Home

TheSinner.net

Problems of RedCelt Humanism as an alternative to Feminism

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Problems of RedCelt Humanism as an alternative to Feminism

Postby wild_quinine on Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:16 pm

I’ve started a new thread to take a look at RedCelt’s take on Humanism, specifically focussing on its presentation as a superior alternative to Feminism. As I said earlier, I don’t think I’ve properly engaged with RedCelt’s actual argument, and I probably do owe him that.

RedCelt, although I think it’s been conflated in the blog posts that you pointed me to, you’ve been keen in other discussions to ensure that it’s clear you’re presenting a specific, personal take on Humanism – which I’ll call ‘RedCelt Humanism’ – not facetiously, merely to distinguish it from the larger movement. It *is* a nice idea, in the warm and fuzzy sense, although you’ve not really brought much of the hippy vibe through to the discussions so far.

In brief, my thoughts are: You don’t offer any clearly obvious rationale for the superiority of Humanism over Feminism, and you do introduce a few new problems. Your resentment of Feminism seems to be based entirely on personal experience, and a deep seated dislike of the *word* ‘Feminism’. However, the actual meaning of the word is something you don’t accept. Instead you are railing against your own personal definition of Feminism which, admittedly, doesn’t sound great. However, even by your own definition, RedCelt Humanism struggles to identify itself as a superior alternative.

Your point of view is represented reasonably well below, I think, as gleaned from this thread, ‘that thread’, and your two blog posts on the subject, part the first and part the second.

However, I think it falls down (as formulated so far) in a number of logical and pragmatic ways, which I’ve noted beneath. I’ve also responded to two prominent examples from your blog, at the bottom of this post.

Here’s the argument for RedCelt Humanism, as I understand it:

WQsummary wrote:Your argument is that everyone who is in favour of sexual equality should be a (RedCelt) Humanist rather than a Feminist.

My understanding is that you feel that this is because RedCelt Humanism isn’t exclusively concerned with the rights of women, (or indeed men).

It – as a single movement – respects the rights of both men and women equally.

This makes it superior to Feminism, which you find as offensive as the opposing viewpoint, Masculinism. Both Feminism and Masculinism are concerned only with the rights of their self-referential sex.

You believe that a movement is more powerful when it focuses on what people share, rather than how people differ.(As you put it: "I am the same as you" is a stronger position than "I am different to you".)



Part One: Egalitarianism, Sameness and Difference

1) ‘I am the same as you’ can very easily become ‘You are the same as me. Period.’

Spoiler: show
A majority can assume that their viewpoint is the appropriate one, to the degree that they don’t even realise that what they hold is a non-neutral position. That leads to a social structure which *appears* to be egalitarian to the majority, but may in fact not be so. See the case of privilege, discussed elsewhere.


2) How people are the same, and how they are different, is for an important range of values, entirely subjective.

Spoiler: show
This problem is similar to 1), but acknowledges that even in something approaching a true egalitarian system, there may be no objectively trustworthy answer to the question of ‘sameness’.

That means that you need to allow people to identify differently, however similar they may appear. It’s not possible to be both egalitarian and authoritarian about sameness.


3) It is *easier* to recognise a difference than a similarity.

Spoiler: show
This problem is similar to 2) but acknowledges that even where there is an objective answer to the question of sameness vs. difference, it is easier to recognise the differences.

Humans have evolved to be particularly good at spotting differences in patterns.

Assuming no objective moral value attached to difference vs sameness, it is probably more efficient to work on differences.


4) Being wrong about a sameness harms egalitarianism more than being wrong about a difference.

Spoiler: show
Judging something to be different, even though it is the same, results in giving it the attention of a difference. This will almost certainly result in coming to an equitable, if superfluous, resolution – or more than likely eventually recognising it as not a difference, or as an insubstantial, or non-effective difference.

Judging something to be the same, even though it is different, results in a genuine difference being overlooked, which will impact the egalitarian project.

Therefore it is more valuable to the egalitarian project to attempt to identify differences than sameness.


5) Sameness and Difference are as a point of fact no more present or not present in RedCelt Humanism than in other similarly constituted sets.

If there appear to be fewer differences, it is probably because they are hidden. Hiding differences is not an effective egalitarian strategy.

6) Egalitarianism is substantially the problem of understanding the effects on opportunity of difference, not the problem of ensuring an enduring sameness.


Part Two: Feminism, Masculinism and Humanism

Summary: Feminism + Masculinism does not equal Humanism.

1) Masculinism and Feminism do not mean what you think they mean.

a) Masculinism is not an egalitarian movement.

Spoiler: show
The dictionary definitions of masculinism include:

* an advocate of male superiority or dominance
* characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men:
* an advocate of the rights or needs of men:

I have yet to find a dictionary definition of Masculinism which includes reference to equality. Period.


b) Feminism is not defined intuitively.

Spoiler: show
The meaning of the word ‘Feminism’ is no more encapsulated in the word ‘Feminine’ than the meaning of, for example, ‘Antisemitic’ is encapsulated in the word ‘Semitic’.

You have argued as if Feminism is defined by its semantically intuitive meaning, wherein the fact that the word itself is ‘about’ women defines the movement.

This is not the case. The worst that can be said about it is that the name may induce this confusion.


c) Feminism *is* an egalitarian movement.

Spoiler: show
Note that neither the demographic composition of a movement, nor the foundational motivation (specific perceived inequality) render it necessarily non-egalitarian.

(See specific counterarguments).

But further, the goals of Feminism are very, very clearly stated in egalitarian terms.


2) Feminism is not one half of an equation that fits into Humanism.

a) Masculinism is not the opposite but equal partner to Feminism.

b) Humanism attaches to values which are not necessarily core for a significant proportion of Feminists.

Spoiler: show
For one example: Humanism is not likely to be welcoming to religious Feminists.

(Yes, strictly speaking, there are some limited brands of Religious Humanism, but i) my impression is that they tend towards Deism or cultural expression rather than Theism ii) Humanism is defined in terms of the primacy of Human Values, which would interfere with the vast majority of theistic religious convictions, and iii) being that far out on a limb is unlikely to make anyone feel welcome, either way.)


3) Problems of creating a movement from extant Feminists/Masculinists

Spoiler: show
Assuming that (either, or both) Feminism and Masculinism are movements comprised of bigots, it is pragmatically unhelpful to bring them into RedCelt Humanism. You do not have one big egalitarian movement if you add two movements full of bigoted people together. You have one big movement full of bigots.

Therefore I assume that you are proposing to cherry pick only non-bigoted egalitarians for your movement, who have simply identified, up until now, with the ‘wrong’ group.

If so, how will you succeed where Feminism has apparently failed? What lessons have you learned from the perceived failures of Feminism?

And how will you ensure that access to your movement is vetted in an egalitarian way? And how will you resolve conflicts with existing Feminists – particularly those who explicitly avow their egalitarianism.

And, assuming that at least some egalitarian Feminists accept your viewpoint, will you allow membership to those of them who continue to wish to identify as Feminist?

(If so, will it be a policy to hate them equally, or unequally? Or expressed with less flippancy: can you guarantee the egalitarian treatment of self-identifying Feminists within your movement?)


4) Even if (RedCelt) Humanism were the perfect amalgamation of Feminism and Masculinism (as you personally define them), there would still be many people who would not choose to identify as Humanist.

Spoiler: show
Just as certain people do not accept the stated definition of Feminism, or are put off by fringe extremists, so will be the case for Humanism.

Feminism carries negative connotations for some people. This point is not in dispute. However, so does Humanism. For example, Humanism is stereotyped as a home for the arrogant, smug, priggishly militant atheist. Is this unfair? Yes. Is it any more unfair than the stereotypes of Feminists?

Or put another way: you hate Feminism, and think that egalitarians who identify as Feminists are wrong when they do so.

Some people might reasonably believe that if you understood Feminism better, you would choose to identify as Feminist. You disagree, and refuse to identify as Feminist despite purportedly sharing Feminist goals.

You are quite, quite right to refuse an unwelcome label, but hating Feminists seems a bit strong.

Are other people not quite, quite right to refuse to identify as RedCelt Humanists, even if they share all of your values?

Are they not at least equally as correct to believe that you identify wrongly as a Humanist, as you are when you claim egalitarian Feminists are ‘wrong’?

Are they not equally as logical if they ‘hate Humanists’?

Are you not in fact as wrong to claim egalitarian Feminists as Humanists, as they would be to claim you as Feminist? (See the Bill Bailey example).

When people do refuse to identify as Humanist, despite sharing all of your stated values, will you respect their choice not to identify under your label?


5) Feminism is a more efficient solution than Humanism.

Spoiler: show
Humanism is not defined by egalitarianism. Masculinism is not defined by egalitarianism. Feminism *is* defined by egalitarianism.

Considered another way: sexual equality is the primary goal of Feminism. It is not the primary goal of Humanism.

You require a non-standard form of Humanism – RedCelt Humanism - to get you to sexual equality, but you do not require a non-standard form of Feminism – it’s part of the package deal.

Therefore, Feminism is superior in respect of sexual equality to either Masculinism or Humanism in their least specialised forms. For people primarily concerned with sexual equality, it is a logically more efficient solution to choose Feminism.

Considered another way: because both Humanism and Feminism (as holistic movements) have baggage attached which is not directly relevant to sexual equality, it is arguably more inclusive to require people to be Standard Feminists than Non-standard Humanists: If their main concern is sexual equality, you need to ask them to take fewer new beliefs on board to identify as Feminist than RedCelt Humanist.


6) Even if Feminism took your definition, and was only about women, it would not necessarily be unegalitarian.

Spoiler: show
Specialisation does not necessitate exclusivity.
Specialisation is a useful strategy for effecting change.

See the specific counter examples at the end of this post.


7) Feminism is a more successful solution than Humanism.

Spoiler: show
A pragmatic argument - Feminism has significant historical successes in improving sexual equality, which include increasing rights and opportunities for men.

Humanism does not have this historical form. In what ways can we expect it to succeed Feminism?

Your arguments to date do not address how RedCelt Humanism substantively works to effect change, or how it differs from Feminism in practical matters. (My suspicion is that the ‘let’s all work together’ maxim is grounded in wishful thinking).

But even assuming that you can make RedCelt Humanism work, why start again? Even assuming that RedCelt Humanism has less disadvantages conceptually than Feminism, pragmatically Feminism exists and is not definitively or irreconcilably at odds with your stated goals, whereas RedCelt Humanism is new, and has not generated acceptance.

Feminism is what its members make of it, just as much as Humanism (your argument, in reverse). But in working towards sexual equality, Feminism has a solid base, history of achievements, experience and literature to draw on. It already has acceptance. It has achieved, and continues to achieve results. Why dismantle this for something else?

Surely it would be better to, instead, become a Feminist and improve the movement from within? If what you don’t like is in the practice rather than the strict definition, surely you can become one of many atypical Feminists with a variation on the central message – of equality – which you can then use to bring your message of peace and love to other Feminists, inclusively.

You’d avoid all of those confused ‘A misogynist!’ moments, which will be a bonus for anyone not courting controversy for the attention.


8) A movement consisting of all humans has already failed, and anything less is necessarily exclusive in some respects

Spoiler: show
Interestingly, Humanity already exists as the set of all people, and what we’ve created is series of societies which privilege certain demographics, and disadvantage others.

RedCelt Humanism is not expected to be the set of all people. Some people must be excluded. What I would expect for consistency with your stated views, is that you would include/exclude people based on their ethos, rather than their birth traits, so that:

a) members must share an ethos
b) membership of the movement must not be limited by birth traits.

But Feminism is open to all people regardless of birth traits.

It *might* be argued that it is unwelcoming to those who do not share a specific ethos. But how does RedCelt Humanism improve on Feminism in this regard? Is it not simply more welcoming to people who agree with *you*?





Two specific examples from the RedCelt blog

1) Vegetarian Case

Spoiler: show
RedCeltBlog wrote:Having high expectations for the rights of women does not make me a feminist. If I have peas and carrots with my rump steak, does that mean that I’m a vegetarian?


This is another problem of words and their meanings. Vegetarians are not defined by what they eat, they are predominantly defined by what they do not eat.

By contrast, Feminism is defined by what it supports, not by what it does not support. As it happens, what Feminism supports is sexual equality. But even if it were defined by exclusive focus on women’s rights, it would not mean that the individual Feminist did not equally support men’s rights as well. There’s simply no contradiction there.

However, an individual vegetarian who also eats meat is in a self contradictory position. So even if Feminism means what you think it means (which it doesn’t) your analogy is still false… which you go on to acknowledge in your next paragraph:

RedCeltBlog wrote:it should be noted (very strongly) that my views are not antithetical to Feminism. My morality, my ethos and (more importantly) my humanism insists and demands that all of the ideals of Feminism are sought after.


You seem to feel that identifying as a Feminist puts you in a necessarily exclusive position. But that is not the case. It is not the case by your definition of Feminism, by the actual definition of Feminism, or as a matter of fact.

Since ‘all the ideals of Feminism are sought after’, and Feminism is not an exclusive position, there’s no contradiction in being an egalitarian AND a Feminist. (Or even an egalitarian, a feminist, AND a RedCelt Humanist).


2) Vetinarian Case

Spoiler: show
RedCeltBlog wrote:The Royal Society for the Protection and Care of Animals (RSPCA) looks after the welfare of animals. Now, imagine if there was an RSPCFA which just looked after female animals. If you were to make a contribution to an animal-based charity, would you prefer one that looked after all animals, or one that checked between the animal’s legs before deciding whether or not they would help it? … an organisation fighting for all animals is a much stronger and well-equipped beast than one that picks and chooses which animals it will help.


But animal welfare organisations do separate out different animals, many of them doing so routinely. Nevermind all the differently medically indicated species-specific modes of treatment, there’s plenty of outright segregation of access to the Vetinary world.

Consider Agricultural Vetinarians: they don’t treat pets, or small animals. Their primary concern is farm animals. They have specialised, because they have a complex job, and it is inefficient for them not to specialise. In short, they are better at treating cows because they have not also tried to focus on cats.

But it doesn’t stop with animals. In point of fact, we even make separations based on birth traits amongst Human Beings, to the same kind of beneficial effect. See specialisation in medical facilities, schools for deaf students, companies who develop software specifically to aid students with learning disabilities, etc.

Is running a school for the deaf automatically more egalitarian than setting up a Birth Centre? Is research into ovarian cancer necessarily unegalitarian?

I would argue that it is not automatically unegalitarian to pursue only the benefit of one set of people (or animals). It is an important component of advancing some complex systems that some people will specialise, and it is an important tool for increasing the efficiency of some others.

Is Feminism automatically outside of this realm? You may argue that Feminism specialises in issues for women, and is therefore inferior to a movement which does not. But even if you are correct that ‘Feminism is for women’, what evidence do you have to show that this is functionally a bad thing and needs to be corrected?

Given that Feminism and egalitarianism are not exclusive, even if they are not identical, is it not better to allow for specialisation? Consider the benefits of specialisation. What evidence do you have that a movement comprised of men and women, for men and women, is pragmatically better at resolving issues for either sex?

What evidence do you have that Masculinism and Feminism – as you define them – are not actually superior egalitarian solutions as separate groups?

Are you willing to accept that slower, worse progress is a superior solution in order to keep the absolute equality of rights in check? If that maintains an unfair status quo for longer, how is it a more egalitarian solution?

Would you allow for specialisation within RedCelt Humanism? If so, why would a pro female rights faction in RedCelt Humanism be superior to Feminism (as you define it)? Or would such a faction be verboten? Would there instead be only one ‘sexual equality’ faction? How would it be constituted, and how would it table its agenda? By quota? Or would it predominantly work where the work needed to be done? Who would be in charge of deciding where the work needed to be done? And how will you ensure that this process is egalitarian?

And finally, assuming that this kind specialisation will continue to occur, whether it occurs within or outside of RedCelt Humanism, how is RedCelt Humanism necessary?
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm

Re: Problems of RedCelt Humanism as an alternative to Femini

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:59 pm

I did say "not here, not now" didn't I? The following is an extract of what will appear on my site. Follow the intuition pump to the end (of both timelines) and take it from there.



The Nuham thought experiment

You find yourself in the possession of a number of eggs. When they open, you find that you are faced by 12 living geometric shapes, each with a distinct combination of shape, colour and hand colour. You decide to call them Nuhams. You are in the position of starting Nuham society... but how should you do it?

Image

Timeline 1

You decide to follow the methodology of Iris Marion Young (Justice and the Politics of Difference). As a postmodernist thinker, Iris Young determined that the rights of people involved the fight for their differences. People have more than one difference, and when they clash, they have more determination to fight for them individually.

Image

The triangles demand their own rights, making sure that the squares and the circles allow them to be triangles; that they will have the same rights as the squares and the circles.

Image

The squares demand their own rights, making sure that the triangles and the circles allow them to be squares; that they will have the same rights as the triangles and the circles.

Image

The circles demand their own rights, making sure that the squares and the triangles allow them to be circles; that they will have the same rights as the squares and the triangles.

Image

The greens demand their own rights, making sure that the reds allow them to be greens; the reds, likewise demand that the greens treat them as reds.

Image

The pink hands demand their own rights, making sure that the blue hands allow them to be pink hands; the blue hands, likewise demand that the pink hands treat them as blue hands.

Image

Now, what kind of society is this? I left a subtle clue hidden somewhere in this post. I'm hoping that I didn't do the subtle thing overly subtly. Everyone comes to a conclusion about everyone else, based purely on an aspect of their birth. In return, everyone else does the same. Every Nuham lives their life with an aspect of their birth determining how others will see them. They also use the birth aspects of every other Nuham, when determining how they will treat them.

Ah, but why would that be a problem? Well, let's look at some potential events.

Image

Event 1. A red circle with blue-hands is found to be a thief. All Nuhams feel slightly less love for all of the reds, all of the circles and all of the blue-hands. To varying degrees, obviously. The reds don't feel less love for the reds... they do, however, feel like the greens will expect the reds to be less trustworthy. This is also true of circles and the blue hands. Most especially, however, nobody trusts this red circle with the blue hands.

Image

Event 2. A red triangle with pink-hands is a compassionate Nuham and befriends the red circle with the blue hands, who now likes triangles and pink hands more than it did before. It especially likes this particular red triangle with pink hands. The other compassionate Nuhams also think highly of this red triangle with the pink hands. The non-compassionate Nuhams are another matter entirely.


Image

Event 3. A red triangle with blue-hands, enraged at the theft by the red circle with the blue hands for lowering the opinion of all reds, by all greens... well, it is even more outraged by a red triangle befriending that thief. That thief, after all, had stolen property belonging to it. The red triangle with the blue hands kills both the red circle with the blue hands and the red triangle with the pink-hands. Reds are seen as even more untrustworthy than they already were. The greens, not involved in any of this tragedy, think of themselves as better Nuhams than any of the reds. Apart from the green triangles, who share the same trust-parameters as the red triangle with the pink hands and the red triangle with the blue hands; the murdered and the murderer.

Advance these (and similar) events across a broad period of time. As each generation of Nuhams leaves their egg, they are instilled with the expectations that society has for it. It also knows its own place in that society. all because of the shape of their body and the colour of that body... and their hands. All things that were bestowed at birth, in the absence of choice. All because of the differences; never ignored and never forgotten.

Image

Timeline 2

You decide to follow the methodology of Brian Barry (Culture and Equality), who saw the separation of rights as a totally illiberal thing to do. Surely, when offering people equality, it is important to concentrate on what is equal amongst them, rather than finding, highlighting and fixating on those differences. I left another subtle clue as to what type of society that would produce.

Image

Welcome to the Nuham Race... all Nuhams treated as what they are; nothing less and nothing more.

Throw any event in here that you like; the end result will be the same. Nuhams have no expectation of others (or themself) based on their shape, the colour of that shape, nor the colour of their hands.


Saying "we are the same" is a much stronger position than saying "we are different".


Fight the memes you were raised with. Look at those two societies and tell me which is better. If you can't agree on something as simple as that, the rest of what I have to say need not be said.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Problems of RedCelt Humanism as an alternative to Femini

Postby wild_quinine on Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:43 pm

Look at those two societies and tell me which is better. If you can't agree on something as simple as that, the rest of what I have to say need not be said.


Well, of course I agree that the second society is better. You’ve told me that it is, and you’ve indicated that everyone gets along, and nobody judges them unfairly, and that Jesus himself approves. There’s a picture of all the cute little Nuhams together, basically holding hands. You’ve also told me that the first society is shit, and all the pictures look formal and beaurocratic. And heck, look at the drop shadow on that turd.

However, there’s probably never been a more appropriate use of the term intuition pump. Because I think that, one good criticism aside, you've led towards a conclusion without really explaining much.

Timeline 1

To summarise: identifying differences actually leads to prejudice, because it enables and entrenches stereotypes

1) Your criticism of Timeline 1

Can you show that this problem would actually happen as described? You’ve identified a vector by which it might very well occur, and I agree that it is a good criticism. But does it happen this way? And if so, does it never happen that the same situation leads to the opposite effect?

Note that I might well say something else, like:

“Understanding differences is a key to understanding how people are similar. We do share a lot, but at first glance this doesn’t necessarily appear to be the case. That can lead to disagreements over superficial things. However, it is only by experiencing different things on their own terms, and sharing those different experiences, that you can come to appreciate many of the underlying similarities, and/or the value of those differences in and of themselves.”

So which is what really happens? What you suggest, what I suggest, or a bit of both. If both, how much of both? Or is it that both arguments are imperfect?

And do stereotypes only form this way? Or do stereotypes form for other reasons, as well? Do they form in other types of society? What does history tell us? Does Timeline 1 lead to good effects overall? Does this one problem completely undermine the entire foundation of the society, so that we should pooh-pooh it completely? (Har Har).

Can you even show that these problems occur more when differences are identified than when they are not? Isn’t the problem that differences are assumed, rather than identified? Isn’t it therefore more dangerous to identify no differences, in a society where some things will *appear* to be different?

Can you show that this discord if it occurs, is worse than the alternatives? Is it more harmful than failing to identify differences? Is it more harmful than being authoritarian about difference?

Is it avoidable in any case? Human nature identifies differences. We’re naturally tribalistic. Can you show that the problem with Timeline 1 wouldn’t happen anyway?

If it would, wouldn’t a solution which uses our inherent difference spotting productively be better than one which denies that instinct an outlet?

Relatedly, can you show that this whole issue doesn’t also occur in a real-world Timeline 2 scenario?

What about all the other criticisms of sameness vs. difference?

What about all the other criticisms, period?

2) Egalitarianism as in Timeline 1 is not necessarily about different rights for different people.

You don’t necessarily need to create multiple systems of separate rights to disagree with Brian Barry. I’m not necessarily talking about positive discrimination or affirmative action when I talk about opportunities egalitarianism – in fact, I don’t much like such purported solutions, because they prejudice decisions against individual people based on who they are, in the name of a larger social goal – which is the very same problem that opportunities egalitarianism aims to correct.

However, maintaining the equal right to do something that one particular set of people are more likely to benefit from, is not actually an equal situation. It’s entirely possible to have one set of rules, rights, or social norms, which are applied to all people, which are prejudiced against some of those people. I assume that this is not in dispute?

So the next logical step in the argument is: is it possible to have a set of rules which disproportionately advantages one set of people in a way that is *non-obvious* to people within that set? And I’m strongly inclined to think that this is the case. See the case of privilege.
Again.


Timeline 2

To summaraise: concentrating on what is equal amongst people leads to a much better society, because… well, something.


1) Timeline 2 doesn’t show us how it works, even under ideal conditions. I don’t know if you’ve got some fantastic philosophical argument which puts all the pieces of Timeline 2 together, but right now it looks like a black box which apparently outputs the perfect society. Unless you’re planning on starting a religion, I think we need more.

I’m sure it’s not as simple as ‘if we didn’t pick over differences we’d all get along swimmingly and nobody would ever be discriminated against unfairly and everyone would be perfectly egalitarian about everything’, but I can’t identify any stronger argument than that.

2) You’re *not* in the position of starting a society.

Let us assume that your Brian Barry ideals are absolutely the correct foundations for creating a more equal society. I don’t even think that’s the case, but let’s assume. How does it help? You’re not in the position of starting a society. You’re in the position of – at best - changing an existing one.

You’ve got to work with what you’ve got. What you’ve got to work with is a society which already resembles Timeline 1. That reasonable analogue of Timeline 1 has produced the most fair, liberated, equitable society that we’ve so far achieved in all of human history.

To identify problems with it is one thing, and I’m all for it. To reject it utterly in favour of something that doesn’t even have moving parts is another: as far as I can see, Timeline 2 doesn’t, maybe can’t, fix anything that’s already broken, and that’s assuming that it even does what it says on the tin.

In fact, the single criticism you have offered of Timeline 1 is a problem for you, too: it is essentially an explanation of how privileged positions can evolve in a society.

You may reject the kind of politics which gives rise to this, but you haven’t magically banished such situations from the world. You’re still not providing any pragmatic solutions for resolving such a situation after the fact – which is, of course, where we are.

No, what you’d need to do is explain how in a society which already, clearly, does favour certain groups above others, you can bring about your equal society of homogenous sameness without exacerbating the problems you’ve identified. And I simply don’t think that you can do this in a system which is authoritarian about sameness.

3) Aren’t you assuming that the differences between all your little Nuhams are unimportant for the egalitarian project? And, in so doing, aren’t you assuming quite a lot? If you want to argue that nothing we do not all have in common has any place in our structure of rights, then any one difference which we do not all have in common, and which does impact equality, suddenly becomes a complete undoing of your theory.

4) Your system is *horribly* open to abuse. If one generally cannot/does not consider the effects of difference, then those who break the rules and do so will benefit disproportionately.

In a society in which we are all considered equals, if the weight of that equality is moved to favour a particular set of people, there’s not much you can do about it without acknowledging and working on the basis of difference.

If I lived in your society, and I was out for myself, I would make every effort to ensure that myself, and my kin, were just a little bit more equal than our peers, and then there wouldn’t be a damn thing you could do about it without breaking your own rules.

You end up in this Orwellian situation where it’s not really even possible to formulate your objection to my improved status without breaking the codified social rules of sameness beats difference.

What that means is that those who are willing to break those rules, and make advantage in so doing, keep that advantage from everyone except other people willing to break the rules.

The meek shall not inherit your earth, in other words. And if your egalitarianism does not provide some protections from this kind of situation, then what exactly does it do?

This is the absolute worst case scenario: the people who live according to your system of sameness are in the worst possible position in your society.

Final thoughts:

I don’t like where Iris Young ends up, but she does some good work identifying problems. A large part of Iris Marion Young’s criticism of Universalist positions is in their historical use by biased social movements. For example, she talks about the Western-centric culture which devalued deviations from some idealised Western appearance, which led to theories of ‘degeneration’ and the very real pseudoscience of eugenics.

Those problems haven’t gone away. Of course I’m not saying that these are the beliefs which you have, or that you support eugenics.

What I am saying is that the degree to which your beliefs are qualified by your paradigm is information which is unlikely to be significantly more available to you, than it was to people in the 19th century.

We have better tools for our theoretical work of course, such as those introduced by Rawls. But the idea that suddenly, for the first time in history, we are completely aware of everything that affects our viewpoints and goals, and can finally formulate by reason alone the one true answer to the human condition is naïve, and arrogant.

The fact is that there is a great deal of subjectivity, disagreement, and doubletalk about what equality really amounts to in the real world.

That’s a problem for both of our viewpoints, of course. But it’s a lot more of a problem for yours, because my viewpoint recognises those differences and plumbs them for value, whereas your absolutist worldview is harmed by each and every viable difference of opinion.
wild_quinine
User avatar
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 11:57 pm


Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

cron