Diversity paradox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{A|devil|}}The paradox at the heart of the diversity military industrial complex: on one hand, pluralism: we value diverse, differentiated perspectives and respect and protec..." Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{A|devil|}}The paradox at the heart of the diversity military industrial complex: on one hand, pluralism: we value diverse, differentiated perspectives and respect and protect the varying cultural traditions which are the midwife to these perspectives, reinforcing minority voices; on the other hand we expect | {{A|devil|}}The paradox at the heart of the diversity military industrial complex: on one hand, ''pluralism'': we value diverse, differentiated perspectives and respect and protect the varying cultural traditions which are the midwife to these perspectives, reinforcing minority voices; on the other hand, ''inclusivity'': we expect citizens to subscribe to an idiosyncratic set of moral and political values which are the end-product of a particular western neoliberal programme, and which cautions ''against'' in-group formations (seeing as they ''exclude'', by definition) even though the very cultures we seek to protect and sanctify are archetypal in-groups. That is what made them distinctive in the first place. | ||
Neoliberalism sanctifies diversity, but counsels homogeneity. It is, ultimately, entropic: once | Neoliberalism sanctifies diversity, but counsels ''homogeneity''. It is, ultimately, [[entropy|entropic]]: once a diverse perspective is identified, it can be absorbed and assimilated (''appropriated''?) into a global cultural corpus in which everyone is included. There is no longer and diversity. | ||
“Inclusivity” and “cultural appropriation” different ways of saying the same thing | Are “Inclusivity” and “cultural appropriation” different ways of saying the same thing? | ||
Now also there is no single coherent argument seeing out exactly how Fukuyama’s | Now also there is no single coherent argument seeing out exactly how Fukuyama’s post-historical phase of enlightened society is meant to work, or develop. Perhaps — ''because one is not possible?'' | ||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} |