Diversity – the foundational value of the New Authoritarians

It runs in parallel with the normalisation of intolerance

Photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash

Historically discussions about the relative merits of diversity or homogeneity did not refer to the realm of values. It is only during the past 4 or 5 decades that a diversity came to be seen as a value in and of itself. Public and private organisations now insist that diversity in integral to their practice. The DEI triad of diversity, equity and inclusion has become institutionalised throughout the Anglo-American world. International organisations and NGOs have literally endowed diversity with a sacred status. UNESCO insists that ‘diversity is the very essence of our identity’. In businesses, diversity trumps competence and achievement. In higher education diversity has become a first order value that is represented as more important than academic ability and academic freedom.

To grasp the quasi-religious transformation of diversity into a taken-for-granted dogma it is useful to explore its historical evolution. A word of warning! It is always tempting to respond to the dogmatic affirmation of diversity as a sacred value by an equally one-sided assertion of homogeneity. We believe that its is far more fruitful consider the relationship between diversity and homogeneity as one that must be assessed in relation to the context within which it arises.

The paradox of diversity

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 18^th 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 19^th 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 19^th 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 19^th and the first half of the 20^th 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. 18^th and 19^th 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 19^th 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’⁵.

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.

Free Speech-Diversity Trade Off

It is within institutions of culture and education that the authoritarian dimension of diversity is most striking. One of the most important developments in campus culture is the growing tendency to represent free-speech and diversity as contradictory values. PEN America’s report ‘And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities’(2016) highlighted a disturbing development, which was that amongst younger members of faculty and students the value of free speech is trumped by that of diversity. It noted that ‘at times’ campus controversies ‘have led some groups of students to question the value of free speech itself’. That was in 2016. Today many campus activists do not merely question the value of free speech but also condemn it as a tool of white supremacy. Free Speech is frequently denounced as Hate Speech.

Since the turn of the century, universities have come under great pressure to balance the apparently competing claims of diversity and free speech.

Some university leaders have gone so far as to suggest that free speech and diversity may be contradictory values. Many university administrators regard free speech as a threat to diversity. They argue that free speech constitutes a risk to the welfare of new groups of non-traditional and minority students. Michael Roth, head of Wesleyan University, wrote that in the past campuses were ‘far less diverse places than they are today’ and consequently ‘there were many voices that none of us got to hear’. The implication of Roth’s statement is that the exercise of free speech in the past was in some sense responsible for silencing the voices of minority groups. It therefore negates inclusive practices promoting diversity.

The idea that freedom of speech and diversity are mutually contradictory values exercises a significant influence on campus culture. Defenders of safe spaces contend that freedom needs to be ‘balanced’ or ‘traded off’ against diversity. ‘I definitely think it’s a balancing act,’ observed Gale Baker, university counsel for California State University. She perceives ‘open and frank discussion and free expression’ as ‘competing’ with the ‘value of wanting a diverse and inclusive community’.

In the current climate, the exhortation to ‘balance free speech and diversity’ invariably leads to the conclusion that the former must give way to the latter. University leaders increasingly presume in favour of diversity and in many cases attach little value to free speech. That free speech has been made subordinate to diversity is strikingly illustrated in the way universities frame their mission statements and declarations.

Take the statement made by Chancellor Ronnie Green of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln welcoming new students to campus for the 2016-17 academic year. Though it mentions free speech in passing, it is devoted to celebrating the value of diversity. For Green, belief in the value of diversity is not an option: it is absolutely compulsory. As he puts it, ‘our beliefs on diversity and inclusion’ are ‘not-negotiable’. His call to conform or else echoes the illiberal and authoritarian temper that traditionally characterised medieval seminaries. No one is free to disagree with ‘our beliefs’.

Photo by Brittani Burns on Unsplashed

They welcome All everything but not All viewpoints!

Once diversity becomes sacralised to the point that belief in it is non-negotiable it is only a matter of time before intolerance is transformed into a legitimate standpoint. Intolerance of dissident view is one of the principal features of the 21^st century ideology of diversity. That is why there is no question of diversity applying to the realm of ideas and viewpoints. On the contrary, the demand for more diversity is coupled with the demand for curbing free speech and free thought.

Diversity is often presented as a medium for being sensitive to the feelings and needs of different groups of people. However, there is nothing remotely sensitive about a non-negotiable attempt to enforce a dogma on society. Diversity is about exercising control, which is why it has become the foundational value of the New Authoritarianism.

In a future essay we will explore how diversity undermines excellence and encourages a culture of incompetence.

---

1. Garsten, B. (2017) ‘From popular sovereignty to civil war in post-revolutionary France’ in Bourke, R & Skinner, Q, (2017) (eds) Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective, Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, p.255.

2. Cited in Levin, M. (2004) Mill on Civilization and Barbarism. London :

Taylor and Francis.

3. Levin (20040.

4. Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N., (1969) The authoritarian personality, W.W. Norton & Company : New York., pp485-486.

5. Lasch, C., 1996. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. WW Norton & Company : New York, P.17.