This being my first official blog, I have decided to write about a sacred cow among the establishment, and one which has been a reoccurring theme throughout my education. Anyone who has spent any time in a public school over the past few decades has a good idea of the value most educators place on cultural diversity. From the outset, multiculturalism may appear to be something to embrace and accept, much like pluralism. However to the extent by which it has been promoted, there are serious questions as to whether the results have been beneficial to the understanding of students. That is the goal rather than being to embrace positive aspects of different cultures has become enamored with being sensitive to and celebrating every culture excluding Western. Which we are taught from an early age has only brought about genocide, slavery, and barbarism wherever it has been allowed to spread. It has become a crusade to remove any critical analysis or judgment and to view all cultures as essentially equal. They will claim that a certain farming method, mode of transportation or political system is not superior but only different, and that we ought to withhold any criticism in order to respect and celebrate the backwardness of our fellow men living in impoverished countries. Or that the most egregious violations of human dignity such as female genital mutilation are not objectively wrong but merely a cultural difference. Though one dare not make any criticism because for the cultural relativist, the right to criticize is only reserved for members within that culture, hence why they are so apt to tarnish the legacy of their own country.

The effect of these ideas on the students has been to produce a generation who lack the understanding and appreciation for the exceptional nature of both their own country and Western civilization as a whole. The success of the West was no accident, but rather according to the Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek a growth from, “…the foundations laid out by Christianity and the Greeks and Romans. Not merely nineteenth- and eighteenth- century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero to Tacitus, Pericles to Thucydides…” It has been the acceptance of these and other ideas that have unleashed the creative power of man, equally protected under law, with basic rights and liberties. We shouldn’t view being judgmental of ideas and culture as a negative, but rather as essential to the growth and progress of a civilization.

The reason this issue came to my attention in the first place has been due to the fact that the UAA Diversity Action Council (which shouldn’t even exist) is presenting an award to any student who most promotes diversity on campus. In all likelihood the credentials for that will include only diversity in the arbitrary sense of things such as skin pigmentation and not anything meaningful like that of thought. Because of course a cultural relativist is willing to tolerate everything, except people who hold the view that all cultures aren't equal. That is simply too much a breech of their sensibilities.

To close I urge everyone who hears about a promotion of diversity to be wary and to consider the words of the American economist Thomas Sowell, “We need also to recognize that many great thinkers of the past-- whether in medicine or philosophy, science or economics-- labored not simply to advance whatever particular group they happened to have come from but to advance the human race. Their legacies, whether cures for deadly diseases or dramatic increases in crop yields to fight the scourge of hunger, belong to all people-- and all people need to claim that legacy, not seal themselves off in a dead-end of tribalism or in an emotional orgy of cultural vanity.”

 


Comments

Skander
01/16/2010 00:40

While I generally agree with your premises, it's important to note that most people accept that there is no absolute good or morals in the world. There are plenty of practices and customs unthinkable to most people in one area but are practiced in other places. Certainly, female genital mutilation is absolutely disgusting and wrong, but things like rites of passage for tribesmen in the Amazons should be respected. Vegans and vegetarians, if they're true believers, see meat as tortured beings that didn't deserve to be bred and slaughtered in "inhumane" ways just to feed people's appetite for that kind of taste. Or even consider actual sacred cows. Cows are untouchable in India.

And yes, I agree that humans have a tendency to generalize and I'd much rather we start considering people as individuals with individual socioeconomic, mental, and physical circumstances rather than arbitrary differences such as the color of someone's skin.

Reply
Daniel McDonald
01/16/2010 14:10

@Skander

It may be true that most people in this world don't accept an absolute good, or an objectively true morality. However I am not one of those people.

Reply
Matt R
01/16/2010 16:52

A very nice piece, with which I mostly agree. I think that this is a very interesting topic, and one that I've covered in a few of my classes recently. An American literary critic named Harold Bloom would very much agree with you as well. He says that much of the talk about 'diversity' and recognizing multiculturalism, etc., is basically the embodiment of a school of resentment, and that it ends up cheapening real works of cultural value.

While I'm skeptical, as you and Skander are, of attempts to glorify shallow types of diversity, I think it's valuable to point out that the often misguided proponents of this kind of thinking share some basic philosophical assumptions with most Americans. The concept that I'm thinking of is specifically equality--which Alexis de Tocqueville argued was the central feature of American democracy and whose effects he was able to predict with stunning acuity--and the idea that all people are equal. From this basic assumption about human nature, some take it to mean that all cultures (being made up of equal people) must themselves be equal. And this almost subconscious connection becomes the mistaken basis for a lot of multicultural nonsense.

The equality that was originally theorized in the Enlightenment was an equality of agency and potential, not an equality of actions. It's this jump in logic which enables such ludicrous thinking. I think in their hearts they know certain things are wrong, but their minds make connections which force them to accept this improper level of equality.

I'll be checking back for more!

Reply
Fred
01/29/2010 21:47

Reply
Fred
01/29/2010 23:11

"I have decided to write about a sacred cow among the establishment"

Ok, first of all, you are blogging in support of a party that has been in control of the country for 16 of the 25 years I have been alive. This party also is one of the two main parties that has ensured they are the only parties allowed to have any real voice in the political process in this country. I'm sorry to break it to you, but you ARE the establishment.

"...being sensitive to and celebrating every culture excluding Western."

Although you only say "public schools" I assume you are talking about secondary schools. In the secondary school school curriculum, almost 18 weeks at the beginning of the year are spent learning about ancient Greek and Rome, while 9 weeks at the end of the year are spent on Europe from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution. So, of the year of mandatory world history class here in Anchorage 9 weeks are spent on non-western cultures. This means Africa, Asia and pre-contact Americas are all covered in a 2.5 months

"female genital mutilation [is] not objectively wrong but merely a cultural difference."

If you look up strawman arguments in the dictionary, this sentence would be the example provided. Please, provide an example of anyone saying that genital mutilation is simply a cultural difference. US courts have ruled that the fear of being made to undergo the procedure is grounds for being granting asylum in the US.

In regards to quoting von Hayek, I would encourage you to read his essay, "Why I am Not a Conservative" before you try to co-opt him and twist his quotes to fit your thesis.

"We shouldn’t view being judgmental of ideas and culture as a negative, but rather as essential to the growth and progress of a civilization."

If a culture insulates itself from all outside ideas it will wither and die. The Roman, Greek and even early European cultures that you champion so loudly would border upon unrecognizable to any citizen of the United States today. These cultures have adapted outside ideas, allowing themselves to change and thrive over the millenia. Why would you want to become an insular civilization at this point in our evolution?

"the UAA Diversity Action Council (which shouldn’t even exist)"

I could say the same thing for an organization that manages to walk the extremely fine line between informing "the university and its surrounding communities on the core conservative principles of the Republican Party. We are also working to train the future leaders of the Republican Party and help elect current leaders." and remaining "not affiliated with any candidate or official political party." Actually, I would like a more thorough explanation of how that is possible...

"...of course a cultural relativist is willing to tolerate everything, except people who hold the view that all cultures aren't equal."

That is because these people view all cultures as inferior, and have a superiority complex while regarding all people who don't believe the same as them as sissy apologists

In closing, I would like to encourage the author to "not seal [himself] off in a dead-end of tribalism or in an emotional orgy of cultural vanity."

Reply
Abelard
02/09/2010 17:39

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for an interesting post. I stumbled across this having googled the phrase "cult of diversity" having been pondering this phenomenon the other day. Now to lay my cards on the table, I am far from being a card-carrying conservative. I'm writing from the UK, firstly, and secondly would broadly describe myself as a liberal (though note that that word is far less loaded over here). However as a someone who likes to think and places a value on logic and meaning, the diversity thing has always puzzled me.

Growing up in London I went to school with a diverse range of people. My first best friend was from a Kenyan Asian family, my next was Jewish, and I mixed with lots of Hindus and Muslims (and in those early-90s days frequently managed to forget who was which - probably not a luxury today's urban Brits enjoy). I've taught in state schools with a huge variety of ethnic and national backgrounds. So diversity to me is normal, and I like it.

But here's the thing. Britain didn't end up so diverse because anyone *decided* it would be a jolly good thing. It ended up that way because of an intriguing set of historical circumstances. To put it simply, it just happened; it was a by-product: of Empire, of economics, of post-colonialism, of politics, of decisions sometimes cynical, occasionally high-minded, and more often simply culture-blind.

But now diversity is being actively promoted. People are being paid £60 or 70,000 per year to act as diversity consultants for public bodies. Diversity is being elevated as a very high cultural value, at least by the ruling class. It is now widely accepted that being "very white-middle-class" (in a polular phrase) is a derogatory description of a place or group.

But where's the philosophical basis for this? What is intrinsically better about diversity? The arguments all seem to be essentially aesthetic. "Wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same?" Yes, it would indeed, at least for me, but at the same time don't arguments like this tacitly concede that the diversity agenda is just a matter of taste? Some people like living in a diverse society. Some don't. If the people who don't like it nonetheless *are* living in a diverse society, then appealing to them on subjective aesthetic grounds simply won't do. Why? Because (a) it's philosophically weak, and (b) because (as a direct result) it leaves the door open for racism and hate/fear-based politics to emerge in that vacuum of argument.

So what's the alternative? I think, increasingly, that the answer may lie in a return to that now rather old-fashioned and weak-sounding work, tolerance. Tolerance is held to be a little too moderate these days. But its great advantage is that it is practical in nature. It starts with where things are now. Britain is a diverse society (so is North America). People hold a huge range of views, beliefs, practices. What's the best way to deal with it? Let people get on with their own thing to the extent that it doesn't harm others. Not revolutionary (at least not anymore), but it does have both internal coherence and moral and political force to it.

Now I realise that policy-makers need something a little more concrete than this "man-in-the-street" approach to diversity. They do need to be seen to actively value all cultures that constitute our society. But creating an atmosphere where an extra-statutory set of values grow up in a horrendously undefined manner leaving everyone frightened of tripping over the sacred cow of “diversity” is irresponsible, both intellectually and politically. Far better to set clear anti-discrimination laws, and let people decide for themselves that diversity is a good thing. Most will. They might not express it in the language of the professional diversity consultant (whose only skill after all, lies in defining a lexicon of diversity and teaching people to use it; that is to say it is in essence elitist and manipulative), but it will be genuine, it will be tolerant, it will save a lot of public money, and it will not allow hidden resentments to grow up and be exploited to socially destructive ends.

Reply
Daniel
02/11/2010 00:00

“I'm sorry to break it to you, but you ARE the establishment.”

The establishment makes celebrating diversity their curriculum which I am opposed to. I am a 22 year old student, not the establishment. I think you give me too much credit!

“world history class here in Anchorage”

I grew up in Seattle not Anchorage. We spent the majority of time covering slavery and genocide of the Native Americans.

“If you look up strawman arguments in the dictionary, this sentence would be the example provided.”

I have debated people who hold this position so from my own personal experience it is very much not a straw man.

“In regards to quoting von Hayek, I would encourage you to read his essay, "Why I am Not a Conservative" before you try to co-opt him and twist his quotes to fit your thesis.”

You’re only allowed to adopt ideas from those with exactly the same ideological views as yourself? I agree with Hayek on many issues, why can’t I use him? Also I didn’t twist it. Go re-read the Road to Serfdom.

" Why would you want to become an insular civilization at this point in our evolution?”

That is exactly my point? By having an environment where you cannot be critical of cultural practice THAT IS HOW YOU INSULATE IT! Ideas and culture should be free to be either adopted or rejected without some authority figure lecturing an individual to respect backwardness when something better obviously exists. If the Japanese develop better designs for cars, by all means we should adopt it!

“Actually, I would like a more thorough explanation of how that is possible...”

I didn’t write that and can’t give you any details. I do know we aren’t supported by them financially or vice versa.

“That is because these people view all cultures as inferior, and have a superiority complex while regarding all people who don't believe the same as them as sissy apologists.”

Or they aren’t so castrated as to ignore reality.

“In closing, I would like to encourage the author to "not seal [himself] off in a dead-end of tribalism or in an emotional orgy of cultural vanity."

You obviously didn’t understand the point of my article.

Reply
Daniel
02/11/2010 00:01

@Abelard

Good to see some readers from the UK. You make some good points that many of the cultural differences between peoples are arbitrary and only aesthetic in nature.

I am here concerned with ideas and methods that advance civilizations mostly in a quantifiable way. Though of course as a believer in objective morality, there are certain rights that all people across cultures ought to value.

Reply



Leave a Reply