¿Que?
12th November 2010, 03:08
Diversity is an important subject for leftists to understand and take on. The problem is that many diversity advocates have adopted a particular epistemological view, that of cultural relativity, which in and of itself is not bad, however it can be abused. I don't think however it's a problem that can be solved with unreflexive appeals to objectivity. At any epistemic moment, we are operating either under an authoritative or a libertarian (mental) regime. The authoritative regime demands conformity, while the libertarian regime demands a critical approach. Cultural relativity, then, takes the libertarian position on many scientific presumptions. Thus, it is (or used to be) common to find diversity activists deride the natural and formal sciences. They were operating under the libertarian-critical regime wherein as opposed to conformity, multiculturalism, difference, and change become "truth," not the cold objectivity of "natural," "essential," and most controversially, "unchanging" laws.
The problem arises when diversity advocates throw out the authoritative view, just as when anti-diversity advocates throw out the libertarian-critical view. There are various epistemologies and we rely on a positionally informed epistemology whether we like it or not. Social structure and culture, even genetics and biology, all play crucial roles in what exactly we believe. Think about it. Many feminists rely on statistics (the proportion of men to women in positions of power) to make a case for the existence of patriarchy. There are several problems with this from a feminist point of view. For one thing, math is decidedly a male game. Statistically more men excel at math than women, and if you have ever looked at standardized scores for mathematics, women's bell curve is exactly like that of men's except shifted to the left a little. But the second problem is that relying on statistics is relying on the authority of statistics, which in itself is somewhat like relying on the authority of men, taking into account the previous facts. It is, in the final estimation of things, taking the authoritative approach to knowledge.
Of course I am not arguing that diversity advocates should stop relying on quantitative data or any rigorous analytical method that eschews the problem of meaning, in order for them (us) to make their (our) arguments. Rather, it is important to understand the processes of knowledge making when we undertake an argument or a position on something. We have to be aware of where we are on that matrix of hierarchy, the old gender, class and race. Libertarian critics have even expanded further on this triad, adding other categories to consider. Furthermore, other critics took on the difficult but necessary task of deconstructing the categories themselves.
Those who would argue that what we need is balance, some sort of middle ground between authority and critical liberty have either not understood my argument, or they are my opponents. Because I would never argue for something so reductive and trivial as balance. At any given epistemic moment, we are definitively either authoritative or critico-libertarian. These moments are decided by our positionality. In some ways they are beyond our control, even beyond “objective reality.”
Diversity is not something we should shun. Difference is good. We should not aspire or hope for a world of sameness. I made this mistake once. I thought that equality meant effacing difference. This cannot be right. The fundamental problem is when those differences define us in such a way so as to create hierarchies and inequalities. The problem is when those differences translate to real differences in power, status, prestige, and material wealth. These things are real and exist in the real world, and if you think putting your head into a hole in the ground and ignoring differences is the answer, you are basically rejecting your self identity, and your own individuality.
Your Feedback is Appreciated...
The problem arises when diversity advocates throw out the authoritative view, just as when anti-diversity advocates throw out the libertarian-critical view. There are various epistemologies and we rely on a positionally informed epistemology whether we like it or not. Social structure and culture, even genetics and biology, all play crucial roles in what exactly we believe. Think about it. Many feminists rely on statistics (the proportion of men to women in positions of power) to make a case for the existence of patriarchy. There are several problems with this from a feminist point of view. For one thing, math is decidedly a male game. Statistically more men excel at math than women, and if you have ever looked at standardized scores for mathematics, women's bell curve is exactly like that of men's except shifted to the left a little. But the second problem is that relying on statistics is relying on the authority of statistics, which in itself is somewhat like relying on the authority of men, taking into account the previous facts. It is, in the final estimation of things, taking the authoritative approach to knowledge.
Of course I am not arguing that diversity advocates should stop relying on quantitative data or any rigorous analytical method that eschews the problem of meaning, in order for them (us) to make their (our) arguments. Rather, it is important to understand the processes of knowledge making when we undertake an argument or a position on something. We have to be aware of where we are on that matrix of hierarchy, the old gender, class and race. Libertarian critics have even expanded further on this triad, adding other categories to consider. Furthermore, other critics took on the difficult but necessary task of deconstructing the categories themselves.
Those who would argue that what we need is balance, some sort of middle ground between authority and critical liberty have either not understood my argument, or they are my opponents. Because I would never argue for something so reductive and trivial as balance. At any given epistemic moment, we are definitively either authoritative or critico-libertarian. These moments are decided by our positionality. In some ways they are beyond our control, even beyond “objective reality.”
Diversity is not something we should shun. Difference is good. We should not aspire or hope for a world of sameness. I made this mistake once. I thought that equality meant effacing difference. This cannot be right. The fundamental problem is when those differences define us in such a way so as to create hierarchies and inequalities. The problem is when those differences translate to real differences in power, status, prestige, and material wealth. These things are real and exist in the real world, and if you think putting your head into a hole in the ground and ignoring differences is the answer, you are basically rejecting your self identity, and your own individuality.
Your Feedback is Appreciated...