4 ms·

We have to choose between two worlds: a world where nobody cares about our differences, or a world where we celebrate everyone's differences. The mid-century A

by scoofy 2y ago

We have to choose between two worlds: a world where nobody cares about our differences, or a world where we celebrate everyone's differences. The mid-century American civil rights movement was based on the former. The modern movement seems to want the latter. The problem is that these two positions are subtly in conflict with each other. The former erases identities, the latter reinforces them. The both have similar goals, but they present very different ways of living and very different social norms, which is why I see them both as potentially high-conflict norms when visiting other cultures.

happytoexplain 2y ago
We certainly do not have to choose between those two extremes. More importantly, you said: - One side wants nobody to care about our differences, and that erases identity. - The other side wants to celebrate everyone's differences, and that reinforces identity. This seems unrealistic, and the wording is starkly one-sided (in terms of painting one side as "wrong" and the other as "right"). You're splitting on the right metric, but the wrong dimension. One side wants nobody to care about our differences in negative contexts ("X people are bad in some way", "Y people are better than X people"), and wants to celebrate our differences in positive contexts (cultural exposure, diversity, etc). However, some of the details are often unrealistically idealistic. The other side wants to neither ignore nor celebrate differences. This side is simpler, and has real benefits, but makes more room for the human tendency to express difference-based negativity, which ranges from understandable to horrifying. However, it doesn't suffer from as much of the complication of idealism.
- scoofy 2y ago
  Again, I would argue that we do have to choose. I also think that the tension between these positions is what is causing quite a bit of conflict in American politics right now. There is an essentialism inherent with these contexts. Just like French"ness" or British"ness", we have white"ness" or black"ness", and it can be applied to any race, sexual preference, or gender identity, etc., etc. This view has practical limits, and where those are drawn is important, because we run into trouble with the "green eyes"-ness brought up by the previous poster. And, there is ultimately a conflict that comes from this. Non-essentialists would argue that the attributes that make up these differences are effectively accidental, so eliminating the differences is arbitrary, and perfectly reasonable. This means that nothing is lost when one context is adopted by the other. Different people have different views on this though. This also means that for the non-essentialist, negative-based differences must also be accidental, which is an important difference, and while essentialists may want to eliminate the negative-based differences, there is a sense in which the essentialist view endorses the idea that they must exist. Practically speaking though, when we have people participating outside of their context, does the essentialism evaporate? Should it? That is to say, if white people start moving into a Chinatown, does it ever stop being an "Asian neighborhood"? At what point does it stop? Should we try to preserve it? If we do, is it right to discriminate in doing that? This is the conflict between acculturation, assimilation, and amalgamation? Essentialist views often see mass adoption as acculturation. Non-essentialists see it as amalgamation. These are subtle differences, but they yield vastly different policy prescriptions.

by scoofy 2y ago

happytoexplain 2y ago

We certainly do not have to choose between those two extremes. More importantly, you said: - One side wants nobody to care about our differences, and that erases identity. - The other side wants to celebrate everyone's differences, and that reinforces identity. This seems unrealistic, and the wording is starkly one-sided (in terms of painting one side as "wrong" and the other as "right"). You're splitting on the right metric, but the wrong dimension. One side wants nobody to care about our differences in negative contexts ("X people are bad in some way", "Y people are better than X people"), and wants to celebrate our differences in positive contexts (cultural exposure, diversity, etc). However, some of the details are often unrealistically idealistic. The other side wants to neither ignore nor celebrate differences. This side is simpler, and has real benefits, but makes more room for the human tendency to express difference-based negativity, which ranges from understandable to horrifying. However, it doesn't suffer from as much of the complication of idealism.

scoofy 2y ago
Again, I would argue that we do have to choose. I also think that the tension between these positions is what is causing quite a bit of conflict in American politics right now. There is an essentialism inherent with these contexts. Just like French"ness" or British"ness", we have white"ness" or black"ness", and it can be applied to any race, sexual preference, or gender identity, etc., etc. This view has practical limits, and where those are drawn is important, because we run into trouble with the "green eyes"-ness brought up by the previous poster. And, there is ultimately a conflict that comes from this. Non-essentialists would argue that the attributes that make up these differences are effectively accidental, so eliminating the differences is arbitrary, and perfectly reasonable. This means that nothing is lost when one context is adopted by the other. Different people have different views on this though. This also means that for the non-essentialist, negative-based differences must also be accidental, which is an important difference, and while essentialists may want to eliminate the negative-based differences, there is a sense in which the essentialist view endorses the idea that they must exist. Practically speaking though, when we have people participating outside of their context, does the essentialism evaporate? Should it? That is to say, if white people start moving into a Chinatown, does it ever stop being an "Asian neighborhood"? At what point does it stop? Should we try to preserve it? If we do, is it right to discriminate in doing that? This is the conflict between acculturation, assimilation, and amalgamation? Essentialist views often see mass adoption as acculturation. Non-essentialists see it as amalgamation. These are subtle differences, but they yield vastly different policy prescriptions.