2.1.1 |
HOLDING ON TO A TREE WITH DISTINCTIVE
RAMIFICATIONS |
"A classification of all forms of violating
the relevance principle as systematic as
that of plants and animals could be very helpful": this is what was stated
in the previous chapter
(section 1.2.2).
There it was pointed out, too, that traditional language has already
bestowed a special name on a limited number of exclusivisms.
Racism, sexism and nationalism are three stereotyped
examples. In one respect we find ourselves in the
primeval position of the science of biology before it started to
methodically classify plants and animals.
Every speech community already used to have names for a certain number of
kinds of living being, but other kinds of living being had no names at all.
And the common name was not necessarily the name of a species, that is, a
specific name; quite often it was a superspecific name denoting an entire
genus, or a subspecific one denoting a subspecies, race or variety of the
species.
Similarly, a vernacular or traditional language may, at the moment, have a
word for sexism and racism, without having a word for exclusivism on the
basis of age or
denominational doctrine
adhered to.
Or, such a language may have a word for anthropocentrism (a name on the
specific level) and for
infrafactorial racialism (a name on
the subspecific level), without having a word for
abnegational anthropic exclusivism,
interfactorial racialism and other
exclusivisms on the specific, subspecific and other levels.
The analogy between the classification of plants or animals
and the classification of the myriad manifestations of exclusivism
in the world is only valid insofar as it is descriptive. A
classification is descriptive if concerned with taxons recognized
as separate entities from the beginning on, particularly
when they do already have a name in the vernacular or traditional
language. Such a classification has to search for the
criterions which divide and unite the taxons known. (Alternatively,
this aspect has been called "the accidental aspect".)
However, when novel taxons emerge, or are made to emerge, due to
the process of categorization itself, the classification is
speculative (or 'functional' as it has also been called). That
it is 'speculative' does not mean that the taxon or taxons do
not exist in reality; if so, they merely have not been
discovered or recognized yet. It is precisely because a systematic
arrangement suggests their existence that the taxonomist or
other person starts looking for them. (Thus, physicists have
discovered new particles on the basis of a partially speculative
classification system.)
From our point of view it is important that
the norm of inclusivity rejects both exclusivisms
which did and do exist and exclusivisms which will exist, or which could be
made to exist. This is because our world-view is, unlike the scientific
one, primarily normative.
For us it is particularly the speculative aspect of surveying 'the
irrelevant' which, if systematic, makes it possible that the recognition of
direct and indirect manifestations of exclusivist beliefs, thoughts,
feelings, tendencies and actions is no longer dependent upon a speech
community's everyday language.
The absence of a suitable terminology for many manifestations of
exclusivism in the conventional vocabulary of this and other tongues need,
then, no longer be prejudicial to our moral outlook.
The reason is that the limited number for which there is a simple word in
that conventional vocabulary (and for which a descriptive, accidental
classification would suffice) must not be considered as approximating, let
alone representing, the total range of exclusivism in any way, even not in
purely moral contexts.
Yet, if discrimination or exclusivism is wrong, every form of
discrimination or exclusivism is wrong, regardless of what or whom is
disparaged, and regardless of the gravity of the exclusivist attitude or
practise from
other angles. The more orderly a classification of
the violations of the norm of inclusivity, the greater the
number of actual or possible manifestations which will be
brought to light, and the better this classification will
clarify the scope of the inclusive norm itself. (This will
require the introduction of quite a few technical expressions.
If the number of these new expressions seems large, or too
large, the reader or listener should not only compare
it with the technical terms and scientific names biologists
were forced to introduce but also with something like
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
in medical jargon.
In any event, the terminology of the present classification system
of exclusivisms will be much simpler than the tables of exclusivist
forms of address covering so many superfluous pages in traditional
dictionaries, not to mention religious and/or imperial diaries.)
No systematic taxonomy will include hybrids in its 'primary'
system, because hybrids are the offspring of two members (such
as animals or plants) of different subspecies, species or
genera. To determine these subspecies, species or genera a
scientist or other person must already have a system in which
these nonhybridous taxons are classified at
'er disposal. The
'primary' system is therefore already presupposed before anyone
can speak of 'hybrids'. Similarly, the classification of exclusivisms
starts with that of singular exclusivisms, that is,
exclusivisms of which the object of exclusion or exclusivity is
determined by one single factor. Plural exclusivisms, on the
other hand, are constituted of different kinds of exclusion or
exclusivity. As the x-raying of singular exclusivisms should be
sufficient to indirectly reveal and locate plural exclusivisms
as well, we shall not endeavor to systematically categorize the
latter in this Model.
Given that exclusivism amounts to violating the norm of
inclusivity, not violating this norm (while being able to do so or
to want this) in the same respect and 'in the same way' is a
particular form of inclusivity. Hence, we shall say that 'every
manifestation of exclusivism is antithetical to a certain
facet of inclusivity'. By arranging the facets of inclusivity
so as to run parallel to the manifestations of exclusivism, the
survey of exclusivisms can indirectly also serve as a
survey of the facets of inclusivity. We could not do the
reverse, however, for several singular manifestations of exclusivism
(male and female exclusivism, for instance) may correspond
to only one facet of inclusivity (sex- or gender-neutral inclusivity),
whereas a singular manifestation of exclusivism will
never correspond to two or more facets of inclusivity.
The word irrelevantism may be employed as a synonym of
exclusivism, but an obvious difference is that exclusivism
stresses what is irrelevant according to the interpretation laid
down in the norm of inclusivity. It could also be said that the
usage of exclusivism, and of inclusivism too, is
denominational, that is, ideological, while the usage of
irrelevantism and relevantism is, for example, more
philosophical. In a philosophical context the equal, unless approach
might thus be called "the position of relevantistic egalitarianism"
rather than "inclusivistic egalitarianism".
In practise
tho, it is the
interpretation of principles and people's attitudes which count, and
therefore the antithesis between an interpreted exclusivism and
its manifestations on the one hand and an interpreted inclusivity
and its facets on the other.
For the purpose of the classification system to be presented
in this chapter we shall confine ourselves to nonrelevant
distinctions drawn by human agents or decision-makers. Moreover,
we shall use the phrase human being in the conveniently
ambiguous sense of either human body or human person
(that is, person who has a human body). But even the task of
x-raying all attitudes and practises in which nonrelevant
distinctions are or can be made by human beings may seem
impossible. The impossibility of this task, however, need not
deter us from classifying those human, contemporary and historical,
singular exclusivisms which are already named in traditional
language, those human singular exclusivisms which are related
to them and should be listed, if the former ones are, and a
number of other singular exclusivisms, particularly in the
sphere of human or
happiness-catenal relations. It
is theoretically possible to x all these exclusivisms or irrelevantisms by
using a system of dichotomous subdivisions in such a way that
every lower-level exclusivism which does not belong to the one
subdivision belongs to the other, whether it is mentioned
itself or not.
The representation of this system of dichotomous subdivisions in a diagram
will result in a picture which roughly resembles that of a tree (or,
rather, that of a tree reflected in the water).
Starting from (universal) exclusivism each branch, then, represents
a lower-level manifestation of exclusivism.
When and where the base of the customary numeral system is ten, an easy
way to keep track of the ramifications of human exclusivism is by using a
binary-decimal system of numbering.
Such a system consists of the decimal equivalents of the numbers
obtained by reading the code of an entirely dichotomous classification
as one binary number (instead of as a set of binary
numbers each representing one classificatory level). (For example,
the decimal number 9 corresponds to a binary number
1001 which stands for 1.0.0.1.) This system requires that
every nomenclatural level of a trichotomous, tetratomic, pentatomic
or polytomic subdivision be replaced first by two or more
levels of dichotomous subdivisions. But if the nondichotomous
subdivision is not logically exhaustive, this only enhances the
reliability of the classification system, because the dichotomous
taxonomy, if properly applied, has a built-in safeguard
against neglecting or arbitrarily leaving out any lower-level
exclusivism. When, in this chapter, a name is succeeded by a
letter and one or more numbers in parentheses, X stands for
manifestation of eXclusivism, N for facet of
iNclusivity or
Neutral-inclusivity, while the
number is part of a binary-decimal enumeration system. Furthermore, it
should be noted that we will use exism as a convenient abbreviation
of exclusivism (and re as short for with respect/regard
to). An alternative abbreviation of exclusivism is x-ism
(or Xism when capitalized). Exism and x-ism will later
be used too as abbreviations of extremism in the
catenical sense.
