Arimathea | Philosophy | Kalb on Inclusiveness | Permalink
Page views: 2652550
Total entries: 1461
Total comments: 225



Thursday, October 21, A.D. 2010
Kalb on Inclusiveness

Jim Kalb has a delightfully rational and honest examination of inclusiveness on his Turnabout site’s “Anti-Inclusiveness FAQ.” It is brief, pointed, and very sensible. I love when common sense refuses to hide when the specter of leftist brainwashing creeps among the living dead, also known as contemporary men. Consider, for example, his tenth point:

Shouldn’t communities that define themselves by reference to ethnicity, religion, lifestyle and so on broaden themselves to reflect a fuller appreciation of the richness of humanity?

Sometimes to some degree. Unlimited breadth is impossible because we are finite creatures. No single person or society can express all human possibilities, if only because of practical incompatibilities, so the particularity and diversity of human life can not be realized without social diversity and particularity. Inclusiveness denies that necessity since it attempts to create one social shoe (the inclusive society) that fits all equally.

The Vikings, the Abbasid Caliphate and Heian Japan all achieved splendid things, but it is unlikely that mixing the three societies and insisting that members of each be able to participate equally in all aspects of their common life would have created something that realized human capacities better than they did separately. Each might have profited in its own way by learning from the others, but not by reconstructing itself to become equally accessible to the other two. While Egil Skallagrimsson and Lady Murasaki were both great literary artists, it would have helped neither to force them to write a book together.

In such matters the world today is no different from what it was a thousand years ago, and particular organizations no different from whole societies or circles of friends. Some diversity is good, too much is bad, and dogmatic rules like the civil rights laws are worse than useless for dealing with the issue.

In addition, behind all differences mankind has an essential nature that some religions and lifestyles succeed in realizing better than others. To require each society to be equally open to all religions and lifestyles is to forbid social recognition of that essential nature and insist on a sort of official amorality. The requirement is even self-contradictory, since the principle of inclusiveness is itself a universal moral claim and as such cannot be asserted if there is no universal human nature that is better served by some moral rules than others.

I recommend that you read Kalb. It turns out that he began View from the Right and that Lawrence Auster inherited the site. I do not know the history of that particular torch passing.

Posted by Joseph on Thursday, October 21, Anno Domini 2010
Philosophy | AnthropologyEthicsPoliticsComments
Previous entry (all realms): Maddox on Cam Whores
Next entry (all realms): What Makes Us Smile?

Previous entry (Philosophy): Plato a Leftist?
Next entry (Philosophy): Vallicella on Bundle Theory