Privilege, Love, & the Quiet Ways the System Shapes Us

Inspired by a Nathaniel Drew post

Introduction

This short piece is a reflection inspired by Nathaniel Drew’s Substack post, “The way we measure privilege is broken”.

Nathaniel’s writing opened up something I’ve been sitting with for a while — the way we talk about privilege, and the things we often miss. I left a comment on his post, but I also wanted to explore it more fully here, in my own voice.

Exploration Into Privilege

Nathaniel’s essay explores the complex, often oversimplified conversation around privilege, pushing beyond visible traits like race, gender, or wealth to ask: what about the invisible privileges we rarely discuss? Nathaniel, a self-described privileged person, reflects on how the modern discourse flattens nuance, silences self-expression, and overlooks deeper, unquantifiable advantages—like being unconditionally loved by one’s parents. By weaving personal history with cultural critique, the piece challenges current frameworks of privilege measurement, arguing that emotional security, acceptance, and love can be life-altering forms of privilege that deserve more attention in how we think about inequality and fairness.

Good Parenting, Privilege, Love And The System

I think this is such a beautiful tribute to Nathaniel’s parents too; I’m thankful that he’s shared it.

There is, however, something about the message that once I would have been on board with, but over the last couple of years, I have come to question: the message of solid and good parenting comes from psychological models that go hand in hand with the economic policy we have had over the last 4 decades (at least). I want to complicate the idea that “good parenting” — even the best kind — is an apolitical, universally accessible solution to inequality, if you’ll bear with me…because what Nathaniel describes as the ultimate privilege — love and acceptance from parents — is profound. But I’ve come to wonder whether even this idea of ‘ideal parenting’ is more shaped by our economic system than we realise.

Of course, setting aside things like abuse or disowning children, many parents worry deeply about their kids — and through that worry, they can sometimes sound invalidating; this doesn’t make them look great in the epoch of emotional regulation, resilience and out and out denigration of anxious-attachment, all at a time when social safety nets are at their lowest. Don’t get me wrong, regulation is helpful, but a lack of it doesn’t mean parents don’t love their children. They may be hyper-aware of how cruel the system can be, and have limited ways of expressing their fear. That fear might come out as pressure to comply, or to keep a head above water within the system, a deep distress at seeing their kids in pain or struggle, especially if they don’t have the tools or knowledge to show their kids another path, or they may simply struggle themselves. They can’t pass on what they never got to learn themselves, and that doesn’t make them less worthy or less loving. This aside, love doesn’t protect people from housing discrimination, wage gaps, police brutality, or medical racism.

Comfort, autonomy, and financial security — once achieved — can create distance from systemic hardships, not out of callousness but as a byproduct of privilege itself. That’s part of how the system maintains itself, because in this way it can also give rise to survivor bias.

I guess what I’m getting at here is that the system is individualistic, and love in that system is often framed through psychological models as “how to teach your kid to be the most individualistic”. And I feel that’s important. Because it reinforces our economic policy, and that policy doesn’t best serve everyone. Under our democracy, we should be free to remix our economic policy so it would serve more people in different ways, a mixed economy if you will. Only, doesn’t it strike you that we’re not free to do this? When people try, suddenly the media takes them out. Why is that?

Psychology is young, and it developed hand in hand with industrialisation. As Robert Chapman notes in Empire of Normality, psychology, especially models of adjustment and resilience, often developed to help individuals adapt to economic systems that weren’t built for all. These models can inadvertently reinforce dominant ideologies by defining what is ‘normal’ in ways that uphold the status quo.

I think if a person has known an overt dictatorship, this system, let’s call it the second way, would seem very appealing; and that would be completely understandable. But there’s a lot the second way gets wrong. I’m always curious, if we were really free to explore it, what might be the third way?

This is just something I’m pondering. I say all this with deep respect. Nathaniel’s piece moved me. And I believe we’re all just trying to make sense of the world we inherited — and, hopefully, leave it a little better. Very best wishes. LJ x