not regard conflict as necessarily involving violence. Conflict arises from our
awareness of difference and, in a non-violent sense, is part of agreement. Think
about it. How can you have an argument with someone unless you also share certain
assumptions?
Everybody has a different point of view, and therefore we should never assume
that having things in common – ‘sameness’ – shuts out difference. Difference,
whether of viewpoint, appearance, background, etc., is natural and necessary, and
we should avoid thinking of it as problematic. If we do so, we will (even
unthinkingly) privilege one identity and, in doing so, assert it as something that
dominates others. Of course, the idea of encouraging people to articulate their ideas
in a public sphere is important but, as Gould asks, what of those who do not or
cannot speak in public, ‘who from inarticulateness, fear, habit or oppression are
removed from participation in public life’ (1996: 176)? We should help people to
express and defend their differences – not regard difference as something to be
ashamed of or to hide. It is true that France has a strong tradition of republicanism.
But why should we interpret the separation of church and state in way that prevents
young Muslim women from wearing headscarves? After all, they are not insisting
that everyone wears a headscarf: they merely want to display their difference.
The assumption of a dominant identity threatens democracy since democracy
requires that all seek to govern their own life (see Chapter 5 on Democracy). If we
assume that certain identities are privileged, then those who differ will be excluded,
and diversity will be crushed by uniformity.Postmodernism/poststructuralism and difference
Postmodernism or poststructuralism (we will use the terms synonymously) has
become influential over the last few decades. It challenges what it calls modernism,
and the tendency of ‘modernist’ thinkers to see the world in opposites that exclude
one another. One of these opposites is privileged, and the other downgraded. Thus,
instead of seeing men and women as differences that imply one another – to know
what a man is, you need to know what a woman is – modernists tend to regard
one as more important than the other. Much of our own argument in this, as in
other sections, has drawn upon postmodernist argument, and the rejection of
‘dualism’ follows from postmodern premises.
Postmodernists have written a good deal about difference, but what makes the
postmodern view of difference contentious (in some of its formulations) is that it
is often linked to an argument that denies progress, truth and emancipation. Because
a person is different, the argument is that it is impossible to understand and
sympathise with their view of the world. Difference is seen simply as dividing us,
and the unity that makes this difference intelligible, is ignored. Using difference in
this way makes it impossible, in our view, to acknowledge dissimilarity in a way
that shows respect for others and thus strengthens democracy. But many
postmodernists are hostile to the idea of ‘sameness’ or unity, and this leads them
to reject the very idea of emancipation – that everyone can govern their own lives
albeit with different ideas and identities.470 Part 4 Contemporary ideas