Diversity paradox

The Devil’s Advocate™ Go Premium In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights. Index — Click ᐅ to expand: The Devil’s Advocate Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

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.

To encourage ongoing, new diversity — a forward-looking, open-minded evolution of cultural perspectives, (is that what we want? Historicists might say no?) Then we have to somehow allow people to form and protect in-groups. We have to permit exclusivity. (In fact we do this a lot in other contexts: families, businesses, football teams etc)

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?

See also

• Diversity and inclusion
• Entropy