As a note, this argument is general to all issues of difference between people, not just racism, sexism, or even groups - it also applies to individual differences.
There are a couple different approaches people fighting discrimination tend to take on these issues, and individuals may vary based on the specific topic.
Some see differences and fight to rectify inequalities. This is not necessarily wrong, however many people taking this stance don't realize that, depending on their approach, they too can be part of the problem. Perhaps the greatest vestige of racism, sexism, and other '-isms' in our modern society is our insistence of awareness of it. Now, don't misinterpret that; I am unequivocally against prejudice of any kind. What I mean is that the more we fight under the banner of protecting a certain group, the more we're promoting that that group is distinct. It's contradictory by nature to have something like a 'women's group' fighting for equality, unless you're asking for 'separate but equal', which most are adamantly not. Here's Morgan Freeman to explain it in other words:
Furthermore, people have a tendency to draw inferences, to assume things that are not explicitly stated. It's part of what makes the human mind so powerful - and so fallible. When people fight for a specific group, it is often perceived as implying that these problems are not present in other groups, or are caused by them, even if this is not directly claimed or intended. And even if they never stray from their original cause, its very easy to get caught up in a categorical mindset of 'us-vs-them'. Perhaps it's our tribal nature. Perhaps its perceived self-defense. Regardless, you need look no further than the conflicts between feminists and the Men's Rights Movement (or the fact the the Men's Rights Movement exists at all) to see this in action.
UPDATE: See also: Black Lives Matter vs All Lives Matter.
Some argue that true eradication of sexism and racism means being blind to it. The 'I don't see race' approach. This sounds morally nice, but it is not quite accurate either. The truth is that not all discrimination is unfounded. For example, on the whole, women and men are physically and psychologically different to a significant degree. Yes, psychologically too. Exact mental equality may sound nice, but science does not back it up. The good news is that it has mostly revealed varying traits, not outright superiorities, and typically very minor. However these traits cannot just be ignored in the name of equality. True elimination of racism or sexism means treating gender, race, etc. heuristically rather than absolutely, and in acknowledgement with objective and relevant differences, making neither arbitrary differences in treatment, nor pretending actual differences don't exist. Just make sure it's based on good, well-validated science that is well-interpreted. Women are more likely to get breast cancer than men - that is proven, but those studies which claim to prove racial intelligence differences are so full of methodological flaws they're effectively lies.
Tip: Pay attention not just to significance in a single study, but to effect size, quality of methodology, and results of other studies (not all of which may have been published). Always be aware that correlation does not imply causation.
But it's not so simple as referencing broad statistics either. Because every individual is different. We can chart trends, but there are always exceptions. Male breast cancer does happen, and it is no less real when it does. Even when there's a significant result for a populace, individual differences (i.e. the combination of every other factor in that person's life, both internal and external) are almost always far more influential than the factor in question. It's even possible for the exceptions to vastly outnumber the trend, because most things in life are not binary. The numbers are there to guide us, not be our shackles. This is a difficult and somewhat unnatural way for people to think. We are biologically wired to want to put things in boxes. Categorical thinking is quite likely the main cause of discrimination in the first place. "This person is a ___", "that person is a ____". It's how our brains work. And as explained above, it's not totally unjustified, particularly on a macroscopic scale. But the bottom line of 'you can't judge a book by its cover' still exists.
So what's the answer?
We must understand statistical realities, and how they do, and do not relate to individuals. Individual treatment is a must. We must understand that we are not all equal - that's a fact. Some inequalities we can do things about, others we cannot. We must first acknowledge an inequality, empirically determine why it exists, then determine if it is something we should accept, or whether its one we should address.
The first case may be the hardest for some people to swallow. Equality is given such a high value in this society that it can be very uncomfortable to accept that it isn't a reality, especially if it's unfavorable to the self. But the key to remember is that nothing measurable can tell you the worth of a being, nor can it tell you how they morally should be treated. That is entirely a construct of our minds, and so if you were to believe that we can be unequal in appearance, unequal in ability, but all equal in worth, you would not be wrong. It is my belief that it is best for society that we acknowledge each others' strengths and weaknesses, but don't judge each other for them. In how to treat inequality, remember that fair is not equal. Fair is getting what you need.
In the latter case, when we are to address an inequality, we should be fighting for the cause, rather than for the perceived victim group. Those who truly want equality shouldn't be discriminating, by focusing on only women, only men, only gays, or only any one else. If one of these groups is shown to be discriminated against, that's indicative of a problem. But the solution is not to respond with discriminatory fixes, but ones that address the core issue of discrimination.
(Aug. 8, 2020) Edit:
It's been several years since I originally posted this blog entry, and it is perhaps the most continually self-edited thing I have ever written. While my views haven't fundamentally changed, this topic is very nuanced and I've never been 100% happy with how I've been able to express it, so I want to do a follow-up here to add some additional clarification. This especially in light of how the cultural context has shifted in the past few years.
In this article I make a number of points that must be taken in context of the whole. Among them, the idea that "awareness" of discrimination is part of the problem. To be clear, I do not mean that we should ignore inequalities and inequities. I do not mean we should act as if systemic discrimination is not real - It is. What I mean is the mindset in addressing these issues so needs to be focused on equity and equality for all, rather than centered on particular groups. A degree of awareness of current inequalities between groups is necessary to assess problems in equability, yet exclusive awareness or support should not be considered a solution in itself.
One reason for this is because people internalize the mindset and inertia these movements promote, not just the stated purpose of them. When all talk or action to end discrimination is done for only a subset of people, that subset of people becomes treated differently in their mind than others. On social and neurological levels, it actually teaches further discrimination, even if the purpose is noble.
There's a lateral solution: Solving systemic problems through systemic correction. First let's dive into what "systemic" even means, because it's a word that gets thrown around a lot now without full awareness of what it implies. Systemic discrimination issues come from traditions, policies, laws, etc. that innately favor one group over another. What this means is that even if no individual is themselves racist, discriminatory practices would still occur because the rules of the game are unfair. Thus, to bring about systemic change those policies and laws should be targeted and adjusted to be inherently equitable to everyone, instead of targeting categories of people. Shaming and blaming groups who may be benefiting from the current 'system', but individually had nothing to do with its creation is a great way to turn those who would otherwise be your allies and support change into your enemies who resist it. It also, again, fosters division where we want integration, leading to an "us vs them" mentality.
The next consideration is the form of the solution. I mentioned in the original post above that "the solution is not to respond with discriminatory fixes, but ones that address the core issue of discrimination." Let me give a clear example of that: Say, for the sake of demonstration, that on average people of X make 35% more salary than people of Y. The first step is a deep analysis into why. Is it prejudice? Is it something else? The second step is determining if that "why" is unfair. If so, we then ask "how", what is the mechanism by which they make 35% more? We then adjust that mechanism so that it impacts all groups fairly. For reasons mentioned above, it is important that this solution be inherently equitable, and not a group-targeted course-correction. It's the difference between creating an environment free of discrimination, vs one with multiple opposing discriminatory policies.
Example: Implementing a policy saying, "all Y will immediately have their pay raised 35% to match the salary level of X" may look superficially fair, but it ignores that a sizable proportion of X may still make less than a sizable portion of Y. You've failed to address the difference between groups and individuals, and have wronged a number of people. It doesn't matter that they're a minority compared to the people who were righted by it - the whole idea here is to not discriminate, and to treat minorities equitably.
If you had instead fixed the underlying mechanism using group-agnostic language, then those who fall below average will benefit regardless of if they are X or Y, and if your premise that Y were on average underpaid is true, then they will reap the majority benefit of this in exactly the proportion they should on both an individual and group level, and you've created no justified enemies in the process, and it is future-proofed in a way the direct solution is not. Fairness is baked into the solution itself.
I hope this clarifies. I'm sure I will make many edits to come as I try to make these ideas as communicable as possible. I care deeply about fairness and equity which is why I try to put so much into ensuring it is executed effectively. And I and hope that, one day, all of this will feel like a relic of the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment