Considering Perspective
A woman of colour is elected CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Some minority representation groups celebrate the decision. The CEO is a member of their group and they have been striving for this for a long time. This is a clear example of advancement for the community.
Other minority representation groups decry the decision. The CEO is not a member of their group and they have been striving for this for a long time. This is a clear example of favouritism to one oppressed group over another.
The white female executive decries the decision. She has been working towards this position for years and feels betrayed by her company. This is a clear example of politics in the workplace.
The supremacist celebrates the decision. They see society finally beginning to accept the facts regarding the superiority of some over others. This is a clear example of the truth shining through.
The young phenom decries the decision. They are very well educated and have contributed to some of the company’s most incredible and transformative successes. This is a clear example of ageism.
The minority leader and public speaker celebrates the decision. They see a potential successor and torchbearer in the fight for a just society. This is a clear example of empowerment.
The racist decries the decision. They see society giving ground to people that should be grateful to be in this country to begin with. This is a clear example of handouts to the inferior.
The sexist decries the decision. He sees another woman getting things she hasn’t earned. This is a clear example of misandry.
The politician celebrates the decision. They see forward movement for vulnerable people and supporting this is popular among their constituents. This is a clear example of progress.
The politician decries the decision. They see a step back for meritocracy and opposing this is popular among their constituents. This is a clear example of regress.
The mainstream media celebrates the decision. They see their support of equity movements as finally bearing fruit. This is a clear example of justice.
The mainstream media decries the decision. They see yet another example of good people being overlooked because of their skin colour. This is a clear example of our continued societal instability.
The alternative media decries the decision. They see this as political correctness run amok. This is a clear example of racism.
The alternative media celebrates the decision. They see their small-scale efforts to spread awareness as an effective means of enacting change. This is a clear example of long overdue sanity.
So who’s right here? It’s entirely possible that no one is correct, but it’s unlikely considering the wide range of perspectives and worldviews. This plurality of opinions covers the majority of those widely held today. Surely someone is correct, at least in part. Could more than one be right if they’re in opposition to one another? What if they are coming from people or organizations that exist in different times or different places under different circumstances? What if they are from both different times and different places operating under different circumstances?
The phenom may in fact have been passed over due to their age. In that case, they seem to align well with the racist, even if the notion disgusts them. It could very well be true that the new CEO was given preferential treatment due to her background and gender. Has the other female candidate found an unlikely friend in the sexist?
Maybe we should consider no longer lumping together the strangest of bedfellows simply because they may hold similar opinions on very specific situations.
Was the alternative media right to oppose the decision for the wrong reasons? Was the mainstream wrong to support but for the right reasons? One can see how quickly this can all go sideways and the focus on the question becomes a fight over ideology with facts a distant and uninteresting secondary. You can see it every night on the evening news or if you should make the mistake of checking social media discussions on any contentious topic.
You likely had a reaction to the very first sentence in this article. Even in the absence of context or the ability to ask further questions to delve deeper into the topic. Your brain instinctively came to a conclusion about who this person was, why they were elected, who elected them, what the circumstances were surrounding this change, and whether or not this was an inherently good thing. There are many reasons why your calculations arrive at the results that they do. You may have a vested interest in the outcome or you may see yourself in a similar situation, being on one side or the other. You may simply feel strongly about the topic as it relates to your political leanings. Maybe there’s an element here that hits you personally and you feel the need to defend yourself even if in your quiet moments you know you’re not really being objective or fair. In any case, you are likely making a judgement based at least partially on a lack of information, a bias, or because of your adherence to a belief or ideology.
This is by no means an embrace of the notion that no truth exists nor is it a condemnation of the human mind as incapable of proper reasoning. It’s a call to inspect one’s frame of view and whether or not it is hindering or helping your search for truth. This is something we all have to wrestle with.
Just consider perspective.
