My opinions as a middle-aged straight white guy, I’m sure, often veer into the curmudgeonly and the petulant. It’s true that being annoyed by piped-in hip-hop at the mall is not the same as being lynched, and being told you are a racist when you are a good person is not the same as being treated like property when you are a human being. But it sometimes feels to me that we have increasingly come to assess our society according to its alleged intolerance – who commits it, and who is a victim of it – more than any other standard, and to define justice according to an endless line of supposedly marginalized groups being granted their overdue rights. Whether these paradigms can obtain for another twenty years, or five, is questionable. Progress is always change, but change is not always progress.
Let’s be clear, first of all, that when we extol the virtues of “diversity” we don’t mean more elderly Afghan pop singers, more Amish tech moguls, or more paraplegic extreme sports athletes. We mean fewer heterosexual Caucasian males in traditional positions of authority and influence. I’m totally fine with that, at least as long as we are up front about it – as long as we don’t use “celebrating difference” as a euphemism for “social engineering.” As the Nation contributing editor Marc Cooper wrote in a 2005 Atlantic essay, “Diversity should be much, much more than a code word for racial affirmative action.” Contriving a limited set of boxes to tick on census or application forms reduces the infinite range of individual idiosyncrasies to a benevolent sort of caste system: an altruistic apartheid.
This is not about rolling back anyone’s gains. Rather, it’s about not rolling them forward, such that we must live under a permanent regime of including the formerly excluded (however they define their exclusion) and vilifying their putative oppressors (however tolerant they thought they already were). Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the numerous variants of LGBTQ descriptors derive less from genuine human typology as from a quest for otherwise comfortable people to reinvent themselves as persecuted minorities. The African-American civil rights campaigns of the 1950s and 60s demanded treatment as equal citizens despite superficial differences, whereas today’s movements on behalf of “otherness” appear to demand different treatment because of equal citizenship. That is, the more unconventional you are relative to everyone else, the more everyone else is obligated to support your unconventionality. The civil rights marchers didn’t want to be disadvantaged by the color of their skin, but contemporary activists don’t want to be disadvantaged by anything at all. Under this ideology, personal identity – no matter how personal – is owed the full protection of the state.
Here is the latest iteration of the unwritten but often implied principle that “everything not prohibited is compulsory.” Of course it’s okay to be different; it shouldn’t have to be preferable. Because it’s (rightly) illegal to discriminate against certain categories of people, we observe the law by discriminating in their favor: highlighting their achievements, lamenting their historic suffering, and congratulating ourselves for our eager acceptance of them into every sphere of life. Yet this promotion of diversity for its own sake, as if too many similar kinds of folks in any organization is an irredeemable social wrong, misses the point of what true justice and fairness mean. Diversity is not a moral measure, but empathy, decency, and charity certainly are. Natural, spontaneous diversity within society, wherein citizens from all walks of life can work and get along together despite contrasting origins, outlooks, and numbers, is certainly a healthy thing. Mandated, manipulated, thumb-on-the-scale diversity, on the other hand, wherein race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality are rigorously gauged and politicized, is less so. Really, it is not differences we need more of, but the willingness to transcend them.
Middle-aged is the new mature adult. You’re too young to be curmudgeonly and the petulant, so you must be caffeine deprived and/or overworked.
Overworked, I doubt it; caffeine deprived, possibly; curmudgeonly, getting there. Happy Holidays down among the sagebrush…
This whole obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake and identity politics is a last-ditch effort by the bourgeoisie to stave off a genuinely populist, progressive, working class uprising. Any oppression but class oppression is given lots of air time to distract and confuse the masses. War and imperialism continue unabated, but we are supposed to get really upset if two upper class men aren’t allowed to get married to each other.
The entire narrative is screwed up. And there is no such thing as “white privilege” per se, but rather, privilege is associated with social class. Institutionalized racism and white supremacy in the US is a big problem and should be confronted head on, but it is economic privilege that is really driving all of this and preventing any real solution to it and other social ills.
Thanks for your comments. I’m not sure about the deliberate intentions of the bourgeoisie here, but I agree that the diversity fetish has been a distraction from broader political change. In the wake of the 2016 US election, numerous commentators have made the point that the Democratic party should be focused more on bread-and-butter economic issues rather than cultural ones. See also Walter Benn Michaels’ earlier book “The Trouble With Diversity,” and another of my posts: https://georgecaseblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/06/identity-crisis/
Thanks for reading.
Thanks for the recommendations. And by the way, I read and very much enjoyed your book, Here’s To My Sweet Satan! That’s how I found out about your blog. I loved the book except that there were a couple of potshots taken at the Soviet Union. You know, the Soviets opposed the kind of mysticism, irrational thinking and occult or fundamentalist nonsense that was eagerly promoted in the US from the top down. You musn’t believe all the propaganda lies that were told about the USSR and socialism. It was far from perfect, but even on its worst day, much better than the American imperialists; and what they were trying to build was a better world for all of humanity, unlike the Americans and their vassals. We see what awful destruction they have wrought.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Elsewhere in my blog and in my published books, I have outlined my own thoughts on the Cold War, propaganda, and conspiracies – which I’m guessing differ from yours – but I’m pleased we can constructively exchange ideas here. I’ll be checking out your writing in the next while. Best, GC https://georgecaseblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/what-reality-is/