Laser Cutters And Social Justice
We can't level a playing field by pretending it's already level. The laser cutter that I use is frequently mis-aligned, and cuts poorly unless I level the platform. Imagine if I keep getting bad lasering jobs, and instead of leveling the platform, I get mad because I feel all defensive and accused. "I'm in favor of a level playing field! I'm not the sort of person who pushes it out of level! Why would I do that?"
This is why there are two definitions of racism and sexism. By one definition, racism and sexism are deliberate choices, made by bad people, out of hostility and antagonism toward a group. By the other definition, racism and sexism are systems of unintentional disadvantages, resulting from the well-intentioned actions of good people, like you and me. If you don't understand why somebody told you that you did something racist or sexist, it might be the second kind.
The second kind is like my laser cutter's alignment.
I'm going to say something now that will be scary to many of you for a minute, but bear with me, and it will get less scary. Almost every time I use the laser cutter, I have to grab the higher end of the platform (whites, men, straights, Christians, able-bodied, thin, that's you), to keep it from rising, while I grab the lower end of the platform (non-whites, women, LBGTs, non-Christians, disabled, fat, that's you) and lift it up to the same height. That's how to get a level playing field.
Un-leveling mostly happens accidentally, passively, easily. Leveling happens deliberately, with energy and difficulty. I favor the lower side of the platform over the higher side until there is no longer a higher and lower. I can't do it by being "level-blind". If I'm "level-blind", I'm keeping the platform out of level. Breathe deeply while I say the next thing-- Are you ready? -- By the second definition, if you say "I'm color-blind", you are an unintentional racist.
If the higher end of the bed were a person, it would probably feel like it's being punished. If it only knows the first definition, un-leveling is only something that happens deliberately. It knows it's a good person who does not deliberately put the platform out of level. Therefore, it assumes the bed is already level. All it has to do is abstain from deliberately un-leveling it. Therefore, the laser must be cutting fine, and the resulting parts must have been intended to look that way. And even if it is out of level, isn't it the whole machine's fault? So change that! Or redefine the word "up" so the current alignment of the platform is the absolute reference frame of the planet Earth. Anything but putting my hand on top of the right side of the platform to prevent it rising while I raise the left side.
The right side of the bed will assume, since it believes that it's already level, that if it lowers, it will go out-of-level, and be lower than the left side. This is why, very early in any discussion of equality, the subject changes from helping a disadvantaged class, onto making sure the people who are already advantaged do not become a new persecuted class. We pay far too much attention to that. That is not what's at stake, but that doesn't even need to be said. Whites, men, straights, Christians, the able-bodied, and the thin, do not need to ask for reassurance about that.
If you want reassurance of that, just be on the lookout for your advantages. It takes time, but it's possible to start noticing them. Pretty soon you'll realize how wealthy with privileges you are, and you'll realize just how little it costs you to level the playing field. And that's the part where this concept becomes much less scary.
Comments
emmymau on May. 31, 2014 8:32 AM
Nicely analogie'd.
nicegeek on May. 31, 2014 8:15 PM
It's an interesting analogy, but many of the objections to redistributive policies are grounded in property rights, which the analogy fails to represent. From that perspective, it's more like there are two beds, one of which doesn't belong to you, and you're saying that you need to chop the legs of that bed down to make sure it's not higher than yours, because it's impermissible for people to have beds of different heights. If you want to argue in favor of redistribution, you first have to make the case that inequality is so fundamentally damaging to society that reducing it trumps protecting private property rights. That's the heart of the disagreement on this issue.
If you can get past that (no small task), then you wade into the thicket of trying to measure and evaluate inequality (income? education? life expectancy?), justify whose inequality merits special treatment (blacks? women? asians? gay hindus? native american transgendered wiccans? where do you draw the line?), and implement a practical rebalancing mechanism that actually addresses the problem without creating a host of unintended second-order side effects.
Unfortunately, I think this issue probably defies simple analogies.
atropis on Jun. 1, 2014 5:48 PM
Seconded!
matt-arnold on Jun. 1, 2014 6:48 PM
Let me tell you a story in way of example, and ask what you think about it.
The other day, Wyndsung and I were at a party, and at one point a guy told her "Smile!" She froze up and told him not to tell other people to fake happiness. He reacted in exactly the right way. He didn't get defensive, or bent out of shape. He said this was an opportunity to learn, and acted like learning is something he likes to do. She explained he had told her to fake her happiness, as if her real internal state was irrelevant, which is something men do to women because they're window dressing. If he really wanted to get to know her, he should never tell her to fake her pleasure in order to make him comfortable. He thanked her for giving him a perspective he never thought about before.
It never occurred to me that, instead of learning how to interact with people, he should get out his wallet and hand her cash. Is that what you are suggesting?
nicegeek on Jun. 1, 2014 8:38 PM
My comment was primarily addressing legislative and financial efforts to eliminate inequality. Which, while prompted by your last sentence about wealthy privilege, may be a bit of a tangent from your original intent for the post.
Back on point, I basically agree with the core argument in the article you linked. Implicit bias is certainly possible in many situations, and taking mitigation steps like blind-evaluating resume qualifications is perfectly sensible. But your post seems like it goes further than the article by advocating active "platform-leveling", and you lose me there; I feel that attempting to balance injustices in the past injustices by introducing injustices in the present is inappropriate.
Regarding your story, my initial thought was "I wonder how this story would be perceived if the genders were reversed?" Would a man told to "Smile!" be equally justified in taking offense?
In that context, I think "Smile!" has the generally accepted meaning of "I'm about to take a picture; please compose yourself in whatever way you would like to be preserved in the photograph". Saying "Smile!" is just shorter. What would your friend prefer for people to say in that situation?
matt-arnold on Jun. 1, 2014 9:36 PM
I told him at the time that if I see she's upset, I'd say to her, "You OK?" and I'd listen; and then I'd say "Anything I can do?" That tells her that I care about her happiness. It doesn't ask her for a performance of happiness for me to enjoy, which is what he did.
If the genders were reversed, it would be different, because the words have a different context based on cultural expectations. Men are not seen as having an obligation to be cheerful. In our culture, women are valued for being desirable, and men are valued for being necessary. We expect them to serve non-optional roles for someone, like protector, or provider. That's what men tend to say in their suicide notes when they are too old to do that.
The person who is indispensable is always the person who is in charge. The guy in this story has repeatedly put himself into the chivalrous role: the rescuer; the one who puts "ladies first", regardless of her wishes. He did not realize this obligates this to her, whether she wants to be obligated to him or not. There is always a price she'll pay for being put in the rescued role. What Wyndsung did in that story was to not let him establish those roles.
There was no payback, no revenge on him. This story didn't take anything from him to give to her; it held him in place and prevented her sinking, while she rose.
the-leewit on Jun. 5, 2014 4:12 PM
Actually, I think if the genders were reversed, "Please don't tell stranger falsify their emotional states," is in fact a reasonable thing to say.
the-leewit on Jun. 5, 2014 4:08 PM
Well said.
the-dark-snack on Jun. 17, 2014 3:14 PM
Happy Birthday!
Leave a Comment