Diversity in and of itself is not something to strive for. The very word implies division, not unity.
10 comments
But is unity, in and of itself, something to strive for?
Everyone is unique - even close relatives, even twins. As such, there can be no such thing as unity from uniformity - only the illusion thereof by way of hypocrisy and denial; and even if it were possible, it would be highly undesirable. Instead, we ought to strive for an open society that in which the great variety of humanity can partake in.
Not quite. The “di” in “divide” and “diverse” ultimately means “two” or “double”, being a synecdoche for “multiple” here. However, the “vide” means “separate”–so “separated into multiple parts”–while the “verse” means “turn”, so “many facets”…or more likely something less poetic. So probably time to brush up on your Latin etymology, for starters.
Long story short, diversity doesn’t auto-imply division. If anything, probably greater completeness than uniformity’s single facet.
The opposite of diversity is probably homogeneity. Or hegemony, depending on what form of diversity you’re talking about.
There are two ways either can be achieved, one which is by forcing conformance/compliance, the other is by purging non-conformance/non-compliance. The two aren’t mutually exclusive (though there are cases where conformance/compliance is impossible), so one can potentially do a mix of both. The result is something which is *internally* homogenized/hegemonized/unified, at least in the short run, but unless one purges by annihilating the entire rest of humanity, it’s *externally* divided from everyone else. Meanwhile diversity theoretically unifies disparate groups, interests, aesthetics, and philosophies; in practice it never does so perfectly, as some of those many groups aren’t going to interact much and may occasionally come in conflict. Regardless, it’s not as simple as saying that either unites or divides; homogeneity/hegemony do a lot of both, while diversity does a little of both.
Have you ever heard of a stew with a single ingredient? When you have dinner do you have JUST meat or JUST potatoes or JUST carrots? No. Barring famine or poverty or some other factor that forces you to subsist this way you have some variety on each plate. And typically if you’re not polishing off leftovers you’re naturally inclined to switch up what you make the next night. And occasionally you try something you’ve never tried. Ever try to feed a kid a bologna sandwich three meals a day for a month? How about watching not just the same show but the same EPISODE every single day after having the same meal, talking to the same people, who only ever talk about the same subject?
I really don’t know how I can put this in a more simple way or more relevant to your daily life. Even on such a simple level your physical and mental health, your ability to cope with your daily routine, DEMANDS variance. Society is no different. Nature abhors stagnation.
uh-huh sure it is, then that means your ideal states and societies, like Nazi Germany and the Confederate States did so well in their wars… oh wait, they didn’t they lost… horribly at that… what does that say about your ideas if the two states that embody this type of societal goal ended up losing in a war they started against much more diverse nations?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
