There is Nothing Inherently Valuable About Diversity
The promotion of diversity breeds intolerance and authoritarianism
This article opens a debate which will be addressed at MCC Brussels' day long conference "The Diversity Obsession: Can Europe Survive Multiculturalism", which I am organising. It is free to attend, held on 28 September in central Brussels. For more information and to register, click here: https://brussels.mcc.hu/event/can-multiculturalism-survive-21st-century-europe
Over the past fifty years diversity has emerged as the most favoured value of the Western political and cultural establishment. There is a growing tendency to sacralise diversity and declarations of loyalty to it have turned into a ritualistic performance by numerous public and private institutions. International and globalist organisations have been in the forefront of promoting diversity as a foundational value for society. As UNESCO put it, ‘diversity is the very essence of our identity’. For UNESCO the main merit of diversity is that its celebration of the pluralisation of cultural identity and of difference offers a counter-narrative to the valuation of the nation and of national sovereignty. In this way international organisation aim to weaken the authority of the nation state
UNESCO and other international organisation represent difference and diversity as morally superior to a homogeneous society. Since the 1950s there has been a systematic attempt to discredit the moral status of homogenous communities and nations. Communities and individuals who reject the diversity agenda are frequently represented as psychologically illiterate, fearful of others and increasingly as xenophobic.
Originally, the sacralisation of diversity was a response to the mistaken association of national consciousness with the terrible events of World War Two. Nationalism was presented as the main driver of this catastrophic and all forms of national affiliation – even patriotism – were criticised as the precursor of fascism. In their famous study – The Authoritarian Personality – the authors associated with the influential Frankfurt School of social science sought to represent diversity as the antidote to the identification of people with their nation.
The Authoritarian Personality played an important role in assigning to the aspiration of people to live with people like themselves a negative normative connotation. The conclusion they drew was that the ‘need for homogeneity’ represented an important psychological flaw. It was depicted as a symptom of an authoritarian personality[i]. The Frankfurt School authors drew a moral contrast between people drawn towards diversity and those who rejected it:
‘It is perhaps mainly the readiness to include, accept, and even love differences and diversitie, as contrasted with the need to set of clear demarcation lines and to ascertain superiorities and inferiorities, which remains as the most basic distinguishing criterion of the two opposites patterns. Members of an outgroup representing deviations from the cultural norms of the in-group are most threatening to one who must conceive of the cultural norms as absolute in order to be able to feel secure.’[ii]
The authors added that ‘it would go beyond the scope of this volume to ascertain fully the determinants of this need for homogeneity and simplicity in all the spheres of life’.
According to the authors of The Authoritarian Personality the rejection of diversity was more than just a character flaw, it represented a harmful and potentially authoritarian trait in individuals. From this point onwards, curing people from their irrational need for homogeneity and thereby encouraging them to love diversity turned into a project of social engineering.
The authors of The Authoritarian Personality asserted that the moral contrast they drew between diversity and homogeneity was based on science. In reality it was ideological hostility towards the ideals of national sovereignty, patriotism and tradition that led to their attempt to render homogeneity toxic. That this moral contrast has been so widely accepted and internalised by the dominant institutions of Western society speaks to their philosophical and intellectual illiteracy. Why? Because homogeneous and diverse are not moral categories but descriptive terms.
There is nothing intrinsically valuable about diversity. Those who claim that it is our intrinsic differences which makes us valuable are simply stating a subjective preference for difference. Our differences are no more valuable than our sameness. Whether or not one prefers to be with different types of individuals or similar ones has no moral connotations. The project of turning diversity into a value is principally driven by an ideological estrangement from local, community solidarity and an identity that derives from a nation. Since the 1980s diversity has served as the medium for the promotion of the cultural politics of identity and of multiculturalism.
The promotion of diversity has encouraged the growth of social polarisation. Diversity policies have encouraged the fossilisation of different identities as different groups seek to position themselves in a competitive race against others. Paradoxically diversity between different groups has encouraged the homogenisation of identity within the different groups. Perversely, the fetishization of difference has led to its naturalisation. Members of a group are expected to define themselves by the same identity. In this way diversity and its celebration of difference has become complicit in acquiescing to intolerance and authoritarianism within identity groups.
The close association between intolerance and diversity was highlighted by the political theorist, Christopher Lasch in the 1990s. He noted that ‘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’[iii]. And he warned that diversity could lead to the ‘physical segregation of the population in self-enclosed, racially homogeneous enclaves has its counterpart in the balkanization of opinion’. This is how diversity led multiculturalism turned out. Homogenous enclaves leading to the balkanisation of public life and opinion.
The corrosive impact of the politics of diversity on solidarity are not the only problem associated with the promotion of multiculturalism. The sacralisation of identity has also undermined the freedom of expression. In many parts of the Western World the promotion of diversity is at the expense of the exercise of freedom.
Diversity – Non-Negotiable Value
In recent years numerous institutions have decided that the value of diversity is so foundational that it cannot be questioned. This sentiment is particularly prevalent in institutions of higher education. Many universities have decided that the value of diversity trumps that of free speech and academic freedom. If diverse groups object to a statement than those making them can be legitimately silenced.
Some heads of universities argue explicitly that free speech and diversity may constitute contradictory values. In numerous official statements, administrators 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 ‘there were many voices that none of us got to hear’. The implication of Roth’s statement is that the exercise of free speech is the past may have served to silence the voices of minority groups.
The conviction that freedom of speech and diversity are mutually contradictory values has been internalised by university administrators and dominates the conduct of campus culture. They contend that freedom needs to be either ‘balanced’ or ‘traded off’ against diversity. ‘I definitely think it’s a balancing act,’ observed Gale Baker, university counsel for The California State University. She perceives ‘open and frank discussion and free expression’ as ‘competing’ with the ‘value of wanting a diverse and inclusive community’[iv].
In the current era, 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 diversity is dominant and free speech has been at best relegated to a second order value is strikingly illustrated in the way that universities’ missions statements and declarations are framed.
Take the statement made by Chancellor Ronnie Green of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln welcoming new students to campus to the 2016-17 academic year. The statement makes no mention of the value of free speech or academic freedom. Though it mention free speech in passing it is devoted to the celebration of the value of diversity. For Green belief in the value is not an option –it is absolutely compulsory. As he puts it ‘our beliefs on diversity and inclusion’ are ‘not-negotiable’[v]. His call to conform or else echoes the illiberal and authoritarian temper that traditionally characterised medieval seminaries.
It is worth noting that the statement of Core Values of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, like that of many other colleges includes that of diversity but not free speech[vi]. A mention of its belief in free speech in its mission statement is immediately followed by the clause that ‘we do not tolerate words and actions of hate and disrespect’. That its supposed belief in free speech and intolerance of words of hate are included in the same sentence communicates an implicit association with free expression and hate.
The absolutisation of the value of diversity is widely endorsed by the ruling elites of western society. They support diversity and cultural pluralism because it provides them with the role of managing competing interests. At a time when the ruling class faces a crisis of legitimacy, the necessity for managing diversity provides them with a reason for existence. It is easier to dominate a society consisting of competing cultural groups than a public united in a common affirmation of nationhood. A fragmented and polarised public space assist the powers that be to exercise their hegemony. Hence their valuation of diversity.
.
[i] Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N., (1969) The authoritarian personality, W.W. Norton & Company : New York, p.486.
[ii] Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N., (1969) The authoritarian personality, W.W. Norton & Company : New York, p.485.
[iii] Lasch, C., 1996. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. WW Norton & Company, p17.
[iv] Cited in Alexandra Vollman ‘A Balancing Act’, Insight Into Diversity Magazine, http://www.insightintodiversity.com/a-balancing-act/ .
[v] http://www.unl.edu/chancellor/blog/welcome-to-the-2016-17-academic-year.
Dear Ian. I agree with your observation - bonds between people require having something consequential in common. My point was that diversity was no more a value than homogeneity.
yes - a kind of divide and rule policy