Alice Walker once said, “Activism is the rent we pay for living on the planet.” I understand her words intimately — not because I have suffered oppression, but because I have inherited power.
Privilege is a loaded word, often misunderstood. What we call privilege is, at its core, power — power that was not earned but inherited through the structures of society. It is not a personal achievement; it is a societal imbalance. And with that power comes responsibility — not the responsibility of a savior, but the responsibility of an ethical participant in the world.
I am a white, able-bodied, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical, English-speaking, university-educated, Judeo-Christian-raised man with birthright citizenship. These identities have given me access, safety, and opportunities that others have been denied. But my power does not make me superior — it makes me responsible.
The danger is in thinking about responsibility in terms of superiority. The White Man’s Burden, Rudyard Kipling’s infamous poem, was written to justify imperialism as a noble duty, a moral obligation of the powerful to “civilize” those they oppressed. That is not the kind of responsibility I speak of. I do not carry these responsibilities because I am somehow more fit to lead or teach — I carry them because the structures that benefit me have denied or taken power from others. I did not earn my advantages; I was born into them. The only ethical response is to use them in service of justice.
For a long time, I resisted this idea. I wanted to believe that true privilege could never come at another’s expense — that if my position in life harmed someone else, then it was not really a privilege at all, but a distortion of justice. From a Platonic perspective, no true good can come from harming others. But I was missing the bigger picture. It is not just about my personal morality — it is about systemic power. It is not enough for me to be kind in my personal interactions if I allow the structures that empower me to continue oppressing others.
This is where Ubuntu becomes crucial. The African philosophy of Ubuntu — “I am because we are” — reminds us that our well-being is tied to the well-being of others. If my power comes at the expense of others, then my humanity is incomplete. Justice is not about taking power away from one group and giving it to another — it is about ensuring that power is shared, that dignity is upheld, and that everyone has the opportunities they deserve.
Alice Walker’s words remind me that activism is not an act of charity — it is a duty. If I do not fight for women, I enable their oppression. If I do not stand against racism, I uphold it. If I do not challenge nationalism, I let it fester. If I do not resist homophobia, I contribute to its harm. If I do not acknowledge the power I have inherited and work to dismantle the injustices that sustain it, I am complicit in their continuation.
At the same time, I have come to see that activism itself is a privilege of the highest order. It is not just something I must do — it is something I get to do. The ultimate goal is to raise one’s consciousness to the point where working toward social justice is not seen as a burden, but as the most meaningful use of one’s life.
To fight for justice is to participate in the healing of the world. It is an opportunity to align one’s actions with one’s highest values, to live not just on this planet but with it, to stand alongside our fellow human beings in the struggle for dignity and equality.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu so wisely said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
There is no neutral ground. No safe distance from the struggle. No sidelines to sit on. We are all part of this world together, and the only real question is: Are we using our power to create justice, or are we allowing injustice to continue?
For me, the choice is clear. Ubuntu demands that I act. Activism is the rent I pay. And I intend to keep paying — not out of obligation, but out of the deep recognition that this is the highest privilege of all.
—
This Post is republished on Medium.
—
Photo credit: iStock
“So yes, justice, safety, and dignity should be universal and grounded in individual worth. But when they’re not, and some have them while others don’t, naming that asymmetry as privilege isn’t a philosophical confusion.” To cite philosopher Lawrence Blum, he would acknowledge that privilege exists, and as such, in a systemic form- but he still criticizes the label itself, on the grounds that the very word ’privilege’ is meant to denote “extravagances”, rather than rights. Furthermore, he suggested that such a term needs to distinguish (or that it fails to distinguish) between what he called “spared injustice” and “unjust enrichment”… Read more »
Language evolves, and in contemporary social discourse, privilege has come to mean unearned advantage—not caviar and limousines, but things like feeling safe during a traffic stop, having your school funded, or seeing yourself represented in textbooks. These are not extravagant perks, but the invisible scaffolding that supports some lives while others struggle to climb. Second, Blum’s distinction between spared injustice and unjust enrichment is theoretically useful, but socially, the difference is often blurry. To be “spared” injustice in a system that harms others is still to benefit from that system. If a white job applicant is spared discrimination while a… Read more »
“Dismissing the term privilege because it lacks surgical precision ignores its power as a consciousness-raising tool. It names the water we swim in. It shifts the focus from individual intention to systemic structure. It invites those who benefit from inequality to reflect, not on their guilt, but on their responsibility. Language isn’t just for clarity, it’s also for awakening. And the term privilege has done more to awaken people to systemic injustice than any alternative proposed by its critics.” I don’t think Blum was expecting undue precision. But given that consciousness is duly raised, has the utility proven to be… Read more »
Words like privilege have opened space for people to examine their own positionality in ways that were rarely, if ever, encouraged before. That kind of self-reflection isn’t just therapeutic, it’s foundational for solidarity. The fact that these terms have entered mainstream discourse is evidence that they’ve succeeded in making the invisible visible. That’s not evangelism, it’s illumination. Language can become rigid, and any term risks being wielded as dogma. But the alternative isn’t silence or euphemism. It’s more language, not less. It’s the ongoing struggle to refine our terms without discarding them when they become uncomfortable. To say that these… Read more »
“Language can become rigid, and any term risks being wielded as dogma. But the alternative isn’t silence or euphemism. It’s more language, not less.”
I tend to agree there.
Here’s an analogy I’ve been thinking about: the New York Yankees. The Yankees have the highest payroll in Major League Baseball. Year after year, they can sign top free agents, outspend smaller-market teams, and build elite training and scouting systems. None of this violates the rules—they have every right to invest in their franchise, just like any other team. They play by the same rules on the field. Their success is, in many ways, earned. But here’s the catch: it’s also a privilege to play in New York City. Only one other team in baseball gets to do that. The… Read more »
“Now imagine replacing ‘New York’ with whiteness, or maleness, or citizenship, or heterosexuality. Just like the Yankees, people born into certain identities may follow the rules, work hard, and ‘earn’ their place. But they are also playing the game with advantages that others don’t have, simply by virtue of where—or who—they happen to be.” Isn’t that all the more reason to decouple power from identity? Isn’t that the endgame? Isn’t that equitable? …then, it would just be wealth that’s falling equitably or inequitably. Granted, if power was no longer anchored to notions of generalized identity groups it would likely be… Read more »
Yes, the ideal is a world where identity doesn’t predict power, but we don’t get there by pretending we’re already close. To decouple power from identity, we must first name and address the ways in which they remain deeply entangled. Skipping this step risks replacing wishful thinking for real progress. You position wealth as the “real” locus of power, distinct from identity. But this ignores how identity shapes access to wealth. Generational wealth is distributed through laws and norms that have advantaged white, male, able-bodied citizens and disadvantaged others. Race, gender, and class are not separate silos—they co-produce outcomes. Pretending… Read more »
“To invoke merit without first rectifying historical and structural disparities is to entrench inequality under a facade of fairness.” I would never presume that merit should (or could) be invoked without consideration of existent disparities. One can only hope to achieve a certain finite measure of backwards continuity in redress. And I certainly don’t believe in the panacea of a ‘meritocracy’ coming into being, simply by wishing away historical or structural inequities, or by discounting them. I made no assertion that we are ‘already close’ to that, or to anything like that. I did indicate that I would (generally) think… Read more »
The central tension in your argument lies in the assumption that the ultimate goal of social justice is to clear the field so that merit can finally do its work. That framing, while well-intentioned, risks misplacing where justice itself resides. Merit is not a neutral or naturally emerging virtue. It is culturally constructed, contextually defined, and often shaped by the very systems we are trying to reform. To say we must first decouple power from identity in order for merit to function later risks entrenching the very disparities that deny fair evaluation in the first place. This is not just… Read more »
“You suggest that once power is decoupled from identity, it will naturally gravitate toward wealth, which could then be confronted more cleanly. But wealth is not ideologically or experientially separate from identity; it is saturated with it.” I do belive that once decoupled from identity that power would likely gravitate to something; and that something would likely be wealth. But I certainly did not indicate that, at present, race, gender, class, disability, and so forth have not, nor did not, nor cannot, nor do not affect the accumulation and circulation of wealth: They have, they do, and they can. So… Read more »
“I see that you long for a post-identity world, and that is understandable, but idealism becomes a liability when it distracts from the lived realities of identity-based power. Decoupling power from identity is not the starting point of justice. It is the result of hard, identity-aware work.” I may pine for one state or another- But whatever starting point is decreed, if the decoupling power from identity is the end result of hard, identity-aware work, then it’s a means to the ends of justice. Power perpetually tied to identity, and hinged on collectivized identities and their anachronisms will impede or… Read more »
“That geographic fortune, New York’s corporate presence, its advertising dollars, its global spotlight—translates into a structural advantage. Over time, that advantage compounds, leading to immense wealth, prestige, and power.” Oh, New York… I want to resist using the word ‘humblebrag’ in a sentence here, but I think that I just did not. Suffice it to say, everyone concedes unequivocally that the Yankees have gobs and gobs of money because they’re in New York, and that the whole world is in utter awe of New York’s inestimable awesomeness, because how could the whole of humanity not be in awe of New… Read more »
I never said I’m guilty. Having privilege isn’t a crime.
Privilege doesn’t imply guilt, it invites accountability. It points to the gap between what is and what ought to be, and asks us to help close that gap, not by giving something up, but by making sure everyone can share in the same rights and opportunities.
It’s not illegal for a billionaire to withhold charitable giving. They’re entitled to spend every dollar on themselves. But is that responsible? Does that choice reflect an awareness of the world beyond their own comfort, or a neglect of society’s deeper needs?
You’re making a critical distinction between rights and privileges, one rooted in natural law and individual autonomy, and I appreciate the care with which you draw that out. But I think you’re missing an important layer: how language like “privilege” functions descriptively in real-world social analysis, especially in contexts of systemic inequality. In a philosophical or moral framework, rights are universal and inherent, they don’t vanish simply because they’re denied. But in practice, when access to those rights is uneven, the lived experience of possessing what others are denied—safety, fair treatment, presumption of innocence—does resemble privilege. Not because those things… Read more »
The reader’s critique is, ironically, a kind of elitism itself: the idea that economic critique is more serious, more mature, more revolutionary than naming the everyday violence of racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, or religious discrimination. That position doesn’t challenge power, it just rearranges the hierarchy of what counts as “real.” Wealth is a critical axis of power. But so is the ability to walk into a room and be presumed competent. So is the freedom to love without fear. So is the capacity to grieve publicly and be believed. To name our identities is not to wallow in guilt; it… Read more »
“Wealth is a critical axis of power. But so is the ability to walk into a room and be presumed competent. So is the freedom to love without fear. So is the capacity to grieve publicly and be believed. To name our identities is not to wallow in guilt; it is to take responsibility for how we show up in the world. And in a society so invested in denial, responsibility is a radical act.” “Guilt” has little relevance to this (and for that matter, who’s guilt? Who is ‘accountable’ or ‘liable’ to whom; and by what criteria? Who arbitrates… Read more »
I would think that part of taking responsibility would be to ask ’If I am guilty, if I am responsible, aren’t I entitled to be punished?’
“Wealth is a critical axis of power. But so is the ability to walk into a room and be presumed competent. So is the freedom to love without fear. So is the capacity to grieve publicly and be believed.” Say I walk into a room, and I feel disrespected; disrespected for an arbitrary reason rather than for a logically valid reason. Now, who actually gets to arbitrate a claim of what someone else presumes, if they presume it, how they presume it, when they presume it, and how they manifest it? How do they do it? Would I be genuinely… Read more »
You ask who gets to arbitrate feelings like being disrespected, presumed incompetent, or denied empathy, and seem skeptical of the idea that subjective experience can stand as valid evidence of harm. But we do, in fact, have an entire legal and civic infrastructure precisely designed to engage that challenge: the justice system. You ask who gets to arbitrate feelings like being disrespected, presumed incompetent, or denied empathy—and seem skeptical of the idea that subjective experience can stand as valid evidence of harm. But we do, in fact, have an entire legal and civic infrastructure precisely designed to engage that challenge:… Read more »
“You seem wary of projection and ambiguity, as if feelings might be weaponized. And yes, that’s a risk. But abuse of a principle is not proof that the principle is invalid. We don’t discard empathy, testimony, or perception simply because they’re not infallible.” No, but we do acknowledge these as fallible. Certainly, the abuse of a principle is proof that something is fallible. Fallibility and invalidity are not interchangeable; though if something is invalid, it is not often reckless enough to brook contradiction of its infallibility. Acknowledging something’s fallibility (and thus, acknowledging its limits) doesn’t invalidate; unless its validity and… Read more »
“You seem wary of projection and ambiguity, as if feelings might be weaponized. And yes, that’s a risk. But abuse of a principle is not proof that the principle is invalid. We don’t discard empathy, testimony, or perception simply because they’re not infallible.” No, but we do acknowledge these as fallible. Certainly, the abuse of a principle is proof that something is fallible. Fallibility and invalidity are not interchangeable; though if something is invalid, it is not often reckless enough to brook contradiction of its infallibility. Acknowledging something’s fallibility (and thus, acknowledging its limits) doesn’t invalidate; unless its validity and… Read more »
“Privilege is a loaded word, often misunderstood. What we call privilege is, at its core, power — power that was not earned but inherited through the structures of society. It is not a personal achievement; it is a societal imbalance. And with that power comes responsibility — not the responsibility of a savior, but the responsibility of an ethical participant in the world.” “Privilege” is a loaded word because (as it is often weaponized and deployed rhetorically) it supposedly connotes ”power that was not earned but inherited through the structures of society”, as noted. That disproportion of power and that… Read more »
Thank you for your thoughtful and layered critique. You raise an important question about the language of privilege and whether it’s the most useful or precise term for describing systemic imbalances. I appreciate your desire to avoid semantic confusion and to ensure our shared goal—equity—is clearly articulated as something additive rather than subtractive. To clarify, my use of privilege was not meant to suggest that rights, freedoms, or access to dignity should be rescinded from those who currently benefit. Rather, as you rightly inferred, the goal is to extend those same conditions—what should be baseline human rights—to everyone. The problem,… Read more »
“I take your point that if we ever did achieve a society where everyone had full access to justice, safety, opportunity, and dignity, the word privilege would no longer apply, because those conditions would be the norm.” But was that my point? I was not trying to say Utopia would be Utopia- that’s self-evident, and if I did, it was gratuitous, and a little careless of me. But rather, I just wanted to say that in a society where everyone does not have full access to justice, safety, opportunity, and dignity, then ‘privilege’ is not an inverse of that state;… Read more »
By the by, this article seems to have been scraped primarily from back in 2018…
https://ahimsa2015.wordpress.com/2018/06/14/activism-is-the-rent-i-pay-for-living-on-the-planet/
Thank you for mentioning this. I am constantly editing and revamping my pieces. There is no final version or finished product. As I grow and learn more, my articles grow with me.
“I am a white, able-bodied, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical, English-speaking, university-educated, Judeo-Christian-raised man with birthright citizenship. These identities have given me access, safety, and opportunities that others have been denied. But my power does not make me superior — it makes me responsible.” Criticisms of the ‘elitist’ and ‘elitism’ stem from this constant obscuring a shameful economic heritage (power by wealth; typically generational wealth) through emphasizing instead the taxonomic distinctions of race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, or ethnicity, instead of wealth. Indeed- ‘power does not make you superior’- wealth makes you powerful; much more so than the juxtaposition of race, gender,… Read more »
While wealth is undeniably a powerful force, identity and class are often entangled. Race, gender, and other identities shape access to wealth and labor opportunities, and ignoring them can flatten nuanced systems of oppression. To say “my power does not make me superior—it makes me responsible” is not meant to obscure class. Rather, it’s meant to illuminate how privilege accumulates and operates across multiple dimensions, sometimes overlapping, sometimes distinct. Race, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, and class are not interchangeable identity tags, but deeply interwoven structures that shape material outcomes. While it’s true that wealth is a dominant determinant of life… Read more »
“I do agree: wealth must be brought back to the center of the conversation. But I also believe we cannot fight wealth inequality effectively unless we understand how class is racialized, gendered, and historically constructed. It’s not either/or—it’s both/and… But the solution, I believe, is not to abandon identity politics wholesale, it is to reunite it with an urgent politics of economic justice.” I like being agreed with, but I don’t think that corresponds- It is not “either/or” or “both/and”- it is ’This’ and ‘That.’ Backdrops can be dispensable, and dispensing with them can sometimes prove illuminating. So, maybe, just… Read more »
“While wealth is undeniably a powerful force, identity and class are often entangled. Race, gender, and other identities shape access to wealth and labor opportunities, and ignoring them can flatten nuanced systems of oppression. To say ‘my power does not make me superior—it makes me responsible’ is not meant to obscure class. Rather, it’s meant to illuminate how privilege accumulates and operates across multiple dimensions, sometimes overlapping, sometimes distinct …While it’s true that wealth is a dominant determinant of life chances, access to that wealth is often filtered through race, gender, and other social hierarchies.” . If wealth (that is,… Read more »
sloganism
I’m not interested in shallow sloganism or moral grandstanding. I’m committed to the pursuit of a just society, and to grappling honestly with the structures that stand in its way. That commitment informs my work as a community organizer with Agape Haven of Abundance in Rochester, as a suicide prevention counselor with 988, and as a freelance journalist. For the past 25 years, I’ve dedicated my professional life to counseling, social work, and teaching.