Human relations are particular. I form connections to X, Y and Z based on their (and my) goals, qualities and situations. Such things vary endlessly, so human relations vary endlessly as well, in ways that can’t be controlled or even defined in any comprehensive way.
Liberals believe in nondiscrimination and inclusion. Nondiscrimination and inclusion forbid distinctions, and so are a matter of making all relations among human beings identical. It follows that unless nondiscrimination and inclusion are defined narrowly (for example, to require that everyone be charged the same price for a can of tuna fish) they are radically at odds with human life as it is inevitably carried on.
The problem is that liberalism cannot define nondiscrimination and inclusion in a limited and practical way, because for liberals they substitute for religion and so must be infinite. It is for that reason that any discrimination at all has come to be viewed as an intolerable evil that pollutes whatever it touches and must be rooted out at whatever cost.
Hence the tendency of advanced liberalism to become tyrannical and obscurantist. People can’t be allowed to govern themselves or think for themselves in any serious matter, because the way they live must perpetually be purified from the consequences of natural human tendencies basic to all human relationships. All human relations everywhere must constantly be straightened out comprehensively, in detail, and if necessary by force.
Here, consequently, are some indications of the direction things are heading in connection with the current campaign to make homosexuality identical in significance to normal sexuality:
- The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned that clergy who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication on homosexual activity could face prosecution under “incitement to hatred” legislation. In case you were wondering, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties thinks that’s a good idea.
- “Gay rights” advocates working at the UN put on a conference, Kofi Annan attending, planning ways and means to push the gay agenda into international law and practice.
- And in England, a couple of Anglican clerics took a more direct approach, physically assaulting a Kenyan Bishop for opposing the Gene Robinson appointment.
The consolation in all this is that a comprehensive system of tyranny that opposes natural human tendencies won’t work and won’t last. It can do a lot of damage, though, and the example of the ex-communist countries shows that the damage can be very lasting. For the sake of humanity, therefore, we must fight it every way we can.
I disagree with a number
I disagree with a number of Mr. Kalb’s assertions.
1.) “Non-discrimination and Inclusion forbid distinctions, and so are a matter of making human relations the same.”
— This is illogical on a very basic level. First, it implies that exclusion and discrimination are diversifying agents. Exclusion and discrimination have never been employed to expand and diversify a system. Second, anti-discrimination policies are not directed at the “natural” differentiations that humans might make in the course of their lives. They are directed at the legitimating of those subjective decisions by law. Having the right to be intolerant does not preclude the right to legislate that intolerance.
2.) “Any discrimination at all has therefore come to be viewed as an intolerable evil that pollutes whatever it touches and must be rooted out at whatever cost.”
— Discrimination is an “intolerable evil” and it does deserve attack. It has no appropriate or acceptable level of occurrence. Once again, the right to make assumptions and value judgments in one’s life is not only acceptable but probably necessary. However, differentiation is not the same thing as discrimination; the first is personal and academic; the second is public and real. If discrimination of the kind that Mr. Kalb applauds were “natural” then there would be no Democracy of any kind on this planet.
I don’t see more to Mr. Kalb’s argument than these two assertions: 1.) Anti-discrimination and Inclusion preclude enforced homogeneity. 2.) Institutionalized discrimination is “natural” (and necessary) to Human society. It is valuable to note, however, that although his thesis is general and broad; his evidence is extremely narrow, owing its whole weight to Mr. Kalb’s resentment of homosexuality. Citing three randomly assembled “Queer conspiracies” is not sufficient to prove that socialized discrimination against gays, or against anyone for that matter, is acceptable and necessary. In fact, using such a weak argument is insulting to the case for gay and lesbian non-discrimination policies, which are argued silently by thousands of cases of violence, death, eviction, unemployment and ridicule. The realization of Gay and Lesbian rights is not a matter of convenience or benevolence; it is a matter for the continued health and prosperity of this nation and the world, just as all other cases for equal justice under the law. Most vital processes are also inconvenient; this should not be an argument against them.
“Exclusion and discrimination have never
“Exclusion and discrimination have never been employed to expand and diversify a system.”
Diversity implies distinctiveness, which implies exclusion. To be one thing in particular is to have particular qualities that exclude other qualities.
To give an example: part of the diversity of the world is the distinctiveness of Chinatown and Little Italy. If populations were reshuffled so that each neighborhood, and every business and institution within each neighborhood, included the same proportion of ethnic Italians and Chinese the world would be less diverse. However, if the two ethnicities are disproportionately concentrated in particular institutions and locations, the social structures that sustain those disproportionate concentrations are exclusionary in the same sense that any social structure resulting in radical ethnic disproportions is exclusionary.
In fact, every system of doing things that matters socially requires discrimination and exclusion because every system involves differentiation of function. Bureaucracies require differentiation of formal credentials, rank, and responsibility. Markets require differentiation in property. Family life requires sex, age and marital status differentiations. Religion requires differentiation regarding belief and authority. To differentiate, though, is to discriminate.
With that in mind, it seems clear that the cry against “discrimination” is in fact an attempt to do away with the social importance of every system for dealing with things except bureaucracy and the market. The public importance of family life, religion and particular culture is to be abolished, because those things (like every system) can’t function without making distinctions and thus discriminating.
I have no idea why the eradication of every aspect of social order not based solely on money or the rational application of state power is supposed to make the world more “diverse.”
“[A]nti-discrimination policies are not directed at the ‘natural’ differentiations that humans might make in the course of their lives. They are directed at the legitimating of those subjective decisions by law. Having the right to be intolerant does not preclude the right to legislate that intolerance.”
It is basic to anti-discrimination policies that people aren’t allowed to choose their associates. For example, if I hire someone to do something I might reasonably believe that I and the others involved will find it easier to cooperate and know more what to expect if there’s a common background. That belief, which is a natural differentiation, could reasonably play a role in deciding who to hire. Anti-discrimination policies say it can’t though.
“Discrimination is an ‘intolerable evil’ and it does deserve attack. It has no appropriate or acceptable level of occurrence.”
I’m grateful for confirmation that my view that liberal opposition to discrimination involves infinite aspirations is not overdrawn.
“[D]ifferentiation is not the same thing as discrimination; the first is personal and academic; the second is public and real. If discrimination of the kind that Mr. Kalb applauds were ‘natural’ then there would be no Democracy of any kind on this planet.”
I don’t understand. To make differentiations in one’s acts is to discriminate. And democracies discriminate. The war against discrimination requires ever more comprehensive and detailed regulation of social life by unelected officials. Rule by judges, bureaucrats, experts and therapists is not democracy.
“I don’t see more to Mr. Kalb?s argument than these two assertions: 1.) Anti- discrimination and Inclusion preclude enforced homogeneity.”
That’s not my argument. Anti-discrimination and inclusion in fact demand enforced homogeneity. Everything must be treated and made to become the same. For example, all sexual connections must be treated as having the same significance.
Does this plausible hypothetical illustrate
Does this plausible hypothetical illustrate why multiculturalism is destructive and causes conflict rather than reduces conflict?
Two white couples decide to go to Bravos Italian restaurant, which happens to be located in an all white part of the city. They like the restaurant for its food and atmosphere. A local multiculturalism group, nearly all Hispanic, decide they are going to end the de facto segregation at Bravos. The Hispanic group shows up early and fills half the restaurant. The Hispanic group has been very active and successful with its allies in raising taxes on the more affluent white citizens and in ensuring an overwhelming influx of illegal Hispanics. The white couples, after being seated, realize what is going on. They leave, but though experience, they know they have no other restaurant to go to. So they go to one of their houses.
The example Mr. Murgos gives
The example Mr. Murgos gives involves a change in a restaurant’s distinctive atmosphere — different people are there, who act differently, and there’s an aggressive political charge in the air that people don’t need at a restaurant. So people who used to like the place have no place to go.
One problem with the example is that it seems to involve a one-time event. Another is that ethnic turf battles aren’t multiculturalism. An ethnic group might make use multiculturalist ideology to advance its interests, but multiculturalism is something bureaucracies do and not something an ethnic pressure group does. The reason is that multiculturalism is the disruption of the common understandings that make it possible for an ethnic group (or for that matter almost any informal group) to act collectively and coherently. Since the informal common understandings that make informal common action possible are abolished only groups that are organized formally, hierarchically, and comprehensively — bureaucracies — can act.
A better restaurant example would be the following: Gianni has a successful Italian restaurant that mostly employs family members, relatives, and people from the old village back in Italy. Because of the common background it has a distinctive style of cooking and hospitality that people like, and it’s a big success. Then the EEOC comes calling and wants to know why the employees and management of the restaurant don’t reflect numbers of blacks, hillbillies, Cambodians and whatnot proportionate to their presence in the local population. Gianni doesn’t want to get sued out of existence, so he establishes an affirmative action program and in a very few years the restaurant looks like the EEOC idea of America.
The problem is that the habits, attitudes and sensibilities of the staff no longer have anything to do with Italy. So to maintain the Italian theme it all has to be formalized, scripted, written down and made industrial. As it happens large businesses are better at that sort of thing than small family operations. So Gianni sells out to Howard Johnson and his restaurant becomes the first in a new chain of Italian-themed HoJos.