Philosophically speaking, does neutrality exist? Can one be neutral? Are humans capable of neutrality? Can we even perceive neutrality if it exists? Or, are we a species that is inherently biased, so therefore, we cannot see neutrality, even if it were neutral. If one is to argue that nothing is neutral, one must then ask, “at what point in its construction (or among its parts) was it ever in a state of neutrality?” Unless one can rewind a state of a thing to a point where it was “neutral,” then we have a paradox: one must start with a state of neutrality in order to evolve to non-neutrality.
In Beth Coleman’s article on Race as a Technology, she proposes that technology is neutral when she says, “the ability to render results rests with the maker, not with the tools.” She further asks the reader to consider that “race” – the human tendency to discern between peoples based on physical, cultural or historical characteristics – is merely a tool by which humans can do either good or evil. That is, we employ a neutral tool called “race” to draw dividing lines for purposes whose results are not neutral.
I personally agree with that disposition, but not for the reasons she argues. And these reasons avoid concerns down the logic chain that Coleman otherwise leaves unresolved. What does Coleman think people will do differently now that they think of race as a neutral tool? Will we suddenly become enlightened? Introspective of our true natures? That we will change our behaviors? The fact is, the concept of race evolved because it served a purpose, and unless people understand that fundamental process, and prescribe a new approach or methodology for analysis, we will simply recreate the same mindset. In short, we’re going to misuse the tool, irrespective of its neutrality.
It is correct to think of neutrality as a tool, and Coleman correctly cites many great thinkers and philosophers that pose compelling arguments in favor of trying to think neutrally. Their rationale is rooted in the logic that doing so avoids problems of ambiguities and differences of opinion, taste, and deeper matters when observing events in the world. If we can see things objectively, neutrally, then we can agree on the state of things so we can then make better sense of the world and deal with it properly.
Coleman seeks to attribute race as a tool because technology’s inherent neutrality puts the onus on humans to accept full responsibility for how we employ the tool. If the tool is biased, then it allows us to evade responsibility for our actions. So, as long as we regard race as a neutral tool, which it may or not actually be, we are more accountable for our actions.
And it is here where Coleman’s prescription falls short. While it’s entirely appropriate to regard race as a neutral tool, that’s just the beginning. Humans cannot merely move towards the center of anything; they’ll just pass it right by and swing to the opposite extreme – it serves as a proportional counter-weight against an imbalance. Dictators often win popular support through rhetoric against the prior dictator. Smokers find alternative “vices.” Over-eaters become anorexic. And so on. The problem with Coleman’s advice is beyond merely regarding race as a neutral tool. There’s the preponderance of human behavior that must be accounted for.
The concept of race is a byproduct of a broader, natural, instinctive human condition: We categorize and classify things in order to make sense of the world, to create order from chaos. This process allows us to create symbolic and abstract lines and boundaries around things in the analog world into discrete and ordered structures: Land borders, colors, good and evil, and of course, peoples. We must build shelter, defend against enemies, and mate to perpetuate the species. To survive, we don’t need to actually stop and ponder, “Is that person really trying to hurt me?” “Is that wind really an angry god?” “Is this sickness really a sign of the devil?”
We were certainly able to survive with incorrect knowledge, and this inherent, base instinct to over-simplify and categorize the world permitted this. But, we were also static. And this did not change till the scientific method was introduced. It was the main revelation that forced people to think in terms of neutrality: the world can be examined from all sides, tested, theorized, and evaluated. These are very different methods than emotional reactions to observations in the world. We strove to observe the world from a position of neutrality, even though it is against our human natures to do so. It is us that we strove to be the neutral tool, not just the tools we used.
The value of neutrality is that it allows for a better, more informed understanding of the world, despite our natures to react viscerally. And an informed understanding is a circuitous spiral around an idea. It is circumspect: Viewing a postulate from all sides, willing to question one’s own position, eager consider opposing views, all while gaining the weight of knowledge, which spirals towards the middle: neutrality. It is that extreme, theoretical limit that we cannot reach because, as much as we may try (and we should), we are still a non-neutral, emotional, biased species. Those qualities are what we need to live and enjoy life.
Yes, “race” is a tool and it is neutral. But the underlying problems will not be addressed unless humans themselves are taught to seek self-neutrality: To objectively seek that middle ground where knowledge and understanding is obtained through perpetual acquisition of knowledge.