Glasses of Prejudice, Glasses of Diversity

Hello everybody! Sorry for my late posting but there was a valid reason! With regards to the "red-tinted glasses" extended metaphor in Chapter 25, I too believe they symbolize the limits of our perspectives.

By describing the lenses as ‘red’ and ‘tinted’ we immediately identify them as negative. Such imagery suggests severe staining, a blot which has relentlessly pursued the mind and utterly thrown it into an edifice of ignorance. What once might have appeared a set of ‘clean’ eye pieces is now overrun by prejudice and stereotypical angles. However, such an uncompromising torment of the ‘healthy’ mind can certainly be interpreted as not self-inflicted. From the moment we open our eyes to the moment we close them we have indeed led a life exposed to numerous external factors each contributing to the clouding of our judgements. An initiation towards stereotypical views is inevitable. And despite what might seem like a ‘universal’ condemnation towards such practices in general, each person still lives with an invisible pair of ‘blinding’ glasses shielding them from the transparency of the world. It may be arguable however that there are neither right nor wrong perspectives, and that what might be considered as ‘negative’ perception of certain phenomena is simply a component of our intellectual development. There can be a fine line between what is seen as a ‘negative’ perspective and what is accepted as fact. And therefore one may not be able to determine with absolute sureness what constitutes a ‘foggy’ pair of glasses. A consistent definition cannot be acquired across all cultures. Is one right and all the others somehow wrong? Or are all mistaken in some way, already ‘tainted’ by the redness?

However, the red lenses don’t necessarily have to indicate a barrier acting against one’s ability to understand radically varying views. They might plainly imply the singular dimensions of one’s adopted viewpoint. By seeing only red we automatically restrict our personal perspectives. To live effectively in a world increasingly giving way to globalisation, one must experience the full spectrum of colours or consistently view them objectively through colourless eye pieces. Such a standard of open-mindedness is unfortunately widely rendered unachievable as our views will always be ‘tainted’ with opinions based on past occurrences. Furthermore we cannot just remove the obstruction hanging at the end of our noses as that would result in the inability to perceive anything at all, with or without ‘tainted’ perspectives. They act as the basis of our reason, required for the essential balance between empiricism and rationalism.

Finally, can unique perspectives be so easily assumed as wholly incorrect? Or should the individual modes in which each of us witnesses the world be celebrated? Do we value transparency over diversity?

In conclusion I would l reiterate the common fact that each and every one of us bears their own pair of coloured glasses which grow increasingly marked by both positive and negative experiences as our lives progress. Glasses which become continuously customised to suit their particular owner and glasses that give way to ignorance and prejudice but also individuality and diversity.