Privilege, Power, and Difference

“The problem—and this is where privilege comes in—is that being blind brings with it disadvantages that go beyond not being able to see, whereas not being blind brings with it unearned advantages that go beyond the fact of being able to see.”

Johnson here addresses the concept of “unearned advantages” (See: Index of Terms) that accompany nondisability. He suggests that nondisabled individuals benefit from societal structures that favor them, extending beyond the mere ability to see. This underscores the book's overarching theme that privilege is a pervasive social force rooted in societal norms and structures, reflecting The Impact of Social Categorization on marginalized groups. Johnson highlights how these privileges, often unrecognized by those who benefit, exacerbate inequalities and perpetuate social divisions.

“The simple truth is that the trouble we're in can't be solved unless people who have privilege feel obligated to make the problem of privilege their problem and to do something about it. For me, it means I have to take the initiative to find out how privilege operates in the world, how it affects people, and what that has to do with me.” 

Johnson emphasizes the responsibility of individuals with privilege to actively engage in understanding and dismantling the systems that confer this privilege. He argues that social change is contingent upon privileged groups recognizing their role in perpetuating inequality and taking deliberate actions to address it. This reflects a core theme of the book: Societal structures of privilege are sustained by passive complicity, and active, conscious effort is required to alter these entrenched dynamics.

“They don't want to look at what the words point to. Whites don't want to look at racism, nor men at sexism, nor heterosexuals at heterosexism, especially if they have worked hard to improve their class position. People don't want to look because they don't want to know what it has to do with them and how doing something about it might change not only the world but themselves.” 

Johnson explores the resistance individuals often exhibit towards confronting uncomfortable truths about privilege and systemic inequality, reflecting the theme of How Individuals Perpetuate or Challenge Systematic Inequalities. He suggests that acknowledging these issues forces individuals to consider how they might be complicit in perpetuating these systems and how addressing these issues could lead to significant changes in both society and their personal lives. This reflection reinforces the book’s broader theme that societal change requires personal accountability and a willingness to confront and dismantle existing power structures.

“The real illusion connected to difference is the popular assumption that people are naturally afraid of what they don't know or understand. This supposedly makes it inevitable that you'll fear and distrust people who aren't like you and, in spite of your good intentions, you'll find it all but impossible to get along with them.”

Here, Johnson challenges the notion that fear of the unfamiliar is a natural human condition. He argues that such fears are instead socially constructed to justify and maintain divisions among different groups, reflecting The Mechanisms of Privilege and Power in Society. This idea ties into the broader themes of the book, where Johnson emphasizes that societal issues, like racism and sexism, are perpetuated by cultural myths that shape interactions and perceptions.

“Disability and nondisability are also constructed through the language used to describe people. When someone who cannot see is labeled a ‘blind person,’ for example, it creates the impression that not being able to see sums up the entire person. In other words, blind becomes what they are. The same thing happens when people are described as ‘brain damaged’ or ‘crippled’ or ‘retarded’ or ‘deaf’—the person becomes the disability and nothing more.”

Johnson highlights how language contributes to the social construction of disability. By labeling individuals primarily by their disability, society reduces their entire identity to a single aspect, overlooking their full personhood and complexity. Johnson emphasizes that such labels not only define but also limit individuals, reinforcing discriminatory perceptions and treatment. This analysis aligns with his broader argument that our social realities are constructed and maintained through cultural practices, including language, which shape how we perceive and interact with each other.

“According to Mcintosh, privilege comes in two types. The first is based on what she calls ‘unearned entitlements,’ which are things of value that all people should have, such as feeling safe in public spaces or working in a place where they feel they belong and are valued for what they can contribute. When an unearned entitlement is restricted to certain groups, however, it becomes a form of privilege she calls ‘unearned advantage.’”

Johnson refers to Peggy McIntosh’s concept of privilege, distinguishing between “unearned entitlements” and “unearned advantages” (See: Index of Terms). McIntosh defines unearned entitlements as fundamental rights and benefits that should be accessible to everyone but often are not. When these entitlements are available only to specific groups, they become unearned advantages, thereby solidifying systemic privilege. Johnson utilizes this framework to elucidate how privilege isn't merely about the perks or benefits one group enjoys over another, but fundamentally about the distribution and access to basic human rights, which should be universal but are instead restricted.

“Like privilege, oppression results from the social relationship between privileged and oppressed categories, which makes it possible for individuals to vary in their personal experience of being oppressed (‘I've never been oppressed as a woman’). This also means, however, that in order to have the experience of being oppressed, it is necessary to belong to an oppressed category.” 

Johnson discusses how oppression, like privilege, stems from the established social relationships between privileged and oppressed groups. He points out that individual experiences of oppression can vary significantly within oppressed groups, which is why some individuals may not personally feel oppressed. Johnson’s explanation emphasizes that oppression is systemic and rooted in social categories rather than individual experiences. This analysis is integral to the broader themes of his book, as he argues that understanding and dismantling societal structures of privilege and oppression requires recognizing their embedded nature in our social fabric.

“While capitalism produces an overall abundance of goods and services, it distributes that wealth so unequally that it also produces conditions of scarcity for most of the population. This makes life for those 175 million or so people an ongoing competition that is full of anxiety and struggle.”

Johnson critiques capitalism’s inherent contradictions, particularly focusing on its production of both abundance and scarcity. Johnson’s critique illuminates the broader implications of capitalist systems on social structures, emphasizing how economic frameworks shape the conditions of daily life and contribute to societal inequality and stress. This perspective is consistent with his overarching themes of power, privilege, and the social construction of difference.

“Women are, with few exceptions, the ones who nurture and raise each new generation of workers on which capitalism depends, and this vital service is provided without anyone’s having to pay wages or provide health and retirement benefits. Women do it for free—even when they also work outside the home—to the benefit of the capitalist system and those who are most privileged.”

Johnson discusses the exploitation of women’s labor within the capitalist framework, particularly highlighting the unpaid work of nurturing and raising the next generation. This labor is essential for the continuation of capitalism, as it replenishes the workforce without incurring costs for capitalists, such as wages, health, or retirement benefits. Johnson underscores that this arrangement benefits the capitalist system immensely while positioning women's labor as both vital and undervalued. This analysis reflects Johnson's broader concern about how systems of power and privilege exploit certain groups to maintain and enhance the benefits accrued to those at the top of the social hierarchy. This perspective also emphasizes the intersection of gender and economic exploitation, illustrating how gender roles are constructed to serve economic ends.

“Life and privilege aren't that simple, however. It's not as though being male gives you a certain amount of something called ‘privilege’ and being white gives you more of the same, and being gay cancels out half.” 

Johnson emphasizes the complexity of privilege and how it intersects with various identity factors. He suggests that privilege is not a straightforward, cumulative asset where one simply adds or subtracts based on one’s identity categories like race, gender, or sexual orientation. Instead, Johnson points out that being a member of one privileged group does not necessarily negate the disadvantages of belonging to another marginalized group. This view challenges oversimplified notions of privilege, highlighting the ways in which different forms of privilege and oppression can coexist and affect individuals.

“Racial prejudice, for example, includes values that elevate whiteness above color and the belief that whites are smarter. It also includes negative feelings toward people of color—contempt, hostility, fear, disgust, and the like—along with positive (or at least neutral) feelings toward whites. Thus, prejudice is a powerful force that provides fuel for discriminatory behavior and a rationale for justifying it.” 

Johnson delves into the dynamics of racial prejudice, highlighting it as a multifaceted system of beliefs and emotions that supports discrimination. He identifies how racial prejudice involves not only the elevation of whiteness and the assumption of intellectual superiority of whites but also encompasses a range of negative emotions directed toward people of color. By presenting prejudice as both a cognitive and emotional construct that favors whites while simultaneously disparaging others, Johnson illustrates how deeply ingrained and self-sustaining The Mechanisms of Privilege and Power in Society can be.

“African Americans and Latinas/Latinos with four or more years of college are, respectively, 83 and 61 percent more likely to be unemployed than comparable whites. African American and Latina/Latino families with college-educated householders are two to three times more likely than similar white families to live below the poverty line.” 

Johnson points out stark racial disparities in employment and economic outcomes for educated African Americans and Latinos compared to their white counterparts. Despite similar levels of education, African Americans and Latinos face significantly higher rates of unemployment and poverty. Johnson uses these statistics to illustrate how racial inequalities are embedded within societal structures, transcending individual achievements and merit. This disparity underscores the systemic nature of racism, where educational attainment does not equate to equal opportunities. Johnson's discussion highlights the persistent barriers that people of color face, challenging the notion that education alone can level the playing field.

“Healing imagery is also problematic because it implies that the damage being done is primarily emotional. The goal becomes one of ‘getting along’ better by being nicer and more tolerant toward one another, forgiving and forgetting, living in more authentic ways. I don't object to this goal, but it ignores the fact that a lot of the trouble doesn't begin and end with interpersonal relations and emotional wounds.”

Johnson addresses the limitations of using “healing imagery” to tackle systemic issues of privilege and oppression. By focusing mainly on emotions and personal interactions, we risk ignoring the entrenched systems and policies that perpetuate discrimination and inequality. Johnson's analysis stresses the need for a more comprehensive approach that addresses both the emotional aspects and the systemic mechanisms that sustain societal disparities. This perspective is integral to his broader argument that meaningful change requires addressing the foundational structures of power and privilege, not just the symptoms manifested through individual behaviors and relationships.

“Because they're afraid. They may be sympathetic to doing something about privilege and oppression, but they're afraid of being blamed if they acknowledge that it exists. They're afraid of being saddled with guilt just for being white or male or nondisabled or middle-class, attacked with no place to hide. They're even more afraid that members of their own group— other whites, other heterosexuals, other men—will reject them if they break ranks and call attention to issues of privilege, making people feel uncomfortable or threatened.”

Johnson identifies a key barrier affecting How Individuals Perpetuate or Challenge Systematic Inequalities: The fear of blame and guilt that people might feel when acknowledging systemic injustices related to their own privileged statuses, such as being white, male, or nondisabled. Johnson also highlights the social risks involved, noting that individuals may fear ostracism or backlash from their peers for challenging the status quo or making others uncomfortable by discussing privilege. This analysis reflects Johnson's broader thesis that addressing systemic inequalities requires not only recognition of the issues but also overcoming the personal and social fears that prevent people from acting against entrenched systems of power.

“For corporations and universities, the ‘business case’ for dealing with the trouble around privilege is a compelling one. It underlies the most successful corporate initiatives at companies like Dow Corning and Avon. When women and racial minorities leave unsupportive workplaces and take their training and talent with them, the annual loss to organizations can run into millions of dollars. That’s far more than it would cost to fund programs to improve the conditions that prompt people to leave. But most of the time they don't.”

Johnson critiques the inconsistent and often superficial corporate responses to systemic issues of privilege within organizations. He observes that while the economic rationale for addressing these issues is strong—highlighting significant financial losses from turnover among women and minorities—corporate initiatives frequently lack commitment and sustainability. Programs often appear as fleeting efforts, lacking genuine, long-term commitment, which can exacerbate employee cynicism and disillusionment. Johnson points out the inherent flaw in the “Business case” approach: It treats the resolution of systemic inequalities as merely instrumental to financial outcomes rather than as values worth pursuing in their own right. This analysis underscores the need for a more values-driven approach to addressing workplace inequalities that goes beyond mere economic calculations.

“Individualistic thinking also makes us blind to the very existence of privilege, because privilege, by definition, has nothing to do with individuals, only with the social categories we wind up in. Individualistic thinking, however, assumes that everything has only to do with individuals and nothing to do with social categories, leaving no room to see, much less consider, the role of privilege.”

Johnson criticizes the prevalence of individualistic thinking in obscuring the realities of systemic privilege. He argues that such a mindset focuses solely on individual actions and merits, completely ignoring the significant influence of social categories and structures that distribute privilege. Johnson points out that individualism enables people to ignore benefits or disadvantages conferred by their social group memberships, such as race, gender, or class. This emphasis on individual responsibility over societal structures makes it challenging to recognize and address the systemic nature of privilege.

“In similar ways, a man may feel uncomfortable when he hears a friend tell a sexist joke and feel compelled to object in some way. But the path of least resistance in that situation is to go along and avoid the risk of being ostracized or ridiculed for challenging his friend and making him feel uncomfortable. The path of least resistance is to smile or laugh or just remain silent.”

Johnson addresses the challenges individuals face when confronting sexism in social settings, using the scenario of reacting to a sexist joke among friends. He highlights how the “path of least resistance”—laughing along, remaining silent, or showing tacit approval—often wins out over the discomfort and potential social repercussions of calling out inappropriate behavior (See: Index of Terms). This example serves to illustrate Johnson's broader theme that societal norms and pressures significantly influence individual behaviors, often reinforcing systemic issues like sexism through passive complicity.

“As we sit around the table, we make Monopoly happen from one minute to the next. But our participation in the game also shapes how we happen as people—what we think and feel and do. This doesn't mean that systems control us in a rigid and predictable way, as if we were robots or puppets on a string. Instead, systems load the odds in certain directions by laying down paths of least resistance.”

Johnson uses the metaphor of playing Monopoly to illustrate how individuals participate in, and are shaped by, systemic structures. He suggests that while people actively engage in systems (like playing a game), these systems also influence their behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Johnson clarifies that this influence is not about absolute control, but that the establishment of “paths of least resistance” subtly biases actions and decisions in particular directions that align with the system’s built-in norms and expectations. This explanation underscores Johnson’s broader argument about the interplay between individual agency and systemic influence, which highlights how The Mechanisms of Privilege and Power in Society can subtly but powerfully shape personal and group dynamics.

“‘It's a man's world’ is an expression that points in part to the male dominated character of society that puts most power in the hands of men. In the same way, one could say, ‘It's a white world’ or ‘a straight world’ or a ‘nondisabled world.’ But there's more than power at work here, because privileged groups are also usually taken as the standard of comparison that represents the best that society has to offer. This is what it means to say that a system is male-identified or white-identified.”

Johnson’s commentary on societal structures highlights how language like “It's a man's world” encapsulates the dominance of certain groups within society, specifically noting how men, similarly to whites, heterosexuals, and non-disabled individuals, hold disproportionate power. He further expands on this by discussing how these dominant groups are not only powerful but also regarded as the normative standards, thus becoming the benchmarks of societal excellence. This positioning as the norm extends beyond mere power—it involves the identity and values of a society being closely tied to these groups. Johnson's analysis emphasizes that this norm-setting role of privileged groups underpins systemic biases, embedding inequalities deeply within societal structures.

“Research shows that men receive the overwhelming majority of attention in classrooms at every level of education, a pattern that repeats itself in the workplace and everywhere else that women and men meet. I've been in meetings of thirty people in which the two or three men present talked almost the entire time with no sign from anyone that anything was wrong.”

Johnson’s observation about gender dynamics in educational and professional settings underscores a systemic issue: Men often dominate conversations, a pattern so ingrained that it largely goes unnoticed and uncorrected. By highlighting this disparity, Johnson illustrates how societal structures and spaces—classrooms, meetings, and beyond—systematically favor male participation and visibility, which perpetuates gender inequalities and reflects The Impact of Social Categorization on marginalized groups. This normative bias not only affects how interactions are conducted but influences the distribution of opportunities and recognition between genders.

“Whites can say things such as ‘If blacks were smarter or worked harder or got an education, they'd be okay’ and expect most other whites to go along, because racist stereotypes have such authority in this culture. They can also count on whites who disagree with them not to say so to their face.”

Johnson discusses the insidious tactic of victim-blaming within the context of racial inequality. He highlights how some white individuals use racist stereotypes to rationalize or justify the socioeconomic disparities experienced by Black communities, suggesting that these disparities are due to personal failings rather than systemic obstacles. This form of rationalization perpetuates racial stereotypes and absolves the broader society of any responsibility for these inequalities. Johnson also points out that even those who do not agree with such views often remain silent, further entrenching the authority of these harmful stereotypes and reflecting How Individuals Perpetuate or Challenge Systematic Inequalities.

“‘I didn't mean it’ can stop a conversation before people get to the reality that it doesn't matter whether it was meant or not. The consequence remains the same. Take the case of a white female professor who calls on only whites in class. Since she has no conscious animosity toward people of color, she doesn't see herself as having anything to do with the continuing pattern of racial inequality that results from the choices she makes as she does her job.”

Johnson critiques the use of intent as a shield against accusations of discrimination, illustrating this with the example of a white female professor who may unconsciously perpetuate racial inequality by favoring white students in classroom interactions. He underscores that the lack of conscious animosity does not negate the impact of her actions, which contribute to systemic racial disparities in academic engagement and opportunity. Johnson’s point is that good intentions do not excuse or eliminate the consequences of discriminatory behaviors. This analysis serves to challenge the often-held belief that intent must be malicious for actions to be considered discriminatory, emphasizing instead the importance of recognizing and addressing the outcomes of one’s actions, regardless of intent.

“In dealing with the problem of privilege, we have to get used to being surrounded by paradox, such as those having privilege not knowing it. Also paradoxical is the fact that privilege doesn't necessarily lead to a ‘good life,’ which can prompt people in privileged groups to deny resentfully that they even have it.”

Johnson points out the paradoxes inherent in discussions of privilege, particularly the phenomenon where those with privilege may be oblivious to their advantages, and how privilege does not necessarily equate to personal fulfillment or happiness. This insight addresses the common defensive reactions from individuals in privileged groups, who may feel that acknowledging privilege invalidates their personal struggles or dissatisfaction with life. Johnson emphasizes that privilege, while offering unearned advantages in systemic and institutional contexts, does not guarantee individual contentment or success. This approach helps in understanding why some may resist acknowledging their privilege and aims to deepen the conversation about privilege by separating the notion of systemic advantage from personal life satisfaction.