Deconstructing the “right to comfort”

The Right to Comfort is 1 of the 15 characteristics of white supremacy that were clearly enumerated and defined by Tema Okun (see website for more on all 15) in the late 1990s.

According to Tema Okun, the Right to Comfort shows up as:

• the belief that those with power have a right to emotional and psychological comfort

(another aspect of valuing ‘logic’ over emotion);

• scapegoating those who cause discomfort, for example, targeting and isolating those who

name racism rather than addressing the actual racism that is being named;

• demanding, requiring, expecting apologies or other forms of "I didn't mean it" when

faced with accusations of colluding with racism;

• feeling entitled to name what is and isn't racism;

• white people (or those with dominant identities) equating individual acts of unfairness

with systemic racism (or other forms of oppression).

While the concept of “the right to comfort,” was originally created to discuss the insidious nature of systematic racism, I believe it is also touching on a deeper truth. A fundamental truth that has been illuminated best by the 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha who correctly identifies the nature of the world as dukkha (or suffering). Ironically, (wo)man has a right to suffering, and only in this acceptance can they find their path to liberation from suffering.

It is only the Ego that experiences comfort—technically the soul is always at ease. Discomfort is experienced when the Ego resists change. Not all change is in the best interest of one’s spirit—however, great care and attention should be placed on the Ego’s desire for homeostasis. For homeostasis naturally implies a lack of growth, which indeed stifles the soul and keeps (wo)man trapped in cycles of suffering.

© 2023 Krystal H. Parrish, PhD. All Rights Reserved.