Brenton advocates rethinking our practices and constructions of 'knowledge' "to push beyond warm and fuzzy notions of 'diversity', and to begin to consider ways in which to fracture inclusive rhetoric." An example of fuzzy, built upon bigoted, versions of 'embracing diversity' was visible in the library of my former school. There were several delightful images of 'different' (non-western, non-anglo, or non-'able') people all smiling and holding hands, presented with warm captions about how 'we' need to accept (their) difference. The principle made a song and dance at a staff meeting that focused on embracing diversity, helpfully providing a list of differences eg homosexuality, race, religion, disability, mental illness etc. Some people appeared convinced.
Strangely, at a school loudly proclaiming its open-mindedness, it really came as no surprise that actions would contradict pomp and slogans. While births, marriages and deaths have always been acknowledged by the school with messages on the notice board, flowers, cards and gifts etc, when the longtime same-sex partner of a senior member of staff passed away with no acknowledgement from the school the
actual values of the school were blatantly visible. Therefore, every slogan, 'diversity meeting' and image added to the hypocrisy, this was far more sinister and hurtful than if no 'discussion' of diversity had ever been had. There was no 'genuine dialogue' but rather a deliverance of speeches from the top down, the word diversity simply performed as a series of marketing tools.
"At the moment the 'other' is being hived off into certain schools ..privileged state schools and private schools are protected from seeing the situation of those students. Everyone is caught up in structures and practices which make this act of 'seeing' increasingly more difficult." (Levinas sited by Brenton).
Not only is the 'other' student being 'hived off' but 'other' teachers are not employed in privileged schools. Referring again to the previous example, why is it that a school of 250 full time staff was made up almost entirely of anglo-saxon teachers with English as their first, and only language? The ethnic make up of the teachers does not reflect that of the students. The 'diversity' of students and teachers in this private school has very little in common with that of a state school less than five minutes drive away. What does that mean? What are the values and ethos held at each school and what does it matter anyway? Each to their own right?
"This is a logic of razor wire no less socially destructive than when it is applied to the refusal to acknowledge our obligations to asylum seekers. But confronting this situation is not a matter of soliciting concern about the plight of refugees or other disenfranchised groups, but of recognizing the ways in which our own situation is implicated with theirs, and exposing how at some deep level we are RESPONSIBLE for their plight." (Brenton)
This image of razor wire is present in Naomi Klein's
Windows and Fences in which she explores the barriers that divide people and separate them from formerly public resources; "locking them away from much needed land and water, restricting their ability to move across boarders, to express political dissent, to demonstrate on public streets.." - These fences are growing bigger and stronger. In a world of surfaces and mirrors, where truth is relative, and people (consumers) are encouraged to individualize themselves, to separate themselves from all histories that are not advantageous, there is no guilt nor responsibility.
"These fences are as old as colonialism ...and fences have always been part of capitalism, the only way to protect property from would-be bandits.. but double standards.. of late becoming increasingly blatant.. meanwhile necessary fences are under attack: in the rush to privatization, the barriers that once existed between many public and private spaces" (for example in
No Logo Klein talks about a student who was sent home from school because he wore a Pepsi tshirt on the day Coke was visiting (funding) the school). "Every protected space has been cracked open, only to be re-enclosed by the market" Klein p xviii-xix
"Mass privatization and deregulation have bred armies of locked-out people, whose services are no longer needed, whose lifestyles are written off as 'backward', whose basic needs go unmet.... entire continent (eg Africa) can find itself exiled to the global shadow world, off the map and off the news..." xxi So in what way then are 'we' responsible for 'them'? In what way does the way 'we' relate to 'them' determine outcomes? In what spaces and what forums can the Other speak? If it's all about want and have (does this relate to 'the pleasure principle'?) then we need not reflect on our practices and the impact we have on others.
I'm interested in the potential of the windows Klein calls 'political portals'. "Overnight the site is transformed into a kind of alternative global city where urgency replaces resignation, corporate logos need armed guards, people usurp cars, art is everywhere, strangers talk to each other, and the prospect of radical change in political course does not seem like an odd anachronistic idea but the most logical thought in the world" xxiv-xxv she goes on to describe Thai peasants "planting organic vegetables in over-irrigated golf courses..", showing how spaces can be subverted and reclaimed (perhaps to ask 'for how long' diminishes the achievement), "these protestors are quite serious in their desire to disrupt the current economic order, but their tactics reflect a dogged refusal to engage in classic power struggles: their goal...is to challenge power centralization"
Rather than operating within a reactive deficit model, where we exist within oppositional binaries (
you're either with is or you're against us) we might form new alliances in supposed enemy camps, on mutually beneficial terms.... hm where might we look for models and examples of such undertakings? In what locations within schools does this currently happen?
