Somewhere in the middle

(The Myth of Neutrality)


After almost a year, I was finally able to attend an educational discussion which is all about contradictions. My gratitude to Leon for inviting me to join them yesterday. Admittedly, my ideological growth was stunted due to lack of EDs and partly I am to be blamed for this. The topic is timely and very appropriate (for me) because apparently I am having contradictions and problems on various matters. And tackling these issues needs a scrupulous understanding on the nature of the contradictions being experienced, which is what I gained knowledge of in the discussion. My blog entry, as you might have guessed, is about the notion of neutrality which, fortunately, was shortly discussed in the ED.



The concept of neutrality was already discredited and debunked for a very long time. Indeed, there is always a neutral ground in everything. But positioning yourself in either of the two extremes or somewhere in the middle ground is, and always a choice. Using a very sparse argument, one can always dispute that neutrality is simply not being biased for or against something and therefore will enable you to see the two sides of a coin. However, you can always consider the pros and cons while still taking sides. Who says that neutrality is evil? It is not. And it was never good either for it has always resulted to further disempowerment and marginalization of the oppressed while strengthening those who are in power. Neutrality favors the elites, the status quo. This phenomenon was best illustrated by the instructor using a seesaw. A seesaw has two extreme ends (diametrically opposed of course) and a middle point. Now put a plump kid on the other end while leaving the other end unoccupied. Try putting a book in the middle of the seesaw and imagine if it moves the bar. What’s the impact? Nothing actually. The bar did not move at all except that it contributed to maintaining the normal balance of the seesaw with the kid. In other words, it contributed to the continuance of the status quo.



I for one think that neutrality is being silent on issues. You tend to view the two sides of an issue and yet your analysis ends there because you remain neutral. Unresolved, perhaps?



At the end of the discussion, I approached the instructor to ask him about certain things that have been bugging me since last year. At one point, I felt like a devil’s advocate when I questioned the validity of a certain theory and argued about the criticisms being thrown at activists. I was relieved eventually when I gained understanding of things. Honestly, I find the discussion yesterday toxic and profound. Somehow it contributed to my ideological maturity.



Note: Again, I’m reminded of the great importance of EDs as ideological investment.