Diversity paradox
|
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 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 any diversity.
Encouraging ongoing, new diversity — a forward-looking, open-minded evolution of cultural perspectives, (is that what we want? Historicists might say no?) implies somehow letting people form and protect their own in-groups. Exclusivity must be allowed. It cannot be immoral. (In fact this happens a lot in other contexts: families, businesses, nations, football teams etc. Humans do this naturally.)
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 post-historical phase of enlightened society is meant to work, or develop. Perhaps — because one is not possible?