zeitgeist

I cant possibly keep up with the glut of “current affairs commentary” blawgs but there have been so many stories swilling around the media today relevant to divided by law that it would be a shame not to make some representations...



First all-black cast of Eastenders? Branded as a momentous step in mainstream television. Make of it what you will: The issues that will apparently be discussed may be very interesting for some kind of contextualisation but in the reasons behind such stunts is probably not as attractive. Perhaps the first cast which is truly reflective of Poplar/ All Saints Estate multiculture might be a little less celebrated.

The implosion of Royal Mail? More on the employment side here. The postal service is losing out because its no longer the best form of communication. Think of the jobs that will be lost when people realise its becoming obsolete!... privatisation may actually be the best way for the economy to realise the relevance of a dying form of communication however harsh it might seem in the mid-short term. Everyone’s looking at what we can do to save it – rather than why it needs to be saved (or rather why it needs to be allowed to slip away over the next 20 years or so).

Does University Challenge really test intelligence? Well done the Sun. You’ve established that an academically acclaimed individual is not a swot on pop-culture. Ironically anyone who doesn’t read the Sun with a pinch of salt is probably not in a good position to judge intelligence. But still what an arbitrary question to be posed by the BBC. They forget that there is a massive difference between intelligence and knowledge. I detect a bit of jealousy, or this new uneducated class snobbery (university of life etc). Everyone knows redbrick’s have no place on UC, not everyone cares.

Culture of aparteid? Another damning indictment. The list in this article is pretty revealing. The police seems to be a bit of an anomaly for racism. Probably because it’s hierarchy and slang culture are rather similar to the army. It says something about the racist minority who seek to become police officers too. It’s a pity that Scotland Yard are so ardently defensive. The cost of their pride in an exposure is easily outweighed by the benefits of proper and thorough inquiry: How old is this story going to get?

Summer of rage? I cant get “28 days later” out of my head now. I’ll start hoarding tinned food and keeping a hatchet by my bed then... or invest in a remote Scottish house…

equal but unequal

I thought I'd create a little example to help explain the perspectives of this blog: To explain why it is not at all adverse to discrimination legislation but constructively critical of it; for the benefit of the greater motives of equality and genuine diversity:

Discrimination law helps define how we are all different but asserts that we should be treated equally (or given equal opportunities).

On a semantic level there are pedantic issues: i.e. the dichotomy is clear:
Equal = alike.
Different = unequal.

In general the law uses the words: less favourable treatment on grounds of the persons [difference].

Sometimes there is a confusion between what the law is for:

On the one hand: If people are less favourably treated they might look for a difference to then structure their claim around - they then seek out a white/ male/ able bodied/ british etc comparator.

Or, on the other hand: A person may spot a difference (due to the overt attempts to define said differences) and then constantly keep their eyes open for the potential of less favourable treatment. i.e. "because I am black/ female/ homosexual maybe people will treat me less favourably so I should probably be on the eye out for discrimination".

Which came first: the treatment or the difference?

Not that either of these perspectives is wrong: It is just evidence of the fact that equality is framed by the legislation: which is forced to provide certainty through rules. This solution is the best we have but, evidently, is by no means perfect: For instance an English speaking Welshman cannot claim against an employer who insists on a Welsh speaking candidate - whilst an English person can (on grounds of nationality).

On the surface this seems bad: but only with regard to the fact that we look at such claims through the eyes of the victim. An alternative might be to see equality from an employers level: the sort of thing that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to deal with. This takes the focus away from a "compensation culture" of constructed individual inequalites towards a broader approach of society-wide inequality. However the EHRC is only really active in areas where the individual doesn't have standing to claim in the first place (e.g. adverts for employment etc).

The relationship between the individual and the population as a whole could be crucial to the future of equality and diversity (outside of the law at least). The whole system is more complicated than right or wrong, equal or unequal: it is based on the common mindset which seeks to get 'one over' on others whilst being fearful of someone getting 'one over' them: i.e. behaving contrary to an integrational society which the law may or may not be trying to achieve.

Altermodern: drawing together the divisions?

The [highly ambiguous] cultural movements of the past century have all made attempts to define the culture of the Now. The ambiguity comes in the sense that the definition is based on broad similarities occurring in the many cultural, literary, artistic and fashionable trends of the time. Modernism literally became the definition of the time – where connoisseurs of various practices tried to shake of traditionalism to assert the Now – an enlightened, modern approach emerged from socio-technological advance. Then followed postmodernism, a more specific movement, once again trying to define the state of the Now by shaking of modernist traditions: it attempted to guide the emergence of culture away from what was modernism – the new modernism. This came of course in a time of political unrest: a cold war influenced emergence of commercial values which were summed up in references to the state of society and the personal conflictions that prevailed. But it was also a revolution of current trend over defined structure of modernity.

Divided by Law suggests that postmodernism was the assertion of individuality: When difference was defined and “worlds apart” were created. I am suggesting that its power took over society and was celebrated in art, culture and politics. At the same time that literature and art took an introspective look at the individual so too did the law. And a deluge of anti-discrimination legislation (whilst necessary) was created on a bedrock of celebrated difference and freedom. This introverted existentialism provided a new look at morals and idealism and provided a new structure for the definition of Now.

I have no intention of suggesting what altermodernism is aside from pointing out that it must be a new suggestion of what is Now: a new attempt to define things as they have become [bear in mind that in most contexts attempts at such definitions are little more than hollow constructions]. The term, coined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is the theme of a current exhibition at the Tate Britain. The exhibition, whilst clearly a commercial stunt, in fact portrays some very positive themes for society as it is now seen through the ideas of a handful of artists. At points there is reference to how the once clear racial partitions in society have become so blurred that definitions are even harder to impose: thus these divisions are slipping into irrelevance and people are starting to think their traditions, whilst important, should do not hold back their future and they are free to allow clashes in culture, nationality or race to shape their present existence as if they were a natural part of it.

I must comment that this was purely my opinion and the movement is too fresh and, in fairness, abiguous to really suggest that these elements are solid aspects of it. One problem for me is that by defining a “movement” so early we will be led to falsely create things as part of that movement rather than letting them form part of it naturally (as they have been doing up to this point). And ironically the label of a particular concept threatens to be the cause of its downfall – but for the time being we can be pleased that there is an inkling of new enlightenments emerging in the artworld defining what Now is and pushing us in the direction of a less divided world.