The Age of
Aquarius, I have long been informed by some of the shining lights of the
astrological community of seers, is bringing about a higher level of social consciousness
and its translation into policies and practices that actualise the ideals of
social justice and equity. But the concerns are more at the abstract level than
borne of heart-felt compassion, and this is being reflected in the increasing ‘impersonalisation’
of delivery.
As with all prophets, the astrologers who first foretold these
developments were shrewd observers who divined the way the wind was blowing,
for we have indeed been moving over the past few decades into a new era of
social consciousness and associated action based on abstract notions of social
justice in which the focus has centred on arbitrarily defined social groups. With
it has come a concomitant degrading of the importance of the individual;
determinism is back in vogue – you are a White male and can therefore take no
credit for your successes in life (if you have achieved any); you are an
‘ethnic’ and/or a woman and it therefore isn’t your fault that you have made a
mess of it (if that’s what you’ve done). But given interventionist policies such
as race-based resource allocations and quota systems, Big Sister has been busy
making it all right. Equality of opportunity has given way to equality of
outcomes, achieved if necessary by creating a markedly unlevel playing field in
favour of groups deemed to have been disadvantaged.
The
dethroning of the individual in favour of the group as the quintessential unit
of society in the new sociopolitical dogma has been attended by a discernible
shift from ‘liberties’ to ‘rights’ in sociolegal thinking. A dichotomy that has
been entering law texts speaks of ‘negative liberties’ giving way to ‘positive
rights’; the pejorative ‘negative’ connotes disapproval. What does it all mean
in plain language? In a nutshell, the ‘liberty’ approach is laissez-faire: to
cite a classic English adage, “If it harms none, do as thou wilt”; say and do
whatever you fancy, as long as it does not impinge of others’ liberty to do the
same. This is not licence, for there are clear proscriptions on certain
activities that are enforced by criminal law, while civil law gives people whom
you may injure through your exercise of freedom of expression redress through
such actions as defamation. Still, the list of what you are not allowed to do
is short and precise. The ‘rights’ approach ostensibly takes a proactive
approach to protecting people from the excesses of others, but has a nasty
habit of becoming prescriptive by shifting the focus to what you are allowed to say and do, while
retaining – in practice, considerably adding to – the list of no-no’s.
The
downgrading of individual liberty in the context of the elevation of a ‘rights’
mentality largely based on group membership has ushered in a new era of self-righteous intolerance
towards ideological dissent. The
‘liberty’-mindset maxim of “While I may disagree with what you say, I will
defend to the death your right to say it” (usually attributed to Voltaire, but
apparently the words of his biographer) gives way to “I will tolerate what you
say as long as it does not offend my ideological sensibilities, and if it does,
I will use the law to silence you.”. The “I’m-so-offended” act – all too often
not because of any personal nastiness but on behalf of some fashionable ‘group’
– has become the stick with which to beat non-conformists to the approved new
social ethos. ‘Rights’ has become the Trojan Horse of encroaching
totalitarianism.
‘Diversity’
has achieved catch-phrase status but it strikes me that the tolerance and
mutual respect that ostensibly underpin the ‘diversity’ mindset are
conspicuously absent among the powerful cliques that supposedly ensure it. Especially
if you’re White and male (the worst of all ‘groups’), you are well advised to
keep your opinions to yourself where those views deviate from the prescribed
ideological line, unless the inevitable barrage of name-calling – racist and sexist
– are water off a duck’s back to you. It’s even worse if you’re after a job in
a public sector activity such as Education: you will be grilled about your
sociopolitical views and will need to make all the right noises in the approved
manner, or it’s “on your bike”. I learned this lesson the hard way when I
returned to NZ a decade ago and tried to get a job in secondary teacher
education. I soon learned to spot the [Bi]Kultural Kommissar on the panel and
had one heck of a hatchet job done on me at one university. Not that the issue
thrown at me had anything to do with the advertised position, but as with the
inquisitors of the Middle Ages, sniffing out a heretic justifies any means fair
or foul. ‘Diversity’ definitely does not extend to the right to express an
opinion outside the parameters of the new dogma. One must conform, and be seen
to conform, or else.
Do I
believe in astrology? Not me, I’m a hard-headed empiricist. But I’m also an archetypal
liberty-minded, free-thinking and free-speaking Sagittarian – definitely a
problem in the Age of Aquarius.
Barend Vlaardingerbroek BSc, BA, BEdSt, MAppSc,
PhD is Associate Professor of Education at the American University of Beirut. He
identifies strongly with the emerging critically reflective but assertive secular
conservatism gaining currency in right-wing intellectual circles and is
profoundly disturbed by the growing threats to individual liberty in Western
society. Feedback welcome: bv00@aub.edu.lb
No comments:
Post a Comment