See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234644055

Expanding the Definition of Privilege: The Concept of

Social Privilege

Article  in  Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development · October 2005

DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2005.tb00020.x

CITATIONS READS
70 5,290

2 authors, including:

Linda L. Black
University of Northern Colorado
15 PUBLICATIONS   223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Co-Editorship of CES View project

Rape Myth View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Linda L. Black on 21 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Expanding the Definition of Privilege:
The Concept of Social Privilege
Linda L. Black and David Stone
Examinations of privilege have historically focused on gender and race. By placing
privilege within the context of oppression, the authors offer an expanded view
of the domains of privilege that include sexual orientation, socioeconomic sta-
tus, age, differing degrees of ableness, and religious affiliation.
Los examenes del privilegio se han enfocado historicamente en el genero y la
raza. Colocando el privilegio dentro del contexto de la opresion, los autores of recen
una vista ensanchada de los dominios del priviiegio que inciuye la orientaci6n
sexual, la posicion socioeconomica, la edad, difiriendo los grados de habilidad, y
de la afiliacion religiosa.

I n many cultures, particular groups benefited and prospered because of the

entitlements, advantages, and dominance conferred upon them by society.
These privileges were granted solely as a birthright, not because of intelli-
gence, ability, or personcil merit. Ironically, privileged persons often believed
that their personal qualities specifically warranted their inclusion in this group while
simultaneously remaining unaware ofthe extent and impact of these privileges. Lack
of membership in privileged groups was characteristically viewed as a lack of effort.
Therefore, the belief was that those denied power, access, or visibility must, by
definition, have earned their exclusion and oppression because of some personal
defect This belief is often referred to as the "myth of meritocracy" whereby a culture
communicates that the oppressed could earn society's privileges if they were just
different (e.g., more like the privileged group).
Many discussions of privilege have focused on gender, race, or both (Lucal, 1996;
Mclntosh, 1992; Pappas, 1995; Willis & Lewis, 1999). Dichotomous categorizations
of privilege diminish an understanding of its intersections, intricacies, and influence.
Numerous authors have called for a more inclusive definition of privilege (Bohan,
1996; Mclntosh, 1992; Robinson, 1999), and some (Harris, 1995; Reynolds & Pope,
1991) have explored and identified multiple identities and oppressions.
In this article, we defme privilege within the context of oppression, expand
the domains of privilege by describing the multiple identities that one may
hold, and describe the potential impact of privilege on the privileged and the
oppressed. The domains are presented here in an order that reflects the relative
attention each has received in the academic literature. The citations specifi-
cally related to privilege in the areas of racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual orien-

Linda L. Black, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, University of Northern Colorado; David
Stone, College of Education, Roosevelt University, Chicago. David Stone is now at the College of Edu-
cation, State University of New York. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Linda L. Black, College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, PPSY
Box 131, 248 McKee Hall, Greeley, CO 80639 (e-mail: [email protected]).

JOURNALOFMULTICULTURALCOUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005'Vol. 33 243

tation are more substantial than those for the domains of socioeconomic status
(SES), age, differing degrees of ableness, and religious affiliation. Although,
the domains of SES, age, differing degrees of ableness, and religious affiliation
are viewed as critical to the discussion, they are discussed more tentatively
because of a scarcity of articles in the literature.

defining privilege, oppression, and

social privilege
PRIVILEGE
There is basic agreement among authors (Lucal, 1996; Mclntosh, 1992; Robinson,
1999) regarding the definition of privilege. Drawing on the work of these au-
thors, it seems that five core components provide the defining boundaries of
this concept. First, privilege is a special advantage; it is neither common nor
universal. Second, it is granted, not earned or brought into being by one's
individual effort or talent. Third, privilege is a right or entitlement that is
related to a preferred status or rank. Fourth, privilege is exercised for the ben-
efit of the recipient and to the exclusion or detriment of others. Finally, a
privileged status is often outside of the awareness of the person possessing it
(Mclntosh, 1992; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton, 2000).
The academic literature has primarily focused on the domains of race/ethnicity
and gender (Crenshaw, 1997; Dyer, 1988;Jackson, 1999; Mclntosh, 1992; Pappas,
1995; N. M. Rodriguez & Villaverde, 2000). We sought to expand and contextualize
the definition of privilege beyond race and gender to include the five socially
constructed categories of sexual orientation, SES, age, differing degrees of
ableness, and religious affiliation. As Reynolds and Pope (1991) eloquently
stated, "Nature does not create these categories of human traits or identities.
People create these categories to simplify the complexities of multiple identi-
ties and multiple realities" (p. 175).
The rationale for selecting the additional five domains was threefold. First,
there was growing support in the academic literature (Baruth & Manning, 1999;
Hanna, Talley, & Guindon, 2000; W. M. L. Lee, 1996; Pope, 1995; Reynolds &
Pope, 1991; Robinson, 1999; Robinson & Howard-Hamilton, 2000) for exeimin-
ing a more complex, interlocking, and inclusive description of individuals and,
hence, potential sources of oppression and privilege. A more complex and
more clearly defined concept could aid in the identification of the unique needs
within and between specific groups and could highlight the conflicting and/or
competing nature of privilege (e.g., a racially privileged man who is also gay).
We heeded the suggestions of Locke (1992) and C. C. Lee (1991) by exercising
caution in the selection of categories or descriptors that had been previously
and repeatedly presented in the literature. Second, thesefivedomains described
visible and invisible identities that more fully illustrated the intricate and com-
plex nature of an individual's identity. Third, participants in the focus groups

244 JOURNAi.OFMULTICULTURALCOUNSELINGANDDEVELOPMENT«October2005'Vol.33
we conducted identified a total of 20 possible categories of privilege. A sample
of their suggestions included nationality, body size, attractiveness, religious
denominations, regional differences, English as a primary language, and levels
and types of intelligence. We excluded 13 of these categories based on a signifi-
cant lack of reference to them in the literature and because each seemed to be
a social preference rather than a privilege.
We noted a difference between a. privileged and a. preferred sta.tas. Privilege was any
entitlement, sanction, power, and advantage or right granted to a person or group
solely by birthright membership in a prescribed group or groups. Privilege led to
the oppression of a nonprivileged group. Preferred status, or a social preference
(e.g., fondness, predilection, or inclination toward a favored group), seemed to be
less well defmed and less pervasive, yet could be personally painful.

OPPRESSION
Hanna et al. (2000) discussed oppression in the context of racism and preju-
dice. These authors posited that oppression is expressed via two modes (force
or deprivation) and is manifest at three levels (primary, secondary, tertiary).
Oppression by force is the act of "imposing on another or others an object,
label, role, experience, or set of living conditions that is unwanted, needlessly
painful, and detracts from physical or psychological well-being" (p. 431). Ac-
cording to Hanna et al., oppression by deprivation is analogous, except the
mechanism is the removal or withdrawal of the desirable and affirming factors.
The three types of oppression run along a continuum from primary, which is
active, blatant, and purposeful, through the secondary type, in which persons
are not active in the oppression of others yet benefit from the oppression, to the
other pole, tertiary oppression, in which members of an oppressed group seek
the approval from the dominant group by "selling out" or indirectly victimiz-
ing members of their own group.
We believe that oppression is an outcome in a society where privilege is
unchecked and unchallenged. Watt (1999) suggested that there is an irrational
sense of entitlement assumed by the oppressive person or group. At the root of
this entitlement is social privilege.

SOCIAL PRIVILEGE

The complex and intricate relationship between privilege and oppression has led
us to a definition of privilege that is more inclusive and intricate. We define social
privilege as any entidement, sanction, power, immunity, and advantage or right
granted or conferred by the dominant group to a person or group solely by birth-
right membership in prescribed identities. Social privilege is expressed through
some combination of the following domains: race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orien-
tation, SES, age, differing degrees of ableness, and religious affiliation.
Our defmition differs from other authors' defmitions of privilege (Lucal, 1996;
Mclntosh, 1992) in that we believe that recipients may or may not be aware of their
JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT'October2005«Vol.33 245
privileged status. Privileged persons may be unaware of their dominant status or
may sometimes be aware of it and are simply disinterested. Persons possess social
privilege when they can look on prejudice, bigotry, and conferred dominance with
detachment This detachment may be demonstrated through a lack of involvement
in the eradication of or responsibility for privilege and oppression. A privileged
status allows the privileged to remain insulated and distant from the oppressed.
Grieger and Ponterotto (1998) captured this sentiment when they stated that

Humans have a propensity for intolerance, and prejudice develops easily from an interaction
of three factors: our natural tendency toward ethnocentrism, our lack of meaningful contact
Vkfith other groups, and our need to categorize and classify people (and things) to help man-
age "information overload." (p. 419)

The remainder of this article focuses on describing the multiple sources of

privilege in this culture and expanding an understanding of privilege based on
race and or gender. Although each of these areas is treated separately, we wish
to emphasize that these areas must be viewed as complex, interrelated, and
multiply influenced.

dimensinns nf snrial privilege

RACIAL PRIVILEGE

Racial privilege has received the greatest degree of attention across many dis-
ciplines in the academic literature (Babb, 1998; Crenshaw, 1997; Harris, 1995;
Jackson, 1999; Mclntosh, 1992; Pappas, 1995; R. Rodriguez, 1999). Mclntosh's
seminal article articulated the nature and scope of her privilege as a White
woman. She identified the process as difficult and multilayered because it made
her "newly accountable" for giving up some of her power (privilege).
The tenets of racial privilege are rooted in historical White supremacy that perme-
ates society in the United States. The term historical White supremacy, as it is used here,
means that being "White" has been and is viewed as culturally valued and the norm
against which all other races are evaluated. In the United States, racially privileged
status is rooted in the patriotic ideal that "cJl men are created equal" and "possess
certain inalienable rights." These two phrases provided the foundation for the belief
that this was an equitable and just society. Upon closer examination, the ideal is
tarnished when one acknowledges that "all men" meant only male Euro-Americans.
Therefore, the benefits, rights and privileges were given as a birthright only to
male Euro-Americans. Indigenous persons, enslaved Africans, and female Euro-
Americans were prohibited from equality and justice before the law.
Mcile Euro-Americans became the normative group with which all other social
groups were compared. Kerchis and Young (1995) described this as an essential-
ist meaning of difference in which we "define social groups in opposition to a
normative group as typically the dominant social [privileged] group" (p. 14).
Differences £u:e viewed in bipolar terms (e.g., good/bad, male/female. White/
246 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005'Vol. 33
Black), Within this polarity was an implication of superiority versus inferiority.
The normative group viewed their values, beliefs, and behaviors as universal, neu-
tral, and correct, Nonnormative groups that held different or conflicting values,
beliefs, and behaviors were viewed as deviant and disruptive. Threats, intimida-
tion, and oppression by force were the mechanisms that warned those who were
different that there was a penalty for not assimilating into the dominant culture.
Racial privilege has typically been described in terms of a Black/White dichotomy
(Crenshaw, 1997; Harris, 1995; Jackson, 1999; Lucal, 1996), This approach dis-
missed the experience of persons from other racial or ethnic backgrounds. For
example, the cultural experiences and social expectations of persons of Asian de-
scent and persons of Mexican descent are likely quite different. Persons of Asian
heritage are well acquainted with the myth of the "model minority" (e,g,, quiet,
hard working, smart) while persons of Mexican or Latino heritage face doubt or
suspicion related to their capacity to speak English and to their citizenship status.
These persons may encounter oppression resulting from the imbcdance of privi-
lege, and it is likely to be qualitatively different from the experience of a person of
Native or African heritage. Their differential experiences are imbedded in the
relative value each group holds in relation to the dominant (White) culture.
The concept of racial privilege needs to be expanded to include all marginalized
members of society and to address the corollary issues of shades of skin color
(e,g,, "passing" for White) and the needs of the multiethnic. Persons of multiple
racial or ethnic heritages add additional dimensions (Reynolds & Pope, 1991)
to the discussion of privilege. Typically, multiethnic persons are viewed as
"non-White," and their identities are further marginahzed by most if not all of
the ethnicities to which they belong,

GENDER
Privileged status in terms of gender has also received increased attention in the
academic hterature (Mclntosh, 1992; Rasberry, 1991; Weis & Fine, 1993, 1996;
Wilhs & Lewis, 1999), The women's movement, from suffrage through the late
1970s, documented the struggles that women faced in terms of recognition and
valuing of their place in this culture. Patriarchy and androcentrism (Bem, 1993)
have reinforced that the male biological sex was superior and preferred.
Gender privilege is based on a perceived difference (e,g,, what women lack in
relation to men), Stereotypic male attributes are viewed as desirable and the
norm (e.g., being rational, logical, assertive, dominant), whereas stereotypic
female attributes are viewed as less desirable, and many are considered unde-
sirable (e,g,, being emotional, nurturing, submissive). Men were granted finan-
cial, career, and gender role benefits and rewards that were greater than those
given to their female counterparts who had similar training and experience
(Weis & Fine, 1996), Men have been and continue to be viewed as the more
valued, more powerful, and more influential members of U,S, society.
The hterature related to gender privilege seems to be focused on the overt
differences between the sexes in terms of financial value of work, historical
JOURNAL OF MULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT • October 2005 • Vol, 33 247
contributions to society, and women's legal and reproductive rights. What seems
to be missing is a discussion of the impact of perceived gender role expectations
and their relationship to privilege. The oppression that accompanied privilege
has a negative impact on both genders. For example, there exists a gender role
expectation that men are more powerful and less emotive than women. Yet, Swanson
(1992) and Good, Dell, and Mintz (1989) discussed, respectively, that despite
privilege and patriarchy, not all men feel "powerful" (Swanson, 1992, p. 12) and
that many men experience "restrictive emotionality" (Good et al., 1989, p. 299)
that inhibits their acknowledgement and expression of fear, dependency, and
weakness. Gender role expectations, homophobia, and the conferred dominance
of being male have also limited men's nurturing contact with other men.
Because the male gender and accompanying gender role are viewed as norma-
tive and preferred, most men have been and are quite unaware of their privi-
leged status. In fact, some men beheve that quite the opposite is true. Some
men have cried "foul" when asked to examine their privileged status and in-
stead point to the reverse discrimination that they have encountered as other
groups seek their rightful portion of the culture's benefits (Faludi, 1991). The
reduction of White male privilege, although by no means pervasive, has cre-
ated a backlash that is evidenced today by the repealing of affirmative action
and civil rights legislation in many states. Gender roles reinforce the paradox
of privilege by trapping men in culturally expected behavior (e.g., being domi-
nant, unemotional) that may be personally incongruent with who they are.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Similar to privileges based on race or ethnicity, heterosexual privilege is based
on an essentiaUst meaning of difference and oppression. Heterosexuality is
viewed as the normative expression of sexual orientation, and any orientation
that differs or varies from this expression is unnatural, deviant, and wrong.
Discussions regarding heterosexual privilege have differed from discussion of
other types of privilege in that they are typically much more intense, vitriolic,
and volatile. These discussions are often filled with religious and moral admo-
nitions. One may happen to be born Black, or poor, or with a disability; these
conditions cannot be changed, yet, as Blumenfeld (1992) suggested, despite the
existence of homosexuality throughout history, it is currently viewed by the
media, schools, and society as a choice and something that can and must be changed.
This cultural mandate has allowed the dominant group (heterosexuals) to
blame the nondominant group (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered [GLBT])
for their choice to be deviant. According to Bohan (1996), this cultural man-
date (blame) has historically been supported by three arguments: (a) Homo-
sexuality does not occur in nature and, therefore, is unnatural; (b) the structure
and function of the sexual organs allow for an unmistakable and particular use
(heterosexual intercourse); and (c) reproduction of the species is natural and
because nonheterosexual sex does not result in reproduction, it is unnatural.
Therefore, these arguments lead to the conclusion that because nonheterosexuality
248 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005« Vol, 33
is an unnatural choice, GLBT persons do not deserve the privileges and ben-
efits of a society they choose to reject.
Bohan (1996) identified numerous societal privileges granted to heterosexu-
als in this culture in the areas of coupling and marrying, self-acceptance, cul-
tural validation, institutional acceptance, and personal safety. As is the case
with other members of marginalized social groups, GLBT persons typically
find their identities reduced to a singular characteristic, while their member-
ship in other groups is simultaneously dismissed. Members of the GLBT com-
munity differ from other marginalized social groups in that their identity is
further focused on a singular behavior (a sexual act) within a singular category.

SES

Discussions of SES seem conspicuous by their omission in the literature on privi-

lege. A privileged status based on one's SES seems to modify the impact of race
and gender and ensures greater access to the economic, educational, and social
benefits in society. The benefits derived from one's SES can, in effect, provide a
personal or familial "safety net" for the privileged. The myth of meritocracy al-
lows people to be comfortable with their "earned" place in the social order. Those
privileged by their SES may believe they have earned their place while simulta-
neously and blithely ignoring the social, linguistic, educational, and economic
barriers that the oppressed face. This is oppression by force and deprivation.
Oppression of the disadvantaged maintains the comfort, convention, and conve-
nience of the status quo and ensures an underemployed, unemployed, and service
class of persons. Privilege based on SES seems to promote a synergy of interlock-
ing components of oppression: lack of access to quality education, adequate medi-
cal care, and employment at a living wage. Socioeconomic privilege provides
status, rank, and power to those granted this sanction and ensures their place at the
top of the social order.

AGE

Privileged status based on age or perceived maturity is one of the least written
about domains. Although age does not fit neatly into the definition of privi-
lege, the attributions related to one's age seem to benefit or oppress the persons
to whom the attribution is ascribed. One's age is in constant flux, and therefore
a privileged status can seem to wax and wane.
Older persons can experience a great deal of privilege (expectations of wisdom,
perceived financial and familial stability, acceptability of a retired status) while
simultaneously experiencing oppression (expectations of frail health, loss of mental
faculties and personal competency, loss of independence). Conversely, younger
persons may be denied cultural benefits because they may be viewed as imma-
ture, less financially reliable, interpersonally unstable, and lacking in wisdom.
The privileges ascribed to younger persons are their perceived physical prowess,
their attractiveness, and the expectations to reproduce and to begin a career.
JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT'October2005'Vol. 33 249
 Privilege based on age can vary by culture and can be viewed as a positive,
nonoppressive factor. For example, in some cultures, elders are viewed as assets
and sought for counsel, support, or advice. This preferred position is partly due
to age but is more likely influenced by the elder person's family reputation
with, and his or her experience among, community members.
DIFFERING DEGREES OF ABLENESS
As is the case with age, privileged status based on differing degrees of ableness
has not been critically examined. The passage of the Americans With Disabili-
ties Act (1990) gave some recognition to the struggle faced by persons who are
differently abled. Differently abled persons face a multitude of physical, attitu-
dinal, and emotional barriers. These barriers go beyond the need for physical
access to accommodations. Although physical accommodations are critical,
the needs of this population are far more diverse and complex.
Differently abled persons may be viewed by the more abled as possessing a
multitude of deficits. People who have limited physical mobility or who are
nonsighted are often erroneously viewed as limited mentally or emotionally.
Persons with less visible disabilities (mental illness, chronic health concerns [AIDS],
various learning/speech disorders) fight the stigma of their disorder andthe fear of
being exposed. Differently abled persons appear to have been lumped together by
a portion of the abled population into a category of deficient human beings. They
are not viewed as fully functioning; therefore they are deemed as not fully human.
Although many nonprivileged groups describe the experience of derision or
antagonism from society, the differently abled most often feel invisible to soci-
ety. Many people avoid eye contact or polite social conversation with someone
who is differently abled. When their presence is acknowledged, the typical re-
sponse from an abled person tends to be pity or sympathy for the differently
abled condition. For a differently abled person, this sympathetic response can be
viewed as offensive and indicative of the difference between the two individuals
and the groups they represent
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
The term religion, as it is used here, describes an institutionalized system of
beliefs, behaviors, and rituals related to a supreme creator to which persons
submit. Religious affiliation is differentiated from spirituality in that spirituality
is viewed as the personal expression of and relationship to one's beliefs. Thus,
these beliefs may not be sanctioned by religious institutions.
A majority of Americans report that they regularly attend church and that their
dominant religion is Christianity. Within this system of belief, there seems to be
an assumption by many that the Christian view of religion is the only "correct"
one and that others are seemingly misinformed or misguided. Furthermore, those
who do not engage in religious practices seem to be viewed with suspicion and
cultural mistrust. If this were not the case, the teachings and practices ofJews,
Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other recognized religions would be accepted
250 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005«Vol. 33
as equal forms of religious expression. Although all citizens are granted the
freedom from governmental interference in the practice of their religion, many
persons experience discrimination and oppression because of their differing reli-
gious or nonreligious beliefs. A few examples of religious oppression based on
privilege include the Salem witch trials, compulsory school prayer, the ubiqui-
tous references to God printed on U.S. currency and spoken in the Pledge of
Allegiance, and the U.S. government's banning of certain Sioux spiritual cer-
emonies deemed as subversive (Brown, 1970). Religious organizations wield a
great deal of social and political power over individuals and institutions in the
United States as evidenced by the reemergence of the Moral Majority and Reli-
gious Right as forces in national politics. The expression of religion has the
effect of simultaneously enlightening and oppressing, and the absence of a dis-
cussion of religion in the dialogue about privilege is peculiar.

impart of snrial privilege nn the. inHiviHnai

Social privilege holds consequences for the privileged (e.g., exaggerated sense
of self-worth, belief in personal superiority, need to continually oppress others
to maintain the status quo) and for those oppressed by the social privilege of
others (e.g., a lack of access to the economic and social mainstream, divisive-
ness, cultural mistrust and hatred). In the words of Freire (1970), "Dehumaniza-
tion, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also
(though in a different way) those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the
vocation of becoming more fully human" (p. 28).
Those who benefit from social privilege can experience a distorted sense of self
(Robinson, 1999). Privileged persons misperceive that they have "earned" the
benefits, status, and/or rank. They must work to maintain their belief in the
status quo in order to view themselves as superior, more fortunate, and more
talented than those who are oppressed. The privileged must rely on denial or
other defensive reactions to maintain this fragile sense of superiority and to
combat the dissonance and confusion that accompany the recognition and under-
standing of their privilege. The belief that they are superior and therefore de-
serving of special entitlements, sanctions, power, immunities, advantages, and/or
rights thwarts their emotional and intellectual development (Pinderhughes, 1989).
Privileged persons live in a distorted reality. This distortion is akin to the
concept of denial in the treatment of persons with chemical dependency. The
denial serves to protect the chemically dependent person from the painful conse-
quences of the truth. Examining the consequences of the truth and being account-
able for the impact of one's chemical dependency, or in this case privilege, are
threatening, painful, and challenging experiences that few willingly seek. Being
accountable for personal privilege means that the privileged are prepared to
forego benefits and entidements to which they have become accustomed and that
they acknowledge their role in the potential oppression of others. Furthermore, it
means that they seek to dismantle the insidious mechanisms of privilege (power,
JOUHNALOFMULTICULTURALCOUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT'October2005« Vol. 33 251
status, access) that attempt to seduce them. Freire (1970) stated that both the
oppressors (privileged) and the oppressed must identify their respective roles in
the dehumanization process and work to reform them. All must do their part.
According to Reynolds and Pope (1991), persons experience multiple oppres-
sions when they are members of two or more oppressed groups. We submit that
some people experience a mixture of privileged and oppressed status. Persons
who hold simultaneous memberships in privileged and two nonprivileged groups
may sense uncertainty, confusion, anger, self-hatred, and cultural mistrust. For
example, consider a differently abled African American man or a Caucasian
gay man with a low SES; each holds male privilege in relation to the status of
women, yet each varies (perhaps significantly) regarding his experience of cul-
tural oppression. The complex and competing nature of their experiences is
likely to negatively affect their emotional and physical well-being.
The impact of social privilege on those oppressed by privilege is pervasive
and astounding. Oppression related to privilege comes in many external and
internal forms. Externally, a person oppressed by privilege may experience
multiple forms of prejudice, bigotry, epithets based on her or his perceived
identities, poverty, physical violence, and/or murder. Internally, the impact of
social privilege and oppression are equally devastating. Persons who experi-
ence oppression as a result of another's privilege may view themselves as help-
less or less competent and express internalized racism, sexism, heterosexism,
ageism, "abhsm," and a profound sense of dread unrelated to who they know
themselves to be. Furthermore, oppressed persons may develop antisocial or
maladaptive methods for attaining some of the benefits of privilege. Robinson
(1999) stated that privilege creates confusion about one's racial identity. Her
statement seems to ring true for all forms of social privilege.

impiiratinns fnr thp ronnseling relationship

Counselors and counselor educators have a unique opportunity to influence indi-
vidual and group experiences of privilege and the resultant negative consequences.
As Sue et al. (1982) suggested almost 2 decades ago, effective multicultural train-
ing requires self-awareness, knowledge, and skill. These three processes are predi-
cated on the notion that counselors-in-training will learn about themselves and
others and how they relate to others. The focal point of this learning emphasizes
the need for counselors-in-training to engage in meaningful self-exploration, in-
ternal reflection, and processing. A decade later. Sue, Arredondo, and McDavis
(1992) again called for counselors to explore their personal biases and beliefs;
increase their knowledge of their cultural heritage and its impact on others;
improve their awareness of racism, oppression, and discrimination; and continue
to seek out educational opportunities to confront their multicultural counseling
limitations and to develop a nonracist identity.
Mclntosh (1992) stated that one of the hallmarks of privilege is that the re-
cipient is almost always blind to its presence. Culturally competent counselors
252 JOUBNALOFMULTICULTURALCOUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT'October2005« Vol, 33
cannot afford this lack of awareness. To be effective with all clients and, in
particular, minority clients, dominant-group counselors must be engaged in
self-exploration in order to become aware of and actively address their mul-
tiple identities and sources of privilege and oppression. We agree with Sue et
al. (1992) about the need to emphasize the particular responsibility of White
counselor educators and White counselors to recognize and address the impact
ofthe privileges they have been granted as they develop into culturally compe-
tent counselors. To that end, we offer the following suggestions. First, counse-
lor educators must set a credible and ethical example by conducting a personal
examination of the nature and extent of their own social privilege and the
resulting oppression. Second, as this personal process proceeds, the counselor
educator could enter into a discussion and examination of how students' privi-
lege or oppression potentially affect each member of the triadic relationship
(e.g., supervisor-counselor-client), specifically, by exploring their cultural as-
sumptions, beliefs, imperatives and expectations for and about each other. Fi-
nally, this exploration of counselors-in-training could focus on the degree to
which their privilege influences self-disclosure, determines use of the expert
role, reinforces or diminishes the inherent power differential in counseling,
accounts for the degree of responsibility (blame) placed on the client, and
determines who defines the role and description of the client's family.
We view any attempt to train culturally competent counselors without a iocus on
privilege as inappropriate and intentionally reinforcing the oppression of the
status quo. Furthermore, failure to address the dynamics of privilege and oppres-
sion within the counseling profession and the counseling relationship is likely to
produce counselors with restricted emotional, intellectucil, and psychological de-
velopment, thus lowering the overall effectiveness of the counseling profession.

limitations and implications for

further researr.b
This work represents a long and complex dialogue regarding the definition,
nature, and scope of social privilege. A limitation of this discussion is that sev-
eral of the domains are identified without strong support in the scholarly litera-
ture. Although this is an acknowledged limitation, it is also an opportunity for
discourse. The areas of racial/ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation are more
developed and conceptually clearer. The domains of SES, age, degrees of differ-
ing, degrees of ableness, and religious affiliation require further examination.
Implications for further research abound. First, a sound, adequate, and agreed-
upon definition of privilege is necessary so that researchers can truly investigate
its extent and impact on individuals and groups. Second, the difference between
preference and privilege status needs to be more clearly explicated to further
define what privilege is and what it is not and its impact on counseling relation-
ships. Third, the relationship between and among privileged and oppressed identities
JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005'Vol. 33 253
needs to be explored to determine both the impact on the individual and possible
counseling interventions. Finally, valid and reliable psychometric instruments must
be produced that allow for credible assessment of this phenomenon. Once an indi-
vidual has learned of his or her privilege, he or she can no longer claim ignorance
of the experience or deny the responsibility to dismantle it.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U,S,C,A, § 12101 et seq. (West, 1993),
Babb, V, (1998), Whiteness visible: The meaning of Whiteness in American literature and culture. New
York: New York University Press,
Baruth, L, G,, & Manning M, L, (1999), Multicultural counseling and psychotherapy: A lifespan perspec-
tive (2nd ed,). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill,
Bem, S, L, (1993), The lenses ofgender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press,
Bohan, J, S, (1996), Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New York: Routledge,
Blumenfeld, W, J, (Ed,), (1992), Homophobia: How we all pay the price. Boston: Beacon Press,
Brown, D, (1970), Bury my heart at Wounded Knee. New York: Bantam,
Crenshaw, C, (1997), Resisting Whiteness' rhetorical silence. Western Journal of Communication, 61,
253-278,
Dyer, R, (1988), White, Screen, 29, 45-64,
Faludi, S, (1991), Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Crown,
Freire, P, (1970), Pedagogy of the oppressed New York: Herder & Herder,
Good, G, E,, Dell, D, M,, & Mintz, L, B, (1989), Male role and gender role conflicts: Relations
to help seeking in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 295-300,
Grieger, I,, & Ponterotto, J, G, (1998), Students' knowledge of AIDS and their attitudes toward
gay men and lesbian women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 415-422,
Hanna, F,J,, Talley, W, B,, & Guindon, M. H, (2000), The power of perception: Toward a model
of cultural oppression and MhevsMon. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 430-441,
Harris, D, A, (1995), Multiculturalism from the margins: Non-dominant voices on difference and
diversity. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey,
Jackson, R, L. (1999), White space. White privilege: Mapping discursive inquiry into the self.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85, 38-54,
Kerchis C, Z,, & Young, I, M, (1995), Social movements and the politics of difference. In D, A,
Harris (Ed,), Multiculturalism from the margins: Non-dominant voices on difference and diversity
(pp, 1-27), Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey,
Lee C, C, (1991), Promise and pitfalls of multicultural counseling. In C, C, Lee & B, L, Richardson
(Eds,), Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity (pp, 1-13), Alexandria, VA:
American Association for Counseling and Development,
Lee, W, M. L, (1996), New directions in multicultural counseling. Counseling and Human Devel-
opment, 29{2), 1-11,
Lodce, D, C, (1992), Increasing multicultural understanding: A comprehensive model. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
Lucal, B, (1996), Oppression and privilege: Toward a relational conceptualization of race. Teaching
Sociology, 24, 245-255,
Mclntosh, P, (1992), White and male privilege: A personal accounting of coming to see corre-
spondences through work in women's studies. In M, L, Anderson & P, H, Collins (Eds,),
Race, class, and gender: An anthology (pp, 70-81), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
Pappas, G, (1995, November), Unveihng White privilege, LARRASA/Report, 1-4,
Pinderhughes, E, (1989), Understanding race, ethnicity, & power: The key to efficacy in clinical prac-
tice. New York: The Free Press,
Pope, M, (1995), The "salad bowl" is big enough for us all: An argument for the inclusion of lesbians
and gays in any definition of multiculturjilism, yourna/o/Coaase/mg & Development, 73, 301-304,

254 JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT«October2005»Vol,33

Rasberry, G. (1991). Learning across the street: A male perspective on feminist theory. Thejour-
nal of Experiential Education, 14{3), 6-11.
Reynolds A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppres-
sions, yoarna/o/Coanje/in^ S" Z)ro«/o/mi«nt 70, 174-180.
Robinson, T. L. (1999). The intersection of dominant discourses across race, gender, and other
identities. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 73-79.
Robinson, T. L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity and gender:
Multiple identities in counseling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Rodriguez, N. M., & Villaverde, L. E. (2000). Dismantling White privilege: Pedagogy, politia, and
Whiteness. New York: Lang.
Rodriguez, R. (1999). The study of Whiteness. Black Issues in Higher Education, 76(6), 20-25.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992J. Multicultural counseling competencies
and standards: A call to the profession, Joarna/ of" Counseling & Development, 70, 477-486.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E., et al. (1982). Position
paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. CouTiseling Psychologist, 70, 45-52.
Swanson, J. L. (1992). Sexism strikes men. American Counselor, 7(4), 10-13.
Watt, S. K. (1999). The story between the lines: A thematic discussion of the experience of rac-
ism, yoarno/ of Counseling & Development 77, 54-61.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1993). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (1996). Narrating the 1980s and 1990s: Voices of poor and working-class
White and African American men. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27, 493-516.
Willis, A. I., & Lewis, K. C. (1999). Our known everydayness: Beyond a response to White
privilege. Urban Education, 34, 245-262.

JOURNALOFMULTICULTURAL COUNSELING AND DEVELOPMENT'October2005« Vol. 33 255

View publication stats