, but I've found that when someone who is vunerable to discrimination reacts badly to being called privileged it's best to back off.

Of course, as I said, I don't know the specific situation, so what I'm saying may not be relevant.

C.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

This post isn't about enlightenment: it's about me clarifying stuff for myself. I'm not trying to convince anyone else with this -- I'm just trying to get stuff clear in my own head.