Arizona Tribune - Opinion Debate Revisits Privilege and the Meaning of Noblesse Oblige

A New York Post opinion column argues that members of the Democratic Socialists of America from affluent families are applying a double standard when they describe their activism as noblesse oblige. The phrase generally refers to the responsibility of wealthy or privileged people to assist those with fewer advantages.

The column centers on Grace Ryan, a 25-year-old Ohio native who canvassed in New York City for Brad Lander and whose family made its wealth in chocolate. Responding to criticism of her background, Ryan said she had a moral duty to use her advantages to help people who were struggling.

The writer traces the French concept to the 19th century and describes it as an expectation that wealth carries duties toward poorer people. The column then argues that this framework has long carried assumptions about class and race because it can portray beneficiaries as unable to act for themselves.

As an example, the piece connects noblesse oblige with Rudyard Kipling’s formulation of the “White Man’s Burden” and with the modern criticism of a white-savior mentality. The writer says progressive commentary has often treated such paternalistic beliefs as racist.

The column cites Elie Mystal’s 2018 criticism of praise for former President George H.W. Bush’s noblesse oblige, particularly the idea that wealthy white people know what is best for others. It also references Amy Julia Becker’s objection that the concept assumes superiority and casts marginalized people as grateful recipients of upper-class generosity.

The New York Times and The Washington Post have separately published arguments connecting tipping with slavery and noblesse oblige, the column says. Those references are used to contend that progressive activists reject the concept when it is associated with traditional elites but invoke it when defending their own inherited privilege.

The argument is presented as opinion rather than a reported finding about the DSA as a whole. Its conclusion is that the conflict between those past criticisms and Ryan’s defense exposes ideological inconsistency and a paternalistic view of the people affluent activists say they want to help.

M.White--AT