Here I go wading into a type of debate this blog does not often venture into: the debate surrounding Google employee James Damore’s firing for his ‘Ideological Echo Chamber’ manifesto. I find this to be a complicated and interesting conversation, and I’m curious to know how my thoughts align with others.
(I’m also trying here to model the Whiteheadian process-relational ethics I’m currently writing about. That means: taking account of the multiple factors that are relevant, weighing them against each other in terms of the “intensities” they make available and the opportunities for producing beauty (as a harmony of factors) in the resulting syntheses, and looking beyond to where the different potential syntheses might lead. All of that figures as a very small part of my forthcoming book; more on that soon.)
These are thoughts in progress, subject to change as I hear others’ arguments and weigh the evidence (that I’ve far from mastered). Here are the thoughts, in no particular order:
(1) We should be able to have conversations around gender/race, biology vs. environment, employment and hiring policies, and the science (incl. social science) related to all of this without fear of being stifled, or fired, for airing our thoughts.
(2) The science is far from settled (both ‘evolutionary psychology’ and social constructionism/gender studies/et al. notwithstanding). It is all worth engaging with and learning from, while remaining cautious of premature generalizations.
(3) The tone of the 10-page memo is one that suggests the writer knows the truth and those who disagree with him don’t. This is part of what outrages its critics. (I find that outrage understandable, even as I understand there’s a certain geekiness and perhaps an emotional “aspergerishness” that shouldn’t be too surprising to find in a software engineer.)
(4) But firing him appears to prove his point. It certainly gives more ammunition to the political (far) Right. (That may outrage his critics further. And considering that could be of tactical relevance for the pro-diversity side. But it is not a determining factor in whether the memo or the firing was right or wrong.)
(5) Google currently appears to line up on one side of the debate (the ‘progressive’ side) and in this respect they are unusual — not representative of any ‘dictatorship of the left’ as Damore seems to think, but more of an outlier or advance guard in the tech/corporate world. (That’s an empirical statement that I’m open to revising if sufficient contrary evidence were provided.) If we are to value diversity (as Damore claims to), we should be able to live with some prominent companies taking a stance like they have.
(6) That stance should be seen not only as a shrewd political move on Google’s part, but as one that is respectful of their female and non-white employees. Since Google has been under scrutiny for precisely these issues, it’s understandable that there would be some consequence to the writer of the memo/manifesto. I’m not convinced that firing Damore was the best move, but I understand the decision was a fraught one, and that it was intended to send a message that is consistent with the mentioned stance (and that is therefore defensible as such).
(7) The debate has a lot of resonances for a lot of people, including women and minorities who have experienced workplace discrimination of the sort that I myself haven’t, so I’ll defer to them on the reality of what they are describing. That means I take it as real. And I’m aware there’s plenty of evidence to support that.
(8) Some would reply that it resonates with white male employees who have themselves been ‘reverse discriminated’ like Damore ostensibly has. My own experience, and a little familiarity with the literature, finds this argument suspect. (We’re talking not about a working-class, unemployed white guy, but about a highly educated, well-paid specialist who is gaining himself plenty of media attention from this and who has already been offered employment — from Wikileaks — for precisely these reasons. Not that any of that should reflect on the rightness or wrongness of his memo or his firing. But it adds interesting context — similar, for instance, to the contexts surrounding the firing of Steven Salaita, though these are politically polar opposite events.)
(9) Reading the full 10-page memo and some of the detailed criticisms it’s received has been useful and enlightening. (Criticisms like this one and this one.)
(10) Reading the way it’s presented by the punditocracy is a little less useful and less enlightening. (For instance, the way in which David Brooks can call for the head of a certain scapegoat while glibly relating that “We are at a moment when mobs on the left and the right ignore evidence and destroy scapegoats” — as if his own comments were exempt. But also the way the memo has been so easily mischaracterized.)
(11) Finally, the point above that I find most relevant and important in this moment of history — the “intensity” most worth emphasizing — is #7: this event’s reflection on the progress of women and minorities in a world still largely dominated by men of European colonial-elite descent. The memo highlights some of the problems our society has with that progress. Damore’s firing might not have the best immediate impact on women’s and minorities’ rights, but Google’s effort to send a positive message to those who are in the midst of that struggle is very meaningful. Equally meaningful is the attempt to raise the level of conversation all around, especially around gender discrimination and the multiple sciences and research fields associated with it.
Note to #11: Placing an issue within a larger historical context, like this, doesn’t mean subordinating individuals to historical forces, but it does mean teasing out the wider and deeper implications of things. We can’t avoid making choices for one kind of future over another, and part of making a choice is opting for one emphasis over another. I would understand if someone else saw this issue differently — for instance, as mostly as a matter of free speech, reason, and the dangers of the “mob mentality” that David Brooks finds on the left and the right. But I would hope they would be open to engaging with the other factors at play here. If they are, there is hope for us. If not, there is propaganda, desperation, Breitbart, and all the rest that comes with them.
not sure how you can be for intensities (plural) and for harmony/synthesis, have you tried this in practice?
Whitehead distinguishes between what he calls “major” beauty, which produces intensity through novel contrasts, and “minor” beauty” which merely exhibits harmony among diverse factors. (For him, beauty is, among other things, “the mutual adaptation of the several factors in an occasion of experience,” but also something like the driving force of the universe–it’s what every actual occasion aims to achieve in its synthesis of elements it brings together. And the universe is made up of such actual occasions.) Assuming there’s something to this ontology, the answer to your question “have you tried this in practice?” would be “Yes, and so have you (and everything else in the universe)!”
I guess if we wanted to avoid Whitehead altogether, you could say that the intensity-harmony duality is one of those dyads that is worth trying to reconcile… Harmony is usually counterposed to disharmony or dissonance; intensity to something like calmness, moderation, lethargy, etc. Since the two (intensity and harmony) aren’t opposites, they’re not really contradictory, so there’s fruitfulness in trying to bring them together…
thanks but not sure what that means in actual everyday situations (and so many of the vital issues of our day, climate-change, capitalism, minority and women’s rights, freedom of movement, etc) like this where there are passionately/deeply held opposing views (even about what counts as evidence/mattering). My sense is that Rorty was right that at best we can have institutions like courts that are responsive to (in some democratic/representative way shaped by) public views/input and yet protect minority rights, try and decrease cruelty/suffering and allow for variety in private lives.
Re: “not sure what that means in actual everyday situations… where there are passionately/deeply held opposing views” –
Wish I could turn it into an easy formula, but I don’t think that’s possible… But here’s a stab at it:
(1) (a) Tease out what the key needs/values are being expressed through the positions on both/all sides. (b) Articulate them clearly in ways that are understandable to all. (c) Seek some concordance or compromise that both/all sides might be able to live with. (This is the “Harmony” criterion.)
(2) (a) Articulate what the issues of long-range importance are and why (i.e., by putting them into contexts of widening temporality, spatiality, possibility, etc.). (b) Distinguish between options based on which ones bring more expansiveness, more novelty and possibility, and which ones bring less. (This could mean “which ones feel better,” but it requires bringing those feelings to cognitive awareness and assessment.) (c) Other things being equal, opt for the first kind over the second. (This is the “Intensity” criterion.)
(3) Seek a viable and satisfying balance between the two.
How does that sound? No easy answers, but I’d be interested in hearing your own formula for deciding in such circumstances.
Of course, having institutions that balance these kinds of things out for us (e.g., democratically answerable courts, etc.) helps.
seems to me that most of the key issues of our times are deeply divisive in ways that both sides would not be wrong in understanding compromise as defeat (if not catastrophe) , so I think it’s more a matter of trying to align with people who are like-minded enough, starting small and very specific/local, building trust and competence and moving on from there, the nearly (if not outright) impossible part is building in reflexivity and avoiding the tyranny of the means (not to mention the just plain mean) so that fixes for specific local problems/needs don’t become unquestioned/unconscious modes/norms. With any success at that one can than try and win public offices and organize private ventures.
Richard Rorty was right enough to try and keep the public realm as democratic and kind as possible thru institutions like courts and public services while allowing as much diversity as possible in private lives with the hope that by enabling minority rights one can gain truly new perspectives to gain traction. All is easier said than done in our age of ever increasing monopolization and the corporate capture of regulators.
Be interested in seeing how your mode might work even in something you have relative control over like organizing a class of undergrads.
you might like:
see what you make of:
https://soundcloud.com/edgefoundationinc/dan-sperber
Here’s a useful article on the science of gender differences: https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what-does-the-research-say-about-gender-differences/
http://www.cornell.edu/video/the-demand-for-ugliness-picassos-bodies
these folks did something close to what i suggested above, not sure if it can be sustained or replicated but worth a try in places that get desperate enough:
http://www.richmondprogressivealliance.net/
The Sept 2017 issue of Scientific American, a special issue on sex and gender, packs in a lot of interesting articles on the complicated science of these things…
Thank you for wading into this territory…. the thing that surprised and annoyed me by the way the press handle this in the aftermath was how little attention was paid to the differences of men, the discourse was entirely framed in terms of women.
In bioethics there is a whole field of genetic determinism, what can be said about the biological difference between men and women in a social context is limited. Damore is talking about women in general, but is targeting women at Google, not an average woman. Biologically we can say scientifically that males overwhelmingly are more predisposed to OCD, and the autism spectrum than females. This is fact. However, this FACT was not in the discourse over the Damore affair.
There is also evidence to show that people on this spectrum tend to go into technological fields (whether male or female.) These fields tend to be rigid in their structure. This rigidity means that those people using them must abide by the rigid rules in order for the system to work.
As Ursula Franklin wrote in her Massey Lecture series, The Real World of Technology, the design of technological systems is often determined by the limits of the system…… Think the keys of a type writer. The configuration of typewriter keys was determined by the frequency that certain letters were used in the english language in order to stop the keys from jamming.
Fast forward to the digital age and we still use the same computer keyboard lay out, even though according to Franklin there are more ergonomic configurations….. Old habits die hard.
Rigid systems like tech may once have needed unintuitive geeks crunching code, but given the ubiquitous nature of the digital age, we have to conform to the systems rigidity.
There is some evidence emerging that this sort of rigid conformity actually reduces intelligence. This research is based upon the playing of certain computer games called single-shooter games.
All this to say that this is why Google was right to fire Damore, it is clear that his email shows a rigidity of thought that makes for a hostile work environment. He may of had a partial phd in Biology from Harvard, but he obviously didn’t pay much attention to the uncertainty taught in biology. As one professor told me, ” in a biology undergrad you learn the rules of biology, in grad school you learn all the exceptions to those rules.” Damore didn’t stick around for the PhD degree.
In Biology, if one is going to claim scientific evidence of gender difference it must be located in the Y chromosome, anything beyond that is uncertain probabilities and culture. Also Biology, because of genetics, is increasingly math orientated, which is why Craig Ventor former CEO of Celara Genomics is a mathematician not a biologist. And yes real experts, even nobel prize winning scientists like James Watson, say really stupid unscientific racist things sometimes.
Yes, we should talk in terms of what we know evidentially and why even experts can be wrong when they step outside their expertise. The misuse of authority is dangerous. Damore’s manifesto was an arrogant unscientific expose’ of why Google needs more humanities orientated workers to fight the rigid dogma embedded in technology development that is then imposed upon the rest of society. Yes, evolution is at work and technology will change us.
thank you so much for the information