posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix at 09:12am on 04/08/2005 under anti-oppression and the evil *isms, armchair philosophizing
sigelphoenix at 09:12am on 04/08/2005 under anti-oppression and the evil *isms, armchair philosophizingHow much should rights movement be concerned with what the dominant majority thinks? How much should we try to get along and be the same, and how much should we value difference?
I used to be a big proponent of 'equality,' and by 'equality' I meant that everyone should be treated the same. As I got older, I realized that it's a lot fairer (and more practical) to give everyone the same opportunities rather than trying to guarantee the same outcomes -- for example, merit-based advancement which begins with a level playing field, but may result in something of a hierarchy. (In other words, I am not for communism.) It's pointless to believe that we have the same strengths, desires, priorities, etc. -- and not only in economic or professional goals, but also larger life goals, personal values, and other areas. Advocating for an equal 'starting level' society in spite of, or because of, the possibility of these different outcomes is a viable aim. I also began to recognize the value, the vital importance, of difference in the movements themselves -- "difference" movements emphasize the unique perspectives of the minority groups, in contrast to classical liberal ideologies that focus on agreement between the majority and minority. This leads to the formation of women/black/gays/etc.-only groups to supplement more integrated groups of women's/black's/gays'/etc. rights activists. (Some people want these groups to *replace* the mixed groups, but, um, yeah. Not my thing.) The idea is that the unique experiences and voices of the specific minority group need to be preserved and applied to the fight against its oppression. Minority groups shouldn't have to try to fit in with the majority, just work with it.
I didn't like the idea at first -- hey, I want everyone to get along and have the same chance to contribute, and not be singled out for their color/gender/what have you -- but I recognize the fact that one can never completely understand another person's experience of prejudice. I will never know exactly how a gay person feels to be the target of homophobia because he or she is gay (even though I can be called a homophobic name, I won't understand what it feels like to be targeted because of my actual, rather than perceived, identity). A man will never know exactly how I feel under misogynist pressure. Anti-Chinese racism is different from anti-Latino racism, and so on. Also, a culture or sub-culture simply has different customs and values, which need to be recognized. However much I or another person will want to contribute to a movement for a group of which I am not a part, we will have to accept that there are some things we can't do, some understanding we don't have, and we will have to defer to the members of the group in question. This is particularly true in the cases of groups that traditionally don't have a voice in public discourse -- women fifty years ago, gays thirty years ago, aboriginal groups now. (Yes, it will be because of their race or gender or sexual orientation, but this is not a prejudiced, essentialist viewpoint -- the idea is to recognize the contributions an individual can make based on the actual experiences he or she has as a member of a group, rather than an assumption of what his or her identity is just because he or she fits a certain label.)
Anyway, with that long-winded introduction, here's what I actually wanted to talk about in the first place. :P
( Cut for length )
My opinion remains unsettled. Give me input, please.
I used to be a big proponent of 'equality,' and by 'equality' I meant that everyone should be treated the same. As I got older, I realized that it's a lot fairer (and more practical) to give everyone the same opportunities rather than trying to guarantee the same outcomes -- for example, merit-based advancement which begins with a level playing field, but may result in something of a hierarchy. (In other words, I am not for communism.) It's pointless to believe that we have the same strengths, desires, priorities, etc. -- and not only in economic or professional goals, but also larger life goals, personal values, and other areas. Advocating for an equal 'starting level' society in spite of, or because of, the possibility of these different outcomes is a viable aim. I also began to recognize the value, the vital importance, of difference in the movements themselves -- "difference" movements emphasize the unique perspectives of the minority groups, in contrast to classical liberal ideologies that focus on agreement between the majority and minority. This leads to the formation of women/black/gays/etc.-only groups to supplement more integrated groups of women's/black's/gays'/etc. rights activists. (Some people want these groups to *replace* the mixed groups, but, um, yeah. Not my thing.) The idea is that the unique experiences and voices of the specific minority group need to be preserved and applied to the fight against its oppression. Minority groups shouldn't have to try to fit in with the majority, just work with it.
I didn't like the idea at first -- hey, I want everyone to get along and have the same chance to contribute, and not be singled out for their color/gender/what have you -- but I recognize the fact that one can never completely understand another person's experience of prejudice. I will never know exactly how a gay person feels to be the target of homophobia because he or she is gay (even though I can be called a homophobic name, I won't understand what it feels like to be targeted because of my actual, rather than perceived, identity). A man will never know exactly how I feel under misogynist pressure. Anti-Chinese racism is different from anti-Latino racism, and so on. Also, a culture or sub-culture simply has different customs and values, which need to be recognized. However much I or another person will want to contribute to a movement for a group of which I am not a part, we will have to accept that there are some things we can't do, some understanding we don't have, and we will have to defer to the members of the group in question. This is particularly true in the cases of groups that traditionally don't have a voice in public discourse -- women fifty years ago, gays thirty years ago, aboriginal groups now. (Yes, it will be because of their race or gender or sexual orientation, but this is not a prejudiced, essentialist viewpoint -- the idea is to recognize the contributions an individual can make based on the actual experiences he or she has as a member of a group, rather than an assumption of what his or her identity is just because he or she fits a certain label.)
Anyway, with that long-winded introduction, here's what I actually wanted to talk about in the first place. :P
( Cut for length )
My opinion remains unsettled. Give me input, please.
There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)
![[insanejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/ij-userinfo.gif){kind=small}