But, something doesn't look right to you. You're troubled deep down in your spirit and suddenly it dawns on you. All the people you can see in the photos from the event appear to be men. Which is problematic enough in itself. But, to make matters worse, they are white men. You’re white. But you’re culturally sensitive. So you’re offended. You’re a millennial. Probably.
You comment. You have to. You ask the organiser why there is a lack of ethnic diversity at the event. Clearly, this is a problem that must be addressed. Your comment implies that the organiser has done something wrong. But you have an opportunity - nay a duty - to hold them to account. You didn’t solve anything. But you feel better. Probably.
Now, I wonder how many times comments like this have been made on social media posts? Millions, I would have thought. So pervasive is this way of thinking in our culture today.
So let's break down what's going on here for a moment. And, as usual, a proper understanding of aesthetics is rather enlightening.
Let’s imagine we’ve all seen this same Facebook post as described above. The men at the event who made it into the promo photos are all white. This is true for all to see. Our eyes are working at this stage. To notice or even state those facts is no issue.
So, is there a problem here? Should we feel offended like the hypothetic doom scroller from the intro or should our emotions resonate more with the clear happiness of the people who attended the event?
Well, we all know that this event didn’t happen by accident (nothing does, we know this by intuition as well as by experience. As I've written about before, the aesthetic dimension springs from a moral dimension. Moral produces aesthetic. You can read more about that here). So there is a reason this event has been attended by mostly white men. Yet, without knowing the reason, and having merely observed the aesthetics of this event, there are myriad possibilities why this event was almost exclusively attended by white men. Some of which could well be rather nefarious, some of which are not.
Now, suppose that like many others would do, you decide very quickly that the demographic of this event is indeed problematic and you are concerned. What are you concerned about though? Well, your concern reveals that whilst you don't yet know the reason for the particular demographic formation of this event, you have assumed it is the nefarious option, likely to be the deliberate exclusion of people from non-white ethnic backgrounds from attending this event, by the organiser. Now, if that were in fact the case, that would certainly account for a lack of ethnic diversity. It makes sense logically. Moreover, that would entirely justify your outrage. What a horrendous thing to do, to exclude people from an event due to the colour of their skin. There is a word for that. Racism. What's more, there is legislation in place to prevent people from excluding others in this way. It's a punishable offence. You'd be right to call that out. Noble in fact.
The thing is, you don't know that for certain. You don't know the true mindset of the organisers or what has motivated them. Therefore you are making scathing assumptions about the character of those running the organisation and the event. And, if you're wrong, your comments on the Facebook post are tantamount to slander.
So, are you right? Did you connect the aesthetic dimension to the correct moral dimension?
Or, are there any other aesthetic clues which might lead you to conclude that maybe this lack of diversity isn't a problem? (Is that even a possibility in your mind?)
Well, you know the organiser is a Christian institution and that the event is for Christians. It's easily discernible that the event is rather new on the scene and that its popularity is likely limited to the modest (yet growing) reach of the organisation. The event is mainly for church leaders. And the event was held in England. From these facts at the very least you can discern a few things 1) It's pretty safe (if not fool proof) to assume that Christians aren't deliberately excluding others based on ethnicity 2) Church leaders interested in this particular event are likely to be, by conviction, men 3) the event is likely to attract mostly white male church leaders due to the scale, the publicity and the demographic of the country the event is held in. Therefore you have good reason to expect this to be an event attended by mostly white men without any prejudice against those from different ethnic backgrounds having occurred.
So, why have you made the comment you have made? Well, it's because you have fallen into the mindset trap that so many modern people have fallen into. You have learned to form your moral stance not from the moral realm where it actually exists, but from the aesthetic realm. You have an aesthetics-derived morality which, really, is a contradiction in terms. You have become trained to observe aesthetic qualities (which you are good at) without any regard to the moral entities they sprang from. So, when you need to discern a reason for why things happen, you are able to impose your own moral ideas underneath your aesthetic observations - any that happen to fit logically. As I said earlier, it is possible that an all-white event was held because non-whites were deliberately excluded. It is also possible that no non-white people turned up because the scope of the event did not reach any non-white people who were interested in the event. The same aesthetic expression can spring from different moral origins. Or to put it another way: don’t judge a book by its cover. Thinking like this is appealing, however, because it allows us to choose the narrative we want to drive, giving us power and credibility over those we wish to influence. I suppose all that is to say, you have engaged in specious reasoning.
Diversity is one word in particular that has been weaponised of late, in order to undermine those who think differently than us. You see it a lot. Just have a look at any media interview or debate on YouTube that has people of opposing views. Guests will often attack their opponents by interpreting their arguments based on a literal definition (aesthetic realm) of the words used, rather than trying to discern what their opponent actually means (moral dimension) by those words. Which is something we ALL do by the way. English vernacular is built significantly upon the use of words and phrases clumsily, or colloquially, or just plain carelessly. For instance, if I said “that guitar is really cool” we all know I’m not insisting it has a low temperature. We know this even though the word ‘really’ is not literally a synonym for ‘very’ and that ‘cool’ is not literally a synonym for ‘attractive’. Throwing the ethnic diversity accusation around (at least in a context like that discussed above) is like responding to the comment “that guitar is really cool” by saying “no it’s not, it’s about room temperature”. It’s a focus on the aesthetic realm to the exclusion of the moral. And we must be careful not to do this. Because, quite frankly, that’s bullying 101.
Now, suppose that like many others would do, you decide very quickly that the demographic of this event is indeed problematic and you are concerned. What are you concerned about though? Well, your concern reveals that whilst you don't yet know the reason for the particular demographic formation of this event, you have assumed it is the nefarious option, likely to be the deliberate exclusion of people from non-white ethnic backgrounds from attending this event, by the organiser. Now, if that were in fact the case, that would certainly account for a lack of ethnic diversity. It makes sense logically. Moreover, that would entirely justify your outrage. What a horrendous thing to do, to exclude people from an event due to the colour of their skin. There is a word for that. Racism. What's more, there is legislation in place to prevent people from excluding others in this way. It's a punishable offence. You'd be right to call that out. Noble in fact.
The thing is, you don't know that for certain. You don't know the true mindset of the organisers or what has motivated them. Therefore you are making scathing assumptions about the character of those running the organisation and the event. And, if you're wrong, your comments on the Facebook post are tantamount to slander.
So, are you right? Did you connect the aesthetic dimension to the correct moral dimension?
Or, are there any other aesthetic clues which might lead you to conclude that maybe this lack of diversity isn't a problem? (Is that even a possibility in your mind?)
Well, you know the organiser is a Christian institution and that the event is for Christians. It's easily discernible that the event is rather new on the scene and that its popularity is likely limited to the modest (yet growing) reach of the organisation. The event is mainly for church leaders. And the event was held in England. From these facts at the very least you can discern a few things 1) It's pretty safe (if not fool proof) to assume that Christians aren't deliberately excluding others based on ethnicity 2) Church leaders interested in this particular event are likely to be, by conviction, men 3) the event is likely to attract mostly white male church leaders due to the scale, the publicity and the demographic of the country the event is held in. Therefore you have good reason to expect this to be an event attended by mostly white men without any prejudice against those from different ethnic backgrounds having occurred.
So, why have you made the comment you have made? Well, it's because you have fallen into the mindset trap that so many modern people have fallen into. You have learned to form your moral stance not from the moral realm where it actually exists, but from the aesthetic realm. You have an aesthetics-derived morality which, really, is a contradiction in terms. You have become trained to observe aesthetic qualities (which you are good at) without any regard to the moral entities they sprang from. So, when you need to discern a reason for why things happen, you are able to impose your own moral ideas underneath your aesthetic observations - any that happen to fit logically. As I said earlier, it is possible that an all-white event was held because non-whites were deliberately excluded. It is also possible that no non-white people turned up because the scope of the event did not reach any non-white people who were interested in the event. The same aesthetic expression can spring from different moral origins. Or to put it another way: don’t judge a book by its cover. Thinking like this is appealing, however, because it allows us to choose the narrative we want to drive, giving us power and credibility over those we wish to influence. I suppose all that is to say, you have engaged in specious reasoning.
Diversity is one word in particular that has been weaponised of late, in order to undermine those who think differently than us. You see it a lot. Just have a look at any media interview or debate on YouTube that has people of opposing views. Guests will often attack their opponents by interpreting their arguments based on a literal definition (aesthetic realm) of the words used, rather than trying to discern what their opponent actually means (moral dimension) by those words. Which is something we ALL do by the way. English vernacular is built significantly upon the use of words and phrases clumsily, or colloquially, or just plain carelessly. For instance, if I said “that guitar is really cool” we all know I’m not insisting it has a low temperature. We know this even though the word ‘really’ is not literally a synonym for ‘very’ and that ‘cool’ is not literally a synonym for ‘attractive’. Throwing the ethnic diversity accusation around (at least in a context like that discussed above) is like responding to the comment “that guitar is really cool” by saying “no it’s not, it’s about room temperature”. It’s a focus on the aesthetic realm to the exclusion of the moral. And we must be careful not to do this. Because, quite frankly, that’s bullying 101.
Sadly, diversity is not a word one can use innocuously anymore…
Let me ask, when you wish for more ethnic diversity, what do you mean? Well, you mean that you would like a broader representation of ethnic groups at this event. Even if you're happy to keep some of the white blokes, you probably would like an equal number of really dark-skinned people and medium-brown people. Then you would probably want some of Indian descent, some of Chinese descent, and some people who have that - darker than white but not really brown exactly - skin that people of Middle Eastern descent might have, say. And maybe some of the eastern Europeans with that lovely olive complexion just for good measure. (If you're being pedantic you could make sure that the event you hold next will be split proportionately like the country as a whole, figures of which can be viewed here).
But again I ask, what kind of diversity are you after? Are you after ethnic group diversity or genetic diversity? What's the difference you ask? Well, think about it like this. If you're after a skin tone rainbow at every event, where you get to see a spectrum of dark brown to pasty white every time, well, you actually have to make sure those ethnic groups don't mix by intermarrying. If in 100 years you'd be delighted to see a diversity of skin tone at your events, you have to make sure that the ethnic groups distinguished by their various skin tones don't in fact diversify. You’d want them to keep to themselves - or segregate if you will - so that the various skin tones are preserved as the populations grow. Then you can pool them all back together periodically for your virtue-signalling events. If you want to see diversity in the aesthetic realm, you actually need to prevent it at the moral level. Now, if I were to accuse you in real life of being pro-racial segregation based on a few quick social media comments, you’d be rightly offended. That would be hugely unfair because I suspect, and am happy to assume, that you did not mean to imply such a belief, despite how clumsy your language was. But, if I did accuse you of that, I would not have been more unfair to you than you have been to this event organiser. Both our accusations are equally spurious, having been derived from the aesthetic realm with no regard for the moral. That’s why we need to be critical thinkers. Logical does not necessarily equal truth. Yet we must always be careful to consider the logical implications of our ideas and assumptions. Take those initial comments on the Facebook post, for instance. A person says “there are not enough different ethnic groups here” could cynically, yet logically, be interpreted as “there are too many white people here”. And the desire to see the decrease in numbers of one ethnic group is much closer in ideology to the Nazis than Gary Linaker suggested the Tories are.
If you want genetic diversity, however - a much nobler pursuit I might add - then what's going to happen is a distinct lack of diversity shown at the aesthetic level. The idea that people from all different backgrounds and ethnicities intermarrying and reproducing is a delightful notion that demonstrates our shared humanity and a love for those who are different on the outside (aesthetic) because we all share much more in common on the inside (moral).
A glorious thing to pursue. Yet, if you mix those with dark skin and those with pale skin, for instance, then you get neither dark nor light - but a sort of tanned look that you'd be hard-pressed to describe as white or black (the Duchess of Sussex being a prime example). The more you mix the gene pool, the more the children are slightly darker than half of their parents and slightly paler than the other half. Eventually, diversity will lead to a lack of distinction and you’ll have one large group of people that look increasingly like one another (how dare they). The rainbow is less defined, but the diversity really has increased.
I happen to think this is happening quite conspicuously, by the way. Just look at English footballers as a quick and easy test case. Kyle Walker, Jadon Sanch, Dominic Calvert-Lewin, Dwight McNeil, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Jude Bellingham, for instance. Google any of those names followed by the word 'parents' and see what the results yield! One dark-skinned parent and one pale-skinned parent. Of course, these blokes aren't identical, but they all follow the pattern I have just described. Arguably, that's what true diversity is like and not something we shouldn’t expect in this gloriously mixed-up country we live in. But, if groups of men who all happen to have the same skin colour is a problem for you, then perhaps diversity isn’t really for you…
Now, two quick things to end on which highlight just how ridiculous all of this diversity language is.
Firstly, there is more than enough genetic information out there than you can possibly comprehend. Any given sperm cell is one of about 8,000,000 possible combinations (of maternal/paternal chromosomes), so, when that sperm cell is united with an egg cell that is also 1 of 8,000,000 combinations, the resulting diploid zygote (early-stage embryo) is one of over 64,000,000,000,000 possible combinations of the genes of the two parents. That means YOU were a 1 in 64,000,000,000,000 possibility from the sexual encounter that created you. You can read more about that here. Also, consider that the genetic difference between any two people is less than 1%, you realise that the ethnic diversity that exists is such a tiny part of who we actually are. We are all at the same time, massively varied and incredibly alike. The “lack of diversity” claim then is a pretty darn meaningless accusation.
Second, skin tone is pretty much the biggest aesthetic indicator you’re looking for when you seek diversity. However, colour is less a matter of matter and more a matter of perception. Colour is found at the high-frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and is simply the point at which said electromagnetic radiation becomes visible. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Visible light covers the 750-420 terahertz range of the electromagnetic spectrum and is white. Within this range, the white light comprises a literal rainbow of colour, ranging from red at the low end of the frequency to violet at the high end of the frequency. Physical materials reflect and absorb light. What we perceive as dark colours are surfaces which absorb a lot of light and reflect very little of it. Paler colours don't absorb much light and reflect a lot of it. Red is when an object absorbs all light which does not fall into the red band of the spectrum leaving only red to be reflected. So you can see that colour is something rather intangible. Therefore to make value or even category judgements based on something as arbitrary as colour - merely the level of light reflection/absorption quality of a surface - is pretty flimsy, right? To claim a lack of diversity because you fail to observe a range of skin tones is to complain that there aren’t enough people who reflect very little light from their skin. I know that's a bit ridiculous, but I think it makes the point. Colour isn't really anything at all and I wish for us to stop talking about skin colour as if it imbues us with something significantly different than a person of a different skin tone. It affects nothing, apart from, perhaps, how much sun tan lotion we need to wear.
Yes, I’m being rather pedantic and I fully understand that I’m focussing more on the words you’ve said than what you might have meant by them. I could be bullying. But, as I’ve tried to explain throughout, the difference is intent! A little well-meaning scientific understanding can be rather illuminating (pun intended). A little more thoughtfulness can keep one from making such superficial comments. The most important thing is to look beyond the aesthetics to the correct moral realm reason for what is being observed.
Comments
Post a Comment