In my previous post, I wrote about the rather paradoxical nature of autonomy — that “complete” autonomy is impossible, given everything around one that one unavoidably depends on, or has to take as a basis for exercising one’s “autonomy” — language, for example, as well as other conventions so that, in the end, the best one can do, is attain “relative” autonomy.
I also pointed out that this is not at all easy to do in the face of all the dominant discourses that shape one’s subjectivity and fashionable behaviours that constantly direct their appeal to you in a society that does not really tolerate autonomous behaviour of the kind I am promoting. All in all, to be autonomous takes a great deal of strength, inventiveness and persistence on the part of anyone who wishes to break free of the hold that the hegemonic informational practices of today have on most people.
“Autonomy” can therefore be understood as being, in Deleuze and Guattari’s idiom (in What is Philosophy?), an “incoherent concept”. And indeed on closer inspection one discovers that many, if not most, of the concepts (such as justice and democracy, for example) one tends to use as if they are unproblematic, are, indeed “incoherent” — but (and this is important, as I tried to show regarding “autonomy”) not for this reason to be discarded. They are all the more important given their “incoherence” because “incoherence” is here an index of their axiological (value-related) significance.
Another such “incoherent” concept — and one that is easily bandied about as if it is totally unambiguous and self-explanatory is “diversity”. It is no exaggeration to say that in the (oh, so popular, if not mandatory) mission statements of many institutions, “diversity” features as one of the so-called “core values”. But what does it mean?
Ostensibly “diversity” denotes first and foremost in post-apartheid South Africa diverse races or perhaps more accurately, diversity of people in terms of race and we should add — because these cannot be separated — culture. And to respect such diversity or differences is surely a good thing. But should we respect diversity for its own sake or is there something tacit, unspoken, behind the exhortation to respect diversity or differences in this context? Surely apart from the wonderful richness imparted to experience by racial, cultural (and natural) diversity, the tacit implication is that there is something more fundamental that makes diversity something valuable, not merely from a cultural perspective but also from a moral one.
And how far should we go in our respect for diversity? ONLY as far as racial and cultural differences? Most people would probably say no to this question because one cannot forget gender differences or disability as a mark of diversity, especially when it comes to different needs. But once gender differences and disabilities have been included, is that how far our consideration of diversity should go? Anyone who answers affirmatively here is on thin ice.
What I am working towards is what should be clear by now to anyone reading this. Firstly, to value diversity for its own sake does make sense at a kind of aesthetic level — that of the “rainbow nation” — because it would be a drab, boring world if everyone were the same. Think of diversity in nature and in different cultures — would travelling to distant shores be as interesting as it is if all natural landscapes, cultures and societies were completely “standardised”? To be sure, as several social scientists have remarked, globalisation does pose a threat, it seems, to diversity through the “McDonaldisation” of global society and some have even spoken of a frighteningly homogeneous “McWorld” emerging in this era. Hence, diversity, one can safely affirm is aesthetically and culturally valuable insofar as it endows the world with richness and colour.
But here one faces a dilemma. Are all differences comprising the diversity of the social world equally valuable? One often gets this impression when we see “new age”-type of posters at clinics and in waiting rooms asserting that one should “embrace one’s difference, one’s uniqueness because that is what makes one valuable” (in the eyes of God, supposedly), and so on. How far should we take this valorisation of difference for its own sake? If you take it all the way it means that, in terms of individual diversity, Ted Bundy or Boetie Boer (both serial killers) are/were as valuable as Mohandas Gandhi or Nelson Mandela as individuals or as valuable to society as nurses who care diligently for patients in a hospital or refuse removers who, equally diligently, remove trash from suburbs every day. Again we are confronted by the implication, that, at least at a moral level, there is something more fundamental than mere diversity that demands our respect, and that diversity, or individual as well as cultural differences themselves, should be judged in terms of this “something”.
In other words, one should pursue the questions opened up by the implicit moral imperative (referred to earlier) that we should value diversity a bit further. As indicated above, categories such as race, culture, gender and (dis)ability are broad, descriptive categories under which innumerably many individual differences are subsumed. It is so easy — too easy — to stop thinking at that point where diversity of race, culture, gender and “able-bodied-ness” has been invoked for political correctness’ sake. In a sense, that was the mistake (a huge mistake) made by the architects of apartheid. I recall debates where, against my claim that it is wrong to discriminate (with detrimental consequences that is) on the basis of race, defenders of apartheid claimed that they were not “discriminating” but simply showing a respect for racial differences (that is, diversity). Hence the policy of “separate development”. They were merely (they claimed) creating the political circumstances where racial and cultural differences could flourish.
Needless to emphasise, such racially charged rhetoric hides a more fundamental “racism”. This is demonstrated clearly in Jacques Derrida’s wonderful, deconstructive essay on Mandela, “The laws of reflection”, where he argues that what Mandela showed in court in his defence address, during his (and others’) treason trial, years ago, was precisely the LIMITS of recognising diversity of races (which the Nationalists claimed they were doing with apartheid). Here we encounter one of the most important considerations in the pursuit of (the valorisation of) diversity. What the apartheid authorities had not done, according to Mandela, was to recognise the common humanity that black people share with whites, DESPITE their racial (and cultural) differences or diversity.
In other words, today, too, one should be very careful in promoting the notion of diversity. Not to do it to the point where the shared humanity of all people, regardless of cultural and racial differences, is simply ignored. It is so easy to classify someone as NOT belonging to one of the categories of people who should be privileged and prioritised in certain ways in the current political dispensation (justifiable as such privileging may be to a certain degree, in view of past disadvantages) and then to discard such a person as not being worthy of the epithet “human”. Given the individual differences among people, the talents and abilities of such individuals are often much needed for making extant society a “better” one.
One sometimes encounters a view such as the one referred to above among those people who, given the past wrongs committed in the name of patriarchy, believe that men — particularly white men — should be sorry and apologetic about the fact that they are men. By implication men do not really make the grade as “humans”. Such a prejudice overlooks the fact that the only way to improve society is to work towards a non-patriarchal society — something that cannot be done without men, that is, without changing men’s attitudes. But this means that they ought to be given a chance to do so. “Men” are unavoidably part of a diverse society. The same could be argued about any other group of individuals with a distinct “group-identity”, whether it is a race, cultural or religious group — all of these diverse groups should be recognised as adding to the diversity of society. Tolerance of any such group’s activities is therefore also required of everyone else, although it is important to acknowledge that the limits of tolerance lie in the ability of others to tolerate or be sensitive to one’s own unique difference (which Bundy, for example, did not respect). In brief: intolerance should not be tolerated.
But let us carry our deconstruction of diversity — because that is what this is — even further. Once one has reached the point of admitting that there are important individual differences within races, cultural groups and individuals belonging to the same gender, what are the practical consequences of respecting diversity at all these levels? In a nutshell: is anyone able to acknowledge and respect differences that are completely and utterly individual? Nietzsche once remarked that every leaf in a tree is different from every other one, if one looked at all the detail comprising it, and that as such, we cannot grasp its utter singularity. That is why, Nietzsche argued, we need concepts — while they falsify the individual leaves regarding their singularity, we would be caught in a mute world without “understanding” unless we used concepts pragmatically, like a kind of scaffolding, to negotiate this world of ungraspable differences.
This is the dilemma as far as individual differences among people are concerned: if we push the recognition of diversity to its limits, we reach a point where we cannot grasp what is truly “diverse” or different about anyone. We need “concepts”, which by their very nature tend to universalise or generalise, to come to terms with people in their difference. And one of the most important concepts here is “humanity” — the same concept that Mandela appealed to in his charge, that the policy of separate development (apartheid) was ultimately irreconcilable with the very democratic tradition of the West, which the apartheid state was SUPPOSEDLY heir to but ignored by treating racial differences as sufficient reason to exclude some races from the family of humans. We should not make a similar mistake again: the recognition and promotion of diversity and difference should not blind us to what we have in common.
Most thought provoking, professor.Thank you.
I like thought on the ‘family of humans’. The bonds that make us human, as different as we may be, an emphasis on what is common amongst all of us.Most profound.
I have to admit that I usually try to steer away from reading your confusing, irrelevant blogs but this one caught my eye. You claim that “the very democratic tradition of the West, which the apartheid state was SUPPOSEDLY heir to” highlights your latent sense of white superiority because it implies that:
- Democracy is somehow in encoded in the genes of SA whites therefore the apartheid state should have naturally adopted it. Actually apartheid was about pure human greed of whites and racism was used as a justification.
- Democracy is purely a creation of the west, negating the various limited (smaller scale) instances of democratic-like institutions in ancient cultures like India, Japan etc. that occurred even before the Greek civilization. I don’t understand this fixation on the west being the cradle of wisdom! Remember “history is written by the victors”, so its understandable that you buy into this delusion.
I do agree with the obvious conclusion you seem to have come to – our common humanity. However, you seem to be mixing up to different concepts – diversity and humanity. The term “diversity” is used in current society to counterbalance the racism that pervades our multi-cultural societies that has been exacerbated by globalization. Our common humanity on the other hand speaks of the interconnectedness of all human existence.
Is a paragraph containing “to break free of the hold that the hegemonic informational practices…”, itself in the grip of a hegemonic informational discourse?
Great read! Thanks, Bert.
A huge subject tks for the interesting article. To be boringly practical separteness (Apartheid) in SA was wrong but not wrong for Lesotho and Swaziland to be “separate” from SA. In 1947 India “separated” (Apartheid) into two states because of huge differences, in fact the Apartheid planners used this as a justification/example of what they were trying to do here.
SA with +- 11 different “cultures”, many different racial groupings and many languages correctly was not allowed to “separate”into many states. So why is N. Ireland whos people are white, Christian, and speak the same language as the rest of Ireland allowed to be separate from Ireland? Britian should be boycotted for forcefully allowing Apartheid.
Brent
“So why is N. Ireland whos people are white, Christian, and speak the same language as the rest of Ireland allowed to be separate from Ireland? Britian should be boycotted for forcefully allowing Apartheid.”
This comment shows stunning ignorance of Irish history. The partition of Ireland and apartheid South Africa have virtually nothing in common.
RogerP except Apartheids planners used it as an example of a good reason for apartheid, different people not getting on so separate them politically and geographically.
Brent – who for your info is well versed in Irish history and still believes in one unified Irish State – Ireland for the Irish.
With all those university qualifications, you have to write in a manner beyond my full grasp most of the time. Not your fault. I take issue with your (too common notion) that if everyone were the same, life would be boring. On the contrary, life would be more peaceful since there would be no racism and all the other ‘diversity’ problems. Imagine the joy if all men looked like Mandiba; and all women did not look like any of my four ex-wives!
Diversity/unity. intersting stuff. I think Bert has done a good anlaytic job. Most concepts can be deconstructed and he is showing us how it is done. The practical message – I think – is that tolerance of (diverse) others is a better state to be in – closer to a unified humanity. Diversity is certainly immensely important – not just race, gender, ethnicity, age – we forge an individual identity by recognising we are different from others – and have an opinion. Then – we can grow to see further and come to realise that it was a mental trick we pulled off to identify oursleves uniquely. We grow into tolerance as we become able to manage wider identities. The widest is unity – identifying with everyone – maximum tolerance. Tolerance of (even embracing) diversity is a good way of moving towards embracing one’s humanity. There is a necessary tension betwene unity and diversity – we need them both. But we can know we are getting to a better place if see unity within diversity. This the root of tolerance – ultimately we are one.
Roger P wrote “the partition of Ireland and apartheid South Africa have virtually nothing in common”.
To put the record straight; the English acquired land from the Irish and, in 1800, the Act of Union abolished the Irish Parliament, making Ireland a part of the United Kingdom.
It’s interesting that the point of this article from the outset was to focus on the importance of the things we, as humans, have in common as opposed to our differences. Yet most of the comments seem to be bogged down in historical differences.
In his Cairo speech Barack Obama said (something like)”…the things we have in common have far more potency than the differences between us…”
QED.
Another stimulating article to twin with your last excellent one – in this way.
Is not ‘political correctness’ – notions like the one you deconstruct here: ‘diversity is fundamental and therefore rightly encouraged’; also, ‘women are the ‘equal’ of men’; or, ‘all cultures are of equal value’ – a foster child of the poststructuralism you discussed in your last article?
We deconstruct one long-standing assumption – say, that ‘inferior’ cultures must give way to more ‘successful’ ones – only to come up with another equally arguable proposition, namely, that ‘diversity’ is an inherently worthwhile pursuit.
Then we see fillet out fresh pitfalls in that.
Here is the hard question. Does not ‘the things we have in common have more potency than our differences’ also require a similar dismantling – if we are intellectually honest?
correction to last blog
‘Then we see, fillet out …’
Thanks for the comments (except the ‘irrelevant ones’) – Hope, I like your interpretation of the ‘practical message’.
Crofty – good point, and thanks for the reference.
Paul – I think the ‘foster children’ you want to bestow to poststructuralism, more properly belong to one of the varieties of postmodernism today, namely the relativistic variety, for which ‘anything goes’. Poststructuralism is very different from that, and combats relativism at every level. What it does insist on, is that matters are always more complex than they seem, and for that reason a simplistic, ‘rule-based’ approach to things is no longer suitable. Foucault, for example, says we must practise ‘eventalization’; that is, we must inscribe everything we try to understand into as many relational contexts as possible, to be able to overcome the temptation, to see it in monocausal and substantialist terms, in the process falsifying it. For example, in politics people who promote the interests of a party always tend towards ‘identity politics’, forgetting that no one has a simple, monodimensional identity – it is only the disingenuous ideologizing of politicians that would make us believe that, for obvious reasons.