Bailey (1998:109) describes privilege as ‘systematically conferred advantages individuals enjoy by virtue of their membership in dominant groups with access to resources and institutional power that are beyond the common advantages of marginalised citizens’. The main benefits that accrue from privilege include a disproportionate share of political authority and power, high social status, wealth and affluence (Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Individuals come to possess these benefits as a result of their membership in, for example, particular gender, class, race and ethnic groups. An individual’s privilege is thus more a product of membership in privileged groups than it is of individual capabilities.
Mclntosh (1992), one of the first writers to relate the concept of privilege to the specific benefits individuals receive, distinguishes between ‘earned strength and unearned power conferred systematically’ (1992:78). In this classic article, Mclntosh constructed a list of forty-six advantages that were available to her as a white person that were not available to people of colour under racism. Schacht (2003) similarly lists the ways in which he as a man is privileged: he has a better chance of getting a job than a woman; the majority of news reports he reads will be about the accomplishments of men; he can rely on his wife to do most of the housework; he feels safe from sexual harassment and sexual assault in public places and so on.
To explore the concept of privilege critically, we need to identify its key characteristics: the invisibility of privilege to those who have it; the power of the privileged group to determine the social norm; the naturalisation of privilege and the sense of entitlement that accompanies it.
Most privilege is not recognised as such by those who have it (Bailey 1998). So not being aware of privilege is an important aspect of privilege. Johnson (2001) refers to this lack of awareness as ‘epistemic privilege’. He observes how members of privileged groups either do not understand what others mean when they refer to them as privileged or they tend to get angry and defensive. Because privilege does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfilment, this will sometimes be used to deny the existence of privilege. These responses represent significant obstacles to the struggle for equality.
Privileged groups have become the model for normative human relations and this explains in part why they do not want to know about the experiences of the oppressed. The privileged group thus comes to represent the hegemonic norm whereby, for example in the US and Europe, male white heterosexual young fmancially secure Christians come to represent what it means to be considered normal (Perry 2001). Perry (2001) observes that through the positioning of self and other, various dualisms are established in which forms of difference are devalued because they are seen as inferior, weak or subordinate in relation to the normal, which is presented as superior, strong and dominant. The normativity of privilege means that this becomes the basis for measuring success and failure. Thus, those who are not privileged are potentially regarded as deviant. The negative valuation of difference is thus reproduced by the establishment of the normative standard. Because the privileged are regarded as ‘normal’, they are less likely to be studied or researched because the norm does not have to be ‘marked’.
The social divisions between the privileged and the oppressed are further reproduced through their attributed naturalness. Rather than seeing difference as being socially constructed, gender, race, sexuality and class are regarded as flowing from nature. Beliefs about social hierarchy as being natural provide a rationale for social dominance and absolve dominant groups from responsibility for addressing social inequalities. Belief in the ‘God-given’ or biological basis of dominance reproduces social inequality. Members of privileged groups either believe that they have inherited the characteristics which give them advantages or they consciously set out to cover up the socially constructed basis of their dominance (Wonders 2000).
Another aspect of privilege is the sense of entitlement that members of privileged groups feel about their status. They believe that they have a right to be acknowledged, respected and rewarded, and they often become angry when their sense of entitlement is thwarted (Rosenblum and Travis 1996). Members of privileged groups also believe that they deserve the benefits and status they hold and are often unable to recognise how these benefits are derived from their membership of particular groups.
Bailey (2000) argues that members of dominant groups can develop what she calls ‘traitorous identities’. She differentiates between those who are unaware of their privilege and those who are critically cognisant of their privilege. Traitors are those who refuse to reproduce their privilege and who challenge the worldviews that dominant groups are expected to adhere to. These dominant group members are able to identify with the experiences of oppressed groups. It is from this basis that white people will challenge racism and that men will challenge patriarchy. From this premise, while it is difficult for members of privileged groups to appraise their own position critically, it is not impossible.
References and further reading
Bailey, A. (1998) ‘Privilege’, Joumal of Social Philosophy, 29 (3):104–19.
(2000) ‘Locating traitorous identities’, in U. Narayan and S.Harding (eds) Decentering the Center, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Johnson, A. (2001) Privilege, Power and Difference,
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Mclntosh, P. (1992) ‘White privilege and male privilege’, in M.Anderson, and P.Collins (eds) Race, Class and Gender, Belmont: CA: Wadsworth.
Perry, B. (2001) In the Name of Hate, New York: Routledge.
Rosenblum, K. and Travis, T. (1996) ‘Experiencing difference’, in K.Rosenblum and T.Travis (eds) The Meaning of Difference, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schacht, S. (2003) ‘Teaching about being an oppressor’, in M.Kimmel and A.Ferber (eds) Privilege, Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999) Sodal Dominance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wonders, N. (2000) ‘Conceptualising difference’, in Criminal Justice Collective of Northern Arizona University (eds) Investigating Difference, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
