82,891
edits
Diversity paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary 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, ''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. | {{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, [[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 | 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 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? | Are “Inclusivity” and “cultural appropriation” different ways of saying the same thing? | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
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?'' | 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?'' | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*[[Diversity and inclusion]] | |||
*[[Entropy]] | |||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||