Difference between revisions of "Neutrality"

Latest revision as of 14:08, 24 October 2017

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." - Desmond Tutu

Quite ironically, the word neutrality brings up a lot of inner turmoil within me, no matter how intensely or dejectedly I may be thinking about whatever it is I'm focusing on when I encounter the word. One of my favorite quotes of all time, shared above, utilizes the word while making social commentary about life. And given that it's one of the quotes I hold quite close to me, I've come to attach quite a bit of meaning to the word.

Neutrality implies impartiality, a lack of decisive opinions on something, and a lack of support for any sides of an argument. At first glance, this may seem like quite a peaceful concept, given that not partaking in something means that there's no responsibility regardless of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. However, the implications for such a state such as neutrality mean a lot more when applying them to life. People struggle to remain neutral on matters. No matter what it may be, from pockets on women's clothing to racism in the workforce, there's always strong opinions for the multitudes of opinions that stem from such issues. This is because neutrality is idealistically detached from reality.

It is meant to be seen as a safe concept given that it implies no ties to anything, yet its very existence is based on the idea of privilege. To be neutral on an issue one has to be able to be both unaffected by it and uninvolved, something that usually becomes especially tedious when focusing on social issues. People who are affected do not have the privilege of staying uninvolved or not care. That was the case with Adrian Piper, who had to develop calling cards in order to get her opinion across on issues that affected her. And of course, the fact that they affected her were ultimately out of her control, given that she could not just ignore the injustices she faced as both half-black and a woman.

The problem wasn't that she cared too much, it was that she couldn't not care. Many of the issues brought forth were direct attacks on her and inherently ignorant in nature, which made it nearly impossible for her to deem them socially acceptable. But of course, many white or male individuals, or both, were clearly unaffected and unconcerned. This wasn't because they had thicker skin... it was because they had the privilege of not being directly affected by it. After all, the ignorant statements Piper overheard or directly received about black individuals and women didn't concern them and didn't harm them in any way.

Because of all of this, I've grown to dislike neutrality, at least when referring to people's mentalities and its many variations in relation to life. Perhaps it's a bit excessive to dislike a word based on association, but the nature of the word is dismissive and unnecessary, much like those who choose to remain neutral on issues just because they can. It's quite tragic that there are people who can be in power and somehow believe that they can remain neutral on social issues to save face, or because they simply don't care. Because they don't have to care, that's a choice they have.

Dear President,
    If you don't care, then you don't care. And that's it. If I don't care,
I'm risking my very life and the freedoms granted to me, and most I hold
dear, by those who bravely and tirelessly fought for them long before me.
Who fought tooth and nail. Through sweat and tears. With their very lives.
    I regret any discomfort this fact may cause you, just as I am sure you
regret the discomfort your neutrality and ignorance is causing me.
    P.S. There are no good nazis.

See also[edit]

• disheartening
• truth