The Privilege Pyramid: a misunderstanding of social of social justice

TW: Mentions of R*pe | S*x Trafficking

I am certain I am not alone, in maintaining that the Twitter timeline is hardly the place to have any form of nuanced conversation or discussion- 280 characters are simply not enough to explore the depth or complexities of any particular topic. So how then, with almost 2000 words at his disposal, did Eddie Scarry manage to entirely ignore and omit the nuances concerning the privilege and inequality discourse?

Scarry’s article- ironically entitled “The privilege pyramid” sets out to critique the current "social justice movement", with a particular focus on discrediting the notion of privilege. Although it is clear that Scarry has at least glanced at the work of academics and thinkers who created the language and built the discourse on we some now refer to as social justice, he still manages to quite literally misrepresent and distort the aim of their work, by claiming that social justice is “is centred on who can claim the highest form of oppression, grievance, and victimhood at any given moment.” He even mentions intersectionality, virtue signalling and oppression olympics, also managing to distort the purpose they serve in the social justice dialogue, to fit his narrative that social justice and “social justice warriors” (next time just call us snowflakes)- with all our labels and identities and shaming culture, are now cultural leaders of some sort, enabled and emboldened by the media and Hollywood.

What is more jarring than the fallacies written, is that the print version of this article is quite literally juxtaposed to a graphic illustrating a “privilege pyramid” with labels such as “white” and “male” “wealthy” and "hetero" at the bottom, and r*pe victim at the very top of the pyramid. In the middle sections we find the varying hierarchies of the different sexualities, religions, races and ethnicities, physical attributes and so forth- disastrous. As if creating a fictional hierarchy of oppression that we supposedly use was not bad enough, the use of outdated and harmful terms used to describe particular identities, coupled with the categorisation of mutable socio economic statuses like being undocumented or coming from a single parent home, as being identities, simply puts the cherry on top – read pyramid. I suppose this nonsensical graphic proves his point about the ridiculous nature of ranking injustice and oppression- and I would agree with him however, for different reasons. The author is clearly opposed to this privilege pyramid due to his positioning on the pyramid-it marks him as extremely privileged, and therefore at the bottom of this fictional new social order created by social justice warriors. I suppose his grievance lies within the fact that according to this new world order, his experiences, views and opinions just don't carry as much weight as they used to ! Bummer. I, on the other hand, oppose the pyramid because it simply makes no sense to attempt to create a universal ranking of oppression, when privilege is often contingent on the space in which one finds themselves. This grossly misrepresents the aims of social justice movements.

Having fulfilled my alleged (according to Scarry) duties as “social justice warrior” to engage in virtue signalling by shaming those who hold a different view to myself, or who I deem more privileged than myself, I suppose it is time to re-contextualise social justice and actually shed light into what it is, what it is not, and why it inherently cannot be about ranking our differing oppressions. "At a first approximation, studying social justice must begin with an examination of how dominant and nondominant conceptions of justice arise; how they are selectively institutionalized; how they are formally and informally applied; what persons and/or groups are being deprived of its formal mandates; and how, finally, to correct deviations so that justice is served." (Capeheart and Milovanovic, 2007, pp 1-2)

Social justice, as an academic concept, cannot necessarily be narrowed down to a single definition. The notion of "justice" alone, continues to be theorized about across academic disciplines therefore, depending on who you speak to, the understanding of social justice may differ. I think we could agree that the average person, when discussing social justice- at least in popular culture, is more concerned with the “correction” of a perceived imbalance of justice. Broadly speaking we can agree that the aim of social justice (whatever this means to the individual) has the overarching aim of bridging gaps in equality.

This of course necessitates the identification of factors which exacerbate inequality: identities. The purpose of these are not simply to divide and categorise us based on our oppressions, but rather to recognise the differing ways in which these oppressions harm us and manifest differently based on characteristics such as race, class, gender, disability and sexuality. It is vital to recognise that these are often things that we have no control over. The term “identity politics” has not received the best press in recent years (or ever); many believe it is a “get out card” for minoritized people who do not want to be held accountable for personal failings, or who make what they see as unsubstantiated affirmations based on their race, gender, sexuality, disability etc. The notion of identity politics is said to be rooted in Black Radical thought and activism- not some new liberal soundbite:

“Identity politics as a mode of organizing is intimately connected to the idea that some social groups are oppressed; that is, that one's identity as a woman or as a Native American, for example, makes one peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereotyping, erasure, or appropriation of one's group identity), violence, exploitation, marginalization, or powerlessness” (Heyes, 2020; Young and Allen, 1990)

That being said, it is evident that some of us have more than one identity marker, which shapes our experiences with oppression. The easiest way to look at this is a comparison between how patriarchy affects me as a black woman, versus how it affects white women. Although we both face gender based inequalities, we experience this to differing degrees. Why ? Because I have to contend with the added layer of being black and the implications of this. My experiences of racism and misogyny do not exist independent of each other; rather, they intersect to shape what is accessible to me and what is not (Crenshaw, 1991) . This is what is known as “intersectionality”, coined by scholar Kimberle Crenshaw. Acknowledging intersecting identities is simply a tool to conceptualise the extents through which our varying oppressions affect us and shape our world. It is not a tool for listing the many ways through which one is marginalised as a way to score points- which is what Scarry intentionally misunderstands.

Understanding oppression under the lens of intersectionality means we are able to conceptualize how our different identities affect us - it by no means creates a fixed hierarchy of oppression. For example, as a cisgender black woman, I have access to different privileges than a white trans woman. Where her whiteness may protect her, her gender might not- in the same way my gender might shield me from certain inequalities, but my race may not. We cannot extract any of these identities from the other however, as they intersect to define the inequality we face individually. This emphasises the fact that we cannot rank privileges in a definitive linear manner, because they are also relative to space. As an able bodied person for example, there are certain privileges which will be afforded to me by default in certain spaces (think accessibility); this however, does not cancel out the fact that I still face structural barriers as a black woman. That being said, we can ascertain that some groups are more marginalised than others- black trans women for example, are faced with antiblackness and transmisogyny (prejudice against trans women). This in no way invalidates my oppression. It simply does not make sense to view identities as some kind of PROs and CONs list- and I am certain most do not see it as such, contrary to what some will have you believe. The fact that some marginalised groups are beginning to receive more attention than others (which does not necessarily translate to support) is a logical response to the simple fact that we experience different oppressions to differing degrees, which require varying levels of action, depending on severity.

As a white man (regardless of class, gender and other factors), Scarry has to recognise that he is the default- what real oppressions does he face as a result of his race and gender? Oppression may not be a pyramid, but it can be imagined as a race: where dependending on which terrain you are on, some may be more head than others because of their characteristics (identities). Herein lies the issue: regardless of the terrain, white men are automatically ahead because the track was built for them. For what it is worth, I do wish Scarry and those who thought like him were actually right. I wish our movements really had the level of cultural influence and power he believes it has. We have most certainly made progress; however, we are still seeing the numbers of incarcerated black and brown people increase. Black and brown people are still at a disadvantage when it comes to access to good quality medical health, housing and education. We still have to defend black kids and professionals whose choice to wear their natural hair in protective styles is still cause for contention. We are most definitely not at the top of any cultural or socio-political food chain, just because a white man gets dragged (shamed) on twitter for using offensive slurs. How I would actually love the media and Hollywood, who apparently embolden us and put us on pedestals (according to Scarry) to contribute to dismantling systems of oppression, instead of sensationalising stories about minorities and “PC culture”. In the great words of who I can only assume to be a fellow SWJ, “when you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”; perhaps this is why Scarry feels the victories of social justice movements to be so stifling.

---

References

Capeheart, L. and Milovanovic, D., 2007. Social Justice: Theories, Issues, And Movements. Rutgers University Press, pp.1-2.

Crenshaw, K., 1991. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6).

Heyes, C., 2020. Identity Politics. [online] Stanford.library.sydney.edu.au. Available at: <https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/fall2017/entries/identity-politics/#Bib> [Accessed 22 December 2020].

Young, I. and Allen, D., 1990. Justice And The Politics Of Difference. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press.