On Privilege

Before beginning this critique, I’m going to be unusual and state my personal sentiment on the topic of socio-political relationships in our republic. I typically try to avoid this because it often derails the larger argument and any discussion so often devolves down to petty bickering and posturing where the two (or more) participants in the debate become similar to two TVs facing one another: two objects making sound with no one listening.

Fundamentally, for a republic to exist, it must be based on the rule of law and that law must apply equally to all people at all times, and to violate this is principle is the definition of injustice. What also must be considered is that republics are made of human beings — we will never live in a utopia, every system we create will be flawed, and there will always be injustice and suffering. We cannot eliminate these things from human life. What we can do is make sure we are not adding more injustice and suffering to our fellow citizens by blindly following tradition nor rashly abandoning it, by denying collective culpability when injustice is systematic and endemic, and by being unwilling to have our convictions challenged when we are faced with the evidence of such systematic and endemic injustice.

Liberals, since the 1960s, often wrap themselves in language which is, at its core, loosely connected with the above stated principles which define a republic. However, by making all politics merely the expression of consciousness (an act of will) and making the elimination of suffering or injustice the purpose of government, they undermine the very republican principles they pay homage to in their rhetoric. Conservatives, since the same era, wish to make all of these issues just a matter of finance or, to an even greater extent than some liberals, to make politics only about individual consciousness and its expression vís-a-vís religious practice. For this exploration, I’m going to only focus on the liberal perspective because it’s rhetoric is vastly more integrated into the rationale of millenials and the ideas permeate deeply in the baby boomers and genX as well. The conservative position will be discussed elsewhere; it’s omission shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement.

The idea that certain groups in a society will fare better than others under a given power structure, particularly when the group benefiting is also the group that constructed the power framework, is ubiquitous in much of social science and beyond, going into our broad social consciousness. But is it correct? To deny that certain groups benefit more than others is foolish. However, to proclaim that an individual merely having the same identifying qualities as the benefited social group is an ecological fallacy. It is far too socially trendy to hear the phrase, “check your privilege” toward another citizen (and, stunningly, to fellow human being) — often those that I share attributes with: Caucasian, Male, a Protestant and Middle Class upbringing. These attributes are used as defining characteristics instead of accidents of birth, and it’s why, fundamentally, the aspirations of those demanding people like me to “check your privilege” will never be able to secure the kind of society they proclaim to desire.

The rhetoric of privilege comes out of the academy, mostly from sociology, and really has only emerged in the larger American zeitgeist in the last 15 years. It’s origin, as an intellectual idea, is derived from the Civil Rights era and the subsequent identity politics which emerged. While the idea of “checking your privilege” isn’t holistically a bad thing, since it’s primary goal is to encourage self reflection and social awareness, it’s predicated upon deeper principles of conflict theory and identity politics. Ultimately, proclaiming that those in the majority need to “check their privilege” is more damaging than assisting and is logically toxic toward the goal of incorporating more people into the bodipolitick of our Republic.

Avoiding a broad critique of intersectional feminism (since it is merely a symptom and not causal — though their Marxist assumptions are critical to highlight) the issue that really must be addressed is the logic/rhetoric of identity politics. By making politics, and by extension, all social interaction just merely an expression of consciousness (as is so defined in the Obergefell case), identity politics prevents us from generating a collective sense of who we are, of what defines us, of what qualities make an American an American. Instead, it all boils down to mere opinion. These ideas aren’t new — Plato complains that democracy is rule by mere opinion, indicating that perhaps it is something inherent in democracy itself which leads to the dissolution of a collective identity. Identity politics takes this even further and attaches your personal identity to the accidents of your birth — your gender, your race, the religion you are born into, etc. When this is combined with the rhetoric of Marx and the idea that history is the competition between the oppressed and the oppressors, then those attributes which define the majority culture become the people who need to “be checked” often because a person whose attributes fall out of the majority (and thus are oppressed) is expressing their political identity. This makes all interactions between people competitions for power and also ones in which those in power must recognize their unfair advantage over those who are not — the presumption being that the asymmetrical power relationship should be understood as injustice, and thus, those in power over others must recognize the injustice they are complicit in by having the same accidents of birth has the majority.

This kind of divisive rhetoric, and more problematic divisive logic behind the relationships between people, is fundamentally why “checking your privilege” is an idea which needs to be checked, and, ultimately abandoned for something more aligned with the principles of republicanism. Power asymmetry is a fundamental reality of living in a political society — there will always be rulers and ruled, thus there will always be power asymmetry. Anything which is fundamentally calling for the abolition of such is anarchist. Instead, what should be turned to is expressed well by Aristotle: that the definition of citizenship is understanding the role of being both ruled and ruling. Citizenship is predicated on power asymmetry, understanding that one must be both in the minority and in the majority; that is the very asymmetrical relationship which binds us together in commonality, not the abolition of that relationship.

Systemic injustice is a threat to a republic because it decays the fundamental belief in the rule of law and that the rule of law is equal to all citizens. The way to abolish it, however, is not to disconnect us further and further along lines of personal expression or accident of birth. It is to acknowledge that when there are groups in our republic that are constantly enduring injustice, that is a threat to the entire system. The rhetoric of ‘privilege’ does not create commonality in purpose, perspective, or principle; it does the very opposite. Instead of relying on this divisive rhetoric and the logic of conflict which pulls us apart even further, we should abandon the intellectual framework which sees power asymmetry as evil and embrace one which sees it as a true condition of political existence but one in which asymmetry is used to generate commonality of purpose and identity. We cannot divide ourselves into unity, so why should we rely on rhetoric and a logical framework which are predicated on division and conflict?

Injustice exists. The abuse of power is a constant wherever power exists. Systemic injustice exists. But the solution doesn’t lie in the liberalism of the 1960s and it’s anarchist undertones; this liberalism in fact undermines the very goal they aspire to achieve. To point out that there are those who benefit from a system while others benefit less is nearly as self-evident as a triangle having three sides. The accidents of birth should not define the roles we play in society, either positively or negatively, and thus using those very accidents as the reason why a disenfranchised or marginalized group should be further integrated into the system is self-defeating. While the rhetoric of privilege may play on our egalitarian sentiments, it is incapable of ever providing the solution it aspires to provide. It’s time to abandon it, along with the intellectual baggage that comes with it, and begin to think in terms of how we can truly empower the marginalized to share in being ruled and ruling, in acquiring the burden and benefits of self-rule.