In discourse about various political and social issues, I see the term "privilege" thrown around in different contexts, including in reference to a group that has more freedoms than another or is in an otherwise more desirable situation. In this thread, I'm going to explain why I rarely find the term more useful than alternatives, how I think its usage could be problematic or counterproductive in some cases, and, as a consequence of the previous two points, why I rarely use it myself.
Perhaps the most familiar example of the term's usage nowadays is "white privilege," in reference to perceived advantages that white people have in some countries over other ethnic or racial groups. However, I would also like to focus on an example much more familiar to me from my own lived experience, and that is the disadvantage and discrimination that non-religious people face in Saudi Arabia (among other countries) compared to members of majority religious groups.
When analyzing a given group's situation with regard to human rights, freedoms, and other social or legal facets, it seems to me that it is crucial to establish a baseline of necessary or basic rights and freedoms against which we could judge whether or not said group is disenfranchised. In contrast, saying a group is "privileged" compared to another shifts the focus from said baseline to a comparison between two groups who may both be disenfranchised, even if to different extents.
This is where my focus on specific third-world countries comes into the argument: let's say I stated that Muslims in, say, Pakistan were "privileged." This would technically be true, since atheists are heavily persecuted there. However, Pakistan has high poverty rates, low standards of living, and many political and social issues that affect most of the population, Muslim or otherwise.
What, then, does using the term "Muslim privilege" achieve in the above case? If we look at the average Pakistani Muslim, it's quite possible that they're struggling just to make ends meet and to cover their basic needs, all while dealing with an abusive political climate devoid of an acceptable baseline of freedom. They may have more religious freedoms than a Pakistani atheist, but when both they and the atheist don't meet the acceptable baseline of human rights, using the term "Muslim privilege" largely shifts the focus from this crucial and pressing fact to a comparison between two groups who are, at the end of the day, both struggling.
Mapping this to the situation with "white privilege," it is entirely possible for individuals not to be well-off or have their full rights and basic needs despite belonging to the supposedly privileged group. The term "privilege" is sometimes largely hinged on comparison to other groups, not on reference to a specific baseline of human rights and freedoms. If a group is noticeably above the baseline and, for example, enjoys exemption from laws that apply to other groups, then this becomes a problem where the term "privilege" may be useful and accurate to describe the situation.
On the other hand, if we compare a Saudi or Pakistani Muslim in poverty to a poor or middle-class atheist from the same country, things get much more complicated because, as I highlighted above, both individuals would be below the baseline. Consequently, eliminating the "privilege" of either wouldn't solve the core issue, which is the fact that neither of them enjoys the bare minimum level of human rights and freedoms that any humane society should aim to provide to its citizens.
When the focus of discourse around a social or political lack of rights turns into a comparison between different groups rather than the fact that many individuals within both groups may both lack their basic rights, it seems to me that a situation arises where the discourse may lose the plot and turn into a pursuit of bringing down those who are doing well rather than improving the situation of those who are not.
Unethical or illegal privileges are a different issue, as I touched on earlier, but those cover only a subset of the situations in which I see the term "privilege" being used. In many other situations, I think the term "privilege" is much better replaced by language and arguments that zoom in on the disenfranchised and the factors that lead to their not having a baseline of human rights, freedom, and economic stability.
For these reasons, I rarely use the term myself. After all, it has never helped anyone for someone else to be struggling to an equal extent; the ideal situation is when nobody is struggling at all. So, if I ever went back to live in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't want to have "Muslim privilege"; I would want a baseline of human rights and freedoms—and most Muslims in Saudi Arabia don't have those either when we look at an area like politics.
Perhaps the most familiar example of the term's usage nowadays is "white privilege," in reference to perceived advantages that white people have in some countries over other ethnic or racial groups. However, I would also like to focus on an example much more familiar to me from my own lived experience, and that is the disadvantage and discrimination that non-religious people face in Saudi Arabia (among other countries) compared to members of majority religious groups.
When analyzing a given group's situation with regard to human rights, freedoms, and other social or legal facets, it seems to me that it is crucial to establish a baseline of necessary or basic rights and freedoms against which we could judge whether or not said group is disenfranchised. In contrast, saying a group is "privileged" compared to another shifts the focus from said baseline to a comparison between two groups who may both be disenfranchised, even if to different extents.
This is where my focus on specific third-world countries comes into the argument: let's say I stated that Muslims in, say, Pakistan were "privileged." This would technically be true, since atheists are heavily persecuted there. However, Pakistan has high poverty rates, low standards of living, and many political and social issues that affect most of the population, Muslim or otherwise.
What, then, does using the term "Muslim privilege" achieve in the above case? If we look at the average Pakistani Muslim, it's quite possible that they're struggling just to make ends meet and to cover their basic needs, all while dealing with an abusive political climate devoid of an acceptable baseline of freedom. They may have more religious freedoms than a Pakistani atheist, but when both they and the atheist don't meet the acceptable baseline of human rights, using the term "Muslim privilege" largely shifts the focus from this crucial and pressing fact to a comparison between two groups who are, at the end of the day, both struggling.
Mapping this to the situation with "white privilege," it is entirely possible for individuals not to be well-off or have their full rights and basic needs despite belonging to the supposedly privileged group. The term "privilege" is sometimes largely hinged on comparison to other groups, not on reference to a specific baseline of human rights and freedoms. If a group is noticeably above the baseline and, for example, enjoys exemption from laws that apply to other groups, then this becomes a problem where the term "privilege" may be useful and accurate to describe the situation.
On the other hand, if we compare a Saudi or Pakistani Muslim in poverty to a poor or middle-class atheist from the same country, things get much more complicated because, as I highlighted above, both individuals would be below the baseline. Consequently, eliminating the "privilege" of either wouldn't solve the core issue, which is the fact that neither of them enjoys the bare minimum level of human rights and freedoms that any humane society should aim to provide to its citizens.
When the focus of discourse around a social or political lack of rights turns into a comparison between different groups rather than the fact that many individuals within both groups may both lack their basic rights, it seems to me that a situation arises where the discourse may lose the plot and turn into a pursuit of bringing down those who are doing well rather than improving the situation of those who are not.
Unethical or illegal privileges are a different issue, as I touched on earlier, but those cover only a subset of the situations in which I see the term "privilege" being used. In many other situations, I think the term "privilege" is much better replaced by language and arguments that zoom in on the disenfranchised and the factors that lead to their not having a baseline of human rights, freedom, and economic stability.
For these reasons, I rarely use the term myself. After all, it has never helped anyone for someone else to be struggling to an equal extent; the ideal situation is when nobody is struggling at all. So, if I ever went back to live in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't want to have "Muslim privilege"; I would want a baseline of human rights and freedoms—and most Muslims in Saudi Arabia don't have those either when we look at an area like politics.
