How do you spot privilege?

What is privilege?

First, privilege exists. None of the people I interact with deny the existence of privilege. The issue is around accepting what is, and what isn't. The reason this is difficult, is that it's difficult to see, for those that have it. So, as a quick primer, I'm going to put out my definition of privilege.

priv·i·lege  

/ˈpriv(ə)lij/

Noun A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.

Who has privilege?

In the current conversations about privilege, I think the definition needs some expansion, or perhaps some examples. I don't see privilege as a granting of advantages. I see it as the lack of disadvantage given to certain groups. Those groups have traits they are born with, which they can do nothing about, which will impact them for their entire lives. Race, gender, and sexuality are main ones. I have seen some people add education, wealth, and others, but I'm not sure I agree, as both can be attained throughout life (barring disadvantages given by race, gender, or sexuality).
What does this mean?

• Not white? Lose a few rights. Expect to be treated worse than a white person, in almost any given situation, particularly interactions with the government, or cultural expectations
• Not straight? Lose a few rights. Expect people to question whether you're pretending in order to get attention. Expect them to tell you that you can't marry the person you love. Expect to hear that you'll never be a complete person unless you change who you are.
• Not male? Lose a few rights. Expect to be blamed for being raped. Expect to be told that you have to act differently, dress differently, and behave differently, if you don't want someone to force you to have sex with them. Expect to be told there are things you just aren't good at (like math). Expect to be told that you're overreacting, or being dramatic. Expect to be told that your feelings don't matter.

It means something else, as well. People who have privilege have no control over having it. They didn't ask for it, they have no control over having it, and they may be unaware of its existence. Most people want to believe that people are treated equally. If you suggest that they have an easier time because of something they have no control over, most people (that I have spoken with) get defensive - most people want to think that they deserve the good things they have, so it's hard for them to accept that they have been given a leg up by the luck of their birth.

What impact does it have for some people to be born with privilege, and some without?

The first impact is that it defines how we have to talk about it, if we want to make progress. If somebody is reluctant to grant that their current station in life is due, in large part, to luck, then pointing it out is likely to result in defensiveness, whether it's right or wrong. To that end, I prefer to approach privilege slightly differently.
Privilege isn't something an individual wields control over - it's systemic. Privilege isn't something had by an individual. Privilege is something that impacts everybody with it, as much as people without it - systemically. The first important step in identifying, and working to rectify privilege, is to accept that most people with it have had it conferred on them, rather than chosen to use it, or take it. The reason that I think this is a crucial first step is that it allows us to move away from attacking each other, and toward attacking the actual problem - ways in which society is geared to negatively impact a majority of the people in it.
After thinking about it for a long time, I have decided to focus on the ways in which privilege tears people down. It's true, that in order for their to be losers, there have to be winners, but I actually think that the highest point of privilege (currently held, in America, by straight, white men) is the default for how people should be treated. Every step removed from that is privilege lost.

How does privilege come to be?

When you have all the power, and all the control, then people want to be like you. They see how you act, how you dress, how you look, and how you think, and they internalize those things as desirable, and as normal. And to have normal and desirable, almost by definition, requires abnormal, undesirable. People who fit the profile come to expect that they deserve to be treated in a particular way, and those that don't fit the profile expect to be treated differently. Laws are passed by people in power that reinforce those beliefs. Whatever reason they have to pass the law (racism, paternalism, elitism, sexism, ignorance, meaning well) is irrelevant, because the impact of passing the law is to reinforce their beliefs. Lawmakers work to pass laws of people they empathize with. 200 years ago, that was white men (sexuality wasn't a factor). All laws were written as if white men were the only people, and nobody else mattered. It wasn't intentional racism, they were products of their time. I'm not excusing their racism, or their sexism, merely trying to put it into context.
Similar laws continued to be passed for 100 years, before a war was fought over whether men of different races were also people. Turns out, they are. But the framework had already been built. White men were still the people in power, and had no understanding of the problems facing black men, or the ways in which American culture made life harder for anybody who wasn't a white man. In fact, quite a few laws were passed to make things harder for anybody who wasn't white.
50 years after that, another war was fought, this time without loss of life, about whether women are people. It turns out they are, too. But 150 years of contrary lawmaking doesn't go out the window over night. The system is still biased in favor of men.
30 years after that, major civil disobedience was called for, asking the country to recognize that yes, not only are black people people, but they should have the same rights as everybody else.
That takes us up to around 50 years ago, since which time things have been slowly improving. But progress hasn't been inevitable, because 200 years of thinking is hard to change. The system has its own inertia. And while some parts of the law have been updated to reflect that non-white people, and non-males, and non-straight people should have the same rights as everybody else, not every part of the law has caught up. And the reason for that is that not everybody agrees with it. So some laws are made, or talked about, or pushed, which perpetuate the belief that people who aren't straight, white, men are different. And the only way we can convince ourselves that it's ok to pass laws that affect different people differently, is by believing that some people are more deserving than others. We already had that foundation, when America was founded, so it's easy to fall back on.

What impact does privilege have?

Once this way of thinking becomes normal (as it was for a couple hundred years), it becomes incredibly difficult to dislodge, or to spot. It becomes part of how the system works, so that speaking out against it becomes increasingly difficult, due to the investment of time, and energy, that has gone into maintaining the system. The more investment there is, the better the system is seen to be (due to the sunk cost fallacy).
We believe our laws are just, and that we do the best we can. We also know that some people are punished more severely for essentially the same crime as somebody else. Therefore, the laws must be unjust, or some people are more deserving of punishment than others. Some people go down one path, and advocate for equality, equal chances, measures to provide a level playing field for people who have been systemically biased again, while other people choose, whether they consciously think it, or not, that some people deserve to be punished.

Now that we've established what's normal, any change by those pursuing more just laws, or improvements in the system, are frequently construed as an attack against 'normal.'
For example:

• Gay people want to get married? That's an attack on straight people
• Women want to vote? That's saying that men don't do a good enough job
• Black people want to vote? They're saying that white people don't do a good enough job
• Latinos want to be able to legally work and be paid minimum wage? They're taking jobs away from 'hard working Americans.'

Racism/sexism/etc become ingrained, to the point that it's no longer thought about

1. If Muslims don't want to be profiled, they shouldn't be terrorists
2. If black people don't want to go to jail, they shouldn't commit crimes
3. If women want equal pay, they should do equal work

The reasons why these attitudes represent privilege isn't necessarily clear, so I'll unwind them.

1. Muslim terrorism
1. The vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists
2. The vast majority of murder in the US is carried out by non-Muslims
3. When a white person blows up a building, we don't add profiling of white people to the list of things it's now OK to do
4. When a white person shoots up an elementary school, we don't start searching every white person who wants to go to a school, and we don't single them out for special treatment
2. Black crime
1. Drugs with identical impacts have harsher mandatory minimum sentences if the drug is predominantly used by black people
2. No white person ever gets pulled over for Driving While White
3. The vast majority of white collar crime is committed by white people, who almost never go to jail for it
4. The majority of drug use is by white people, but the majority of people punished for drug use are black
5. Violent crime has been pretty closely tied to poverty, not to race (incidences of violent crime in wealthy black people closely matches that of wealthy white people, just as poor white people commit roughly the same amount of violent crime as black people.
3. Equal pay
1. Almost every high paying profession is male dominated
2. The perpetuation of male domination is achieved through environments that are pretty hostile to women
3. Skills that women generally have more of (though societal expectations) make them better managers, who do a better job building teams, but they make up a small portion of senior management, despite the implications that companies would be doing better if they were hired.

How do we spot privilege?

Now that we know how it came about, and how ingrained it is, and how hard it is for those with privilege to spot it being exercised, let's talk about how to identify privilege.

The first way to spot privilege is to ask, in any given situation where there is an interaction with power structures (government, law enforcement, media, etc), whether you would expect the same treatment regardless of privilege. Would a straight, white man have gone through the same thing, in the same situation? A gay white man? A gay woman of color? If a given situation results in the same behavior, regardless of the privilege involved, then it probably doesn't have anything to do with privilege.

Once we move out of power structures, it gets a little less clear, because the systemic impacts are indirect. They play on our feelings which then impact the way we treat other people. In these cases, it can be much harder to spot privilege. 

One of the ways we can spot it, however, is to ask ourselves whether, if the positions were reversed, would this have happened? For example, take a recent bakery incident that involved the news. A gay person went into a bakery and asked for a wedding cake. The cake was refused because making a wedding cake depicting 2 people of the same sex went against the beliefs of the shop owner. Outside of the question of whether this is legal, is the question of whether this demonstrates privilege. We answer that when we reverse the positions of the two people involved, and ask whether a gay shop owner would have refused service to a straight person, on those same grounds. We can argue whether it's possible for service to be refused, but the question is whether the request would be considered abnormal, that way around. A straight person asking for a wedding cake with a man and a woman on it? Perfectly normal.

That doesn't capture all instances, so I have one more situation to consider, when trying to identify the existence of privilege. If the privilege levels were the same, would this have happened? In this case, it has to be done twice - once to adjust for either perspective. If the answer is no, either time, then privilege is probably in play.

Conclusion

I don't get it right every time. I don't inherently spot privilege, or its lack. This is something I have had to learn, and which I am still learning. I have privilege. Enough that I could conceivably walk away from this discussion, and never think about it again, without fear that it would ever impact my life adversely. I frequently don't see privilege until it's pointed out to me. I don't feel bad about that, as this is relatively new to me. I accept that there are people who have spent a lifetime experiencing privilege, who see it, or feel it, as naturally as breathing. I have learned to trust that not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't there. There's an element of faith in there, and an element of trust in my own judgement. While I'm learning, that's how it has to be. My biggest hope is that by learning, I can help change things, for the better.

The Outsider’s experience

I have been doing a lot of work recently with organizations that aim to serve people with multiple, sometimes conflicting, needs. I work with charities, and the not-for-profit sector, who generally have several different end users: individual funders, corporate funders, government, volunteers (of which there may be many different types), and program recipients (which may be different for every program implemented).

As part of the work I've done, I frequently find myself asking similar questions, all of which are aimed at figuring out the same information (and helping the charities see it for themselves). I have put together a short list of questions, along with an explanation, that I use to help figure out what's going well, and what isn't.

The value of working with any organization lies not in the programs the organization wants to deliver, but in the delivery itself. Delivery is not about how things look from within the organization or whether metrics are being hit, but about how smooth, easy, and helpful things are for people on the outside.

What defines good interactions?

1. Are my needs met?
2. Are they met rapidly?
3. When the organization makes a mistake, how do they recognize it, and how quickly is it rectified?
4. Does the organization understand my needs?
5. How much of the time I spend interacting with the organization is spent on things I want (adding value), as opposed to things that interfere with me getting what I want (waste)?
6. How many people do I have to talk to in order to get what I want?

It is imperative to take the outsider's perspective whenever possible, because it is incredibly easy to become blinded when we look around with our normal perspective. It frequently seems normal to divide the company based on the functions that each team is responsible for. But customers don't experience things in a functional way - their experience is holistic. Customers don't care if a problem occurs with the person they interact with, or deeper within the company. And they certainly don't want to have to chase the solution themselves.

Some of the benefits are highlighted in this article, but the truth is that this concept goes back nearly 60 years, to when Deming started working with the Japanese to build quality into their processes. Deming's main point, and one born out by time and experience, is that you can't inspect quality into a process. It is either built with quality, or it isn't. If it isn't, no amount of tinkering is going to fix it. The questions I ask above are meant to help identify whether quality is part of the process, by challenging organizations to figure out whether they're actually delivering what their customers need and want, or whether they're delivering what the company has told itself they want.

NB: This list is subject to updates.

This post owes a lot to the concept of failure demand

npower Corporate Tax Avoidance Response

npower has been caught avoiding taxes, thanks to a campaign by 38 Degrees. They sent me an email, asking me to write a letter to the npower CEO, demanding that they pay their taxes in the UK, rather than funnel them through Malta, as they appear to be doing. That's the frame for this conversation.

I wrote a letter to npower's CEO, Paul Massara, which you can read below. But first, an observation, backed by numerous studies, written about by mediators, marriage counselors, therapists, and understood by any parent that has ever tried to get a child to do what they're told: when you demand that somebody do something, you rarely get the result you want. Instead, you either get defensiveness, rebellion, spite, or resentment. You may get temporary obedience, but it rarely lasts, and it never results in the change that you really want. In this case, what we want is for npower to want to pay taxes in the UK. Because that is my end goal, I took a slightly different approach in my letter to Mr. Massara.

If you want to express yourself to npower, but don't think making demands will help, feel free to use as much of my text as you like.

America's housing crisis (Systems Thinking approach)

For 150 years, banks acted as a balance when people asked if they could afford a house. The same way you go to a doctor when you think you need help with your health, people went to banks asking for help with their finances. In this case, they were asking if they could afford a house.
For 150 years, banks had a vested interest in getting that assessment right - a loss for the owner and a loss for the bank were the same thing, so banks genuinely did their best to only loan to people who could afford it.
One day (though the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, among other things), banks realized that they could package and sell those mortgages to other banks, and other people. They also realized they could get the risk on those packages misassessed, so they got paid more than they were worth, as the risk was underappreciated. This resulted in a new incentive for the bank that bank customers weren't aware of.
For 150 years, banks interests regarding mortgages were aligned with their customers. Suddenly, banks stood to earn a lot more money through selling bad loans than in keeping good ones. So, when people came to ask if they could afford a house, the bank was no longer on their side. Instead, they had an incentive to make bad loans. And they stood to earn more money the worse the loan was.
In short, the system that had been depended on for many years was broken, and only one 1/2 of the borrower-lender pair knew that. The result was entirely predictable.
Had both sides been aware that the bank was aiming to make bad loans, things may (or may not) have turned out differently.

I have heard claims that the people asking for home loans are the ones to blame, because they shouldn't have taken on a responsibility they couldn't afford. But, I think saying that people who have been acting in a stable system are responsible when one party surreptitiously destabilizes it shows a misunderstanding of systems. There was literally NO way for most people requesting home loans to know that their interests and bank interests were no longer aligned. Those people were acting as responsibly as they knew how, and they got fleeced.
If you go to your mechanic, and he tells you that you (for example) need a new cam shaft, but doesn't tell you that he suddenly realized he can make a lot more money on cam shafts than he can on routine maintenance, then how can you make an informed decision, or even be aware of his motivation?
However, I don't think banks are solely responsible, or even majority responsible for the problem. The banks, and the people in them, are actors in a system. Only by changing the system does behavior change (you can see it with the way banks are doing the same things that got them into trouble in the first place, now).
And the only way to change this particular system is with government intervention. Glass-Steagall made the system work in the past, and it can make it work again in the future. Government (and the people that elect that government) are ultimately responsible for the shape of the system, and the regulations that create it. But even then, you haven't found the root of the problem, because Glass-Steagall would be chipped away by officials, as banks ask them to do it, again. History has shown that repeatedly - people forget the lessons of the past, unless they're constantly confronted with them.
Government officials seek reelection. Election campaigns cost a lost of money. It's hard to raise that money from individuals. It's easier to raise it from corporations. Therefore, government officials work to keep corporations happy, since they provide the money necessary to elect them. That means doing what they want, and giving them an ear. Even if they don't talk to the officials directly, money influences people. It creates an inherent conflict of interest to have officials elected by players in a system they are regulating.
If you want to fix the problem, at its root, you have to start with the money in politics.
Force government to provide public funds for all election campaigns, and no private funding, whatsoever. Use whatever criteria are appropriate to select the candidate. Once you have the money out of politics, you can start working on doing what's right for the people, instead of corporations. From that 1 fix, you can start to address the entire system. Until you fix that, you're suturing the skin over an open fracture -- it might make the problem appear to go away, but it only makes things worse in the end.