On “Privilege”

A post I wrote last week sparked a lively debate, and one strand of that debate was whether it is appropriate to use the term “privilege” (“cis privilege” in particular) to describe the phenomena I was talking about. I identified mainly two clusters of objections, but please do let me know in the comments if I have overlooked any.

1. The term “privilege” is best used to describe situations where people get more than what they are entitled to, or when they get special treatment that really nobody should get (e.g. enjoy impunity or lack of accountability). Cis people, instead (but the same could be said about other axes of advantage and disadvantage) get what they deserve (respect; freedom from intrusive questioning; etc.); the problem is that trans people – or people who are read as trans, gender non conforming, etc. – do not get the fundamental respect they are entitled to. So we should speak of trans disadvantage/oppression (again, this does not only apply to people who ostensibly identify as trans, this is the last time I make this qualification) but not of cis privilege.
2. The term “privilege” is best used to describe an intended feature of the system (as in the case of white privilege), whereas the phenomena I am describing are more like unintended consequences.

So, first of all, whether we call the stuff I wrote about “privilege” or something else (and this applies to other areas of political and social disadvantage, too, btw, not just to gender) is not a hill I am prepared to die on. My point was to use a term that is routinely used is contemporary progressive debates, and which some people are happy to use for other areas (male privilege, white privilege, etc.) but not for the area the post was about (there is male privilege and female oppression, but there is no such thing as cis privilege as a thing that, for instance, many cis females also allegedly enjoy”). Nothing more, nothing less. So, what I wrote is perfectly compatible with having a separate conversation about whether “privilege” really is the right antinomy for oppression or disadvantage (although it is still possible to reach the conclusion that no, ideally maybe it’s not, but it has stuck and now having a  whole debate about replacing it with something else would do more harm than good).

Having said that, and having shared some of the gut discomfort with the term in the past (but never having reflected enough on why), let me try and make the case for the term here. I am still not fully persuaded it is the best term, but here are a couple of reasons which speak in favour of it.

1. Yes indeed, when we say that being able to trust police officers is a form of white privilege; that being listened to without being routinely interrupted is a form of male privilege; and that not being unjustifiably pathologised for one’s sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender presentation inclinations are forms of straight and cis privilege respectively, we are not thereby saying saying that white, male, straight and cis people in these examples are enjoying special treatment to which they have no claim. Sometimes privilege of this latter kind also happens (when a confident-looking man is not asked for proof for their qualifications even if the relevant procedure requires it; or when a white person is unproblematically believed by a police officer even there is good evidence exists that maybe they should not be). But it is true that we also largely use the term in the former sense – as being able to reliable enjoy one’s rights without facing undue adversities. So yep, to the extent that “privilege” means, strictly speaking, undeserved special treatment or advantage, it is being used somewhat inappropriately in contemporary progressive discourse (I am deliberately not saying “woke,” although I really resent the fact that woke is basically a slur now….). However, there is a more charitable and interesting reading, I think. Calling being safe in the knowledge that the police will not unnecessarily and arbitrarily harass me a form of privilege reflects a distinctly non-ideal reading of reality – one where facing adversities and unfairness (in one way or another, and sometimes in multiple and multiply intersecting ways) is the default for most of us, and something which only few of us have the luck not to experience. There is a powerful and compelling punchline being delivered when we say, “Oh, you have always being treated with respect and dignity? Count yourself unbelievably lucky!”. It’s an approach which subverts what some might regard as normal expectations: injustice is the norm, having one’s rights respected is the exception.
2. I am a little more puzzled by the second objection. I guess the issue is what one means by “intended feature of the system.” Ostensibly, looking at most liberal democracies, institutionalised racism is not an “intended feature.” The law in most liberal democracies advocates racial equality; repudiates racism; and in some countries remedies and compensations for historical injustices are even in place. On a more structural reading, however (and you don’t need to be a Marxist or a Foucaultian to say that), clearly a system of power is in place that maintains racial inequality in spite of the law. On the first, narrower reading, neither white privilege nor cis privilege are “intended features of the system.” On the second, broader reading…well it depends! It is a complex, largely empirical conversation. We certainly cannot simply say, nonchalantly, that in the case of cis advantages it’s obviously a case of unintended consequences. Personally, I would point to the way in which we live in a system that, via all kinds of social norms, tries to discipline gender presentations and expectations. It’s a long topic, but certainly not one I would be OK to dismiss as just a matter of unintended consequences.

These are my 5 cents.