I like the way you clarify the discourse around 'equality' and 'equity,' and point out the oversimplifications (stereotyping) that smuggle in a larger agenda.
I try to approach the issue at a more fundamental level and uncover the basic motivations for such behavior. I would very much like to hear you thoughts on what I have brought together:
I completely agree with your line: "We see... a tendency to focus on language rather than the underlying reality, because it is easier to bend language toward a preferred conclusion when the underlying reality is ignored". Perhaps I should clarify that what I try to do here is focus on the substance of things ("the underlying reality"), and not the language for its own sake. I try to clarify existing discourse vis-à-vis this reality/substance, and I share your worry that language has been co-opted to advance all kinds of incoherent and damaging agendas while obscuring the reality of things and ignoring plain facts.
Where we differ, perhaps, is in that I'm less interested in tracing the historical origins of these contemporary thought/cultural currents, or in the psychological motivations of the people involved (except when those are directly useful for clarifying what their substantive claims—or lack thereof—actually are). From my perspective, these are not directly relevant for understanding the substance of the discourse, nor for criticizing it or directly engaging with it. And for all I know you can't always hope to pin down a specific historical/contemporary thought or cultural current, or a psychological motivation, that you'd be able to confidently say a particular speaker/movement is influenced by, especially when very large and versatile cultural currents/movements (or just psychologically complex people!) are concerned. (You can understand from this that nor do I think that these historical/psychological explanations are more fundamental, at least not in a way that is important for understanding the substance of contemporary social justice discourse).
So, as for your particular claim about the "reductionist" views underlying this discourse: I tend to share the thought that some of this is influenced by something along the lines of the rejection, at least on the rhetorical level, of moral and normative realism/objectivism (i.e., the claim that there are moral features that are independent of people's subjective attitudes, social "positionalities", etc; and related claims about the existence of things like ethical and aesthetic values, virtues, meaningful experiences, etc.), and that this is often accompanied by a hopeless attempt to anchor moral claims (that pre-suppose a version of moral realism/objectivism) in social identities, instincts, and all kinds of arbitrary and irrelevant things. I'm not sure, however, that this is the only thing that's going on in terms of the historical/psychological origins of contemporary discourse. (Nor do I think that there's necessarily one, or even several easily identifiable, origins of current discourse, or identifiable historical origins that are "to blame for" the sad state of current affairs).
All of this doesn't mean that I think that tracing these origins and discussing them is unimportant, or uninteresting. I think it contributes a lot to understanding many things, only in a more indirect manner.
I like the way you clarify the discourse around 'equality' and 'equity,' and point out the oversimplifications (stereotyping) that smuggle in a larger agenda.
I try to approach the issue at a more fundamental level and uncover the basic motivations for such behavior. I would very much like to hear you thoughts on what I have brought together:
https://personalism.substack.com/p/index-librorum-et-notitiarum-oblitterorum
Thanks! and thanks for your essay as well.
I completely agree with your line: "We see... a tendency to focus on language rather than the underlying reality, because it is easier to bend language toward a preferred conclusion when the underlying reality is ignored". Perhaps I should clarify that what I try to do here is focus on the substance of things ("the underlying reality"), and not the language for its own sake. I try to clarify existing discourse vis-à-vis this reality/substance, and I share your worry that language has been co-opted to advance all kinds of incoherent and damaging agendas while obscuring the reality of things and ignoring plain facts.
Where we differ, perhaps, is in that I'm less interested in tracing the historical origins of these contemporary thought/cultural currents, or in the psychological motivations of the people involved (except when those are directly useful for clarifying what their substantive claims—or lack thereof—actually are). From my perspective, these are not directly relevant for understanding the substance of the discourse, nor for criticizing it or directly engaging with it. And for all I know you can't always hope to pin down a specific historical/contemporary thought or cultural current, or a psychological motivation, that you'd be able to confidently say a particular speaker/movement is influenced by, especially when very large and versatile cultural currents/movements (or just psychologically complex people!) are concerned. (You can understand from this that nor do I think that these historical/psychological explanations are more fundamental, at least not in a way that is important for understanding the substance of contemporary social justice discourse).
So, as for your particular claim about the "reductionist" views underlying this discourse: I tend to share the thought that some of this is influenced by something along the lines of the rejection, at least on the rhetorical level, of moral and normative realism/objectivism (i.e., the claim that there are moral features that are independent of people's subjective attitudes, social "positionalities", etc; and related claims about the existence of things like ethical and aesthetic values, virtues, meaningful experiences, etc.), and that this is often accompanied by a hopeless attempt to anchor moral claims (that pre-suppose a version of moral realism/objectivism) in social identities, instincts, and all kinds of arbitrary and irrelevant things. I'm not sure, however, that this is the only thing that's going on in terms of the historical/psychological origins of contemporary discourse. (Nor do I think that there's necessarily one, or even several easily identifiable, origins of current discourse, or identifiable historical origins that are "to blame for" the sad state of current affairs).
All of this doesn't mean that I think that tracing these origins and discussing them is unimportant, or uninteresting. I think it contributes a lot to understanding many things, only in a more indirect manner.