Nowadays, there’s a lot of garbage that goes down in the social spheres of thought. Privilege, for instance, represents in many ways a wholly baseless method of describing the human condition. The concept is primarily thus: certain biases exist, thus some benefit from such biases. Then comes the concept of intersectional privilege, which is understood as the confluence of bias benefit. Taken at this rather simplified level, the concept holds weight. I am not one to say that there does not exist on the whole certain positive societal stigmas surrounding myself, given that I am both white and male. To a degree, I’m also Christian (though I don’t believe) so I’ve got that going for me as well. I’m well off, adding in some class privilege too.
Now on the converse lies the concept of prejudice: that some biases exist, and that some individuals are maligned by such biases. Again, taken at such a level you’d be hard pressed to find an individual that would not accept such a concept. It is most true that certain societal stigmas exist surround Africans in white society. It is true that certain stigmas exist surrounding being a female, being gay, or anything pertinent to any sort of subjugate or heterodox gender or sexual preference.
In many ways one can understand prejudice as the complement to privilege, as where privilege exists for one who is there exists prejudice against one who is not. Unfortunately, however, what the modern left likes to do with these concepts is warp them into a means of distraction. Let me elaborate. The concept of privilege has taken on something of a cult like status. The stigma behind “white male” is a fantastic example of this. The concept that an individual is white and male automatically gives this person some sort of overwhelming societal clout and, likewise, the prejudiced complement of the African female automatically suffers societal hatred. What the left ignores in this proposition is a key concept that I refer to as “actualization.” All this really means is the degree to which something is real, made manifest, etc. In describing privilege, one must take into account the degree to which such privilege is actualized on a day to day basis and weigh the importance of such privilege accordingly, as failing to do so leads to erroneous claims such as the following. Radical leftists will claim that a poor homeless man retains more privilege than a rich woman, and as such it remains more difficult for the woman to subsist. The issue lies directly in the degree to which this man’s privilege is made manifest. His quality of life is abhorrent, he has nothing to his name. He may be starving, mentally ill, ragged, diseased. Where may we find his privilege? Where is this privilege making itself known? It most certainly is not making itself known in any aforementioned quality, so how exactly must the retenance of such a privilege itself determine that his existence is somehow made easier via his experience of it?
The answer to these questions is simple: the privilege is not actualized. Given this, one must then question the reality of such a privilege in relation to others that may exist. The supremacy of male privilege in the context of modern leftist and feminist rhetoric must wholly be questioned on a fundamental level when an example such as this can undermine what it seeks to suppose. The same may be said of racial privilege, however some concessions must be made pertaining to how the institution of slavery shaped much of American culture and how, in many respects, there remain the vestiges of this system in modern currents of thought. There are degrees to which each prejudice sees actualization, whether in the form of some means of social stigma, or some inherent subtraction from the amenities of life that complement our human nature.
It is this quality of life, wholly, that must be discussed in regards to actualization, as there is no actualization outside of life itself. Quality should be defined with respect to the human person and it’s many wants and desires. Most fundamental is one’s living conditions: what one lives under, that which he clothes himself with, that which he eats, etc. Secondary are qualities of mental stability: an understanding of security, of safety, etc. I define these as actualized psychological needs, as their establishment makes manifest ends outside of the person himself that impact his fundamental needs. Next are those psychological needs that see actualization most primarily within psychology itself, needs of love and relationship. Fourth come secondary non-actualized psychological needs, including self-acceptance, and accomplishment. Finally comes what Maslow, in his needs hierarchy from which these concepts have been drawn, terms self-actualization, or full autonomous action as the ego sees fit.
All prejudices may be classified in regards to the many needs that the self requires. Going forward, prejudice will be defined in terms of an external prejudice exerted upon a given individual who experiences qualities worthy of such prejudice in the eyes of the oppressor. Thus, beginning from the apex, there is no prejudice that may impede upon whole autonomy aside from those that are internal to the self. When the autonomous action of the whole self has been fully made to be a possibility in the realm of action, then there may be no other outside forces, by definition of immediate possibility, that may impede upon it. As such, because the self is the immediate actuator of the possibility, only some internal self prejudice must prevent whole autonomy. This may be understood to be prejudice defined more broadly than dislike of people, but rather prejudice against some “thing” that is for reasons it is not, or some “thing” that is not for the same reasons that it is.
For instance, suggest one does not wish to exercise physically. Such prejudice against physical activity impedes upon one’s ability to fully act in an autonomous manner, as failure to exercise makes someone beholden to certain other conditions and also impedes upon this individual’s full range of actions. It is at this apex of action that quality of life is not taken into account and, as such, such conditions at the point of self-actualization are nebulous and rather pseudo-philosophical.
Beneath this level, however, lie the primary and secondary non-actualized psychological needs, or needs of esteem and love. Herein lie the social prejudices that have a stranglehold on the modern left. These are the social prejudices of race, gender, sexual preference, etc; the reason being, these are most often prejudices that see only some sort of psychological impact and have no real world actualization. If a man simply calls a black woman a pejorative out of spite, there is no true actualized reality other than that of a wholly damaging and abusive psychological impact. The same may be said of some sort of small aggression levied towards a woman, such as a presumption that she may not be physically equipped to handle some certain action due to weakness, or perhaps catcalling while she may be walking into a city. While all examples provide for prejudice that itself is manifested as it is carried out, it is not actualized in the individual it is levied upon in any demonstrable manner outside of the self.
Second to last come the psychological needs of safety, however any impediment of a need of safety levied by means of a certain prejudice is truly the result of those things that are most fundamental to the human condition, physiological needs. Impediments upon physiological needs come about through one prejudice and one prejudice alone, and that is the prejudice of class. These basic requirements necessary for any individual to function properly in society may only be impeded upon when there exists a certain system wherein such requirements are not controlled by the self, as is wholly true in the capitalist system.
This is as a result of the fact that capitalism allows for private propriety of real property and its usage as the proprietor sees fit. Being as such, a proprietor may wish to rent out such estate to another at a fixed rate, providing that the renter abdicates from his own right to the property. On this fundamental level, the necessity of some means of shelter has immediately been compromised, as the individual and his home are no longer his own. The individual now finds himself beholden to his proprietor, subsisting on land that is not in effect owned by himself. Now this is not to say that the fundamental needs are not met. Provided that the individual has some means of shelter, they may be. The use of “compromise” with respect to such needs is wholly deliberate, as the reality that a proprietor may draw a contract regarding land rental denotes that there immediately comes into play any single prejudice. As such, there, nature of the contract itself, exists a limitation upon the total end of need reception, whether such a contract seeks to limit perhaps the duration this individual may rent (and thus acquire shelter) or the amount of land he may rent (and thus how much shelter he may have).
The emphasis upon shelter with respect to the fundamental needs is twofold. First, shelter is the most fundamental of all needs as it is from whence all other of such fundamental needs, food, drink, rest, etc, may derive. Now, yes, a man or woman may be homeless and may find food or drink or rest. However, each is limited to that which may be found and there is no permenance to which each may exist in relation to the self. In comparison, an individual with shelter retains with permenance the most intrinsic of human needs, rest or warmth for instance, and thus must not look for them. With these in place he is free to look for a means to continually sustain some intake of food and drink, as he already has some intrinsic needs taken care of. This ability to permenantly secure bodily needs is thus contingent upon shelter and, as a result, with these needs in place, an individual may seek higher levels of the needs higherarchy. For how may an individual in pursuit of that which is basic attain that which is not? Even a homeless man must find some impermanent place of residence before he can read Shakespeare. This, thus, is the second reason for which shelter is emphasized: shelter provides for an inherently better quality of life which cannot be achieved without it.
Thus, it is shelter that provides for the acquisition of other needs and it is the institution of private land ownership that seeks to undermine shelter itself. Such undermining is inherently the result of any all social prejudice that may exist; however, what is at the root of all such prejudices is the initially described apex internal prejudice against total self-actualization. This may be related as the facet of this prejudice ultimately impedes upon one’s fundamental action autonomy; the reason being, in the vast majority of individuals, there still remains a prejudice in man against pain and towards pleasure. Thus, even when a proprietor may have the totality of his lower needs met, the prejudice against the whole self keeps him from acting in a manner that is conducive to ends outside of himself. That is to say, he will remain greedy and corpulent and (most often) will not seek those things that do not produce some means of personal actualization. Now, yes, there have been many an exception (Andrew Carnegie, for example). But, buy and large, given the total disenfranchisement of the working class now and always before, it may be posited that enough wealth proprietors subscribe to such a personal prejudice.
It is from this prejudice against the fruition of the self in favor of personal slavery to irrational desire that mitigates all other prejudices. It is for this reason that such an initial prejudice may be understood to act against self-actualization. In experiencing it, man is not fully autonomous and able to exercise reason fully. Rather, he remains bound slave to desire which he cannot rational and thus may not fully act autonomously of such desire as a result. The prejudice works in tandem against other individuals as well, as the self is placed in a position of paramount privilege. Such desire mitigates acceptance of any and all social prejudices previously and, as a result, denotes that one may use such self-privilege to rationalize some means of social prejudice to further his own enslaved mind and seek irrational ends.
It is thus that all actualized social prejudice, ie. the alleged systemic racism of the left, comes about truly as a means of expressed prejudice against self-actualization through the means of the institution of private property. The institution itself thus makes possible the coming to fruition of initial prejudices that are, to a certain degree, inherent to the humans mind and, therefore, begets some means of social prejudice to sustain it. It is therefore that one may wholly posit that any actualized racism, gender inequality, or any other social prejudice of the like is inherently the result of private property, itself a manifestation of certain qualities of the human mind.
It is for these reasons that I reject the leftist narrative of the supremacy of the social prejudice against the social privilege. When one cannot demonstrate any actualized privilege that one may hope to experience in the midst of such “privilege” but may, on the contrary, express a lack thereof, the actualized reality of such privilege must be called into question. Further, when one understands that certain prejudiced are internalized and made manifest through certain institutions, the case for the supremacy of the social privilege truly falls flat. The concept of inherent prejudice and economic systems will be discussed in my next post, as will some discussion on the nature of the human consciousness and how it experiences some inherent differences from its counterparts throughout Animalia.