The central question of Strahilevitz's Information and Exclusion is stated to be "What predicts whch mechanisms individuals will use in order to promote exclusivity?" (p.3) My first reaction after reading chapters 1-6 of was: who cares? In today's society we have become so accustomed to patterns of exclusivity, that the intent underlying any mechanisms being employed to achieve exclusivity is somewhat meaningless. In other words, why should we care how different mechanisms are employed and for what reasons, if the end result is the same: exclusivity? Whether it be through a "bouncer," a focal point, or a social cue, people are trying to create artificial boundaries throughout society. Strahilevitz seems to think that such a result is problematic; otherwise, there would be little reason for engaging in a book-length discussion on the subject.
While I understand some of Strahilevitz's most potent concerns, mainly that some exclusionary mechanisms may in fact be proxies for more racially-motivated discrimination practices, I tend to believe that it would be highly hypocritical to disallow some forms of exclusion (aside from purely race or gender-based exclusion), in society while allowing, even advocating others. Strahilevitz gives numerous examples of circumstances where exclusion is appropriate: in property law, in cases of sexual predators, and in cases of professional organizations or associations. All of these examples are well-defined, and enjoy support by the large majority of our population. He then provides examples on the opposite extreme of where exclusion is not appropriate: usually in accordance with the FHA laws. Most of these too enjoy support by the large majority of our population. But what about the gray area?
Strahilevitz spends a considerable amount of time on the mechanisms employed between the opposite ends of the spectrum: the "bouncer's right," the "exclusionary vibes," and the "exclusionary amenities." Each of these has different characteristics, at least as to the method by which exclusion is produced; in the bouncer's right, the exclusion is more physical and tangible, in the exclusionary vibes the exclusion is more mental and fleeting, and in the exclusionary amenities the exclusion is more economic and calculated. Strahilevitz claims that the choice between the mechanisms is rooted in "information economics." But again, who cares? Is it the disappointed home buyer deprived of the opportunity to live in a community of haughty WASPS? Is it the average-looking college girl who can't get into the Hollywood's newest nightclub? Is it the black golfer who can't get a tee time because he isn't a member of the Riviera Country Club? Who exactly is it that cares about why a person was excluded and by which means that exclusion took place? Would any of the aforementioned people feel better about his or her exclusion if told that a strategy of suggestive advertising was employed as opposed to direct exclusion because there were some information assymetries that the resource-holder could not deal with?
If these are the people who care, then we must ask them to ponder the beautiful Confucian maxim: "Wherever you go, there you are." The world during civilized humanity's infant stages will be turbulent. Prejudices and anxieties will prevail until slowly, over time, contrary evidence and history eliminate the need for these blunt and unsophisticated methods of exclusion. During this time, people will always find ways to include and exclude, regardless of whether there are particular laws for or against such practices. And in fact, it is likely that the more we regulate exclusion, the more submersive and harder to detect the exclusion becomes (Strahilevitz actually points to this in his reference to the ability to "narrowly tailor" exclusion using the new internet tools). Until the very philosophical foundations of society change, Confucius's maxim should reign supreme.
If the people who care are not the affected people, but instead the government or other citizens concerned about the externalities of exclusion shown in social psychology experiments and "other laboratory studies", then a different issue arises. Do we really believe that there are not any negative externalities from prohibiting exclusionary practices where the excluding party truly believes the exclusion is justified? Do we really believe that regulating one exclusionary mechanism will not produce other exclusionary mechanisms? Facebook and other social media will make exclusion more effective than ever, but people will also become increasingly aware of the means by which exclusion takes place (ie the elements of a profile picture, or of social circles that are important to others), and therefore, information asymmetries will be reduced. Essentially, the social media revolution will produce a more exclusive society, but one in which everyone can still find inclusion.
As already stated, I do share many of Professor Strahilevitz's collateral concerns, but I keep asking myself why I should care about any of the conclusions he offers. In the near future, information asymmetries (at least large ones) will be virtually nonexistent. Too much information exists on the internet now. People will be able to justify exclusion with a wide-range of variables. The more narrowly-tailored the exclusion, the more difficult the exclusion is to regulate and understand. So why bother? I know how this statement must sound to those who have felt excluded from one thing or another in their lives (as we all have), but there is a substitute for everything in life; maybe not a perfect substitute, and maybe some substitutes are better for some than others, but there are substitutes. Life isn't always fair. It never purported to be. Rather than seek things one could be excluded from, one should find the things that one truly belongs to. If people are true to themselves, really true to themselves, life becomes a coordination game, not a conflict one.
Comments