AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

The concept of privilege is often attributed to race and rarely is it used to encompass other categories of analysis such as class and gender. However, the concept of privilege is more than just blatant racial discrimination. Privilege can be extended to those who have more power over certain groups and yet are unaware of how this power can lead to the subordination of others (Hill & Winegar, 2009; Collins, 2010). This can encompass race as well as class and gender, which all play a part in structuring our relationship with each other. This essay will attempt to critically examine how the practice of privilege in context can be understood through the lens of institutional, symbolic and personal privilege.

Firstly, according to Collins (2010), institutional dimensions of privilege is centred on formal structures enforcing relationships domination and subordination. This structure is constructed over time, which then goes on to allow certain privileges to be accepted. Examples of places which most likely have these structures in place are healthcare sectors and workplaces. Large institutions with structures put into place often give the impression that equal opportunity is afforded to everyone (Collins, 2010). However, this is not always the case especially when it comes to employment and healthcare policies. From the role plays, Group 1 reinforced the idea of privilege through a health context. They emphasised on how certain groups or even individuals have more say when it comes to informing policies and in this case, it would be allocating funds to an abortion clinic. For example, their role play showed that ministers who were male were more vocal about their not supporting the abortion clinic, even going so far as to blame the women for being irresponsible. Another example from Group 2’s role play can also be used to show stereotypes about people of ethnic background can lead to targeted recruitment (Smith & Foy, 2007). Though the three candidates of ethnic background were better qualified, the interviewer still chose the white and male interviewee based on the assumption that he would fit in. Though both groups’ role plays showed privilege under different situations, both role plays emphasised that very rarely do individuals play a part in advancing privilege (Hill & Winegar, 2009). Instead, it is built into the fabric of society which then go to inform institutional dimensions of privilege (Johnson, 2001).

Secondly, symbols are widespread even in today’s society. They have the power to enforce certain ideologies and are often widespread, aiming to justify the domination and subordination of certain groups and individuals (Collins, 2010). This can be seen through the use of stereotypical images that seeks to attribute a set of universal assumptions to small groups of people, regardless of whether it has any basis on truth or not (Collins, 2010). It is through stereotypes that can go on to inform decisions, especially when it comes to housing and education. Group 3 showed how within the education sector, certain groups are not given the same access to education as other groups. Part of this exclusion is due largely to appearance, as portrayed through their role play. The teacher had assumed because a student’s parent was of ethnic background that they were not as well off. This is an example of teachers’ privilege, where teachers are given the role of identifying who is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ parent (Stoll, 2013). Much of this process of identification is based heavily on assumptions made through stereotypes, leading the teachers to assume (Johnson, 2001; Stoll, 2013). Group 4 also showed this idea of privilege through housing, portraying how certain groups have better chances of obtaining state housing than other groups. When the white couple were asked if they had a history of criminal offences, they laughed it off and proceeded to say if they looked the part. It should also be noted that the housing applicant officer did not press on to confirm whether they did or not. The same privilege was not applied to the Latino couple where despite being honest about their criminal offences, they were not given access to state housing. This is highlighted through Cheryl Harris’ theory regarding whiteness and how it is a type of property, which gives certain groups the power to exclude (MacDonald and Twine, 2013). Though both role plays displayed institutional dimensions of privilege, it also highlighted how institutions still reinforce privilege into society by depending on stereotypical images to inform decision making (Johnson, 2001).

Thirdly, individual biographies differ as this depends heavily on who we have surrounded ourselves by. This includes the people we interact with, whether it be close friends or even those who look similar to us (Collins, 2010). All of these factors, including some, contribute to our individual biographies. Some people are more aware of how their individual biography affects them on a daily basis whereas for some people, they are usually unaware of it. This case of being unaware is usually common for people who have been afforded privilege, which is a privilege in itself (Johnson, 2011). Largely this sense of not being aware comes from the way society is organised. As seen in all four groups role plays, the way they have portrayed privilege is not only on an institutional and symbolic level but individual dimensions can also be seen. The way institutions are structured and the use of stereotypes to make decisions all stem from how individuals are mostly unaware of the privilege they possess, which is a privilege in itself (Johnson, 2011). By not recognising their own privilege, they become unaware of their influence over groups that are not afforded the same privilege. This can lead to circumstances where on occasion, they will speak for these groups thus reinforcing privilege into society (Martinot, 2010). Therefore, different individuals have different experiences with privilege. These experiences then go onto frame their relationships with others and can either strengthen or constrain it (Collins, 2010).

Privilege is often a difficult concept to grasp as well as discuss, especially within contemporary society. Though it has been argued that challenges of incorporating diversity stem mostly from an institutional and symbolic dimension, it is also important to understand that individual dimension of privilege is also intertwined (Hill & Winegar, 2009). Without the experiences accumulated to construct one’s individual biography the formal structures put in place as well as the stereotypical images would, safe to say, not have existed. However, it should also be pointed out that privilege has taken root in the institutional. Thus, changes that extend beyond the individual needs to be addressed in order to make any changes such as understanding the lives of people not only as an individual but also as a collective (Johnson, 2011; Collins, 2010). In conclusion, the lens of institutional, symbolic and individual privilege all play a role in providing insight into how privilege is practiced and understood in different contexts.

(1144 words)

References

Came, H. (2012). Counter-narratives: racism within the policy cycle. In Institutional racism and the dynamics of privilege in public health (pp. 183 – 206). Waikato: Ph.D Thesis, University of Waikato.

Collins, P. H. (2010). Toward a new vision: race, class, and gender as categories of analysis and connection. In M. S. Kimmel & A. L. Ferber (Eds.), Privilege: a reader (2^nd ed., pp. 233 – 250). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Halley, J. O. M., Eshleman, A. & Vijaya, R. M. (2011). (White) workplaces. In Seeing white: an introduction to white privilege and race (pp. 147 – 166). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Hill, S. J. and Winegar, L. T. (2009). Knapsacks, codes, and blinded vision. In Weekes, K. (Ed.), Privilege and prejudice: twenty years with the invisible knapsack (pp. 20 – 38). Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.

Johnson, A. G. (2001). The trouble we’re in: privilege, power, and difference. In Privilege, power, and difference (pp. 15 – 41). New York: McGraw-Hill.

MacDonald, M. & Twine, F. W. (2013). Residential mobility and the market value of whiteness in Boston. In F. W. Twine & B. Gardener (eds.), Geographies of privilege (1^st ed., pp. 205 – 230). New York: Routledge.

Martinot, S. (2010). The meanings of white racialised identity. In The machinery of whiteness: studies in the structure of racialization (pp. 179 – 208). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Smith, C. & Foy, M. (2007). The reality of white privilege. In The cost of privilege: taking on the system of white supremacy and racism (pp. 234 – 249). Fayetteville, North Carolina: Camino Press.

Stoll, L. C. (2013). The countervailing forces of privilege. In Race and gender in the classroom: Teachers, privilege, and enduring social inequalities. (pp. 81 – 103). Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.