“When you’re used to having advantages, equality can seem like oppression.” – Author Unknown
Privilege is a term that sparks intense reactions. It is discussed in classrooms, community gatherings, corporate training sessions, and protest movements, serving as both a tool for enlightenment and a source of controversy. While some view it as a valuable concept for recognizing systemic advantages that have long been overlooked, others perceive it as a judgmental label that fosters division rather than understanding.
However, beneath the surface of these contentious discussions lies a fundamental question: What does privilege truly entail?
Throughout recent years, I have posed this query in various settings, often challenging individuals with the question: Would you be willing to give up your privilege?
Many initially respond affirmatively, only to hesitate once we delve into the implications of such a sacrifice.
Would you be prepared to forego the luxury of not fearing law enforcement? The ability to enter a store without arousing suspicion? The freedom to secure housing without your race or name triggering unwarranted scrutiny?
At this point, objections typically arise: But those are not privileges—they are rights!
Precisely. That is the crux of the matter.
This perspective often initiates thought-provoking and uncomfortable dialogues. Recently, someone challenged my premise in a manner that resonated with me. They argued that labeling these as “rights” serves to obscure the harsh reality: in our society, rights are not guaranteed—they are contingent. If they can be revoked based on factors such as skin color, zip code, gender, or wealth, then deeming them as “rights” is more aspirational than factual.
Another viewpoint presented a compelling counterargument: What is commonly referred to as “privilege” is not an added benefit; it is a fundamental human right that has been systematically withheld from some and normalized for others. The flaw lies not in the term “privilege,” but in the failure to universally extend these conditions.
This tension between viewing certain advantages as rights or privileges sheds light on the complexities of justice in America and Canada.
The Challenge of Justice in North America
As James Baldwin aptly observed, “the American ideal has always been about attaining a certain level of comfort, but for many, that comfort comes at the expense of others.” While our laws espouse equality, the practical application of equality has consistently been uneven.
Then came an even sharper critique: You’re focusing on identity—race, gender, sexuality. However, the primary driver of injustice is wealth. Privilege is a byproduct of economic class. You are targeting the wrong issue.
This argument warrants serious consideration. Nevertheless, identity and class are not conflicting perspectives; they are intersecting frameworks. Race, gender, and other identity markers significantly influence access to wealth. Ignoring these interconnections oversimplifies the landscape of oppression into a singular dimension when, in reality, it is multifaceted.
“Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.” The words of Rosa Luxemburg reverberate here. Comfort often masquerades as impartiality, and normalized inequality disguises itself as merit. Discussing privilege does not entail dismissing the role of wealth; it entails tracing the numerous pathways through which power consolidates and injustice proliferates.
One of the reasons why the term privilege elicits such strong reactions is that it disrupts the narratives individuals construct about their achievements. In a culture that celebrates self-sufficiency, suggesting that someone’s position was aided by unearned advantages challenges the prevailing belief in meritocracy that underpins everything from college admissions to corporate structures.
However, this discomfort is not evenly distributed. If the concept of privilege can unsettle those who have benefitted from it, imagine how much more unsettling it is for those deprived of its basic assurances.
Some individuals fear that discussions about privilege are inherently divisive or guilt-inducing. Yet, the tone of these conversations depends on how they are conducted. The objective is not to shame individuals for their circumstances but to inquire: How can we ensure that everyone has access to essential resources?
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” wrote Martin Luther King, Jr. from a Birmingham jail. Nonetheless, injustice in America and Canada has frequently been rendered invisible—or at least tolerable—due to its selective application. Those shielded from its impact are encouraged to perceive their experiences as universally applicable.
If you have never experienced the fear of homelessness, police brutality, hunger, or denial of healthcare, you are fortunate. However, do not mistake chance for justice, and do not conflate comfort with impartiality.
The Possibility of Universal Privilege?
The objective is not to redistribute privilege as one would ration wealth. Rather, it is to eradicate the circumstances that render privilege a necessity.
“Justice,” as Cornel West aptly articulates, “is what love looks like in public.”
The aspiration is to construct a world where justice is not a luxury but a guarantee. Where dignity is not a rarity but a recognized entitlement. Where rights are not bestowed but assured.
«RELATED READ» BEYOND THE DREAM: Continuing Dr. King’s vision for global justice and compassion»
image: jessica45