Understanding Privilege

I think it's pretty clear I've had a lot on my mind lately. Funny how having free time does that.

I wonder a lot what exactly 'male privilege' means. I think I understand how privilege works in sociology: having an advantage due to characteristics that aren't related to one's actual skills and abilities. Whites have a privilege over Blacks because of multiple generations of being the owners of production, rather than its servants (I use that word very loosely, as slaves is just as valid). Over time this generates far more capital among Whites, which gets passed generationally to more Whites.

There's a lot to this though. Inter-racial families are an unfortunate rarity, despite the advantages (I'm speaking mainly genetically here). Is it fair to say that Whites have 'privilege' in this case, when there's other factors that are required to sustain that privilege beyond just the existence of the initial advantage. I think this is one of the reasons that privilege gets treated as a systemic problem.

It goes beyond just capital though, in post-modern societies there's particular paths, behaviors, and interactions that give one an advantage. How one presents, what skills one has, who one knows. Granted these are things that are (generally, but not always) within the control of the individual, though where does one learn what are advantageous ways of presenting, skills to have, and people to know? I'd argue that a lot of that comes from the environment that an individual is raised in.

I'd also argue that context matters significantly in which combination of presentation, skills and social ties are most advantageous to the individual. For example, I come from an upper-middle class background. Both my parents imparted in me the value of the traditional education system. They were preparing me to find advantage in the world they knew: the upper-middle class world, where I could find an advantage by pursuing and achieving a college degree.

They weren't wrong either, I have many of the advantages I do because I achieved that degree. The value of that degree, however, was imparted by my parents value of education. Yes, I bring much of my own unique individuality to that, however if not for my parents imparting their beliefs, I would have had nothing to start with.

I believe, and I think sociological theory would support me, that the same process happens for many, if not all, children. They learn from their parents, and their early environment, what behaviors, skills, and connections provide an advantage. The problem is, it's limited to their environment. I doubt my fancy-pants policy degree would matter worth a whiff in Richmond, CA though.

For those who don't know, Richmond, CA is one of the roughest neighborhoods around San Francisco. Oakland gets a lot of the attention, but it's really Richmond that houses the most challenging environment. There's a particular part called the 'iron triangle' (due to how the rail lines cross the area) where violence and death is not uncommon. I have a friend who grew up there, and falling asleep to gunshots was a regular occurrence.

Everything I got from my parents wouldn't matter a whiff in that environment. I was raised in an environment where the norms are vastly different than the iron triangle. In a lot of ways, it's a completely different culture.

Traditional rhetoric would identify me as having 'privilege' over people who grew up in the iron triangle. I wonder though, what exactly that means? I have advantages in the upper-middle class environment, I was raised in it, and understand its nuances and subtleties. I am much better at 'playing the system' in the upper-middle class world than anywhere else, because I've been exposed to it much longer.

But that understanding doesn't extend beyond that realm. It actually presents itself with a phenomenal challenge if I ever wanted to migrate outside of an 'upper-middle class' environment. That 'privilege' that I have here, in upper-middle class world, is lost as soon as I step outside of it. This applies not just to 'downsizing' my class status, but also to 'upsizing'. I don't understand the environment to survive as a wealthy individual any more than I do as a poor one.

Yet the argument is that the rich are privileged in what they have over me. I find myself confused with that argument, as much as I'm confused by how I have privilege over the poor. In much the same way that I would loose my advantages outside my upper-middle class environment, so would others loose their advantages in their environment.

Yet the common view of 'privilege' would have this top-down perspective of how I'm exploited by the rich, and how I exploit the poor because of these learned advantages. Ignoring how I feel on the matter (in some ways I do and others I don't) for the moment, as that's got a ton of bias in it already (which I touch on a little here), let's think this through for a moment without my personal experiences on the matter.

There's apparently a 'hierarchy' of privilege, with some at the top, middle, and bottom (all to varying degrees), and varying influences (gender, race, age, etc.) determining where a person would fall in this hierarchy. What determines privilege though? Yes, a poor person, with their experience, background, and understandings of what methods of presentation, value of skills, and use of social connections is most advantageous would do, on average, more poorly than someone like me in an upper-middle class environment, however it also works in reverse. Same applies between me and the rich. There's no inherent hierarchy in that chain.

Often, though, along with discussing privilege is discussed power. Let's examine the power dynamics between different class groups then.

Also, I realize I'm using only three class groups, divided among a subjective socio-economic status, which can be fairly criticized. It's a simple illustration that helps me draw into my larger point.

Anyhow, So, what's the power dynamic between me and the poor? This gets super-complicated, but I think the main one is that I'm more protected from the influence of actions of the poor on me. Consider how the culture of the poor relates: it's more dangerous, more prone to physical violence. There are laws in place to protect people from that. I would argue to protect people like me from that, as in 'middle class' society, that's considered a disadvantageous way to behave (violently). However in poorer environments that could be an advantageous way to behave.

The irony, though, is that middle-class behavior standards also apply to poor individuals, so they end up caught between middle-class authority, and the advantages gained in their environment by acting in that way. The same thing happens between middle-class and the rich. Middle-class constantly complain about how they're getting swindled by the rich, and in much the same way that's because the behaviors, standards, and whatnot of the rich are applied to the middle-class (I would say this is more due to the exceptions in laws, rather than their explicit intent, but the result is similar), creating the same basic dynamic, and therefore causing 'oppression'. It's more complicated and pervasive than just within the legal system, but I figured I'd start simple.

So then, would privilege be to have been raised in the environment of a group with at least some power over other groups? I think there's more to examining this issue than just that definition, but it's a good place to start.

Let's examine that power though, as one of the things I would argue is that it only exists within that group. This is somewhat self-evident as we're defining privilege as being in a group that can exert power over other groups, but I wanted to explicitly mention it, because as soon as someone falls out of that group, their power falls with them, and they need to re-calibrate their behavior to match their new environment.

How does one stay in their group though? Generally by taking advantage of the environment of that group: by presenting in advantageous ways, by learning the most useful skills, and by knowing the right people. If someone doesn't do that, they fall out of the group, or lat least the amount of capacity they have in that group is rather minimum.

Doesn't this inherently limit the range of behaviors and actions that those within the group can perform though? Doesn't that homogenize the behavior of the group? Oh sure things change over time, but as it changes, the group will re-homogenize around the new 'optimum strategy'. In a way, it's inherently limiting to be in that position. I would argue it works across all groups too, not just 'privileged' ones. If you want to succeed in a poor environment, you'll need to 'act poor', because that's where the advantages in that environment are.

Doesn't that inherently trap people's behaviors within their class? Or, to put the argument more pointedly: doesn't that mean that the people in the most privileged positions are just as limited by the norms of their group as those who don't have that privilege?

I won't dispute the idea that one group can have power over another, but I would argue that doesn't mean either group has more individual flexibility to operate outside of their group. There are rules, policies, guidelines, standards, expectations, and norms that are applied upon each individual depending on their group.

I say this because there seems to be this interesting idea that people higher up on the privilege chain have more capacity to do more stuff than those lower on it. I would argue that we're all pretty equally stuck by the norms of our group, even if that group does give us power over other groups.

Does this mean I'm stuck to forever live my life within the realm of middle-class America? Possibly, and rather likely too. There's always exceptions and I'm already an exception in other ways as it is. So, what does it really mean that I'm 'oppressed' and that others have 'privilege' over me? Basically that there's a group of people who can exert influence on my life whether I like it or not, and they can do it because they have a different upbringing than me.

And what does it mean that I 'oppress' others and have 'privilege' over them? Same thing really, just in reverse. There's a group of people that I can exert influence on whether or not they like it, and that's largely because of my upbringing.

There's a lot of discussion about breaking down this privilege, which I can only assume means either breaking the ability for one group to exert power over another (which I think is impossible), or by homogenizing everyone into a single group (which I have a multitude of objections to).

I think, though, this rant has gotten long enough, and I've got more than enough food-for-thought already to work with for any future posts I put out there.

Always welcoming of thoughts, feedback, ideas, and whatnot. I've actually got a Twitter account now (despite my distaste of social media) which would be a great venue to engage me on. I'm at @Calvin_xc1.

Cheers everyone.

- Jason