What Are Privileges: Critical Theory’s Favourite Word

In modern discourse, privileges are everywhere — not the luxury kind, but social privileges, as defined by critical theory. These are the unearned advantages based on traits like race, gender, or class. But are these so-called privileges helping build a fairer society, or have they become just another form of moral theatre?

Let’s take a sceptical walk through the jungle of identity politics and ask: what are we really doing with this concept?

What Do Critical Theorists Mean by “Privileges”?

In critical theory, privileges refer to built-in advantages that people receive simply for being part of a dominant social group. You’re white? You benefit from white privilege. You’re straight? That’s another privilege. Male? Add that to the list.

In theory, acknowledging privileges is meant to create empathy. In practice? It often serves as a social filter, deciding who gets to speak, who must listen, and who should feel guilty — indefinitely.

From Useful Insight to Social Scorecard

Originally, talking about privileges helped people reflect on how their lives were shaped by unseen forces. But things escalated. Now, it’s become a competitive and sometimes absurd checklist of oppression and advantage.

People are sorted like playing cards: race, gender, class, ability, sexuality. It’s not about your story or struggle anymore. It’s about where you rank on the privilege index.

Why “Privileges” Doesn’t Tell the Whole Story

One of the biggest issues is how static this concept is. It assumes that privileges are fixed and universal. But life isn’t that tidy. A wealthy Black CEO may face racism — yes — but lives with financial security many working-class white families can only dream of.

Yet, according to this logic, he has fewer of them. That sort of thinking doesn’t just defy nuance — it destroys it.

Privileges as a Silencing Tool

It’s become fashionable to dismiss someone’s opinion by pointing to their privileges. “Check your privilege” is now code for “shut up”. Instead of conversation, we get compliance. Instead of empathy, we get identity tests.

This weaponisation of Privileges makes honest dialogue nearly impossible. It replaces reason with resentment and assumes you can’t understand suffering unless you’ve personally experienced it.

Guilt Is Not a Strategy

Here’s a cynical truth: much of the modern discussion around privileges is about performance — not progress. Public confession of them has become a ritual, especially in elite spaces. A person admits their advantages, expresses shame, posts a few hashtags — and… nothing changes.

It’s a guilt machine that exhausts energy without producing action. And worse, it often paralyses the very people who might otherwise help.

Privileges vs Principles: What Are We Fighting For?

When we focus obsessively on privileges, we risk abandoning universal values like justice, dignity, and fairness. Instead, we build a hierarchy of victimhood — where the goal isn’t unity, but moral superiority.

Are we really aiming for equality? Or are we just rearranging power?

A More Human Alternative

Let’s try something different. What if we recognised that yes, some people have more advantages. But instead of turning that into a blame game, we use it as motivation to improve things for everyone?

Let’s stop tallying people’s privileges like points in a game and start treating each other like human beings — complex, flawed, and far more than a list of demographic boxes.

Are Privileges a Useful Concept — or Just New Dogma?

Privileges may have started as a helpful way to reflect on social dynamics. But in today’s discourse, they’ve morphed into something dogmatic, divisive, and often counterproductive.

It’s time we took a step back — not to dismiss the reality of inequality, but to challenge the idea that guilt and identity sorting are the best ways to fix it.

Sources: Peggy McIntosh’s original paper.