While such sentiments are no doubt well-intentioned, my fear is that once
the "other" becomes precisely defined, they will have little choice but
to remain outside, marginalised by definition.
Generalisations and presuppositions about persons based on race,
ethnicity, gender, economic status ... whatever; whether positive or
negative, whether well-intentioned or not, are dogmatic 'isms that
assumes an intrinsic, immutable difference based on some arbitrary
qualitative or quantitative "difference".=20
Witness the effect of similar progressive efforts circa 1870 through to
1930 (the pluralist movement of Western Europe, very strong in Germany).
The well-defined, publicly mourned but privately decried, increasingly
well-defined groups of "others" have been gassed, burned, shot, or
starved in their millions ever since. A few gruesome statistics about the
current state of globalised society:=20
Two hundred million children aged four to fourteen are currently in the
global workforce. Life expectancy in Africa is 43 and falling. More than
50 armed conflicts throughout the world are currently claiming roughly
two million lives per year =96a total of 75 million violent deaths in the
last 35 years. One billion people, a third of the world's workforce, are
unemployed or severely underemployed.=20
Who is in the minority? Relatively comfortable academics and bourgeoise
professionals, or persons who are oppressed or starving or constantly
under threat of violence?=20
Such a question highlights the rhetorical effect of the term "minority".
It actually obscures the facts of the matter.
The characteristic of civil society is acceptance of _equal_ others, not
"different" others who are more easily identified by increasingly finer
definitions of their "differences". Such definitions are unhelpful.
Phil
Phil Graham
pw.graham who-is-at student.qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html