Will The Institution Change?

You live in Browneyeland — where 90% of the population have brown eyes. For centuries, people with blue eyes have been a minority, excluded from public life. Although parts of the civil rights movement have penetrated Browneyeland, the right to vote still rests exclusively with brown-eyes.

But the non-brown-suffrage activists have been vocal. The reactionary movement has several “arguments”, but one is very curious. “Voting is a time-favoured institution in Browneyeland, dating back hundreds of years. The entire political process rests on the core principle of a vote being between a brown-eye and his/her elected brown-eye representative. Therefore, if we give non-browns their vote, they will forever change the institution of politics“.

Now, in Browneyeland political candidates generally denigrate non-browns as part of their campaign. And why shouldn’t they? There’s enough popular dislike of blue-eyes to make it a profitable move. And with only browns voting, it’s not like a politician has anything to lose. So indeed, if Browneyeland gives “those people” the vote, politicians will no longer be able to use such campaign tactics with impunity. The country’s politics really will be forever altered. Indeed letting the non-browns vote will destroy aspects of established Browneyeland culture.

Can anyone seriously complain that it’s a bad thing? By excluding people, institutions evolve certain features. Usually bad ones (eg. the bigoted political platforms). Once the exclusion ends, the institution will need to evolve in a slightly different direction. The two paths can’t possibly be the same: inviting more people to the table will always see a social institution change. And to paraphrase a great quote, that which can be destroyed by openness should be.

Which makes me surprised that proponents of gay marriage often say the fears of the right wing (“the institution of marriage will be forever changed!!1!”) are unfounded, that things will go on as before. For instance, see this interview with Dan Savage. Methinks this is nonsense. Of course it will change marriage. On a trivial level it will make it more egalitarian (duh). But there will be other social changes, including ones nobody has foreseen. There always are when more people are included. So the correct response to such questions is once again: “that which can be destroyed by openness should be”. Another, response: “so?!”