The Minority of One

Boys of remote northern Pakistan: Look into the eyes

The subject of minority affairs is a social/political concept that classifies people into virtual groups based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion and so on. (Emphasis on the word “groups.”) Minority affairs thinking holds that the primary group is taking advantage of certain sub-groups who are therefore entitled to additional consideration (and as it turns out this additional consideration is usually monetary).

The argument for this extra consideration? It’s a human rights issue. Some people are greedy. It’s only fair. The solution to the unfairness? Government should step in to even things out; to force the primary group to ante up. It’s a perfect example of the politically-correct, and social justice is the latest buzz-phrase.

The preoccupation with minority affairs is not an example of systems mindset thinking and it’s incongruent with the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and, yes, our founding fathers, all of whom pointed out the danger of group-tyranny, and that God-given equality trumps human-enforced parity. With this simple, beautiful Judeo-Christian concept, these civil-rights leaders emphasized that salvation lies within: that individual rights are sacrosanct.

In applying the systems mindset to a life-situation, some fundamental questions automatically arise. (In applying these strategies it doesn’t matter what the situation is: “Reality works the same way everywhere, all the time.”) Considering that everything in life is a component of one system or another, here are the systems mindset “hoops” to be negotiated:

• What are the down-and-dirty mechanics of the dysfunctional system? Has the problem been reduced to its simplest operational structure?
• Is this particular problem really the issue? Or is something else going on?
• Could this problem be caused by a lack of direction?
• Could this problem be caused by unnecessary complication?
• Can the dysfunctional system be fixed or would eliminating the system altogether be the best solution?

I ask the above questions about minority affairs thinking and conclude the concept is fallacious. Without feeling the burden of having to knuckle-down to its precepts, here’s how I interact with another person one-on-one: First, I look directly into the other’s eyes. (Two engaged sets of glistening eyes comprise the ultimate human connection point: the mysterious common-place we all share.) Then I make judgments about that person based on that person, not because he or she belongs to some human-devised sub-group. And if this person requests special treatment because he or she belongs to a particular race, color, religion or gender, they diminish themselves.

So, I reject PC-approved minority affairs thinking. This simple positioning always feels right and is superbly effective in my own daily life. The young, the aged, the disabled? Of course each gets my special attention and each should have the utmost protection of the law.

But let’s delve deeper into this reasoning by asking some uncomfortable questions about minority affairs:

• If you consider yourself to be a member of a minority group deserving special attention, who exactly comprises the oppressive majority? Describe who they are and exactly what they’re doing to hold you back. No generalities. Give numbers. Be specific.
• Is the heterosexual white male the oppressing majority? If so, why not condense the current enormous collection of PC-recognized disadvantaged groups into a single minority that is defined as “anyone who is not a white heterosexual male?”
• My daughter Jennifer is half Puerto Rican. Does this make her a member of a minority group? If so, which one? Jenny is married to an “Anglo.” Does that make my two grandchildren members of yet another minority? If so, which one?
• Our society overflows with aggrieved sub-groups. As each faction demands consideration, do these considerations quietly impinge on the individual rights of everyone else?
• An activist organization that lobbies for social justice for a particular sub-group is a singular entity. Is there a danger this entity will take on a life of its own so its own survival depends on an ”overt cultivation of the aggrieved?”

Per systems mindset thinking, when there are no clear answers to questions about a contention, it is probable the contention is flawed. In struggling with the above questions and many others, it seems to me the social system of minority affairs is non-directional, too complex and a minefield of subjective judgment. Minority affairs – most often inflamed by government legislative and judicial proclamation – segregates us into victim-groups. It’s an emotional and monetary drain on all parties and society as a whole. Maybe the worst part of these arbitrary disengagements is the catch-22 trap in which people who choose to see themselves as victims automatically relegate themselves into a second-tier societal ranking.

The systems mindset analysis strips away the superfluous, fearlessly ignores pre-conceived notions and approaches life from a purely mechanical vantage point. Forget convoluted philosophy and it-should-be-this-way wishful thinking. For today, let’s never mind trying to change the world and instead focus on the hard details of our own lives where actual improvement can be accomplished with the people standing directly in front of us.

And if we insist there must be a sub-system of  minorities within our primary cultural system, let’s get right down to it and recognize the ultimate minority, the minority of the individual. Let each of us be a minority; each protected under law and each carrying the equal cachet of the minority of one.

(Photo by Sam Carpenter, in a nameless village on the banks of the Indus River, Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan, 2003.)

Tagged as: age, gender, human rights, minority affairs, minority of one, minority rights, race, victim