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 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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 | 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? | Are “Inclusivity” and “cultural appropriation” different ways of saying the same thing? | ||