![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Privilege is the most contentious topic I have ever posted about. It brings up righteous anger, defensiveness, refusals, claims of "opting out," claims of not really having it, claims that the assertion that someone else is privileged is "an attack" or "an accusation," such that the nuances of it are rarely ever examined. But I've been thinking about this and I think I have a clearer understanding of why this is.
At heart, privilege is a measurable notion, and it starts at the top of society. Almost all presidents and members of the House, Senate, Cabinet, and Supreme Court throughout 233 years of US history have been white male outwardly-heterosexual Protestant landowners. Until about 50 years ago almost all CEOs, bank presidents, lawyers, doctors, and university professors were white men. What change there has been from this did not happen except at the behest of a massive multifaceted civil-rights movement. Some of the unevenness has been addressed but even still the average white person in the US is wealthier and has a higher income than the average person of color and the average man in the US has a higher income than the average woman. And still, the values, laws, and ideologies that permeate and define society are based on the experiences, needs, and preferences of white male heterosexual Protestant landowners/shareholders. (This is not, BTW, an exhaustive list of privilege axes.)
The notion of privilege suggests that the fewer of those characteristics that you display, the more you will find that law, values, religion, and ideology is an obstacle rather than a source of support. The law was not written for you. Religious doctrine was not defined by people like you, and is not currently taught or professed by people like you. Your experiences and needs are not reflected by law or religion. You are less likely to be listened to when you request a change in the law or (goddess help you) religious doctrine that would better reflect your experiences and needs, because authorities are less likely to sympathize with your accounts of difficulty. You are more likely to be victimized and less likely to succeed if you seek legal redress for wrongs committed against you. You are likely to be more harshly penalized if you are found to be guilty of an infraction, because the judge and jury is made of people who are less likely to sympathize with you. This is... let's call it institutional privilege.
The last paragraph is the subject of considerable debate. Most of the dispute in my experience takes the form, "But I am [white]/[male]/[heterosexual]/[Protestant] but I don't feel privileged." There are two things going on: (1) intersectionality, and (2) centering in cultural discourse. Intersectionality comes from the fact that there are many axes of privilege and almost everyone is underprivileged in one way or another. A most common form of underprivilege is income. Most people make less money than the authorities who define the laws, doctrines, economic patterns, and values that affect them and who settle their disputes -- who, in short, lessen their range of possible choices and opportunities.
The other thing, though, is centering in cultural discourse. Our culture is centered around the idea that being wealthy is the norm. This goes from depictions in the media (how many supposedly 'middle-class' families on TV are shown as living in a far-wealthier-than-average environment) to economic institutions (why are payday lenders allowed to operate?) to law (legal mandates for almost anything seem to cost more than most people can afford).
To say that cultural discourse is wealth-centered is to say that people who are not wealthy see the difference between the cultural "norm" and their own lifestyle, and from this know exactly the degree to which they fall short. But their own way of life is not depicted in the media -- it is effectively invisible. So they see the difference as something that's wrong with them or their life, not as a common experience.
So they take this to mean that they are underprivileged, and, being underprivileged in one way or another, react with vehement resistance to the notion that there is any way in which they are privileged.
But also, the centering of cultural discourse makes invisible to them the ways in which they do have privilege because that privilege is made to look normal to them. For example, since cultural discourse is white-centered, white people perceive white values and white ways of life as the "way things are," and the values, experiences, and ways of life of people of color are invisible to them. So it is easy for someone who's white to not know the ways in which they are privileged over people of color unless they specifically look to see the difference.
Centering of cultural discourse goes much deeper than it sounds: it is not merely an external thing, but we tend to internalize the values that are centered and presume they describe the way the world works, or should. Deviation is devalued and denigrated, and people who deviate are frequently insulted and abused. It is odd, though, because the "center" of cultural discourse is not the demographic center; it is quite far from the average experience. So we see the unusual phenomenon of a majority of people actively defending laws, values, and politico-economic systems to which they have rather limited access.
At heart, privilege is a measurable notion, and it starts at the top of society. Almost all presidents and members of the House, Senate, Cabinet, and Supreme Court throughout 233 years of US history have been white male outwardly-heterosexual Protestant landowners. Until about 50 years ago almost all CEOs, bank presidents, lawyers, doctors, and university professors were white men. What change there has been from this did not happen except at the behest of a massive multifaceted civil-rights movement. Some of the unevenness has been addressed but even still the average white person in the US is wealthier and has a higher income than the average person of color and the average man in the US has a higher income than the average woman. And still, the values, laws, and ideologies that permeate and define society are based on the experiences, needs, and preferences of white male heterosexual Protestant landowners/shareholders. (This is not, BTW, an exhaustive list of privilege axes.)
The notion of privilege suggests that the fewer of those characteristics that you display, the more you will find that law, values, religion, and ideology is an obstacle rather than a source of support. The law was not written for you. Religious doctrine was not defined by people like you, and is not currently taught or professed by people like you. Your experiences and needs are not reflected by law or religion. You are less likely to be listened to when you request a change in the law or (goddess help you) religious doctrine that would better reflect your experiences and needs, because authorities are less likely to sympathize with your accounts of difficulty. You are more likely to be victimized and less likely to succeed if you seek legal redress for wrongs committed against you. You are likely to be more harshly penalized if you are found to be guilty of an infraction, because the judge and jury is made of people who are less likely to sympathize with you. This is... let's call it institutional privilege.
The last paragraph is the subject of considerable debate. Most of the dispute in my experience takes the form, "But I am [white]/[male]/[heterosexual]/[Protestant] but I don't feel privileged." There are two things going on: (1) intersectionality, and (2) centering in cultural discourse. Intersectionality comes from the fact that there are many axes of privilege and almost everyone is underprivileged in one way or another. A most common form of underprivilege is income. Most people make less money than the authorities who define the laws, doctrines, economic patterns, and values that affect them and who settle their disputes -- who, in short, lessen their range of possible choices and opportunities.
The other thing, though, is centering in cultural discourse. Our culture is centered around the idea that being wealthy is the norm. This goes from depictions in the media (how many supposedly 'middle-class' families on TV are shown as living in a far-wealthier-than-average environment) to economic institutions (why are payday lenders allowed to operate?) to law (legal mandates for almost anything seem to cost more than most people can afford).
To say that cultural discourse is wealth-centered is to say that people who are not wealthy see the difference between the cultural "norm" and their own lifestyle, and from this know exactly the degree to which they fall short. But their own way of life is not depicted in the media -- it is effectively invisible. So they see the difference as something that's wrong with them or their life, not as a common experience.
So they take this to mean that they are underprivileged, and, being underprivileged in one way or another, react with vehement resistance to the notion that there is any way in which they are privileged.
But also, the centering of cultural discourse makes invisible to them the ways in which they do have privilege because that privilege is made to look normal to them. For example, since cultural discourse is white-centered, white people perceive white values and white ways of life as the "way things are," and the values, experiences, and ways of life of people of color are invisible to them. So it is easy for someone who's white to not know the ways in which they are privileged over people of color unless they specifically look to see the difference.
Centering of cultural discourse goes much deeper than it sounds: it is not merely an external thing, but we tend to internalize the values that are centered and presume they describe the way the world works, or should. Deviation is devalued and denigrated, and people who deviate are frequently insulted and abused. It is odd, though, because the "center" of cultural discourse is not the demographic center; it is quite far from the average experience. So we see the unusual phenomenon of a majority of people actively defending laws, values, and politico-economic systems to which they have rather limited access.
