Diversity
Contextual Quote
"In an ideal universe we wouldn't be celebrating diversity at all -- we wouldn't even be encouraging it -- because in an ideal universe the question of who you wanted to sleep with would be a matter of concern only to you and to your loved (or unloved) ones. As would your skin color; some people might like it, some people might not, but it would have no political significance whatsoever. Diversity of skin color is something we should happily take for granted, the way we do diversity of hair color. No issue of social justice hangs on appreciating hair color diversity; no issue of social justice hangs on appreciating racial or cultural diversity. If you're worried about the growing economic inequality in American life, if you suspect that there may be something unjust as well as unpleasant in the spectacle of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, no cause is less worth supporting, no battles are less worth fighting, than the ones we fight for diversity. While some cultural conservatives may wish that everyone should be assimilated to their fantasy of one truly American culture, and while the supposed radicals of the “tenured left” continue to struggle for what they hope will finally become a truly inclusive multiculturalism, the really radical idea of redistributing wealth becomes almost literally unthinkable."
- WALTER BENN MICHAELS [1]
Description
How the term diversity is used in Group Identity Theory
James Lindsay:
"Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.
We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”
Under these Critical Theories, if you happen to be some particular identity (e.g., “racially black,” as Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the New York Times Magazine “1619 Project” seemingly inadvertently put it), then your voice is only authentically Black (“politically Black”) if it speaks in terms of Blackness—a radical black-liberationist political mindset—as that is understood by Critical Race Theory. Otherwise, the black person in question is said to be suffering internalized racism (a form of socially brainwashed false consciousness that prevents him from knowing his own best interests) or is race-traitorous. Therefore, a “racially black” but not “politically Black” hire wouldn’t constitute a proper Black “Diversity” hire because the “Diversity” perspective requires having taken up the right black-liberationist politics of Critical Race Theory. Literally anything else supports “white supremacy,” which is the opposite of “Diversity,” and thus doesn’t qualify. The person’s identity is their politics, and this is why we see prominent black figures being cancelled for not holding the proper “politically Black” line.
How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.
What this means in your organization is having to hire people who have been trained into an exquisitely sensitive form of offense-taking and whose primary work effort will be problematizing everything they can read racism into. And make no mistake, the Theory says the racism must be and always is present (“the question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?'” –Robin DiAngelo). The “Diversity” hire is there to help make sure it’s found and “made visible.” Diversity training is meant to make this way of thinking and the resulting cancel culture it creates standard operating procedure in your organization. At a bare minimum, the increased focus on “Diversity” initiatives will constitute a drain of valuable resources that make your organization less productive and less competitive. At worst, your organization will fracture in a Hobbesian way around these divisions like The Evergreen State College."
(https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/diversity-delusion/)
History
Frank Furedi:
"Today the promotion of diversity and difference is usually associated with movements that are generally associated with leftish, liberal or woke interests. In contrast an emphasis on homogeneity and unity is generally is linked to conservative and right-wing ideals. This ideologically polarised state of affairs is of relatively recent vintage. Indeed, historically conservative thinkers tended to celebrate difference and cultural distinctions whereas those of radical disposition opted to uphold similarity and universalism.
The Enlightenment’s affirmation of universalism often provoked a conservative reaction that championed the unique qualities of the local and the particular. The conservative Romantic movement in Germany emphasised the importance of cultural differences and claimed that identities founded upon it were more authentic than an abstract attachment to universalism. Such sentiments were, in part, a response to the growing influence of the rationalistic and universalistic ideals of French Enlightenment thought on European societies. The German Romantics favourably contrasted authentic Kultur to the abstract spirit of French Enlightenment universalism. German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) forcefully captured the particularist spirit of the new Romantic worship of cultural identity. He claimed that it was culture that defined each people – the Volk – endowing them with their own distinct identity and spirit.
In contrast to the particularist emphasis on diversity, radicals and liberals tended to focus on the common qualities of people. English liberals from Hume onwards tended to emphasise the common qualities of human nature. From this standpoint, Thomas Paine developed his commitment to universal human rights. For the 18th century philosophes and radicals the pursuit of unity and the advocacy of a common human nature was an integral to their world view. Abbé Sieyès, a political theorist of the French Revolution was deeply concerned about what he saw as the chaos of local custom. Ridding France of cultural diversity was a key objective of the revolutionary regime. At the risk of generalisation, it can be said that radicals were often zealous supporters of centralisation whereas conservatives were decentralisers.
The pursuit of unity and the assertion of a common human nature were characteristic of the radical mindset. Radicals wanted uniformity and conservatives defended difference. Radicals were committed to sameness whereas conservatives responded by supporting diversity and cultural difference.
In the 19th century the discussion on the tension between uniformity and difference was far more nuanced than today. The French liberal philosopher Benjamin Constant personified a mature aspiration for both unity and difference. As a liberal he regarded uniformity as a mark of rationality. But Constant was something of a libertarian- conservative and he therefore appreciated the need to defend local customs and communities. He combined a criticism against unjust customs such as those that supported slavery with an appreciation of the need to maintain the distinctions between diverse communities. According to a study written by Bryan Garsten, Constant ‘argued that slow processes of local social development would be, in general, more effective and ultimately more progressive than uniform regulations imposed from above’ – more likely to discover a “sentiment of liberty” in communal settings and ‘more robust forms of patriotism were rooted in local allegiances’1.
Constant supported diversity on grounds that would today be perceived as conservative. He argued against the project of liberating ‘individuals from local ties and prejudices’ on the grounds that it would undermine freedom and the state. ‘How bizarre that those who called themselves ardent friends of freedom have worked relentlessly to destroy the natural basis of patriotism, to replace it with a false passion for an abstract being, for a general idea deprived of everything which strikes the imagination and speaks to memory’, he wrote.
Constant believed that local patriotism was foundation of freedom and for that reason was worried about the imperative of statist uniformity that sought to detach individual with their organic link to community. It is worth noting that in the contemporary era local patriotism has become the bitter target of diversity entrepreneurs on the ground that it excludes people from a clearly bounded homogenous community. Yesterday’s celebration of diversity is fundamentally different to the use to which it is put today.
19 century English liberals also possessed a balanced and nuanced understanding of the relationship between diversity and sameness. Though they adopted a belief in universalism and a common human nature they were often drawn towards a pluralist orientation toward social issues. J.S. Mill’s On Liberty serves as an exemplar of the 19th century liberal view of diversity. In this text Mill criticised the adverse consequences of advancing similarity, which he feared would impose a culture of unthinking conformity on society. Yet at the same time and in different contexts, Mill adopted a stance that advocated the benefits of unity and solidarity. In his essay Utilitarianism (1861), Mill attached great significance to unity, noting that with ‘an improving state of the human mind, the influences are constantly on the increase, which tend to generate in each individual a feeling of unity with all the rest’.2 As Michael Levin noted, Mill ‘wanted both difference and unity’3.
During the 19th and the first half of the 20th the debate on diversity and unity did not preclude commentators from understanding that the tension between these two poles could not be resolved through rupturing the relation between them. On balance diversity played an important role in countering the centralising impulse unleashed during the course of the modern era. Its affirmation of local patriotism helped to protect the legacy of the past from the statist project of subjecting society to the impulse of uniformity. 18th and 19th century proponents of diversity sought to counter the homogenising tendency to impose uniformity on thought and behaviour. At this time opponents of the uniformalising tendency of modernity sought to open a space for discretion and judgment.
It is evident that the meaning of diversity has fundamentally altered during the past 250 years. In the past the affirmation of difference ran in parallel with the celebration of the organic bonds that tied communities to their ancestors. Diverse local customs and practices were historically rooted and reflected the taken for granted values that prevailed in local communities. The current version of diversity is abstract and often administratively created. It is frequently imposed from above and affirmed through rules and procedure. The artificial character of diversity is demonstrated by its reliance on legal and quasi-legal instruments. There is a veritable army of bureaucrats and inspectors who are assigned the role of enforcing diversity related rules. The unnatural and artificial character of diversity is illustrated by the fact that it must be taught. Special courses and workshops – in many cases obligatory – are designed to ‘raise awareness’ about the necessity for upholding diversity.
Today’s administratively imposed diversity is also different to its original version insofar as its acceptance is obligatory and non-discretionary. As noted earlier 19th century diversity was closely linked to the practice of making distinctions and valuing discretion and judgment. Since its emergence as a foundational value, diversity is frequently represented as an antidote to discrimination and discretion on the ground that these acts are exclusionary and wrong.
It was in the 1950s that diversity was instrumentalised as a weapon with which to counter the tendency to judge, discriminate and draw distinctions. Psychologist often represented an inclination towards diversity as the moral opposite to prejudice. In well-known 1950s classic, The Authoritarian Personality, the authors drew a moral contrast between the ‘readiness to include, accept, and even love differences and diversitie (sic)’ with ‘the need to set of clear demarcation lines and to ascertain superiorities and inferiorities’. Those who insisted on drawing lines and borders and refused to love diversity were diagnosed as possessing an authoritarian personality. They were represented as morally inferior to their inclusive peers4.
It was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that diversity acquired an ideological significance. The main driver of this development was the politicisation of identity. The erosion of a mood of national unity and of solidarity created the condition of social fragmentation. In this new fragmented social landscape different groups of minorities sought to legitimate themselves through politicising their identity. Identity politics developed a parasitic relationship with the prevailing trend towards social fragmentation. Through the idealisation of diversity they were able to demand inclusion. In this way they could strengthen their identity and gain access to resources.
The politicisation of diversity turned it into a dogma that could not be questioned. Any critique of diversity courted the charge of discrimination and prejudice. The philosopher Christopher Lasch was one of the first to grasp the corrosive and authoritarian dimension of the ethos of diversity.
Back in 1995 in his essay on the ‘Democratic Malaise; he wrote:
- ‘In practice, diversity turns out to legitimize a new dogmatism, in which rival minorities take shelter behind a set of beliefs impervious to rational discussion. The physical segregation of the population in self-enclosed, racially homogeneous enclaves has its counterpart in the balkanization of opinion. Each group tries to barricade itself behind its own dogmas’.
Lasch’s concern with the way that a politicised diversity breeds segregation and the balkanisation of opinion has proved to be prescient. Diversity has proved to an enemy of tolerance. Its rejection of discretion represents a hostility to a culture of debate. It demands conformity with its ideals and has no hesitation about constraining the exercise of freedom, particularly that of free speech."
(https://frankfuredi.substack.com/p/diversity-the-foundational-value?)
Discussion
The Origins of Diversity as Political/Governance Practice in the U.S.
BY WALTER BENN MICHAELS:
"In the United States, the commitment to appreciating diversity emerged out of the struggle against racism, and the word diversity itself began to have the importance it does for us today in 1978 when, in Bakke v. Board of Regents, the Supreme Court ruled that taking into consideration the race of an applicant to the University of California (the medical school at UC Davis, in this case) was acceptable if it served “the interest of diversity.” The Court's point here was significant. It was not asserting that preference in admissions could be given, say, to black people because they had previously been discriminated against. It was saying instead that universities had a legitimate interest in taking race into account in exactly the same way they had a legitimate interest in taking into account what part of the country an applicant came from or what his or her nonacademic interests were. They had, in other words, a legitimate interest in having a “diverse student body,” and racial diversity, like geographic diversity, could thus be an acceptable goal for an admissions policy.
Two things happened here. First, even though the concept of diversity was not originally connected with race (universities had long sought diverse student bodies without worrying about race at all), the two now came to be firmly associated. When universities publish their diversity statistics today, they're not talking about how many kids come from Oregon. My university -- the University of Illinois at Chicago -- is ranked as one of the most diverse in the country, but well over half the students in it come from Chicago. What the rankings measure is the number of African Americans and Asian Americans and Latinos we have, not the number of Chicagoans.
And, second, even though the concept of diversity was introduced as a kind of end run around the historical problem of racism (the whole point was that you could argue for the desirability of a diverse student body without appealing to the history of discrimination against blacks and so without getting accused by people like Alan Bakke of reverse discrimination against whites), the commitment to diversity became deeply associated with the struggle against racism. Indeed, the goal of overcoming racism -- of creating a “color-blind” society -- was now reconceived as the goal of creating a diverse, that is, a color-conscious, society. Instead of trying to treat people as if their race didn't matter, we would not only recognize but celebrate racial identity. Indeed, race has turned out to be a gateway drug for all kinds of identities, cultural, religious, sexual, even medical. To take what may seem like an extreme case, advocates for the disabled now urge us to stop thinking of disability as a condition to be “cured” or “eliminated” and to start thinking of it instead on the model of race: We don't think black people should want to stop being black; why do we assume the deaf want to hear?
Our commitment to diversity has thus redefined the opposition to discrimination as the appreciation (rather than the elimination) of difference. So with respect to race, the idea is not just that racism is a bad thing (which of course it is) but that race itself is a good thing.
And what makes it a good thing is that it's not class. We love race -- we love identity -- because we don't love class. We love thinking that the differences that divide us are not the differences between those of us who have money and those who don't but are instead the differences between those of us who are black and those who are white or Asian or Latino or whatever. A world where some of us don't have enough money is a world where the differences between us present a problem: the need to get rid of inequality or to justify it. A world where some of us are black and some of us are white -- or bi-racial or Native American or transgendered -- is a world where the differences between us present a solution: appreciating our diversity. So we like to talk about the differences we can appreciate, and we don't like to talk about the ones we can't. Indeed, we don't even like to acknowledge that they exist. As survey after survey has shown, Americans are very reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the lower class and even more reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the upper class. The class we like is the middle class.
But the fact that we all like to think of ourselves as belonging to the same class doesn't, of course, mean that we actually do belong to the same class. In reality, we obviously and increasingly don't. “The last few decades,” as The Economist puts it, “have seen a huge increase in inequality in America.” The rich are different from you and me, and one of the ways they're different is that they're getting richer and we're not. And while it's not surprising that most of the rich and their apologists on the intellectual right are unperturbed by this development, it is at least a little surprising that the intellectual left has managed to remain almost equally unperturbed. Giving priority to issues like affirmative action and committing itself to the celebration of difference, the intellectual left has responded to the increase in economic inequality by insisting on the importance of cultural identity. So for 30 years, while the gap between the rich and the poor has grown larger, we've been urged to respect people's identities -- as if the problem of poverty would be solved if we just appreciated the poor. From the economic standpoint, however, what poor people want is not to contribute to diversity but to minimize their contribution to it -- they want to stop being poor. Celebrating the diversity of American life has become the American left's way of accepting their poverty, of accepting inequality." (https://prospect.org/features/trouble-diversity/)