Re-Thinking Equality and Affirmative Action, Research Paper Example

The historical and contemporary controversy surrounding the American policy of so-called “affirmative action” can be said to rest on a paradox that is internal to the notion: on the one hand, the very existence of “affirmative action” is intended to avoid discrimination, whereas on the other hand, its critics construe the policy as itself an instance of such discrimination. The appearance of affirmative action itself on the scene of American policy is inseparable from its historical context: according to the severe discriminatory history of the United States, most explicitly represented in the genocide of the Native Americans and the enslaving of the Africa-Americans, what was construed as a fundamentally hierarchical American society, a hierarchy informed by issues such as race, color and religion, needed to be radically transformed. This necessitated the advancement of policies which deliberately targeted the perceived racism and sexism that was inherent to American society on all levels. A policy such as Affirmative action aims to make this society open to all those who are regarded as previously excluded or marginalized from it. The controversy lies in the fact that such identification of those historically excluded from society perhaps creates a new form of discrimination, where the majority group is now discriminated against. Thus, instead of promoting equality, affirmative action responds to the history of America with a new form of inequality that once again uses tactics of discrimination to create the inclusive society that is purported to be the policy’s goal.

For those in favour of affirmative action, the policy was introduced so as to avert some of the perceived prejudices inherent to American social discourse and organization, prejudices which, rooted upon issues of race, religion, gender, etc., led to various forms of minority groups being excluded from specific segments of society, such as employment and education. The traditionally racist or patriarchal structure of American society was discerned: it was thus deemed necessary through political intervention to adjust this same structure, through a radically inclusive type of social norm. Accordingly, affirmative action would encourage the greater social institutions and private businesses to integrate such broadly classified minorities within their various structures, so as to avoid discriminatory and exclusionary social practices. However, the argument against affirmative action touches on this very point: is not the attempt to promote the integration of such minorities not an act of discrimination against majorities, individuals who are thereafter disadvantaged in the social system because of their contingent belonging to the social system’s dominant group? In this regard, for example, the acceptance of two students into a university program with exactly the same qualifications would ultimately be settled by an issue of race: an African-American because of his historical exploitation in American society would be chosen over a Caucasian student. The Caucasian student is thus burdened with the historical legacy of his ancestors, a historical legacy which he in no way participated in. The argument against affirmative action in this sense is that it does not promote equality, but rather performs a new discrimination against the majority through an over-emphasis on the historical past of the United States, such that history is the dominant form of social narrative in regards to all forms of societal practice.

Certainly, the benefit of affirmative action is clear, insofar as it serves as a clear reminder of the historical past of the United States, with its radical forms of discrimination. In this sense, affirmative action takes a form of radical ideological critique: against the dominant historical narrative of American democracy and equality for all, affirmative action reveals that such slogans are essentially illusions when one considers the true reality of American history. The atrocities that constitute the dark underside of American democracy are apparent in the form of slavery and genocide. At the same time, a policy such as affirmative action is not merely historical in character, but aims to discern that such narratives of discrimination and inequality exist in the contemporary society, perhaps on an unconscious and ideological level: in this sense affirmative action aims to finally liquidate any appearances of such inequality with the aim of building a new society. Whereas affirmative action therefore rightly acknowledges the inequality that is both historically and contemporarily present in American society with the aim to correct this phenomenon, in order for it to be a truly non-discriminatory policy, advocates of affirmative action must precisely re-think their approach so as to aim to eliminate exclusion, treating disadvantages not merely based on historical context, but also in terms of clear and explicit examples of exclusion on an individual level. That is to say, the basic idea of the program to create equality and recognize social inequalities is admirable: the issue is to understand, however, that social inequalities are in themselves not static, but dynamic, according to the ever-changing nature of society itself. Namely, the historical legacy of inequality shows a clear pattern of inequality: discrimination against blacks, against Native Americans, against women. But this does not mean that these are the only types of inequalities that can and do exist, just because they are historical examples of inequalities. Affirmative action must not treat history as a closed narrative, but rather utilize the clear examples of historical inequality to remain attentive to the dynamic and changing relationships of power in society and the inequalities these relations produce, so as to truly realize the ultimate aim of affirmative action: a radically inclusive and egalitarian society.

Notions such as the equality of all individuals and the right to democratically contribute to the greater social organization are almost universally held beliefs in contemporary American society: only various forms of extremism argue against this. It is nevertheless a mistake to think of the equality of all individuals as itself an example of a particular ideology, precisely because such a principle itself has a universal appeal. The notion of the equality of all individuals bears a universal appeal because it is radically inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Hence, instead of various racist and patriarchal discourses that deliberately exclude certain members from society, and therefore cannot claim to be ideas of universal appeal since by definition they appeal to the superior privilege of a particular group, discourses of equality are universal because they start not from a particular social group, but from the human being him or herself. Accordingly, equality as opposed to inequality is universal. Affirmative action rightly acknowledges that the only possible universal social structure is one that is radically inclusive, since it is only this form of commitment to equality that is applicable to all, and thus, by definition, universal. Affirmative action therefore discerns elements of inequality in society and therefore the particularized as opposed to universal foundations of the society, a particularity that is equivalent to exclusion from participation in the society. Yet the problem with affirmative action is that it simultaneously relies on a particular history: the particular historical inequalities of the American past. It therefore remains entrenched in a commitment to a particular past, instead of opening itself up to the possibility of a universal future. As such, affirmative action can miss out on other forms of discrimination that may exist in society, insofar as it focuses to much on particularly explicit forms of discrimination in the American historical consciousness. This is not to suggest that one must avoid these particular historical injustices, and therefore not correct them. Rather, one must understand that social structures are dynamic and heterogeneous, and therefore may produce new forms of inequality: affirmative action can itself become a tool of inequality and discrimination if this is not taken into account. Accordingly, affirmative action must take a further attentiveness to the phenomenon of discrimination and disadvantage on an individual level, as opposed to on a broadly historical level that binds particular groups together. In this case, an over-reliance on history can create a covering up of very real forms of inequality that may exist, and thus affirmative action fails in its stated goal to eliminate discriminatory social practices. Simply put, discriminatory social practices may take diverse forms; affirmative action must itself be a diverse policy mechanism that is able to correspond to the diversity of the object it intends to eradicate: inequality.

Certainly, it can be stated that such an approach overlooks the clear and explicit examples of discrimination in American history: American society has been structured according to a patriarchal and racist social order. The counter-argument would therefore suggest that by approaching inequality and disadvantage from a more malleable position fails to address the historically real injustices that have occurred.

However, this counter-argument fails to acknowledge that the historical inequalities of the American past are only one form of inequality: other forms of inequality may exist, and other forms of inequality may still come into existence. The commitment of a program such as affirmative action should not only be to the correction of historical errors, but the elimination of inequality itself, since the further promotion of discriminatory practices merely repeats these historical errors in another form. Attentiveness to the past is a necessary approach of policies that intend to eliminate inequality, since the past provides explicit examples of such inequalities; anti-discriminatory policies of equality, however, should not be over-determined by this same past, to the extent that they operate in the present and, furthermore, to the extent that their goal is not merely to offer forms of historical reparations, but rather to create a society in which such relations of inequality are no longer possible.