It turns out that Tim Cook, the new CEO of Apple, is gay.
Felix Salmon suggests that this makes him the most powerful gay man on earth (an idea of which I am sceptical – surely at least one head of state among all the nations of the world has been queer at some point) and that the media ought to be celebrating this fact, or at least making mention of it:
Personally, I don’t care. Why should I? Fundamentally, the only relevant facts are those that inform me about his ability to do his job, and knowing whether he’s a member of ethnic group X, holds religious view Y or is turned on by Z is of no use in that regard.
In a completely post-bigotry world, those things might (or might not!) be included in a puff piece that wanted to tell you about Tim Cook, the man, as a sort of background colour (“raised a Catholic, Mary-Anne’s atheism was a source of family friction in her early adulthood, but …”), but they’d play no part in people’s opinion of him as a manager and so would never appear in a serious article about the future direction of whichever company he works for.
Salmon’s point, I believe, is that (a) we’re not in a post-bigotry world and so there is a lead-by-example case for publicising Cook’s sexuality in the same way that people discussed that Hillary Clinton is female and Barack Obama is black; and (b) even if we were, the media is going out of its way to make no mention of it even in the puff pieces, that it’s going out of its way to self-gag and so, ironically, subtly reinforcing the closet.
I dunno. I think that stuff like this is only relevant to public discourse — even puff-piece writing — if at some point it helped shape the subject’s motivations in life. Furthermore, I believe that for at least some queer people now, and eventually for all of them, their sexuality (will have) played absolutely no role in shaping their motivations in anything other than who to look for in a partner.
As such, I’m instinctively sceptical of a need to draw attention to it. Not even the puffiest of puff pieces would spend time discussing people’s preferences over ice cream flavours unless the subject made a point of bringing up their obsession with chocolate-mint.
When it comes to playing a role as a societal leader, I can’t help but feel that it’s up to Mr. Cook to decide for himself.
Dani and I rewatched “Good Will Hunting” last night. I think there’s a parallel with the kid who’s a genius. I always get angry when Ben Affleck’s character (the well-meaning, but idiot friend) tells Matt Damon’s character (the genius) that “you don’t owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me … ‘Cause I’d do fuckin’ anything to have what you got. So would any of these fuckin’ guys. It’d be an insult to us if you’re still here in 20 years” [IMDB]. It’s Rawls’ veil of ignorance turned arse-end backwards. It’s also complete rubbish.
I can see a moral argument for why Rawls’ veil implies that society at large should help people who drew particularly shitty numbers, but why should any one individual be required to do something just because they drew a particularly awesome number? The whole goddamn point of Rawls’ veil is that nobody consents to it in the first place and so, as a society, we ought to not force people into the pigeon-hole that the lottery put them in. Just because you were born into a poor family doesn’t mean you have to stay poor. Just because you’re black doesn’t mean you have to like basketball. Just because you have an IQ of 180 doesn’t mean you must do research. Messers Affleck and Damon need to reread “Brave New World”.
Nobody can deny that Barrack Obama is black, but the extent to which he makes speeches to the black community declaring that they can be black, proud and successful is entirely up to him. People working to bring about racial equality might feel he has an obligation, but he really doesn’t.
If Tim Cook wants to try to improve the acceptance of gay people in society at large, he can, but the idea of saying that he ought to just because he’s gay himself is illiberal.