Structure and Order

A friend, Raymond, independently asks me this question: what kind of feminist am I? I said that classifying is a dangerous act of power, because in classification (in the sense of ordering) one makes an arbitrary hierarchy, which makes many people vulnerable to needless oppression or subordination. (Well, I didn't say this exactly: this is at least what I intended to say.)

This is relevent to our discussion because, in his (since we do not have a gender neutral pronoun, I shall arbitrarily, without any reason other than the conventions of English, assume AC to be a "him": please don't take any offence in this) reading of Jee-Wah's defence, he points out the necessary need for classification: "You cannot deny that there are pretty, ugly, overweight, slim, young, and old people out there." Furthermore, "by not being aware of the differences that exist in this world, one is merely trying to blindfold oneself into thinking that 'everyone is equal and no one should categorize anyone to be thin or fat.'" I will not reject this correct fact. (Notice I did not use the word "truth"; "truth" for me is subjective; "correctness" is objectively verifiable, like definitions, sciences, mathematics.) However, there are two kinds of classifications: that of "structuring", and that of "ordering". They are similar, but in our context, profoundly different.

Classification as "structuring" means giving random data coherence; classification as "ordering" means giving random data an evaluated ranking. For example, giving a group of arguments a specific structure (like the essay form) is not the same thing as giving them an order (such as "argument #1 is stronger than #2, therefore I will put #1 in the first paragraph", etc.). When we classify people as "fat", "slim", "old", "young" and hope that people will "broaden [their] human tolerance for these differences", this assumes and requires that the language we use to classify is politically neutral. Contrary to "commonsense", it is language that masters us, not the other way around. Language forms the conceptual and logical framework of our thinking, our logic, our consciousness. But of course, language of classification is rarely politically neutral (and certainly not in this case). The language we use to classify people are pregnant with many other meanings, derived from social, cultural and historical context. Therefore, what we cannot help getting is a classification as "ordering", that "fat" people is binarily "bad", whereas "slim", "good". With this fundamental problem, how can we ever move to the goal of embracing multiplicity? The only way to do it is to dissolve (or "deconstruct", break down) the hierarchy by exposing its fundamental structures and assumptions, and work beyond those assumptions. Does that mean categories of "fatness" and "slimness" does not exist? No. They exist, but now they can (at least attempt to) exist outside the ordering system; now they can mean what they are defined to be and nothing else. By saying that "there is only one kind of princess, and Yan-Yee belongs to it", one can break down the hierarchy of categories and say not "Yan-Yee is a fat princess" but rather "Yan-Yee is a princess who happens to be fat". As long as we stay within the ordering system right now without ever questioning it, politically we can never get anywhere.

Perhaps this is why it seems impossible to reach a "cultural equality". The two types of classification are so often mushed together that we can hardly distinguish the difference without some meditation. Capitalism certainly does not aid the cause: we are trained to keep on doing work and not meditate, and when we meditate, we are trained in the ordering logic in our education system. Language, too, itself is so full of connotations that it is difficult to break away from it. But things are beginning to happen: in the academia at least we are trying to be as politically correct as possible. This is a huge and a very important movement towards "cultural equality", for the academia is the institutation that trains future educators and writers.

It is indeed extremely tempting to say that there is no way "in ruminating about these articles, you are going to change the world". If this act is performed only by the academians, then this statement is very true. But if everyone in the world begins to critically examine things that are going on culturally around the world, we might just see a few changes. Changes do not have to be wars and marches. Changes can mean that, for example, the breaking down of stereotypes. Cultural equality is a much more difficult process than a political change. It requires changes to be made in the most fundamental level, meaning language and social consciousness. Changing from one political system to another would not get anyone anywhere if the ways of thinking have not the least altered. The communist movement failed largely because social consciousness is not ready for this political change. Ideas of Enlightenment (such as freedom, equality; ideas we take for granted right now) took over a century for them to be accepted into mainstream social consciousness. We need to alter our way of thinking, changing it from classification of ordering, to that of structuring.

Tristan

PS: By the way, the "Chinatown example" AC brought up is extremely important. Applying my principle above, "Chinatown" in itself is not oppressive. But when the connotations of "Chinatown" are used in a political (by political, I always mean discourses of power) context, then it becomes extremely oppressive. There is always the danger of reducing the many different Chinese-Canadian narratives to that of the Chinatown narrative. Or we can give a much more obvious example. If a woman says "I am a prostitute", the historical, social and cultural connotations of the word "prostitute" will work against that person, even if none of the connotations for that person hold true. On the other hand, if I say "I have an ipod", the connotations of an ipod will give me positive political power, in that (for example) "I am in and I am cool". (That is, afterall, how advertisement campaign works.) If I, who own an ipod, stand beside one who does not have one, the (masculine) gaze of the social consciousness will impose a hierarchy between us. Same thing happens if I stand beside a prostitute. In the court, the prostitute will have less creditabilty in giving evidence than me, precisely because of this. The point, then, is to go beyond that, go beyond ordering and to structuring.