The world is shrinking and there is no denying that.
But the world is also becoming more homogeneous and averse to differences. People are becoming the same the world over and we are becoming less and less able to talk of differences. Differences of gender, race, culture are nationality are being trivialized and even being ignored. Even talking of them seems to make one a racist or a chauvinist these days. No! I am not espousing the millions of racist or chauvinist people living all around us. I am not saying that people should be discriminated against one way or another. No!
But this post is meant for the rest of the world. The world that is so determined to be impartial, fair and politically correct - that they deny the very existence of differences. Differences between races, people, genders and social strata.
This is a theme that has been recurrent in my thoughts, ever since a popular science writer once told us in class that when writing about women scientists one must avoid reference to their gender and simply focus on their work. But even today - almost two years since then - when I read of the Finkbeiner rule that is espoused by many science writers, I can't help but disagree. I am not saying that writers should focus on merely the gender and judge people or their work in that one dimension.
No!
But I do think, we should learn to write the whole story without any prejudice and at the same time give due respect to the person, his/her origins, character, gender and his/her story. After all, it is these things that make us who we are. Every individual is a sum of these and many other parts and these factors play a role in shaping our thought processes and formulating our decisions. Then why should we deny these differences?
No!
But I do think, we should learn to write the whole story without any prejudice and at the same time give due respect to the person, his/her origins, character, gender and his/her story. After all, it is these things that make us who we are. Every individual is a sum of these and many other parts and these factors play a role in shaping our thought processes and formulating our decisions. Then why should we deny these differences?
People are different.
Just because we are flooded with genomic scale data that tells us that we are 99% similar to chimps, we should not develop this perception that all men and women are similar. No. In fact, science today is grappling with the understanding of how the diversity is generated.
People are different.
Caucasians, Asians, Africans - we are all different - genetically, culturally, socially. And these are important differences. People's attitudes, priorities, choices, interests and thought processes are a summation of these and many other factors.
They are different in obvious ways - in ways that are imprinted in our genes. And these differences don't mean inferiority or superiority.
But then, instead of accepting and respecting these differences, I find it strange that the world is promoting homogenization of the world and its people. And by limiting the perception of an individual to any one dimension - we only limit our understanding of them.
Just because we are flooded with genomic scale data that tells us that we are 99% similar to chimps, we should not develop this perception that all men and women are similar. No. In fact, science today is grappling with the understanding of how the diversity is generated.
People are different.
Caucasians, Asians, Africans - we are all different - genetically, culturally, socially. And these are important differences. People's attitudes, priorities, choices, interests and thought processes are a summation of these and many other factors.
They are different in obvious ways - in ways that are imprinted in our genes. And these differences don't mean inferiority or superiority.
But then, instead of accepting and respecting these differences, I find it strange that the world is promoting homogenization of the world and its people. And by limiting the perception of an individual to any one dimension - we only limit our understanding of them.
I do not advocate trivializing a woman scientist to just a woman. Certainly not!
But at the same time, the "woman" part of that "woman-scientist" is not excess baggage. It tells you a lot about the journey and the story.
Women today are caught in this time-warp of sorts where they have been unable to completely break away from their traditional roles and at the same time they have successfully taken on newer roles at home and in the society. In many ways they have moved a lot faster and the rest of the world just couldn't keep up with them.
The challenges that people face in the world, because of their race, gender or background should not be brushed under the carpet. Coming from a developing country. Coming without any training in english. Being a woman. Being a man. Having a family. These are all factors that affect you and there is no reason to emphasize one versus the other.
What is needed however, is to develop an attitude in the people where such details are taken for what they are, in a non-prejudicial, perhaps even an inspirational way. What is needed is not the nullification of individuality but the open acceptance of individuality and the differences that come with it! We need to make people embrace differences again - without innately associating any value with them!!
Equality does not come from homogeneity.
It comes from appreciating the differences and from learning to value them. After all, the best things in life are like the rainbow and they arise from the differences built into them.
2 comments:
I certainly agree with you that differences need to be embraced, accepted, and acknowledged. The more we try hard to smudge and hide differences in order to promote equality, the more ironical it is, for in essence, one is trying hard to portray an altered picture of someone (by hiding all the differences) in order to be considered equal.
Having said that, I also think it's slightly more effective to first emphasize on the underlying similarities across all of us, before focusing on the differences. It's just a psychologically effective stance. Talk about the similarities first, establish that "connection", a kinship etc., and then touch on the differences as a natural progression. Presented in such a way, it's even more amazing to the human mind how similar we all are despite the many socio-cultural differences. I think it fosters greater understanding of unity in diversity. The mind remembers the similarities first, rather than the other way around wherein the mind first remembers the differences.
Following that, your example on calling a woman scientist just a scientist does have some positive light. Our minds are so used to playing out stereotypes, unfortunately. Only a small % of people in the world are beyond the influence of biases (even unconscious). Think of it as a social experiment. Isn't it better to initially not reveal or focus on gender, social and cultural factors before presenting some information that deserves objective consumption/evaluation? I agree that the story behind the writer is relevant and interesting too, perhaps not in the context of the article or its presentation. A bio following the article can have all of those details, without emphatic focus on any of the details. Also, the emphasis on "woman" implies a difference, something special or unique or unheard of, because no male writer is called "man scientist". The woman can be celebrated in her circle for having fought against odds, but her articles need not be overtly influenced by the bias that it was written by a woman from a developing country etc. Personally, if I ever to read such details before reading their book/article, I tend to be slightly biased, unknowingly of course. I realise it only when I reflect on it later and find myself "excusing" certain aspects, being a little more swayed towards certain aspects etc., precisely because I know the story of the author so well.
Sorry for the long rambling! Hope I made some sense ;)
Hey Neeraja.. Good to hear your thoughts and I do agree with you in many aspects.
But in the specific case of woman scientists, I think even when you write about a male scientist - I think it should be written with information about him and his family. I think people should be written about as people and not just professionals. Men have families, responsibilities, dreams etc.
While you are right that some early on information may bias us - I think we usually correct ourselves soon enough if what we see is not in keeping with the expectation. And usually whatI find is that remember a story better when I know the person better. Just knowing how someone came up with an idea or what they were doing at the time leaves a more lasting impression. It may be irrelevant but it may also be making a difference - like in the case of Einstein working as a clerk or talking about traveling with the mirror.
I guess, this is something that needs to be done uniformly for men and women, americans and indians, instead of just reducing people to what they did. And I think that is where the focus should be.
I also it is a very good point that we should perhaps highlight that similarities first and then mention the differences. To me somehow, the similarities jump out with everyone and so it is not a problem - but i am sure many would respond better with your approach.
Post a Comment