THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY

Throughout the 90s and 2000s, it seemed evident that diversity was becoming established more and more as a value in America — that diversity was something to be celebrated and appreciated rather than to be suppressed and homogenized. Diversity, unequivocally, was better than homogeneity. Diversity signified a progress, and homogeneity a retrogress.  

Universities across America made a conscious effort to bring diversity to the campus es and diversify their student body. Companies made a conscious effort to recruit and diversify their workforce and were proud to do so. The model industry diversified their roster to include different races and challenged the racial hierarchy of what was considered ‘beautiful.’ TV programs and advertising industries made a conscious effort to to represent more diversity, not only to appeal to their diversifying public, but also to reflect the changing demographics of the American society.

These institutions and industries served as the leaders of social transformation as they challenged, opened up and expanded public consciousness.

What was never discussed explicitly, however, was WHY diversity was a value — WHY diversity was exactly better than homogeneity. There didn’t seem to be a need for such a discussion, because doing so would have felt like stating the obvious: Diversity was better than homogeneity because homogeneity implied a denial of equality and inclusion. Embracing diversity was a gesture of equality and inclusion. Any society that claimed to cherish the values of equality and inclusion would embrace diversity, because diversity was an embodiment of equality and inclusion.

But as doubt on the value of diversity has crept into the national discourse of America, and the discussion has become more and more polarized between ‘liberals’ who continue to cherish the value of diversity and ‘conservatives’ who try to reclaim white America and white supremacy, it seemed necessary to clarify WHY diversity was exactly a value.

Over the course of 2015 and 2020, while teaching a multiculturalism class for American university students, I noticed that an increasing number of students expressing anxiety over a growing diversity of the nation that would in fact ‘threaten’ and ‘dilute’ the nation’s identity, and had no qualms about expressing their view, whereas only a few years before, students unanimously chimed in on how diversity was an enrichment and they were proud of America being so diverse. 

I was based in Europe then and had initially thought multiculturalism was more of a European problem, though America still had a long way to go: I could see that ethnic minorities still remained on the margins of European societies — at mercy of the majority who claimed ownership of the nation, who held the power either to extend or retract tolerance for minorities depending on the circumstances. There was an underlying fear, not just among the right wing, that a growing diversity would in fact threaten the culture, identity and solidarity of their nation. European nations didn’t seem to see why diversity was exactly better than homogeneity for their nation other than having to put up with it since they have no option but to live together, given how the turn of history ended them up together. Diversity still hadn’t been established as a value in European societies.

Of course, European nations were ethnic nations from their inception — a nation tied to a singular ethnicity who claimed ownership of the nation and a growing diversity, understandably, would have felt like a ‘threat’ to the culture, identity and solidarity of the nation, unless they were shown how it wouldn’t exactly be a threat. A growing diversity was not a threat to culture, identity & solidarity of the nation because it was the strong ethos of egalitarianism and inclusion that facilitated acculturalization process of immigrants, without society having to control or impose it.

But America was an immigrant nation from its inception, with no group who could claim ownership of the nation and being American had never been an ‘ethnic’ membership but a civic membership. If any group could claim ownership of America, it would be Native Americans, who were conveniently put away, out of sight, into their ‘reservations’ on top of mountains.

I thought the value of diversity, at least in America, had been firmly established, and never thought doubt on the value of diversity would creep up in the national discourse of America in the 21st century. It seemed necessary, at this junction, to clarify WHY diversity was exactly a value.

So WHY is diversity exactly a value? Why is diversity exactly better than homogeneity?

The conventional response would have been a practical one: immigrants contribute to the declining birth rate of the nation, immigrants fill in the shortage of skills in labor sectors that the country badly needs, especially the kind of jobs that no natives would be willing to take.

But to treat diversity only as the means for filling the country’s needs would be not seeing its true value and, in fact, discounting its value.

Diversity is a value because the exposures and influences from different cultures don’t stay outside of oneself but are made one’s own as one intersects and connects with them. Just as a person who travels acquires influences and flavors from other cultures, a person exposed to diversity in their everyday life can acquire influences and flavors from other cultures in their everyday life. To perceive influences from other cultures as a ‘loss’ would be like perceiving travel as a loss rather than an enrichment. 

Similarly, a nation can acquire influences and flavors from other cultures without losing the core identity of the nation, as cultural influences that immigrants bring add flavors and spices to the national culture that already exists. National culture was not a monument frozen in time to be preserved, but an open-ended process that kept evolving overtime, with an accumulation of layers of different influences, which is precisely what made each national culture unique.

Diversity is a value because a comparative perspective you gain between different cultures allows you to SEE your own culture with a critical & dispassionate distance. The critical distance challenges and throws into question the narrow norms, conditioning and status quo about your own culture that you took for granted that you never questioned before — especially the ones that are holding the society back from moving forward. Questioning the norms, conditioning and status quo of your own culture wouldn’t ‘threaten’ the national culture, as what’s to be treasured, valued and appreciated about the culture — which would be highlighted even more pronouncedly in comparison to other cultures — will be kept, while what’s holding back the society from moving forward can be delineated, challenged and let go.  

Diversity is also a value because when different perspectives come together — people from different backgrounds — not only in race or ethnicity, but also in class, gender, sexuality and a intersection of different backgrounds within each individual that gives each individual a unique perspective, they not only bring different perspectives to the table, but also can challenge and expand on each other’s views.

Moreover, diversity is better than homogeneity because it honors, appreciates and cherishes an individual difference — a unique make up and expression of individuals with their own gifts, endowments and temperaments, rather than homogenizing individuals into the sameness that fit into the mould. 

Diversity is also a value, last but not least, because people come to realize, through interactions with people from different backgrounds, that underneath their exterior differences, they share the same qualities of being human — the same fears, vulnerabilities, doubts, anxieties, dilemmas and challenges, and all aspire, whether they realize it or not, to fulfill of their potential. Diversity gives an opportunity to see this even more clearly than in a diverse setting and connect on the human level — beyond the categories and associations based on kinship and tribal identities, which cannot truly satisfy the desire for human connection.