“Kiwi Before Iwi” and the Logic of Equality

In New Zealand, the slogan “Kiwi before iwi” comes from a speech delivered by Don Brash in 2004, where he argued that the government should treat everyone equally. According to Brash, measures targeted specifically at Māori people grant them privileges that others do not benefit from. Instead, he believed that government policies should apply to everyone equally, meaning good measures or policies should also apply to Māori people without treating them in a special way. This is the logic of equality: everyone should be treated equally and have the same opportunities.

I wasn’t aware of this slogan in New Zealand until it resurfaced in government discourse 20 years later, like a vampire resurrected to haunt the community. It reappeared recently with Seymour and Peters, responding to affirmative action aimed at uplifting the mana of Māori people in the health system. They even equated designated spaces for Māori and Pacifika students at the University of Auckland to Apartheid, as if providing a safe space for a group of students was like preventing an entire population from accessing public services like education. Peters went as far as saying that the Labour government and its affirmative actions are akin to Nazi Germany.

The logic of equality, taken in a strict sense, leads to these catastrophic conditions. Imagine a family with children: one is a successful citizen with a high income, while another requires full-time assistance due to a health condition and cannot work or fend for themselves. Is it unjust for the parents to provide for the latter child and not give equally to the wealthier one? If the parents spend money on the child in need, must they give the same amount to the rich child to ensure equal treatment? Or should they only provide for the child in need with measures that also benefit the rich child? Using Peters' inflammatory logic of equality, are the parents like Nazis because they provide special care for their child in need?

Normally, I would think asking this question is uncharitable and creates a strawman of Peters’ view. Surely he doesn’t believe in such a strict reading of the logic of equality! I’m afraid he’s committed to it, however, because he has applied it unrestrictedly. The logic of equality is not only about caring for all Kiwis equally but also about considering measures that apply to disembodied individuals—neutral beings with no special identity or needs. If you generalise the “Kiwi before iwi” slogan to characterise the logic of equality, what do you get? “Individual before people”? “The one before the many”?

Neutrality vs Equality vs Equity

In Logic in the Wild, I present logic as the guardian of coherence and compliment it for providing a “neutral space of dialectical enquiry.” Guarding coherence requires attention to structure and reasoning rather than belief and content. Engaging in a neutral space of dialectical enquiry is to focus on coherence rather than content when contemplating various perspectives on the same issue, alone or with others. Focus on how they reason, not what they believe. Being neutral means, in particular, that no one’s opinion or belief is imposed on the space, that no one is forced to accept as true what they don’t believe in.

Engaging neutrally requires the suspension of strong opinions and beliefs for the sake of the enquiry. If, when engaging with fiction, the audience is sometimes required to suspend disbelief, which means accepting things they wouldn’t accept in real life, such as superheroes, monsters, or interstellar space travel (do you believe in it?), suspending belief in a dialectical space is not similarly being more gullible, but rather suppressing one’s beliefs unless they can be justified and shared. If you want others to adopt a belief in a neutral space, you need to motivate and argue for it. How does it benefit others in the same space? How is it better for the group? And if others have views they want to support, hear them out with a charitable ear, seeking coherence and conciliation.

That’s the positive side of neutrality, that it allows us to play on an equal field, one in which everyone is treated equally. Equality, however, doesn’t guarantee equity. That’s true in real life, that even though we pretend that everyone has equal opportunity in society, only some achieve fair outcomes, sometimes because of luck and hard work, but most often because of their situation in society, which allows them to ignore or overcome barriers that stop others not similarly situated.

I believe the same can happen in a dialectical enquiry, that imposing neutrality without concern for fairness leads to an equal but non-equitable space. Some need to give up a lot more than others to enter that space, their voices get silenced because they can’t find a neutral way to express them, and their identity gets erased and so do the richness and wisdom of what they have to contribute. This can indeed happen deep in accepted standards of reasoning, which favor orthodoxy over difference by seeking equality, thus failing to achieve equity and fairness.

Logic and the Pursuit of Equality: A Critical Examination

In his recent "State of the Nation" address on January 28, New Zealand ACT leader David Seymour, a part of the current government coalition, emphasized the importance of treating all individuals equally as human beings. He stated, "We accept that if government policy doesn't treat all people equally as human beings, then we will gradually find division becomes the norm." He also expressed his belief in "universal humanity," emphasizing the same rights and dignities for every person and highlighting its role in historical social rights movements such as votes for women, the civil rights movement in America, and the end of apartheid in South Africa, among others.

While I won't delve into the idea that "universal humanity" has driven social rights movements, I'm interested in exploring the concept of abstract equality. This is significant because logic provides a framework for articulating how abstract equality can be achieved through neutrality.

In "Logic in the Wild," I defend the perspective that logic acts as the "guardian of coherence" and offers a "neutral space of dialectical enquiry." Neutrality, in the context of logic, implies detachment from content, enabling us to focus on the structural aspects of arguments, beliefs, or theories independently of their subject matter. Being logical doesn't hinge on truth, reasonableness, or sensibility; rather, it demands that beliefs are held coherently.

Seeking neutrality in communication and within the community holds numerous practical advantages. Neutrality facilitates abstraction, leading to universality and generality. Logically true statements, or tautologies, are assertions that cannot possibly be false, such as the claim that everything is either human or not. While this logical lens may render everything equal, it also strips away richness and diversity.

However, the challenge arises when we attempt to achieve social equality solely through abstraction and neutrality. This approach risks erasing the specific experiences of marginalized groups, those that are often subjugated under the banner of "universal humanity." While individuals like Seymour, positioned in places of power, may see equality through neutrality as a liberating force for fairness and justice, their own identities remain largely intact in this pursuit. This is because they already enjoy the "same rights and dignities" that they believe should be extended to everyone.

I have concerns about the rhetoric of equality used by politicians who advocate for erasing identities as the path to a just society. This approach may inadvertently overlook the unique challenges faced by marginalized communities. Achieving true equality requires us to navigate the delicate balance between embracing universality and acknowledging the importance of individual identities and experiences.

Iwi Before Kiwi: Uncovering the Hidden Depths in Societal Generalizations

When you make a true statement about everything, and I'm talking about 'Everything everything,' you're likely to end up with mere platitudes. Take, for example, the assertion that everything either exists or doesn't. This applies to me, my cat, and, well, everything. But consider the claim that everything is part of everything. This seems valid, but only if we're interpreting 'everything' in a consistent manner (note the play on different meanings of 'everything'). Admittedly, this isn't particularly exciting. My argument here is that general statements encompassing everything tend to be low on information.

Now, let's shift our focus to general statements about a narrower set, like humans. Suddenly, we're able to make more interesting observations: every human has a heart, humans inhabit Earth, and our survival depends on water. The narrower the group, the more specific and informative our statements can be. Consider children: all children are younger than 30 years old, and no child under 5 can drive a car. Surely, you can think of numerous other examples. The pattern here is clear – by focusing on increasingly specific groups, we gain more meaningful information. Conversely, the larger the group, the fewer statements apply universally to all its members. This reality underscores how marginalized groups are often erased in broad, sweeping statements that aim to encompass everyone.

An example of this is the phrase 'Kiwi before iwi'. When New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon speaks of unity and inclusivity for all Kiwis, his intention might be to promote governance that is equitable for all. However, such a stance inadvertently neglects the unique identities and lived experiences of marginalized groups. The systemic disparities between the majority of Kiwis and marginalized groups, such as Māori or LGBTQ+ people, become apparent only when we consider these subgroups separately. Broad generalizations about all Kiwis tend to obscure the specific statistics and insights necessary for achieving equity and social justice.

There's a logical imperative to explore different domains of quantification if we want to uncover informative generalizations that can help propel our country forward. We must recognize that, at times, prioritizing 'iwi before Kiwi' is essential for fostering a just society.

One vs All: Equitable Justice vs Identical Treatment

If you found yourself as the sole survivor in a world devoid of other humans, your actions would be unbound by the typical constraints of morality. Social justice issues wouldn't come into play in such a solitary existence. This scenario, while intriguing, isn't one I'd wish upon anyone. The prospect of being the last human being, in what would cease to be a society, is a bleak one.

However, this thought experiment highlights a fundamental truth: fulfilling all our needs independently is unattainable, given our intrinsic nature as social beings. Living in groups, as we do, means our preferences, desires, and needs will inevitably intersect and, at times, conflict. This necessitates a process of negotiation within our families, communities, and broader society. We strive to find ways to meet everyone's needs while preventing oppression and exploitation.

In a small group, a simple majority rule might seem effective. Yet, this system fails when the majority's decisions adversely affect the marginalized groups. Consider a household of three where a strict majority rule is applied: if two decide that the third person should undertake all cooking duties, the arrangement becomes unjust. As we scale this concept to larger communities and societies, the potential for majority-driven oppression grows significantly. What happens, for example, when a majority dictates that a subgroup should be enslaved for labor?

Conversely, there's the issue of a minority or a dictator wielding excessive power, leading to the oppression of the majority through violence and fear. But that's a topic for another discussion. Here, I'm concerned with the majority's perception that focusing on societal issues faced by marginalized groups, and seeking redress for these issues, somehow diminishes the majority. This viewpoint overlooks the fact that striving for a just distribution of goods and rights in society is not necessarily at the expense of individuals.

If social measures only cater to every individual equally, systemic and societal issues affecting marginalized groups may be overlooked, no matter their severity. For instance, we could tackle class disparities and the economic divide between rich and poor, yet still leave a subgroup in extreme poverty if they are too small to influence the broader movement. This is why the New Zealand government's call to work for "every Kiwi" raises concerns. It suggests that measures benefiting each individual equally are the hallmarks of a just society. However, identifying, acknowledging, and correcting the injustices experienced by various marginalized groups is essential for the entire community to thrive and evolve into a more equitable society.

So the pursuit of social justice and individual rights requires a nuanced understanding that extends beyond simple equations of equality. This involves not only addressing the broader societal issues but also giving due attention to the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups. The goal is to create a harmonious society where the needs of both the majority and marginalized groups are met, fostering a community where every individual, regardless of their group affiliation, has the opportunity to thrive. This approach, focusing on equitable treatment rather than identical treatment, is crucial for building a more just and inclusive society.

"Kiwi before iwi": Exploring Logic and Identity in New Zealand's Political Landscape

This weekend, a significant gathering occurred: a hui attended by 10,000 people, convened by Kiingi Tuheitia, the Māori King. The purpose was to address the Coalition Government's policies on te reo and the Treaty of Waitangi. NZ First MP Shane Jones made a statement to Newshub: "The Government is focused on the interests of every single Kiwi rather than every single iwi." This sentiment echoes the old dichotomy of “Kiwi vs iwi” or “Kiwi before iwi”.

In my book, "Logic in the Wild," I argue that logic provides a neutral space for dialectical inquiry. However, there's a darker aspect to this abstraction: it can lead to the erasure of individual identities. The National government's stance of governing for “every” Kiwi ostensibly aims to unite rather than divide, suggesting that equality at the individual level avoids exclusion or favouritism. In logical terms, when the government speaks of “every Kiwi”, they are quantifying over individuals. To attain equality at this granular level, individuals must be rendered as neutral as possible.

As a logician, I am well-versed in this practice of generalising across domains. Logic aims for such a degree of generality that the entities within its domains of quantification become arbitrary. This is akin to a method in science, which I discuss in "Logic in The Wild," called ceteris paribus reasoning. This method abstracts away from interfering factors when formulating laws. For example, when Newton formulated his laws of motion, he idealised the scenario to just two bodies, a “sun” and a “planet,” treating them as mathematical points rather than celestial bodies.

This approach, while achieving generality, necessitates the erasure of individual specificity, treating entities as mere points. Members of parliament who advocate for an individualistic neo-liberal society find comfort in this “every Kiwi” domain, as their identity and social circumstances already align with the required neutrality. However, the challenges faced by iwis and Māori in our society are not evenly distributed among individuals. Systemic oppression manifests in various forms – poverty, health issues, substance abuse, severe mental health problems – and these are not uniformly experienced. This oppression cannot be reduced to the sum of individual experiences; it operates at a group level.

Thus, striving for neutrality at the individual level, as encapsulated in the phrase “every Kiwi”, inadvertently suppresses the recognition of oppression that affects iwis. It erases identities that are crucial to understanding the lived experiences of those facing oppression, forcing them into a framework of neutrality that is alien to their reality.

Reference

Neutrality Against Equality: A Dialectical Dilemma

In yesterday's post, I raised a question: does the neutrality or even impartiality of a dialectical space of enquiry necessarily lead to equality? This is a question worth delving deeper into. Let's consider this: How can a neutral and impartial dialectical practice possibly not treat its participants equally? Or, more specifically, how can such a practice fail to offer equal access to enquiry despite its neutrality and impartiality?

Initially, I treated neutrality and impartiality together to contrast them with the concept of equality, noting their distinct roles in dialectical spaces. It's crucial to distinguish between these terms to avoid potential misinterpretation. Impartiality primarily concerns the behavior and psychology of the interlocutors — their capacity to identify and mitigate their own biases and prejudices in judgment. It speaks more to the dynamics between individuals rather than to the inherent qualities of the enquiry space itself. Neutrality, in contrast, can be inherent to the space of enquiry itself, serving as a characteristic that emphasizes logical structure over content. This distinction underscores that while impartiality is about people and their interactions, neutrality is about the very nature of the enquiry space. Recognizing the importance of this distinction, my focus will be primarily on exploring the concept of neutrality and its implications.

The critical question then becomes: How can a neutral dialectical practice fail to provide equal access to enquiry? The type of neutrality in question here is that offered by logic, which involves abstracting from the content of beliefs or theories and concentrating on structure. As I argue in "Logic in the Wild," maintaining coherence neutrally means seeking good logical patterns in reasoning, regardless of content. Examples abound where arguments are logical, irrespective of whether their components are true or false. In theory, as long as the enquiry is predominantly logical, any content is permissible. This includes everything from ancient optics, which visualized beams emanating from the eyes to perceive the world, to alien abduction narratives, all of which can be as logically coherent as the most established modern scientific theories. How then does this not foster equality?

There are two key ways this occurs:

1. Insights from critical theory (encompassing feminism, queer theory, race theory, and post-colonial theory) suggest that societal biases are so pervasive and systematic that they lead practitioners to believe they are reasoning without assumptions, when in fact they are enforcing deep-rooted doxastic commitments in their dialectical enquiry.

2. Logic itself harbors inherent assumptions in the rules and laws it upholds, potentially creating a form of epistemic injustice by disallowing views that challenge these assumptions. A notable example from recent decades is the emergence of paraconsistent logics, which accommodate inconsistent theories. Orthodox twentieth-century logic equates inconsistency with triviality — an ultimate absurdity. However, scholars exploring indigenous philosophies have recognized that these worldviews often necessitate a tolerance for some inconsistency due to the conceptual spaces in which they operate. If a dialectical space of enquiry does not accommodate inconsistency due to its logical standards, despite claiming neutrality, it risks excluding alternative conceptual frameworks under the guise of triviality. This exclusion inevitably leads to inequality.

This issue presents a profound challenge. The rise of paraconsistent logics, which permit inconsistency, starkly contrasts with the orthodox view of twentieth-century logic where inconsistency was synonymous with triviality. This shift is significant, especially for scholars interpreting indigenous philosophies. These philosophies often require an acceptance of certain inconsistencies, which traditional logical frameworks might dismiss as trivial. If our dialectical spaces, governed by these orthodox logical standards, reject inconsistency, they inadvertently marginalize these alternative conceptual frameworks, perpetuating inequality.

Such a scenario illustrates a deep and ongoing problem in the field of logical enquiry: the potential for epistemic injustice rooted in the very foundations of logic. This is a dilemma that will continue to engage and challenge my thoughts for some time to come.