Is Diversity Inherently Good or Bad?
Good
30.9% (30)
30.9% (30)
Bad
10.3% (10)
10.3% (10)
Neither
49.5% (48)
49.5% (48)
Chocolate
7.2% (7)
7.2% (7)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Is Diversity Inherently Good or Bad?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

A little while ago I was watching a video titled AntiRacist Hitler and it got me to thinking; Is diversity inherently a good or a bad thing? I always see people talking about how diverse things are, colleges sure as hell never shut up about diversity. However, they never say why diversity is a good think. They treat it as if its a self evident fact that diversity is good. Is it?

Personally I have always liked the idea of the Melting Pot. A society in which everyone is assimilated into the rest of society, but still retain their unique culture. In America this has happened with some failures and some success in recent times, especially it seems with persons of East Asian and (until recently)Middle Eastern decent. I have heard a lot of people from Europe complain about the "Multicultural Society" that many countries try to adopt, talking about how it has caused nothing but ill. I would love to hear Europeans' views on this in particular.

Neither. I have difficulty imagining it as either good or bad without any sort of context.

Chocolate; Diversity can be good or bad or neither depending on how you take it. Humans have always been a diverse lot ever since our ancestors started to paint cave walls and stopped throwing feces at each other because sharp rocks did the job better. It's all about how diversity is handled in which makes it a blessing or a problem.

Damn good. There is a reason why diversity is encouraged in the workplace: the exchange of wildly different ideas helps bolster creativity and progress.

Depends what kind of diversity we're talking about. Genetically it's a good thing. If we're talking culturally, well, there's this fine line between discrimination and giving free lease to get away with whatever because culture.

I think culture is something where uncanny valley is quite in effect - it's not the most "out there" cultures people have issues with, those are generally considered "interesting", "fascinating", so they're primitive, okay, but generally something to be "gawked at" while going "Ooooh" and "Aaaah". It's the "vaguely similar, yet different enough from my own" cultures that people get uncomfortable with.

I'm not going as far to say "When in Rome, do as Romans do", but I will say, "When in Rome, you're going to respect the Roman law and learn to adapt to the Roman way." But as people's mobility across the globe increases, cultural borders simply need to fall.

Once you put 'inherently' in the sentence in regards to a value judgement you invite the wise to take the moderate option.

No. It all depends on what the person looking at it values, and what kind of diversity we're looking at. Cultural diversity is usually seen as good, but mixing different kinds of hard liquor is generally unpleasant, at least for me.

I presume you're talking about culture.

"What even is a culture, anyway?"
^^^
Me, after a year of studying Cultural Anthropology. x.x

Seriously, the topic of our final tutorial is basically, "So what are we all even talking about anyway, and how does the way we talk about it reflect theoretical biases?"

Some people think that culture is communication, so forcing immigrants to abandon their mother tongue would be the same as destroying their culture in the name of "Assimilation."

Even asking if diversity- a.k.a. the presence of other cultures- is "Good or bad" demonstrates a kind of cultural imperialism- who are you to judge? Moreover, it contains a reductionist assumption of the homogeneity and simplicity, and perhaps even qualities, of the culture(s) in question, and your own.

Oh and please don't bring up the clash of civilisations thing. It's a load of crap.

Cultural diversity is good, if those involved are culturally sensitive and empathetic enough to manage it properly. In the USA most famously, they are often not. It's partly a result of that city-on-a-hill self-image and right wing blame-the-victim, and left wing blame-the-system ideologies. All of which are loaded with condescension.

Kaulen Fuhs:
No. It all depends on what the person looking at it values, and what kind of diversity we're looking at. Cultural diversity is usually seen as good, but mixing different kinds of hard liquor is generally unpleasant, at least for me.

The four horseman drink is one of the most beautiful creations known to man, or the most horrifying, I can never remember.

Gold:

Kaulen Fuhs:
No. It all depends on what the person looking at it values, and what kind of diversity we're looking at. Cultural diversity is usually seen as good, but mixing different kinds of hard liquor is generally unpleasant, at least for me.

The four horseman drink is one of the most beautiful creations known to man, or the most horrifying, I can never remember.

Holy hell, I've never seen that before. I do love me some whiskey, so I suppose I stand corrected.

I'll give it a shot, so to speak.

Arakasi:
Once you put 'inherently' in the sentence in regards to a value judgement you invite the wise to take the moderate option.

Is this a quote? This is eloquent and wonderfully succinct in saying all that needs to be said.

To state something is inherent is to make a broad sweeping statement. Context is required to pass judgement on any situation and idea. Would it be useful to force 20 members of each country to live in a hermit community together? I dont imagine so, i think the diversity there would be a hindrance at first. Is it nice to have different cultures integrate with ours? Well since such a large % of us are christians i cant say we seem to regret having the romans come here and bring christianity with them.

Danny Ocean:

Even asking if diversity- a.k.a. the presence of other cultures- is "Good or bad" demonstrates a kind of cultural imperialism- who are you to judge?

Someone who is brilliant, eloquent, and if I say so myself, quite dashingly handsome. And a little inebriated at the moment, but that's neither here nor there.

Seriously though, I get the "who are you to judge?" question when it comes to the more innocuous customs of a culture, but there does come a point where we should judge, criticize, and perhaps even shame others. For example, someone clinging to a cultural perspective that sees women as subservient baby makers. I will judge them, criticize them, and do my best to shame them. Does that make me arrogant and condescending? Yes, it does, and I see nothing wrong with that in this particular instance. "Who are you to judge?" Someone who sees the value in human equality.

Not saying you were saying we should accept misogynistic assholes or anything. Just...I dunno, drunk, I guess.

BiscuitTrouser:

Arakasi:
Once you put 'inherently' in the sentence in regards to a value judgement you invite the wise to take the moderate option.

Is this a quote? This is eloquent and wonderfully succinct in saying all that needs to be said.

I guess it is a quote now that you've quoted it.
Thanks for the compliment.

Shock and Awe:
A little while ago I was watching a video titled...

I would suggest diversity in organisations is almost guaranteed to be inherently positive when the external entities that organisation must deal with are themselves diverse, as they are likely facilitate understanding of those external entities.

In a vaguer sense, I would suggest excessively closed societies/organisations can tend to become stagnant and sclerotic. The entry of individuals who have alternative views and are less likely to have been indoctrinated into existing conformity is a boon for innovation and development. In a small enough society, fresh blood is very important in terms of avoiding inbreeding.

But diversity does come with potential costs too: disunity and friction being obvious, or that the alternative views they bring in are actually deleterious rather than constructive.

Diversity is only as good as the elements mixed.

It can be a boon, provided one is selective enough to only promote diversity which'll offer greater gains than the social cohesion/capital almost inevitably lost to heterogeneity.

"Diversity" in the form of introducing an illiterate goat herder, with a low IQ, a stay-at-home wife, and extremely illiberal views on women, gays, atheistis etc. etc. into western society, is hardly a positive. On the other hand, introducing a resourceful individual from another culture can be a definite boon, offering new input and opportunities.

The US is quite suited for the latter approach, as the "American Dream" is all about resourceful individuals. The welfare societies of Europe, on the other hand, are all about helping the weak on their feet... but rarely the resourceful to soar.

Hence European nations will bear the burden of the resourceless immigrants, who would simply sink to the bottom of society and out of sight in the US. In a situation of economic crisis, it's of course hard to even maintain a welfare state, if there is a constant influx of people in dire need of vast resources draining it.

A bit of poison or a bit of sweetener can be easily dissolved without effect. But once there's a certain flow, you're going to have to start discerning whether it is poison or sweetener; And close of the floodgates on the former.

For instance, a low IQ, illiteracy, or religious fanaticism are never good elements, no matter which cultures are mixing. It is the right of the participants of every social contract to choose how/when to accept own members into it. A right which should be exercised more discerningly, certainly in welfare states hoping to remain so.

Agema:

In a vaguer sense, I would suggest excessively closed societies/organisations can tend to become stagnant and sclerotic. The entry of individuals who have alternative views and are less likely to have been indoctrinated into existing conformity is a boon for innovation and development. In a small enough society, fresh blood is very important in terms of avoiding inbreeding.

Oh come on! We know you're one of the smartest and most educated posters here, but now you're just flaunting it! Just push our puppy nose further into our own shit, why don't ya? >.>

Shock and Awe:

Personally I have always liked the idea of the Melting Pot. A society in which everyone is assimilated into the rest of society, but still retain their unique culture. In America this has happened with some failures and some success in recent times, especially it seems with persons of East Asian and (until recently)Middle Eastern decent. I have heard a lot of people from Europe complain about the "Multicultural Society" that many countries try to adopt, talking about how it has caused nothing but ill. I would love to hear Europeans' views on this in particular.

It's worth noting that 'the melting pot' and multiculturalism are two different things; though often confused. You have described the 'ideal' multicultural system. The melting pot however is when there is an established monoculture, and with each wave of new immigrants elements of that immigrants culture is absorbed by the monoculture; at which point the immigrant assimilates and adopts the nations culture (which subtlety changes with each successive generation of newcomers), there is no retention of the 'original culture' in the traditional sense (though many 'Italian Americans' often amusingly claim the opposite :) ).

The 'melting pot' is a distinctly North American concept; which has proven time and time again it can work on a macro scale, with each successive generation changing dramatically in their behaviors and mannerism; resulting in the cultural oddities other Anglophone nations amusingly point out; like how you misspell paedophile & colour, turn Aspergers into "ASSBURGERS", herbs into 'EERBS" and mix traditionally belgium/french and German cuisine into a surprisingly tasty fast food meal.

Multiculturalism however assumes that all ethnic/national cultures are of equal value, and for some insane reason assumes that all such cultures can successfully exist within a single nation as part of a greater community. Unfortunately if over 4000 years of human history has told us anything; some cultures (emphasis on cultures, not 'races') are indeed objectively superior to one another.
You can read Posts 14 & 15 for any additional relevant statements...

Fraser Greenfield:

Multiculturalism however assumes that all ethnic/national cultures are of equal value, and for some insane reason assumes that all such cultures can successfully exist within a single nation as part of a greater community. Unfortunately if over 4000 years of human history has told us anything; some cultures (emphasis on cultures, not 'races') are indeed objectively superior to one another.
You can read Posts 14 & 15 for any additional relevant statements...

I do not wish to be associated with your or Imperator_DK's statements, thanks.

For all that I might note inter-cultural friction exists and that some values are inimical in another setting, I prefer to not frame them within prejudicial settings of ethnocentrism and dubious claims of objective cultural superiority.

This may sound pedantic but i don't like the OP's use of the word "inherantly" because you're opening a whole can of worms on wherever anything has an inherent, objective and universally true value. I don't think abstract ideas are inherent, you can only apply external meaning to them which may be validly contested. For instance The United States of America doesn't inherently exist, it only exists because people choose to agree that a certain patch of land is the USA and the that the people who reside within it are American.

Anyway, that aside i believe diversity is a good thing, and there are multiple reasons why:

-Genetically speaking, it's been shown that a diverse gene-pool is more healthy for a species than a homogeneous one.

- A variety of different ideas and perspectives suppresses the problem of "group think" and prevents organisations and groups of people from becoming insular minded.

-The mixing of cultures is also arguably a beneficial thing-in combining cultures you're creating something new, and hence diversity is productive. Static cultures go stagnant and arn't productive.

-Related to this point, diversity exposes people to new forms of culture- like food, art and music, which makes our human experience all the more richer.

The reason why diversity is often resisted i feel is because humans have a "tribal" mentality and that we're inherently suspicious of outsiders to our perceived "in-group". Whilst this mentality i feel must have been of benefit in prehistoric times, it's a mentality we need to grow out of in this era. Historically, the history books are full of examples of people opposing diversity and committing some seriously evil acts against other humans.

Agema:

Fraser Greenfield:

Multiculturalism however assumes that all ethnic/national cultures are of equal value, and for some insane reason assumes that all such cultures can successfully exist within a single nation as part of a greater community. Unfortunately if over 4000 years of human history has told us anything; some cultures (emphasis on cultures, not 'races') are indeed objectively superior to one another.
You can read Posts 14 & 15 for any additional relevant statements...

I do not wish to be associated with your or Imperator_DK's statements, thanks.

For all that I might note inter-cultural friction exists and that some values are inimical in another setting, I prefer to not frame them within prejudicial settings of ethnocentrism and dubious claims of objective cultural superiority.

In other words, you will not tell - or even think of - which immigrating values you find to be "inimical" to your own society.

Which I can certainly understand in the present political climate (and the context of British history). If one wish to remain pure in thought, it is wise to keep things on a general theoretical level far too abstract for actual discussion or policy. Cultural relativism[1] is one of those things which can't really stand up whenever things get too specific (as with FGM and the like).

[1] A conception of ethics which doesn't have any position to argue from: If the axiomatic premise is that all cultures/subcultures are of equal worth, then it obviously can't argue against the cultures/subcultures which reject multiculturalism. Nor condemn cultures which carry in them a notion of superiority, and act on that notion. They're just following what their culture dictates.

I'm going to say good, as a rule. What's the alternative? Segregating or eliminating anyone who isn't like you?

It's very easy to lock oneself to one viewpoint and dismiss everything else, but that's really not helpful.

Imperator_DK:

In other words, you will not tell - or even think of - which immigrating values you find to be "inimical" to your own society.

Which I can certainly understand in the present political climate (and the context of British history). If one wish to remain pure in thought, it is wise to keep things on a general theoretical level far too abstract for actual discussion or policy. Cultural relativism is one of those things which can't really stand up whenever things get too specific (as with FGM and the like).

Oh, how sweet. A snide attempt to nettle me in lieu of a real point.

Firstly, you have simply imposed your own preconceptions which simply do not exist in my statement. I was not explaining my own society; it is quite clearly a generalised statement that could apply to any society or organisation. Perhaps because you are a prime proponent of ethnocentrism, I might suspect that you are unable to compute the idea that the insertion of a Western value (by which you more specifically mean a selective subset of Western values you subjectively prefer) could possibly be deleterious to a foreign culture - we might however argue plenty of examples exist if we want that debate.

Secondly we might then continue with your more-than-a-little pathetic attempt to cheaply denigrate me re. political correctness and being British.

Thirdly, cultural relativism is irrelevant to my point. Simply that two cultural non-relativists may still differ on the criteria they use to determine cultural superiority, each with validity. And in any case, one can talk about a culture being disrupted for the worse (on any number of criteria) by the insertion of values that could be considered superior (by whatever criteria) either in isolation or when working in conjunction with different parallel values.

In other words that post, whilst addressed to me, is really is all about you. Evilthecat absolutely nailed you spot on in a particularly perspicacious comment a week or two back about this sort of shit. You might do well to learn rather than repeat the same errors.

Agema:
...
Firstly, you have simply imposed your own preconceptions which simply do not exist in my statement. I was not explaining my own society; it is quite clearly a generalised statement that could apply to any society or organisation.

Hence the criticism that you're unable/unwilling to actually discuss effects on your own/western society, preferring to keep things on a level too abstract for actual policy making.

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion; Nobody can, since it's indeed a tautological assertion applicable to any society or organization. I'm simply questioning why you won't apply it to a specific society, and see how it holds up?

Is it because you don't want to defend stuff like FGM - i.e. cutting up little girls - as a practice that it's perfectly valid under the right cultural circumstances?

Perhaps because you are a prime proponent of ethnocentrism, I might suspect that you are unable to compute the idea that the insertion of a Western value (by which you more specifically mean a selective subset of Western values you subjectively prefer) could possibly be deleterious to a foreign culture - we might however argue plenty of examples exist if we want that debate.

Assuming it's a liberal culture, I could think of plenty of western concepts which would denigrate it. To take an example close to home, how Danish puritanism corrupted the very casual approach to sexuality amongst Inuits in Greenland.

I'm not really "ethnocentric". I do stand by my own ethical values though, and judge other cultures on them. If you hold liberalism and human rights to be western constructs unique to western ethnic groups, I suppose that'd indirectly be "ethnocentric" though. Which in that case is fine by me.

Thirdly, cultural relativism is irrelevant to my point. Simply that two cultural non-relativists may still differ on the criteria they use to determine cultural superiority, each with validity. And in any case, one can talk about a culture being disrupted for the worse (on any number of criteria) by the insertion of values that could be considered superior (by whatever criteria) either in isolation or when working in conjunction with different parallel values.

Sounds plenty relativistic to me.

Nickolai77:
This may sound pedantic but i don't like the OP's use of the word "inherantly" because you're opening a whole can of worms on wherever anything has an inherent, objective and universally true value.

Well I used the term because the way many talk about diversity they talk about it in those terms. In colleges as I mentioned it is promoted as good for its own sake, implying thats its an inherently good attribute. There are also those on the far right that believe it is inherently a bad thing.

Agema:

Fraser Greenfield:

Multiculturalism however assumes that all ethnic/national cultures are of equal value, and for some insane reason assumes that all such cultures can successfully exist within a single nation as part of a greater community. Unfortunately if over 4000 years of human history has told us anything; some cultures (emphasis on cultures, not 'races') are indeed objectively superior to one another.
You can read Posts 14 & 15 for any additional relevant statements...

I do not wish to be associated with your or Imperator_DK's statements, thanks.

For all that I might note inter-cultural friction exists and that some values are inimical in another setting, I prefer to not frame them within prejudicial settings of ethnocentrism and dubious claims of objective cultural superiority.

Fair enough. While I admit that Ethnocentrism is a dangerous topic to tread upon nowadays; it doesn't sway me from its legitimacy as a concept, despite how the outcome can change based on ones 'perspective or origin'. Though rather than grant examples of the modern day in order to point this out I tend to muse on the ancient.

Take for example 7-5th century European culture. On one hand we have the ancient Greeks with their sophisticated philosophy, mathematics, government models and methods of war. And then theres the myriad of northern Europeans who didn't produce much to be accounted for....

Nickolai77:

The reason why diversity is often resisted i feel is because humans have a "tribal" mentality and that we're inherently suspicious of outsiders to our perceived "in-group". Whilst this mentality i feel must have been of benefit in prehistoric times, it's a mentality we need to grow out of in this era. Historically, the history books are full of examples of people opposing diversity and committing some seriously evil acts against other humans.

2 things. If anything recent events have reinforced the notion (fact rather) that a little bit xenophobia is inherently healthy as it serves to protect the collective community. Of course we all know the downsides of too much. Secondly history books are full of examples of people being open to diversity and then finding their own people as the people they invited into their cities took over the place or tore it apart. They're have been plenty of 'culturally diverse' civilizations across the centuries; none survived or were successful long term. You look at any of the so called 'successful multicultural' nations in the past and you either find they were at each others throats 90% of the time or they underwent a rapid cultural shift that united the peoples under a new 'monoculutre' (e.g England, Scotland and Ireland became 'Britain',the Prussians, Poles, the Saxons etc became simply "Deutchvolk". The people living in the lands of the old imperium were no longer Syrians, Spaniards, Greeks or the like; but simply "Romans" and underwent great changes including the adoption of common customs, dress and language."

Fraser Greenfield:
*sni... SNIP!*

You look at any of the so called 'successful multicultural' nations in the past and you either find they were at each others throats 90% of the time or they underwent a rapid cultural shift that united the peoples under a new 'monoculutre' (e.g England, Scotland and Ireland became 'Britain',the Prussians, Poles, the Saxons etc became simply "Deutchvolk". The people living in the lands of the old imperium were no longer Syrians, Spaniards, Greeks or the like; but simply "Romans" and underwent great changes including the adoption of common customs, dress and language."

This sounds really interesting, any idea what it takes for this rapid cultural shift to occur?
I'm wondering "where next"

Imperator_DK:

Hence the criticism that you're unable/unwilling to actually discuss effects on your own/western society, preferring to keep things on a level too abstract for actual policy making.

So what? I do not need to live by your standards of frothing about whatever's on my shit-list this week. Why is it important to you I gratify your desire to denigrate specific other societies?

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion; Nobody can, since it's indeed a tautological assertion applicable to any society or organization. I'm simply questioning why you won't apply it to a specific society, and see how it holds up?

If you think it's a tautology, you don't know what I'm getting at. Although you tacitly seem to accept it's not a tautology, because you want it put into practice to see how holds up - because if it were a tautology, it's useless so not worth applying. Which rather suggests you're just confused.

And oh no you aren't simply questioning why I won't apply it to a specific society. You very explicitly wanted me to critique my own, by which you're basically looking for me to gratify your desire to slag off Muslims.

Is it because you don't want to defend stuff like FGM - i.e. cutting up little girls - as a practice that it's perfectly valid under the right cultural circumstances?

Cute: more rhetorical tosh.

I'm not really "ethnocentric". I do stand by my own ethical values though...

Don't we know by now, at painful length.

Sounds plenty relativistic to me.

Until such a point as you can demonstrate the values you have pulled out of the aether as if by divine writ are objective cosmic reality, you'll just have to accept that there is a certain degree of subjectivity inherent in the analysis of other cultures. The criteria might be different from one individual to another, but need not be those set by the analysed culture itself. Which, I think, is what you're getting at when you mean cultural relativism (because I'm far from convinced you actually understand it).

Uh, neither?

There are advantages to having a diverse group.

There are also advantages to having the opposite.

Generally speaking, the latter is more stable, less prone to internal conflict. Its culture is also likely to change more slowly (which likewise can be good or bad)

The former however, while inherently on the chaotic side, can lead to significantly more rapid innovation and change, since diverse viewpoints can often offer a greater range of solutions to problems. I prefer this state overall, but there are limits

Coppernerves:

Fraser Greenfield:
*sni... SNIP!*

You look at any of the so called 'successful multicultural' nations in the past and you either find they were at each others throats 90% of the time or they underwent a rapid cultural shift that united the peoples under a new 'monoculutre' (e.g England, Scotland and Ireland became 'Britain',the Prussians, Poles, the Saxons etc became simply "Deutchvolk". The people living in the lands of the old imperium were no longer Syrians, Spaniards, Greeks or the like; but simply "Romans" and underwent great changes including the adoption of common customs, dress and language."

This sounds really interesting, any idea what it takes for this rapid cultural shift to occur?
I'm wondering "where next"

The Romans used military, economic, and cultural dominance in order to have this effect. They would conquer a region with overwhelming force, drastically improve the lives of the common people with their impressive engineering, redefine the local religion so that the new citizens are comfortable worshiping right next to the old, and on top of all this, offer full citizenship and all the benefits that entails to some of those willing to cooperate fully.

Basically, they made being Roman appear to be the best thing in the world to others.

The United States has had a similar, though not as total, effect on the world in the past, in our case it is exerted semi passively, and I get the impression that this has worn off to at least some degree in recent years.

edit: apparently captcha wants me to lie and say I do buy instant rice...

Fraser Greenfield:

Fair enough. While I admit that Ethnocentrism is a dangerous topic to tread upon nowadays; it doesn't sway me from its legitimacy as a concept, despite how the outcome can change based on ones 'perspective or origin'. Though rather than grant examples of the modern day in order to point this out I tend to muse on the ancient.

Take for example 7-5th century European culture. On one hand we have the ancient Greeks with their sophisticated philosophy, mathematics, government models and methods of war. And then theres the myriad of northern Europeans who didn't produce much to be accounted for...

On reflection, I should perhaps apologise to you for being a little ungraciously harsh.

The difficulty I have really is how we measure a culture's "quality". I would also, personally, argue that the moral principles of the West are generally superior than outside. But then, we would, wouldn't we? We've been brought up to believe they are right. I would actually claim as strongest defence that many "Western values" have largely been successfully adopted by other cultures - and clearly by at least some degree of voluntary assent rather than, as some might argue, Western imperialism.

But it's not so much morality I was thinking of. We might view a culture in a form of survivability, or success. As you point out, the ancient Greeks were great in their day - but eventually they were eclipsed. If Western, liberal democracies are eventually economically, socially and politically overtaken by other cultures, it would be hard to argue those values were superior. Or perhaps, what I really favour is that preferential values for culture/society are dictated by circumstances, and consequently may be subject to flux.

Fraser Greenfield:
. You look at any of the so called 'successful multicultural' nations in the past and you either find they were at each others throats 90% of the time or they underwent a rapid cultural shift that united the peoples under a new 'monoculutre' (e.g England, Scotland and Ireland became 'Britain',the Prussians, Poles, the Saxons etc became simply "Deutchvolk". The people living in the lands of the old imperium were no longer Syrians, Spaniards, Greeks or the like; but simply "Romans" and underwent great changes including the adoption of common customs, dress and language."

Is there a reason why you are including Poles as part of your "Deutchvolk" group? A big part of Polish national identity is the conscious effort over the centuries not be conquered and absorbed by the various German nations.

Diversity for Diversity's sake is not necessarily beneficial. However there is a good rule of thumb in most lines of work, and that is the idea that new blood is healthy, sometimes a homogenized society/group only look to certain places for solutions to their problems, but if someone whom were raised differently came to. Maybe a different, more effective solution was found.

Now a days though, apart from food. I think we've learned a lot that other cultures have had to offer, that being said it still sometimes goes to surprise.

Last decade or so we've had a large steam of immigrants from the middle east, as this is a rather capitalistic country I live in, supermarkets have become the main place you shop with there being little alternatives. People coming in from more traditionalistic societies bring the dedicated shopping-places back with such thing as tea-stores and fruit-stores. Where you can actually taste the product before buying, as to make sure you don't waste your money or feel cheated.

I don't really see that as anything else than good, but quite frankly its the only example I can really think of in which diversity has been a force of 'good' in my eyes. That being said I certainly cannot find 'any' cases of Diversity being bad, as such I'd say it being good wins out in the end as the benefits outweigh the negatives by there being a lack of negatives.

Shock and Awe:

Nickolai77:
This may sound pedantic but i don't like the OP's use of the word "inherantly" because you're opening a whole can of worms on wherever anything has an inherent, objective and universally true value.

Well I used the term because the way many talk about diversity they talk about it in those terms. In colleges as I mentioned it is promoted as good for its own sake, implying thats its an inherently good attribute. There are also those on the far right that believe it is inherently a bad thing.

No worries, i understand that in common communication people talk about diversity as if it were objectively and inherently good or bad- As i said i'm just being pedantic and pointing out diversity's not objectively good or bad.

Fraser Greenfield:

Nickolai77:

The reason why diversity is often resisted i feel is because humans have a "tribal" mentality and that we're inherently suspicious of outsiders to our perceived "in-group". Whilst this mentality i feel must have been of benefit in prehistoric times, it's a mentality we need to grow out of in this era. Historically, the history books are full of examples of people opposing diversity and committing some seriously evil acts against other humans.

2 things. If anything recent events have reinforced the notion (fact rather) that a little bit xenophobia is inherently healthy as it serves to protect the collective community. Of course we all know the downsides of too much. Secondly history books are full of examples of people being open to diversity and then finding their own people as the people they invited into their cities took over the place or tore it apart. They're have been plenty of 'culturally diverse' civilizations across the centuries; none survived or were successful long term. You look at any of the so called 'successful multicultural' nations in the past and you either find they were at each others throats 90% of the time or they underwent a rapid cultural shift that united the peoples under a new 'monoculutre' (e.g England, Scotland and Ireland became 'Britain',the Prussians, Poles, the Saxons etc became simply "Deutchvolk". The people living in the lands of the old imperium were no longer Syrians, Spaniards, Greeks or the like; but simply "Romans" and underwent great changes including the adoption of common customs, dress and language."

You may have missed a point i made about how cultural intermingling produces new culture- it's the productive in the sense that by combining multiple cultures together you create something new that all identify with. I don't mean you get numerous separate, static cultures living in the same space but not merging with eachother- that's not really desirable.

America's probably the most obvious example of this- which is a nation where it's dominant cultural values come from a mixture of European countries. The English, Irish, Scot's, French, Germans, Italians etc came together and created "America" and created an overarching cultural identity. In the UK, with the act of the union between Scotland and England, you had Scotsmen making a reputation for themselves in expanding the borders of their British Empire. They wore their clan kilts into battle and played the bagpipes, an instrument that you'll hear played in English regiments. They kept their Scottishness, but we're also British. The peoples of the Roman Empire didn't simply forget their own identities and become Roman- they actually kept their own identities in addition to Roman citizenship, if they possessed it. This is evidenced in the names that Auxilla troops took, where they added a Roman name in addition to their native one. The Romans also took to worshiping the god's of others they conquered- There's a temple to the Egyptian god Isis in Pompeii for instance, and the mystery cult of Mithras and Christianity both came from the Middle East. The Romano-Britain's worshiped the new Roman god's and the emperor but i'd argue also continued their cultural/religious reverence to bodies of water, which lasted before, during and after the Roman occupation. In Arthurian legend, Sir Bedivere returns Arthur's sword to the "Lady of the Lake" before he's put on a boat and sailed to the hidden isle of Avalon (I.e- the Otherworld)- Even before Roman times, the Briton's were making water-offerings (See the Battersea Shield for instance) In Iberia, bulls were revered in pre-Roman times, the legions recruited from Iberia had bulls on their shields, and bulls continue form a distinctive part of Spanish culture today.

So really i think some of the most successful powers on earth- the Roman Empire, the British Empire and America are examples of how a diversity of cultures come together to form a new, hybridised culture that mixes and binds cultures together. Hence why i think diversity's a good thing.

Agema:
...
So what? I do not need to live by your standards of frothing about whatever's on my shit-list this week. Why is it important to you I gratify your desire to denigrate specific other societies?

It's a bit easier to discuss whether diversity is good or bad through specific examples, rather than something as general/meaningless as "inter-cultural friction exists and that some values are inimical in another setting", which absolutely no one could ever disagree with.

If you think it's a tautology, you don't know what I'm getting at.

I'm getting at "inter-cultural friction exists and that some values are inimical in another setting" being a tautology. It's stating the obvious, in a way so vague there's no way it would not always be true. It doesn't actually say anything about whether diversity is good or bad though.

And oh no you aren't simply questioning why I won't apply it to a specific society. You very explicitly wanted me to critique my own, by which you're basically looking for me to gratify your desire to slag off Muslims.

I admittedly can't understand or sympathize with your reluctance to condemn stuff like FGM. But if you feel it deserves respect as a cultural practice which must be evaluated only on the standards of the culture it's from, and can't be judged by western values, that's your business. You and your refusal to condemn it can undoubtedly be judged by western values though.

Don't we know by now, at painful length.

It must be painful indeed to witness somebody willing to stand by - to judge and be judged on - their ethical convictions. But to rephrase Kierkegaard:

"If I am capable of grasping ethics objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in ethics I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my morality."

...though it is a sad day indeed when morality itself is deemed by its practitioners as being mere smoke and mirrors, a trick of the mind. I guess any (sub)culture which can do nothing but question its own values is not only in decline, but deserving of being so as well.

Until such a point as you can demonstrate the values you have pulled out of the aether as if by divine writ are objective cosmic reality, you'll just have to accept that there is a certain degree of subjectivity inherent in the analysis of other cultures.

As my words and action are also subjective though, there is no reason to not let it guide them as were it objective. And present arguments in the hope that they might become inter-subjective, and perhaps ultimately enforced.

Thus I'll state that Female Genital Mutilation is a vile and unethical practice no matter which culture it's practiced in, that the people who practice it are wrong to do so and deserving of punishment, and the culture promoting it is inferior to that of any western liberal democracy which respect the bodily autonomy of women and children. There is no place for "diversity" there, and anyone who think so should suffer the fate of these girls. The rest must then lay with persuasion and power.

Depends on how we define diversity.

New ideas? Good. New perspectives? Fine. A bit of variation? Great. New facets added to a society? Lovely. Common ground found between people from across the globe? Heartwarming.

There are plenty of downsides too. Supplanting of the indigenous culture/language is rarely desirable. Introducing cultural and political frictions is rarely desirable. Adding strain to the infrastructure, competition for housing and school places, and putting a burden on the benefits system is rarely desirable.

In a nutshell: all things in moderation.

I say diversity is awesome because it allows us to see and experience the world differently. Diversity spices things up if you will. Even the simplest things, such as culinary diversity which we got due to all those immigrants importing their native cook books, can add great value to our society. Now sure, sometimes diversity can cause some issues but overall i'd say it's pretty good.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked