To Exclude

Inextricable Links Between Society and Exclusivity

J. Y. Gao

On a larger scale, a society consists of groups of various sizes, overlaps, and concentric layers, and nothing else. Therefore, society is determined by each of these groups to varying degrees, and the value system in place that has grouped these separate, individual social groups is derived from the most common values shared in all groups. One could almost say the definition of ‘society’ is: the collection of values and ideas shared amongst all of it’s constituent groups. And herein lies the inherent danger of postmodernism. 

Last week’s article came to the conclusion that humans are unequal due to the very nature of value and the very act of evaluation – which, in turn, is a most fundamental and inextricable nature of our consciousness – then, by the very existence of the human conscious, and by definition of inequality and judgement, the individuals of society will find commonalities and differences with those they are surrounded by and form groups. Social groups are the direct repercussion of evaluation (of others and self in relation to others), which is the direct consequence of consciousness. So long as humans are conscious beings, there will be social groups. And, by definition of the word ‘group’, there exists an interwoven implication of two distinct and inseparable concepts: ‘us’ and ‘them’. Individuals categorised as ‘us’ are INCLUDED, whereas those categorised as ‘them’, by the very nature of the dichotomy inferred from ‘included’, are EXCLUDED. Activities that work to include are INCLUSIVE, whilst activities that primarily exclude are EXCLUSIVE. Further, the content of the INCLUDED group is simultaneously defined by knowing what is INCLUDED and what is EXCLUDED; to know one is to know the other. To recognise one is to infer the recognition of the other. 

It must be admitted that ‘postmodernism’ has become a loosely defined term used in a variety of circumstances that may or may not necessitate the ideas that ‘postmodernism’ acts as a placeholder to be evoked. Though amongst the forest of wondrous exaggerations and/or acute underestimations lies some fundamental components that define postmodernism as a movement, and differentiate it from movements prior, following, or coexisting with it. These components are (not limited to) a belief in: the inherent and EQUAL value of individual expression due to the subjectivity of value and expression, the inherent danger and oppressive nature of grand-narratives, the importance of the individual voice to not conform in keeping past grand-narratives at bay and deconstructing still existing ones. Active participants within this postmodernist narrative are found by the billions within the contemporary Western society, and is a notion that has embedded itself within education, politics and literature. In the end, who doesn’t want to be AFFIRMED? 

The mechanism with which postmodernism is able to do this is, to say the least, quite ingenious. It skilfully circumvents the inequality in the value of an individual that is inherent to existence by making value and inequality subjective to the individual. Although, the value of the subjectivity of an individual’s value system (and their subjective evaluation of other value systems) is, ironically, objective. In essence, postmodernism believes that, as any individual’s right to value their subjective value system and their subjective view of other value systems is equal to any other individual, the views themselves are inherently and equally good as a result of their subjectivity. By flattening the value scale to a single value – a single dimension – how do you expect a governing body to make AN action if it must consider every opinion? And is expected to give every individual time in the sun as they attempt to express an unique value system? If a governing body is unable to judge and evaluate each voice, how can it filter through the voices and hold on to it’s purpose – to govern? Similarly, if a society is unable to judge and evaluate each voice, how can it filter through the voices and hold on to the individual groups that it consists of? For a society to maintain it’s integrity, it must identify commonality between these separate and unique voices. For that to happen, the individual must see value in another’s value system, not just the value of the SUBJECTIVITY of their value system. When a society is formed around these shared values, it will define itself with what values are ‘INCLUDED’ and what values are ‘EXCLUDED’. 

This will alienate individuals with separate and uncommon value systems, yet it is the uncompromisable price to pay for the existence of a society.