Reflection of King and Allen on Integration - Shaira

By

King begins his philosophy of integration by stating that desegregation is merely the first step toward ultimately breaking down the barriers of racial segregation. He argues that the terms ‘segregation’ and ‘desegregation’ represent a system bounded by legal and social prohibitions. The desegregation process only removes the prohibitive measures that are built and defined in a segregated system. King argues that a desegregated society not integrated is still one that is spiritually segregated. King proves this by discussing the human personality. Segregation degrades human personality as it strips individuals from their “inherent dignity.” As such, under this system, segregated individuals are individuals without worth. Without worth, a man loses themself and is reduced to just a thing. Simply desegregating a society will not return the value of human personality back to a man. Instead, King argues that until society reaches the ultimate end goal of integration, black Americans can be desegregated but continue to be viewed by other Americans as less than others. This negative view directly challenges the sacredness of human personality/worth. God’s teachings that everyone has innate worth and is challenged and essentially denied to those who are desegregated but not integrated. Thus, human worth calls for integration because without it, God’s image is lost among both those who are seen as “anything less than a person of sacred worth” and those who inflict the abuse (119).

 

King states that the “essence of man is found in freedom” (120). This freedom that King refers to is not just the freedom of will, but the freedom that comes with being human. King states that this freedom is “the chosen fulfillment of our destined nature” (120). To be human means to have the freedom and power within themselves to choose how they want to live their lives. Therefore, a denial of freedom translates directly to the denial of life entirely. The freedom of man relates to the standard distinction within political theory. Positive liberty is the freedom to act on and fulfill one’s life within the boundaries that society has established while negative liberty is freedom because of an absence of an external force or interference. The freedom that King describes is one that is “within a predestined structure,” meaning that it is a positive liberty.

In the following section, King states that the absence of freedom restrains the basic qualities of a man, such as decision-making. A system that denies one group liberties,  is a system that reduces them to less than a person as they do not have the freedoms that come with being a human. This system reminds me of a form of positive liberty because it is the external force that interferes with one’s freedoms and has the power to either grant or further constrain those freedoms. Here, individuals must fight for and exercise their freedoms within the boundaries that the system has laid out for them. 

In Allen’s analysis of King’s Ethical integration, Allen points out that there is a problem surrounding integration and math. She writes that the symbolism of integration, and the picture that it illustrates, often depicts people of different races evenly distributed throughout a population (150). In King’s famous “I have a dream” speech, King begins his speech by painting an ideal picture of what it means for black people to be fully integrated into white society. However, Allen argues that what integration ideally looks like exceeds mathematical reality. What she means by this is that, if put on a checkerboard, for every one black square there would be nine white squares (151). Because of this, she argues that King’s image of integration could not be achieved based on the fact that it is mathematically impossible for black people to be evenly distributed throughout the population. This mathematical fantasy, therefore, has hindered integration. 

I understand her argument and agree that black people are an ethnic minority as opposed to their white counterparts, however, I believe that the integration that King describes goes beyond just physical integration. I think that King’s goal of integration begins with the integration of black people at all societal levels, such as the political level. Allen addresses this when she states that the definition of integration is the “provision to all people of the positive liberties of social and political participation” (151). I believe that the reason Allen introduces the mathematical problem of integration is to show that achieving King’s integration would be difficult when the fact is that white people outnumber black people. Further, integration does not look a certain way. Integration is not just an elbow-to-elbow living experience. In fact, black people could live elbow-to-elbow with white people and still not be integrated into society. Although integration may not look exactly like King says it does in his “I have a dream speech” due to the problem of math, integration is achieved when black people are celebrated, supported, and most importantly, engaged with.  Allen finishes her analysis by stating that King’s three demands of ethical integration should be used to conceptualize changes in our organizations. Allen argues that policies should not try and pursue “oneness,” or total agreement, but instead should strive for “wholeness.” Allen refers to “wholeness” as a “consolidated but complex, intricate, and differentiated body” (156). Under the concept of “wholeness,” many ideas and voices are integrated and included in a collective body whereas under “oneness,” unanimity is at the center. Allen argues that we can advance this idea of “wholeness” by pursuing organizational transformations. 

I support Allen’s argument that the three demands can be used to push organizations to adopt “wholeness” policies. In fact, I observe more and more “wholeness” policies being practiced today at all different levels. These practices and policies are promoted with the goal to integrate people with diverse backgrounds and identities into that organization. For example, in job recruiting, I see many programs and opportunities for BIPOC individuals to gain the necessary resources and skills before entering the workforce. Beyond these programs, I notice that many companies’ cultures put an emphasis on building community through open dialogue and mutual respect for one another. Today, many organizations value diversity and inclusion and make an effort to protect the well-being and liberties of their members. These practices and policies at their core truly embody King’s demands of integration.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more