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.
It’s odd that in the context of this article I don’t disagree when Frank says “Our differences are no more valuable than our sameness.” In general though, I would argue that our differences are far less important than our sameness. In my book, affinity trumps differences. A sense of sameness is essential to cohesion. Cohesion is indifferent to diversity.
It is possible to slice and dice communities (indeed individuals within communities) in such a myriad of ways, that it is essential to look for what we have in common and build on that. The most diverse of communities can be homogeneous.… have cohesion. And the most homogeneous communities can be diverse… lack cohesion. The difference really comes down to the perspective and outlook of people in those communities. If the perspective and outlook is organic to that community, then we are in a good place. If the perspective and outlook is imposed upon the community, then look out! Suspect an agenda.
Speaking as a white heterosexual male from South East Wales who left school aged 16 and did an apprenticeship in a local private steelworks and then became an engineer and traveled the world installing, commissioning and fixing industrial control systems before settling down to a less mundane life with his wife and kids, I also sense that, while external bodies may seek to divide and rule, it is when difference is internalised that they really succeed.
If I believed that my particular experience of life (as outlined above) defined everything that was important then I would, on the balance of probability, be unique and I would have nothing in common with anyone, anywhere. That is a lonely place to inhabit; a place that is easily exploited.
For me it is about affinity. Looking for what we have in common and building on our common interests. To talk in old fashioned language, it’s about solidarity.
Intellectually, diversity is endlessly fascinating. In our interactions with those who have power over us, diversity is divisive. That is why promoting diversity is so important to them. If we are to wrestle power from them then we must reject their diversity agenda. Our differences are far less important than our sameness.
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
It’s odd that in the context of this article I don’t disagree when Frank says “Our differences are no more valuable than our sameness.” In general though, I would argue that our differences are far less important than our sameness. In my book, affinity trumps differences. A sense of sameness is essential to cohesion. Cohesion is indifferent to diversity.
It is possible to slice and dice communities (indeed individuals within communities) in such a myriad of ways, that it is essential to look for what we have in common and build on that. The most diverse of communities can be homogeneous.… have cohesion. And the most homogeneous communities can be diverse… lack cohesion. The difference really comes down to the perspective and outlook of people in those communities. If the perspective and outlook is organic to that community, then we are in a good place. If the perspective and outlook is imposed upon the community, then look out! Suspect an agenda.
Speaking as a white heterosexual male from South East Wales who left school aged 16 and did an apprenticeship in a local private steelworks and then became an engineer and traveled the world installing, commissioning and fixing industrial control systems before settling down to a less mundane life with his wife and kids, I also sense that, while external bodies may seek to divide and rule, it is when difference is internalised that they really succeed.
If I believed that my particular experience of life (as outlined above) defined everything that was important then I would, on the balance of probability, be unique and I would have nothing in common with anyone, anywhere. That is a lonely place to inhabit; a place that is easily exploited.
For me it is about affinity. Looking for what we have in common and building on our common interests. To talk in old fashioned language, it’s about solidarity.
Intellectually, diversity is endlessly fascinating. In our interactions with those who have power over us, diversity is divisive. That is why promoting diversity is so important to them. If we are to wrestle power from them then we must reject their diversity agenda. Our differences are far less important than our sameness.
Could the embrace of "diversity" be seen as a reversion to an imperial model of governance?