[bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[Guru गुरु]

Hi Avri,

On 12/23/2013 07:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that this of course makes sense as a criteria, but i caution 
> us against allowing a single view, a theoretically specific view, to 
> stand-in for the diversity that is the  Civil Society viewpoint.  Many 
> time I think the reference to 'under-represented' view is synonymous 
> with 'the view I and a few friends have that no one else agrees with'.
>
> I.e. when picking representatives, we need to pick people who are also 
> not so extreme in the singularity of their view that they cancel out 
> the views of others who also minority viewpoints.  Even people with 
> minority views need to take a big-tent view if they are to represent 
> the diversity of CS view adequately 

If we agree that there are under represented groups, then CS needs to 
help them participate. Can we agree on this as an important principle 
for CS? It seems obvious then, that as we include more views, we will 
have more and more diverse set of views.

Can we then burden these groups with the need to 'represent diversity of 
CS views adequately'?  Is it not fair for them to represent their views 
(since these are  under represented). Would this burden not end up in 
shutting these voices out? One may feel that all groups need to be open 
to others views, but not insist that each group should adequately 
represent diversity of views.

More importantly, if we agree that many views are indeed under 
represented, the so called current 'big tent views' may themselves be 
very narrow in their representativeness. Simply by excluding a large set 
of voices, we see harmony which is perhaps a mirage. Better we get out 
of this mirage and face reality.

> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with 
> their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes.

Avri,
this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of 
a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be 
characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and 
hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in 
enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened 
to.  Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only 
ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable 
views' = hegemony)

I would like you to consider another real life analogy.
In India for decades post independence, only around 30% of children 
(from relatively affluent families) went to public schools. In last two 
decades, thanks to very very strong public/Government/Community efforts, 
enrolment has increased to 98%. However now children from marginalised 
groups (previously excluded) attend and teachers feel that while the 
earlier classroom situation was very conducive and harmonious, now with 
the inclusion of these groups of children, the classroom environment has 
become vitiated and ugly.

The fault is not of these children from marginalised groups or their 
'minority views', rather the teachers biased views on 'harmony' is the 
problem. Inclusion is far more valuable a principle than so called 
'harmony' which may only mask mutual back scratching amongst a small 
homogeneous group.

regards,
Guru

>
> avri
>
> On 23-Dec-13 07:22, Ginger Paque wrote:
>> Thanks all, I agree, and will support the addition of this criterion. gp
>>
>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>>
>>