Skip to main content

Like many others, I am caught up in the events as they continue to unfold in Egypt.  Watching the video this morning of the jubilant crowds after Mubarak announced that he was stepping down brought tears to my eyes.  Sharing that joy, I still understand that it is an unfinished narrative of a possible transition from patriarchy to partnership, from autocratic rule by a privileged oligarchy of civilian strongmen and military generals to a more egalitarian parliamentary system.  Like any compelling story where life and death are at stake and the outcome is in doubt, I continue to be on the edge of my seat.

But stepping back and looking at the big picture over the centuries of the odyssey (three steps forward and two steps back) of human development, what I see is a trend away from the concept of privilege.  That is, moving beyond the practice of granting some people more respect, higher status, and power over others based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, age, family, or position within some sort of a hierarchy.  And moving instead to a circle of equals where power is not seized but granted by others and is exercised to facilitate rather than to control.

From the Wikipedia article on "privilege"...

In a broader sense, "privilege" can refer to special powers or de facto immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth. Privilege of this sort may be transmitted by birth into a privileged class or achieved through individual actions. One of the objectives of the French Revolution was the abolition of privilege. This meant the removal of separate laws for different social classes (nobility, clergy and ordinary people), instead subjecting everyone to the same common law.

As the conventional wisdom goes, "rank has its privileges", and the granting of ever increasing perks as one moves up the pecking-order has proven to be an effective tool to maintain that hierarchical order.  Particularly so when that moving up can require great investment of ones "blood and treasure" and other costs to the human psyche, a person can feel that they have earned and therefor are entitled to that privilege.  

Then there are the many forms of privilege based on an "accident of birth" and generally requiring a certain devotion to playing some conventional role to somehow feel that one has earned that accidental status.  A father earns his privilege as male head of household by working and worrying himself to death, since privilege is not necessarily the same thing necessarily as liberty and being able to do whatever you want.  Thus that other now rarely heard phrase, "noblesse oblige" (the privilege of aristocracy has its responsibilities).  If you've got the pedigree and are willing to play the part and saddle the responsibilities, why not reap the perks and have your little world that narcissistically revolves around you?

Just look at much of our advertising in the media and see how much of it leverages the lure of privilege, to drive in a luxury car, live in stately "McMansion", or have a vacation with all the trimmings in a gorgeous tropical resort with a gorgeous bikini-clad trophy spouse.

Certainly in the contemporary drama playing out in Egypt, strongman President Mubarak has exhibited the patronizing hubris of privilege in his recent speeches.  He has heard his flock speak, can take care of their problems, now he urges them to go back to their jobs and let him continue to run the country as he is most qualified to do.

Allan Johnson talks a lot about the concept of privilege and its historical political context in his written works, including The Gender Knot...

As societies have developed new forms of control and domination, systems of privilege have changed in order to make use of them.  Under European feudalism, for example, class privilege depended on military force, control over land, and traditional obligations between nobles and peasants.  With industrial capitalism, however, class is based primarily on control cover complex organizations such as corporations, government, universities and the mass media.

Mubarak's privilege is probably closer to the feudal variety, or its modern corollary based on controlling a network of overt and covert police and at least the tacit consent of the army.  But like all forms of privilege, it generally leads to corruption of the privileged minority and the resulting dis-empowerment of the non-privileged majority.

In fact, as long as much of the world is still caught up in systems of economic and political privilege, those societies are particularly vulnerable to the challenge of religious extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, which leverage the illegitimacy of the privileged to justify their own violent extremism as somehow the most effective antidote.  

But in my opinion the most compelling reason for the historical trend away from privilege is that it is standing in the way of human development.  We humans are a species with an insatiable developmental imperative.  

There are times in our history that a privileged minority among us has convinced the rest of us (or at least themselves) that it is in the interest of human development that the privileged and powerful control everyone else.  But it can only go so far before enough people decide they can run their own live better with the liberty of their own initiative and a societal consensus to facilitate that liberty.

So in my framing of human history, its all about that developmental imperative, and particularly in the last three-thousand years that development has been facilitated by the transition from authoritarian to egalitarian, strongman to citizen, "us and them" to "all of us", all of which revolve around moving beyond privilege to a circle of equals.  Egypt circa 2011 CE is one more chapter in that compelling story.

Originally posted to leftyparent on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 04:24 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Cooper Zale Los Angeles

    by leftyparent on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 04:24:22 PM PST

  •  Why do some think life is a game of monopoly (0+ / 0-)

    where winner has to take all and the rest can just DIe? We do better being cooperative as possible without endangering our own survival or growth. Is there a single religion that believes those with the biggest pile are more holy?

    I truly believe we have a better and more stable economy when more people can participate fully. We have a better chance of survival when we work together for the good of all.

    I don't want communism because that is mandated sharing and everyone should be free to share as much as they want and should have incentive to improve themselves and to struggle for stuff (so it has real meaning).

    I don't like capitalism because the game seems to be accumulation of material goods at the expense of the environment we all share with no real necessity for survival to that accumulation. I don't think we should eliminate wealth but to have such a disparity as now exists hurts us all and threatens the entire civilization we now enjoy. It is the people who have wealth who can support art and even research. But I seriously think it is wrong to pass all that wealth down through generations who never worked to earn it but can sit back and watch it grow through the generations so that they can practice any perversions, stupidities, or immoralities they want with impunity. Why else would an idiot like  the shrub even have doors open to him.

    •  Agreed... (0+ / 0-)

      What's that all about?  What does it have to do with the Golden Rule?

      BTW... I like your take on communism and capitalism... the latter I would reframe more positively as "free enterprise", which I see as a good thing.

      So what's your take on the most egalitarian economic system?

      Cooper Zale Los Angeles

      by leftyparent on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 04:55:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One with regulations and controls that impose (0+ / 0-)

        on corporations the morality they lack in their search for profits. It is an unfair contest to pit a money making machine with no morals against humans who think of other things besides profits. Another item I think is crucial is a serious estate tax to STOP accumulation of nation busting levels of wealth and its attendant power.

        My idea is a basic safety net that is detached from work... Retirement, medical including dental, vision and psychiatric, education of course and basic survival supports (food, water, shelter). But I  want people to have to fight for more than the bare survival of the dole. We also have to consider what effect it has on our species for us to not compete to survive.

        Another idea I support strongly as a way to put more to work all over the world while not having so many things is shorter work weeks with a refocus on other things like savoring our planet and what we can learn about our universe. With the forementioned detached from work business should have no problem.

        To make a safety net including all those things we have to develop a personal self control of our reproduction...Maybe new ways of looking at family structures.  An interesting look at another system is Coalescent by Baxter... it is mind boggling. Not a form that I would like to see come to be but certainly an eye opener.

        •  I like your shorter work week idea... (0+ / 0-)

          I think it might be a creative solution to creating more jobs by making the average work week say 36 or even 32 rather than 40 hours with the corresponding lower pay of course.People would have to live more frugally but there would be more jobs to go around.  I think it could work out somehow.

          Cooper Zale Los Angeles

          by leftyparent on Fri Feb 11, 2011 at 11:01:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site