A privilege (in a multicultural discussion) is an unearned advantage, rather like a legal right (on which the word is based), but unenforceable. Many multiculturalists will tell you that privilege, or lack thereof, sticks with you wherever you go, but that’s wrong. It’s money, inherited or earned, that sticks with you; so we have to distinguish a lack of social privilege from being “underprivileged.” Privilege is the opposite of stigma, not poverty. There’s white privilege in situations where it’s advantageous to be white and black privilege in situations where it’s advantageous to be black. There is also a privilege associated with every category society puts people in, so that sometimes people are privileged for hearing, sometimes for being deaf, for being tall, for being short, and so on. It all depends on the local and immediate norms of whatever group you find yourself in. If you have a privilege, it means you are authorized to play the role you’re in.
You can’t understand what all the complaining is about unless you understand that people naturally avoid situations where they are not privileged, and it’s much easier and much less financially costly for white people than for black people (in most of America) to avoid situations where they are not privileged.
Heterosexual privilege operates when you talk about your spouse and other people assume you’re straight. (Straight people in this situation are fully authorized to play the role of spouse.) Heterosexual privilege operates in most states if you want to marry the person you love. Gay privilege operates in a multicultural discussion of heterosexual privilege, where gay people are perceived as being fully authorized to comment, but straight people have to prove that they’re all right before commenting. You can see that the political and economic costs weigh more heavily on the gay person avoiding marriage than on the straight person avoiding certain conversations.
A professional multiculturalist I know told straight students that they were wrong to get married as long as gay people can’t. Other professional multiculturalists have made it clear to white people that they should always be aware of when they are enjoying white privilege, and they should either forego the fruits of their advantage or they should adopt an apologetic and guilty attitude toward the situation. This is nonsense. The deepest privilege of all accorded those who are fully authorized to play their roles is to be unaware of the privilege. Where you are welcome, you need not be situation-conscious. In a restaurant where you stand out like a sore thumb, it’s hard to get engrossed in your dinner or in your conversation. In a restaurant where you are fully accepted as a patron, you can enjoy your meal and your conversation. I’m for recognizing and acknowledging privilege, but I’m also for enjoying it. When you are privileged, you should feel lucky, not guilty.
A black couple—a physician and a judge—bought a new house in a predominantly white, upper-class neighborhood. On moving day, a neighbor asked them when the new owners were arriving. The couple laughed. When the physician reported the incident in a multicultural workshop, the trainer told her she was denying her anger, and that she should have confronted the neighbor with his implicit racism. There’s definitely a place for anger when you are being marginalized; it should spur you on to do the most constructive and redemptive thing you can do about broadening definitions of which people can play which roles. But more often than not, when you are marginalized, the most constructive and redemptive thing you can do is laugh.
Michael Karson, Ph.D. 
Sir, I’m laughing right now. Why on earth would you use the most extreme examples of racialized discourse to prove your point? The “multicultural experts” who tried to shame straight students or the one who baits their black clients are ridiculous — just like the person who declares racism is dead simply because of our black president. This reasoning stymies the discussion—but maybe your intent was only to get some comments on your blog.
You argue that privilege is contextual, it should be enjoyed appropriately, and that an aggressive form of politically correct multiculturalism is hamstringing our society, “It all depends on the local and immediate norms of whatever group you find yourself in. If you have a privilege, it means you are authorized to play the role you’re in.”
Well, this makes sense. A heterosexual, middle-aged male professor may feel slightly awkward hanging outside of his milieu—but it does seem white people get the so many better milieus—the more powerful ones—the desirable ones. And yes, good for the black professional couple for being gracious in the face of what is, at best, a social gaffe from an otherwise sensible neighbor (or, at worst, a closeted bigot that sends their kids to the same school).
But this impulse toward civility is nothing remarkable for people of color. They smile and rationalize at ignorance all the time so they don’t ruffle feathers and just quietly get ahead. Most people of color don’t get all Malcolm X during these interactions—but your cheeks start to hurt smiling at those idiots all the time. Research in your own field shows how damaging this persistent glad-facing has on people.
I use those “extreme” examples because they are the ones that led me to start this blog. When I complained about them, I was told, in effect, to shut up. I’m not sure what purpose it serves to pooh-pooh white or middle-aged or male or professorial or heterosexual stigma as “slightly awkward.” It seems to me to assume a zero sum game, where empathy with straight or white people somehow costs people of color and gay people. I think we all gain from empathy with the marginalized, whatever their category.
Well, yes that’s an obvious point. t’s unfortunate you are peppered by the slings of “zero-sum” thinkers.What you experience in the form of either overt or indirect chastisement is annoying for most reasonable people of any stripe. I no more see the purpose in forcing a manufactured contriteness or guilt onto people than you do.
Now, if you are arguing for a more critical, cooperative view on increasing parity for everyone, then I’m on board. But if you are stating that positions of true power currently do not favor those who are white, straight and male then I’ll respectfully disagree. But I’ll wager more people are closer in agreement about social issues that these reactionary tics. At least, they would be if not for these tired, worn-out provocations.
I’m saying that the statement that “positions of true power … favor those who are straight, white, and male” needs respectful dissection. 1. It generalizes across situations in a way that makes it hard to analyze any particular situation. 2. It assumes that there is such a thing as a straight male. 3. It assumes that there is such a thing as a white male. 4. It implies that because some white men fare well, all white men are favored. Finally, it makes me wonder what purpose it serves the speaker to say it. It’s become such a truism of the multicultural discussion that white men are privileged (and, though you didn’t say it, others do: oppressive) that the assertion has become unmoored from circumstance.
I don’t think that’s a truism of the multicultural discussion at all? Your pronouncement is its own assumption.
Maybe you have been more fortunate than I have been, or a better advocate for sensible discourse!
1) Just because individual situation are hard to analyze doesn’t mean you shouldn’t tackle them thoughtfully, 2) No it does not have to—why would it? 3) Ditto here, bracket the assumptions, 4) Well yeah, if you set up a straw man argument like that, of course that will be the outcome.
4. I haven’t manufactured any arguments to set up as straw men. I’m reporting what has been said to me in multicultural discussions. That includes, for example, the definition of oppression as what men do to women and what white people do to people of color, and the definition of privilege as something experienced by white people and men but not by people of color or women. I’m not creative enough to make these things up!
Wait…Michael Karson, did you write this blog from a white man’s perspective? I thought that in 3rd grade they told you that you were black?
I was at a multicultural training this week. The trainer said that your worldview is created by your identity. I said that your identity is created by other people’s worldview. The trainer responded with delight, which made me feel like getting involved. The vast majority of the time, I read as white. But I tan well.