The discussion about food choices at feminist conferences, which was
taken by many on this list to be a divisive, diversity-
threatening issue, has crystallized for me the realization that
there are quite distinct visions of what diversity means.
One vision, that I am comfortable promoting, is that diversity means
the project of promoting full inclusion in society by undermining and
abolishing those systems of exploitation that marginalize groups
through their institutionalized subordination. Diversity requires
that we work to abolish exploitation of subordinated groups. We
promote diversity by asking "does this course of action further or
undermine institutionalized sexism, racism, classism, speciesism,
etc.?"
Another vision of diversity, implicit in some postings here, is that
we gradually and carefully broaden participation in presently
existing power structures by accepting everybody exactly "as they
are," irrespective of whether "how they are" furthers one form or
another of institutionalized exploitation. Some examples of this
vision of diversity might be:
(1) Promoting groups like 2 Live Crew as a representation of black
culture, notwithstanding the fact that their music is virulently
misogynistic.
(2) The US military, in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War,
deferring to Saudi norms concerning the subordination of women.
(3) PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) aligning
itself with Playboy in order to raise money (through the donation of
half of Patti Davis Reagan's fee for posing in the magazine) and in
order to get the animal rights message to the consumers of
pornography.
All these examples show a willingness to tolerate how the other guys
treat "their" women, in order to form more extended male power
alliances, or, in other words, to further diversity. This
vision of diversity is, apparently, a fundamental feature of
patriarchal relations between men of different races, classes,
political views (e.g., neither Democrats nor Republicans changed
their confirmation votes based on Anita Hill's testimony), and
nationalities, so it is not too surprising that we adopt it
ourselves. I mean, the most repeated reaction on this list to the
suggestion that feminist conferences be vegetarian is that we need to
respect differences--diversity. Or, to rephrase it more
precisely, that we need to be tolerant and accepting of how different
people exploit subordinated groups, like animals.
I would prefer as a vision of diversity, not that we accept and
celebrate all the varied ways that people presently exploit
subordinated groups, but that we accept and celebrate and extend the
tremendously varied ways different groups of people, from different
races, sexes, sexual orientations, classes and ethnic groups, have of
relating non-exploitatively to people, animals and the land. A
diversity of anarchies, a diversity of feminisms, a diversity
of vegetarianisms, ...
Brian
