The thinking of Foucault, et al is plagued by a terrible internal contradiction. It asserts:
1) Group relations are inexorably determined by group interests and power relationships.
2) The only recourse for historically marginalized groups is to "tribe up" and deny any shared interest or affinity with any other group.
But if #1 is true, pursuing #2 will inevitably end in failure, since these groups are--after all--minorities that lack power, and will thus inevitably lose out. When everybody "tribes up," minorities ultimately end up worse off, not better off. This is happening right now in parts of the Western world where there has been a majority backlash. For an example of how this can end, consider the former Yugoslavia.
The only truly viable solution for historically marginalized minorities is to acknowledge and emphasize that everyone in society has a great deal in common and use that as a basis for marching forward arm-in-arm with like-minded members of the majority and other groups. That is how the progress of the Civil Rights movement was achieved and it is the only way any future progress will be achieved.
When I was in high school, I came to the dismal conclusion that we would reach the limits of democracy because we had vanquished scarcity, at that time already in the West and we were on our way to doing it worldwide. What I meant was, as long as we lived in a world where only a minority could enjoy a prosperous lifestyle, vesting political decision making in the majority within certain safeguards would tend toward extending prosperity more and more broadly. This was in fact what happened, supercharged by the Industrial Revolution and its progeny. But the real danger that I saw developing is that when the majority becomes prosperous, especially a large majority, the tendency can be for social progress to halt, with a permanent underclass minority that has no escape because it lacks wealth, democratic legitimacy, and the physical strength to throw off majority domination.
The only solution to this conundrum is solidarity. If both the majority and the minority accept that the whole society is better off if everyone is better off, and that we haven't reached our objective until everyone gets there together, we may be able to do it. Wasn't that one of the greatest lessons of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States? Withdrawing behind tribal walls, communicating in signals, and issuing demands to each other practically guarantees freezing in place, and failure.
The thinking of Foucault, et al is plagued by a terrible internal contradiction. It asserts:
1) Group relations are inexorably determined by group interests and power relationships.
2) The only recourse for historically marginalized groups is to "tribe up" and deny any shared interest or affinity with any other group.
But if #1 is true, pursuing #2 will inevitably end in failure, since these groups are--after all--minorities that lack power, and will thus inevitably lose out. When everybody "tribes up," minorities ultimately end up worse off, not better off. This is happening right now in parts of the Western world where there has been a majority backlash. For an example of how this can end, consider the former Yugoslavia.
The only truly viable solution for historically marginalized minorities is to acknowledge and emphasize that everyone in society has a great deal in common and use that as a basis for marching forward arm-in-arm with like-minded members of the majority and other groups. That is how the progress of the Civil Rights movement was achieved and it is the only way any future progress will be achieved.
I couldn't agree more.
When I was in high school, I came to the dismal conclusion that we would reach the limits of democracy because we had vanquished scarcity, at that time already in the West and we were on our way to doing it worldwide. What I meant was, as long as we lived in a world where only a minority could enjoy a prosperous lifestyle, vesting political decision making in the majority within certain safeguards would tend toward extending prosperity more and more broadly. This was in fact what happened, supercharged by the Industrial Revolution and its progeny. But the real danger that I saw developing is that when the majority becomes prosperous, especially a large majority, the tendency can be for social progress to halt, with a permanent underclass minority that has no escape because it lacks wealth, democratic legitimacy, and the physical strength to throw off majority domination.
The only solution to this conundrum is solidarity. If both the majority and the minority accept that the whole society is better off if everyone is better off, and that we haven't reached our objective until everyone gets there together, we may be able to do it. Wasn't that one of the greatest lessons of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States? Withdrawing behind tribal walls, communicating in signals, and issuing demands to each other practically guarantees freezing in place, and failure.