Essay question: How would you define “privilege” as it relates to today’s struggle with the status quo?


In order to better understand the relationship between dominant and subordinate groups, it is necessary to “examine a key aspect of that relationship for the dominant group: privilege.”


In Chapter Five of “Is Everyone Really Equal,” social scientists Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Şensoy explain how members of a dominant group within society find themselves privy to certain entitlements, opportunities, advantages, and liberties - in short, privileges - not available to members of subordinate groups. They define privilege as “systematically conferred dominance and the institutional process by which the beliefs and values of the dominant group are [normalized] and [made] universal.” They explain that the privileged group is elevated to its dominant position not necessarily by virtue of a “numerical majority,” but through the accumulation and inheritance of “social and institutional power.”

“However, when academics use the term in describing how society works, they refer to the rights, advantages, and protections enjoyed by some at the expense of and beyond the rights, advantages, and protections available to others. In this context, privilege is not the product of fortune, luck, or happenstance, but the product of structural advantages.”


“[W]hile the lay usage may be loosely related to the [scientific] usage, the [scientific] usage has much greater specificity.”
DiAngelo and Şensoy begin their analysis by first distinguishing between the scientific use of the term and its common usage.

"One automatically receives privilege by being a member of a dominant group. Because dominant groups occupy the positions of power, their members receive social and institutional advantages.”

“If the water is moving against you rather than with you, the amount of effort it takes to move forward is enormous. Yet this effort results in only the smallest increments of advancements. On the other hand, if the current is with you, swimming is almost effortless. With minimal effort, you can quickly travel a great distance and are seldom aware of the current at all (we are much more likely to be aware of the current when we have to swim against it). Privilege is like having this powerful current propelling you forward throughout your life.”

“Privilege is socially constructed to benefit members of the dominant group. Further, structures of privilege are not just artifacts of a racist, sexist, or classist past; privilege is an ongoing dynamic that is continually reproduced, negotiated, and enacted.”

“In this chapter we want to unravel two interrelated dynamics that are central to understanding social and institutional privilege: the external and structural dimensions and the internal and attitudinal dimensions.”
Privilege has the following external and structural dimensions:

•A) the integration of the dominant group’s norms into the structures of society

◦In “Is Everyone Really Equal,” social scientists Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Şensoy contend that oppression is not simply an act of suppression, as it is commonly understood by the layman, but rather it is a system unto itself that can be found “deeply embedded” in and “operat[ing] on multiple levels” of society in perpetuum. “oppression is a deeply embedded system that operates on multiple levels at all times.” The result of this system is consistent unearned privileges and advantages for the dominant group, regardless of any one individual member’s intentions.” Eg. Even if a male disagrees with denying women the right to vote, and even if he works for women’s equality, he still lives in a society that automatically grants him privileges that are denied to women. Ie. by virtue of living in, and thereby participating in, an “unequally gendered” society, the male is privy to certain advantages that are conferred to him simply by virtue of his membership in the dominant group - not by merit, but by default.

•B) the constructions of what’s normal and not-normal as defined by the dominant group

◦“Normal” socially constructed. “Normal” is the line drawn around an arbitrary set of ideas that a group determines as acceptable in a given place and time. For example, in the early part of the 20th century in many parts of the United States and canada, some people were categorized as “feeble-minded.” This was a broad category that included many people considered “Other” including women who had children out of wedlock, vagrants, and immigrants. Those with this classification were in some cases forcibly (and in many cases without their knowledge or consent) sterilized to prevent them from passing on feeble-mindedness. Today, a range of learning disabilities that are seen as normal (eg. dyslexia) would have been included in the early 20th century classification of abnormal (feeble-minded). Based on the socially constructed idea of normal, people’s lived experiences become profoundly different.

◦These constructions are significant, because depending on whether we fall into the normal or abnormal social category, very real privileges are either granted or denied. These privileges are embedded in definitions (at what point does a characteristic move from normal to abnormal?) language (classicications such as feeble-minded versus dyslexic), structures (the way cities and buildings are built), and systems of society (legal policies such as forced sterilization or education segregation).

•C) the invisibility of privilege for the dominant group

◦Because those in dominant groups are not disadvantaged by the oppression but in fact benefit from it, they find it fairly easy to dismiss the experiences of members of minoritized groups. Living lives that are segregated (in schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and social circles), it’s easy to avoid seeing what minoritized group members experience. We are not taught in schools and mainstream culture about the experiences of minoritized groups. This makes it difficult for dominant groups to see oppression. In addition to structural barriers, there are psychological and social investments in not seeing oppression. To see and validate oppression requires questioning a system that benefits us where we are in dominant groups. Those investments cause us to resist pressure to acknowledge oppression; where we are dominant, we generally don’t like to have our privilege pointed out. Thus raising the issue of privilege typically causes defensiveness and avoidance. This, of course, is another way that oppression stays in place: dominant group resistance to acknowledging it, and the social penalties meted to those who try to bring it up.

◦Members of the dominant group will likely not recognize advantages as privileges at all but as simply normal aspects of life. They have been socialized into their position of dominance since birth and have internalized this position as “natural.” Now let’s consider how the external and structural dimension of privilege interact with internal attitudinal elements.
Privilege has the following internal and attitudinal effects:

•A) The belief that your group has the right to its position

◦Ideology is a powerful way to support the dominant group’s position. There are several key interrelated ideologies that rationalize the concentration of dominant group members at the top of society and their right to rule.

◦One is the myth of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a system in which people’s achievements are attributed solely to their own efforts, abilities, or merits. It posits that starting points don’t matter - as long as an individual works hard, they can climb up the ladder of social mobility (the son of a day laborer has as much of a chance of “making it” as the son of Bill Gates). Canada and the US are presented in dominant culture as meritocratic systems. From this perspective, those who do not succeed are simply not as capable or don’t try as hard as those who do.

◦A second related ideology is that of equal opportunity. This is the idea that in today’s world, people are no longer prejudiced, social injustice is a thing of the past, and everyone has the same opportunity (further, many dominant group members believe that society has moved in the opposite direction and unfairly privileges minoritized groups through “special” rights and programs).

◦A third related ideology supporting the dominant group's right to it's position is individualism - the belief that we are each unique and outside the forces of socialization. The ideology of individualism explains the measurable gaps between dominant and minoritized groups (such as in education, health, income, and net worth) as the result of individual strength or weakness. Therefore, those at the top are there because they are the best, brightest, and hardest working.

◦A fourth related ideology is the ideology of human nature. This ideology rationalizes privilege as natural - "it's just human nature, someone has to be on top..." - and underpins ideas about civilized versus uncivilized societies. Ideologies such as "Someone has to be on top" further support these hierarchies - consider who is more likely to believe that someone has to be on top: those on the bottom or those on the top? The question moves from "Is this true?" to "Whom does this belief serve?" With privilege rationalized through ideology, it follows that dominant groups are socialized to see their dominance as normal and/or earned.

•B) The internalization of messages of your group’s superiority

◦As members of the dominant group, seeing how our privileges manifest can be extremely challenging because everything in our environment is constructed to enable us to take our privileges for granted.

•C) The lack of humility that results from your limited knowledge of the minoritized group

◦The dominant group, while the least likely to understand oppression and the most likely to be invested in holding it in place, is the group in the position to write the rules. Thus the rules will continue to benefit them. One of the outcomes of unearned privilege - arrogance - causes the dominant group to feel capable of representing the interests of the minoritized group (if they consider them at all), regardless of whether they have consulted with them. In fact, the dominant group members may be seen as more legitimate to represent the minoritized group interests since they will see themselves as "objective" and not furthering a "special interest agenda." The concept of "code switching" explains how our relationships to others are so deeply internalized that we shift effortlessly back and forth between them, Adding the dimension of social power, we can think about internalized dominance as the default mode for engaging with the minoritized group. Because we have internalized our position in relation to theirs, we automatically interact with them from a position of unconscious superiority. We are seldom aware of this, because the messages have planted and reinforced since birth. Further, because we have been taught that it is wrong to treat others differently, we would likely deny our sense of superiority. Yet research shows that dominant-group interactions with minoritized groups are based in a sense of internalized superiority and are different than interactions with other dominant group members. Again and again, studies have shown that actual behaviour toward minoritized groups does not line up with dominant group beliefs about these interactions. Our lack of awareness or denial of our behaviour does not lessen the reality of its impact. In fact, our unawareness and denial makes it more likely that we will continue.

•D) The invisibility of one’s privilege

◦While many of dynamics discussed above make privilege invisible to the dominant group as a whole, there is a phenomenon that scholars describe as "sanctioned not-knowing" or "willful ignorance." These terms attempt to describe dynamics that help dominant group members remain ignorant to the overwhelming evidence of injustice in society. Thus we use the phrase 'willful ignorance" because minoritized groups have always tried to get dominant groups to see and understand their experiences, but dominant group members often aggressively resist this information. (examples available if necessary)

◦Perhaps the most subtle yet powerful way we resist knowing is by simply being uninterested. Internalized superiority make us indifferent to learning about the minoritized group because we don't see them as valuable. If we did see as valuable, we would seek them out - very similarly to how we seek out information regarding the rich and famous.
Common Dominant Group Misconceptions about Privilege

•"If we haven't personally discriminated, we are not benefitting."

◦The concept of privilege challenges this perceived neutral reference point by revealing that the dominant group is actually elevated by virtue of the oppression of the minoritized group. Language helps illustrate this point: While we refer to the minoritized group as underprivileged or disadvantaged, we rarely talk about the dominant group as overprivileged or overadvantaged.

•"If we can't feel our social or institutional power, we don't have it."

◦The key recognizing group level power is recognizing normalcy - what can be taken for granted. These men are indeed struggling against classism, but they are not struggling against racism. A man of color in the same job would be dealing with both classism and racism. Indeed, men of color (and women) have traditionally been kept out of these jobs. Thus, our own sense of power is not necessarily aligned with how others perceive or respond to us, nor our relationship to social and institutional networks.

•"If a minoritized person is in charge, there is no oppression."

◦Your dean may be woman, but she will have to enact male norms and values to keep her position and will still deal with unaware sexism from the men she supervises.

◦A Latino manager, while holding status over a White person he supervises, will still have to deal with the (often unaware) racism of his employees. Research shows that women and people of Color in positions of leadership are scrutinized more closely and judged more harshly than White men. People of Color, in particular are often assumed to be the recipients of special programs rather than to have earned their positions, and are often perceived as being biased, having special interests, and being "troublemakers." Conversely, one of the privileges of being in the dominant group is that you are perceived to be "just human" and thus neutral and unbiased in your viewpoint.

•"If we are oppressed in one social group membership, we can't be privileged in another."

◦Intersectionality is the term used to refer to the reality that we occupy multiple social groups. As we have discussed, some of these groups are dominant in society and some are not. For example, one may be oppressed as a female but elevated as White; oppressed as a person with a disability but elevated as male; and so on. Consider the oppression of sexism. While all women experience sexism, they experience it differently based on its interaction with their other social group identities.

◦Thus we can be oppressed in one axis of life and still experience privilege in another. Intersectional analysis requires that we consider how these various social group identities interact with one another.

◦Another aspect of intersectionality is how several forms of oppression can overlap and compound the experience of oppression for minoritized groups.

◦Dynamics of privilege are deeply embedded into our socialization and thus into our psyches. Ending a system of privilege is not as simple as identifying their external manifestations and "stopping them" or "giving them away." Many aspects of our privileges are intertwined into our very identities and personalities - how we see ourselves in relation to those around us and thus how we interact with them.

◦Deep level ideological, institutional, and behavioral shifts would need to occur in order to challenge privileges.
Conclusion: Offer a solution as a means of clearing up the misunderstanding

•Despite the overwhelming evidence validating the concept of privilege, many within the masses continue to deny it’s existence. Presumably, this resistance stems from a genuine misunderstanding of the concept, and if so, developing a more nuanced language for addressing the issue could aid in bridging this “knowledge gap” between the layman and the academic. Eg. refer to the the example of how the perception of transient individuals was change when we began to refer to them as “homeless” as opposed to “bums.”

•Of course, it can be argued that the meaning of certain terminology differs in the sciences than it does in the common tongue of the masses, but if the aim is to convey a message in such a way as to affect significant behavioural changes, social scientists and and activists alike will need to address the issue of miscommunication. In the same way that we managed to change the perception of homeless people by altering the language we use when referring to them, we can do the same to overcome resistance to notion of privilege.

•Some people reject the validity of the idea... Use examples from textbook explaining how certain terms mean different things in the sciences and in the common tongue of the layman.

•Language needs to adapt to the context if the message is to be correctly received and decoded

•Incorporate quote from the beginning of “Prelude to the Revolution”

•A more nuanced and neutral vocabulary/terminology devoid of value judgements would be a more effective approach in educating the masses.