Skomatth
08-12-2005, 18:24
I shall try to present these views in my own words, although I was inspired by this blog (http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1117326497.shtml) .
The -ski suffix in my last name suggests that I have Polish ancestors. Yet I hesitate to identify myself as a Polish-American. Sure, I eat Grandma's sweet bread around the holidays, but this isn't sufficient for the Polish-American designation. I am neither bicultural or bilingual. I don't have dual citizenship either.
Using a hyphenated name to designate my ancestry doesn't seem to present a problem. Don't let the particular case fool you. Identifying yourself or another with a group presents loads of problems. Dishonestly you claim identification with the group's success. Unfairly you label other's with the group's faults. Self-identified African Americans do themselves a disservice by accepting a distinct categorization reminiscent of the division between masters and slaves. If another expects me to treat him as an individual, he must not use connotated designations.
The original author said it nicely:
To be an individual is precisely not to be a mere member of a group or a mere instance of a type. And to be a mere member of a group is precisely not to be an individual.
Obviously, the language of groups cannot be completely avoided. Often it provides effective short-hands. I propose a method to distinguish between fair and unfair designations. A designation is fair only if there is documented membership in a formal structure. Even then this designation can only be used for factual purposes, not moral judgments. Criticizing the formal structure is fine, but you cannot judge an individual because of documented membership. The problem with most designations is that they carry implicit moral judgments. This is why identifying yourself conservative for example, even if you are proud of it, should be avoided. Your interlocutor, being a liberal, will cast implicit moral judgments, even if they are untrue.
Fair designation: He's an American citizen. (This is documented. It may however still carry implicit connotations.)
Unfair designation: He's black. (While often documented, race isn't a formal structure)
Fair: He's a Republican. (Documented membership in a political party.)
Unfair: He's conservative. (Not documented.)
The -ski suffix in my last name suggests that I have Polish ancestors. Yet I hesitate to identify myself as a Polish-American. Sure, I eat Grandma's sweet bread around the holidays, but this isn't sufficient for the Polish-American designation. I am neither bicultural or bilingual. I don't have dual citizenship either.
Using a hyphenated name to designate my ancestry doesn't seem to present a problem. Don't let the particular case fool you. Identifying yourself or another with a group presents loads of problems. Dishonestly you claim identification with the group's success. Unfairly you label other's with the group's faults. Self-identified African Americans do themselves a disservice by accepting a distinct categorization reminiscent of the division between masters and slaves. If another expects me to treat him as an individual, he must not use connotated designations.
The original author said it nicely:
To be an individual is precisely not to be a mere member of a group or a mere instance of a type. And to be a mere member of a group is precisely not to be an individual.
Obviously, the language of groups cannot be completely avoided. Often it provides effective short-hands. I propose a method to distinguish between fair and unfair designations. A designation is fair only if there is documented membership in a formal structure. Even then this designation can only be used for factual purposes, not moral judgments. Criticizing the formal structure is fine, but you cannot judge an individual because of documented membership. The problem with most designations is that they carry implicit moral judgments. This is why identifying yourself conservative for example, even if you are proud of it, should be avoided. Your interlocutor, being a liberal, will cast implicit moral judgments, even if they are untrue.
Fair designation: He's an American citizen. (This is documented. It may however still carry implicit connotations.)
Unfair designation: He's black. (While often documented, race isn't a formal structure)
Fair: He's a Republican. (Documented membership in a political party.)
Unfair: He's conservative. (Not documented.)