Diversity As Ideology

Discussion

Excerpted from Christian Parenti:

"We live in the age of diversity ideology, a worldview that ostensibly aims to uplift the socially marginalized. Diversity ideology’s advocates present it as a grassroots movement propelled by the downtrodden, but it is now the rhetorical currency of big business, the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, universities, powerful philanthropic foundations, h.r. departments everywhere, the Democratic Party, even many Republicans.

Diversity as ideology shouldn’t be confused with diversity itself, which tends to engender tolerance, sophistication, and cosmopolitanism. On the contrary, diversity ideology is narrow and parochial. It is a divisive, hollowed-out form of progressivism used to distract and channel legitimate popular grievances into destructive, often petty squabbles. Elites and elite institutions find diversity ideology useful because it keeps the working class divided and distracted.

One of the more striking aspects of diversity ideology is reluctance to criticize it across most of the American left. This, even as corporations and the state have been increasingly open in their appeals to diversity ideology to legitimize profiteering, mass surveillance, and imperial warfare."

(https://compactmag.com/article/diversity-is-a-ruling-class-ideology)

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?)