You're viewing a single thread.
This guy is misleading. The left is "obsessed" with representation in "high status positions" because "high status" is a proxy for power and influence, i.e. the positions that craft the systems the affect everyone else. The systems that have been constructed and maintained over the years aggregately prefer cis straight white men.
To be fair, I don't think the Left's focus on high status positions will achieve the equality we think it will. It's a much better idea to focus on improving the earliest segments of the pipeline, making sure everyone has equal access to good education, healthcare, jobs, etc. If you build up populations from the ground, you wind up with a populace that equally competitive for the top positions in our society. The problem is neither Rupublicans or Democrats are actually interested in this approach, because it takes time, and thus won't produce results they can use to get reelected. I think term limits for senators, representatives, and supreme court justices would go a long way to eroding corruption in the federal government.
I agree, the populace needs to be taken care of and empowered. However, those supports are beholden to the systems set and maintained by those with power i.e. the "high status" positions I refer to. There's no lifting up a populace with a system that's designed to keep them down. You need a change in the people with power to create change in the systems in a way that can actually help people. That includes getting people into power that are not just sympathetic to a variety of groups, but who are part of those groups so they can bring their lived experience and visible representation to the places where meaningful decisions are made.
That includes getting people into power that are not just sympathetic to a variety of groups, but who are part of those groups so they can bring their lived experience and visible representation to the places where meaningful decisions are made.
See, that's what I disagree with. It's not necessary. Desirable perhaps, but not necessary for the changes to be made. Plenty of cishet White men have voted to improve the rights of women, LGBT folks, and racial minorities. I think people who tout the importance of "lived experience" often underestimate the power of empathy. Diversifying the demographics of those in power is certainly an outcome worth working for, but it's not necessary for the much more pragmatic and important issues of ensuring people have equal rights and opportunities. In fact, that diversification tends to follow when said equal rights and opportunities are achieved (or at least made significant progress). Barrack Obama became president (among other reasons) because a bunch of White people (many of whom were at the highest levels of power in the U.S.) were ready for a Black president. There aren't that many trans people in positions of power or influence, and yet they've had a comparably meteoric rise when it comes to their recognition and rights.
Representation is important, but I don't think it's as crucial as some people think. Conversations, speaking up, and empathy are much more central to progressive change IMO.
I agree that technically it's not necessary; very few things are. But that begs the question, why settle for a proxy? There are many who are willing and able to represent in an equally competent way, but with the advantage of being closer to the issues. There's nothing stopping those individuals from starting the same conversations and advocating for speaking up and empathy in the same way, they are just less likely to need a figurative, and sometimes literal, translator.
You've avoided saying explicitly whether aiming for more than what's "necessary" would be detrimental to overall efforts for progressive change, but the obvious implication of the argument is "yes". The whole "perfect is the enemy of good" thing. Something like "leverage the current not-so-representative individuals in power to solve the issues because getting new, more representative people in would be" somewhere between "wasteful" and "token", depending on who's talking. I believe this is the case not because it's what works, but because we've landed here after aiming for better. The middle outcome will always be the winning one. Aim for the middle and the winning outcome will just be worse.
Additionally, the reason I specifically mention visible representation is because of how much visibility plays a part in inspiring and motivating action from the people that identify with that visible person. The backgrounds and history of these people are known and it's a significant thing to see the background you share with them not only acknowledged, but vindicated as something that didn't hold them back in finding success.
You likely won't agree with me, but I don't believe it's morally right to combat the effects of racism with what some these days call "positive discrimination." It creates a myriad of negative societal effects, from upsetting those who feel they're being discriminated against (i.e. some White men) and creating the impression (accurate or not) that the person given the position isn't competent. So, I do think there are negative consequences to doing this and I don't think they're worth it, as I don't think inserting people into top positions actually does all that much to hasten the process of integration. Yes, the appearance of diversity might inspire some, but if they too know the person was shoed-into the spot by a diversity effort, that effect will also be diluted. The reason Barrack Obama's win in 2008 was so inspiring and great was because it signaled to the rest of the African-American community that enough barriers had been broken down in society that this could happen. It was a sign of progress because Obama won the election the legitimate way. If he had somehow been ushered into the spot in some fashion that made it even just seem like he was given preferential treatment, it wouldn't have had the same effect.
Nobody is "inserting" or "shoe-horning" anyone anywhere they don't belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They're just not given a fair shot.
Now depending on how used to the traditional landscape of power some people are, a legitimately fair shot may appear like some sinister replacement theory-like plot, but that's not justice and you can't please everyone anyway. There's only so much identity a group can strategically yield before they've lost the issues they originally wanted solved.
America voted for Obama in part because he was an actual option. When people are made aware there are options for better representation, they'll take them.
Nobody is “inserting” or “shoe-horning” anyone anywhere they don’t belong. My argument has always been that systems of power have artificially, non-meritocratically, prevented competent and able people from gaining positions of power or influence because of their membership to a particular group. They’re just not given a fair shot.
I understand the problem, but pressuring employers to meet quotas for diversity goals absolutely does result in employees being selected at least in part based on their demographic characteristics, which is not meritorious either.
I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this. So, thanks for the conversation, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.