The great Dr Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:
“It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless.”
I agree with this - but only when thinking
in the short and medium term. In the long term, true, sustainable change can
ONLY be achieved by changing the heart.
As an example, consider the overlapping
issues of racism and slavery. At the height of the Age
of Imperialism and the “New
Imperialism”, a century and more ago, there was a widely held view that “the
white man’s burden” meant predominantly white nations should occupy other nations, and seek to impose their views of how
to live on those other nations, whose people were seen as inferior (see also here).
To simplify considerably, that view of inferiority was significant in
considering slavery to be acceptable.
Nowadays, many, if not most, people in
those nations see racism as wrong - or, at the very least, highly questionable;
most, I suspect, see slavery as wrong.
What has changed over the last few centuries?
Laws, certainly - slavery has been subjected to increasing legislation for
around several millennia [see Note 1 below], and advocacy against slavery dates
back quite some time as well - for instance, the Roman Emperor and noted Stoic
philosopher Marcus
Aurelius wrote in support of the Stoic view that people are equal –
although he didn’t take action to end slavery (see here
for a nuanced discussion of the obstacles and issues, and also here;
incidentally, the word “stoic” has changed: in the context of this paragraph
and the referenced historical era, it is a philosophy
more akin to Buddhism than the connotation of repressed emotions the word has
today).
However, there has also been education and
face-to-face interactions and deliberate campaigns and some good
science (to counter the bad science,
including the appalling applications of eugenics)
that have shown the perceptions that people had that ownership of other people
as property was wrong, and that has shown many people - perhaps until the growing,
fear-driven xenophobia of this millennia - that racism is founded on wrong
presumptions, and thus is unfounded, and is actively harmful, and thus is
actively morally wrong.
To choose another example, consider sexism.
As with racism, there are still a disturbingly large number of people who are
sexist, but, also as with racism, their number and the vehemence and violence
of their views have been reduced as compared to a century or two ago. As with
racism, legislation - often in response to campaigns which, effectively,
educated and thus changed the heads, if not the hearts, of Parliamentarians -
has helped (e.g., giving women the vote,
first done in the then colony [now nation] of New Zealand in 1893 and the then colony
[now state] of South Australia in 1894 [see here]),
but what has made the change sustainable is, in my opinion, education,
face-to-face non-stereotypical interactions and deliberate campaigns.
Science is less clearly an advantage in the
fight against sexism, but it has been beneficial, for instance, in dealing with
homophobia (e.g., Evelyn
Hooker’s 1950s study)
and, to some extent transphobia - although bipartisan education to counter
stereotypes and other fallacies and misconceptions by those who had never had
to think deeply about their gender identity helped in achieving the final
stages of anti-discrimination legislation here in the late 1990s. (It was also not helpful that it took so
long for scientists to listen to trans people and stop assuming that problems
being experienced by trans people were due to being trans, rather than the
vicious discrimination experienced from bigoted people. [See Perkins, R, “Transgender
HIV/AIDS Needs Assessment Project”, 1994;
McNeil, J et al, “Speaking
from the Margins”, 2013; Dept. of
Health (Vic.), “Transgender and gender diverse health and wellbeing: Background
Paper”, 2014]; Note 2) Subsequently,
the normalisation of gender identity issues has proceeded, often with
education, but recent backlashes suggest there is a need to not take gains for
granted, and find a way to educate those who are most personally threatened or
insecure (or simply intellectually wrong)
about the range that does exist in gender identity.
The backlash also shows the need for, in
the short to medium term, legislation to, in Dr King’s words, “restrain the
heartless”.
The longer term approach of education to
change the minds and then the hearts of those who are discriminating could be
described as “social engineering”. However, if that is the case, it could
equally be argued that it is undoing the deliberate, wilful and malicious
social engineering of people who created ad propagated such hate in the first
place.
At some point in history, someone decided –
whether out of active hate, ignorance or intellectual incompetence - to teach
their kids that “x” is “bad”, and actively demonised “x” to push that biased
viewpoint in. My view is that by the time such warped “parenting” gets to the 4th
generation, when one is beyond any chance of talking to the originator of these
malicious views, it will have been degraded to the furphy of “oh everyone knows
that … “x” ”, and challenging it becomes much harder – as every advocate for
social advance over the last few millennia has known.
That bad parenting, based on the “Mini Me”
view rather than love and wanting one’s child to be the best and all that they
can be, is active and malicious social engineering that harms the child as well
as the victims of the child’s learned hate (bigotry).
In the short term, the acts of hate that
are discrimination need to be banned – by governments.
In the medium term, affirmative action
needs to be implemented to reverse the damage that has been caused by possibly
centuries of such hate – and government needs to take a lead in this.
In the long term, education to counter and stop
the passage of hate is needed, education until inclusive views become part of
the endemic “oh everyone knows ..”. That education can be delivered to a
limited extent by advocates, but for such changes to become widespread and established
enough to be sustainable, the resources of government and its influence on education
are needed, which will require recognition that hate is as harmful as drink
driving or not wearing seatbelts.
Notes
Note 1: the following partial list is from this Wikipedia page, which also includes steps along the way to abolishing serfdom:- abolition of slavery in the Maurya Empire in India in the 3rd Century BCE by the renowned Emperor Ashoka (I couldn’t find any independent verification of this online);- short term abolition in China during the Qin and Xin dynasties in China in the 3rd Century BCE and 1st Century CE respectively (I couldn’t find any independent verification of this online);- after some kingdoms made partial abolitions (for Christians only), abolition of slavery and freeing of any slave who reached France by King Louis X in 1315 CE;- after abolition in quite a few other places, abolition in the United Kingdom in 1834, and the USA in 1865, which was partially countered by the notorious “Black Codes”; and- all the way up to a League of Nations Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery which was still being ratified by nations as recently as 2008, and new anti-slavery acts such as the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015.Note 2: there is some useful guidance on appropriate behaviour here.
WLNGRHDMT
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram and Mastodon.
Finally, remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, and to mind our Mӕgan.
