It’s more than odd or embarrassing that this is the case—it’s tragic. Ever since the rise of modernity in the form of the French Revolution, conservative thinkers of all stripes and across the globe argued fiercely for the diversity and variety of human life against the pulverizing flattening of modernity and of progressive thinking.
Edmund Burke famously railed against the French destruction of its local traditions and regional identities in favor of mathematical
départements. British conservatives fought for local variety in their country in the nineteenth century against the utilitarians seeking to flatten everything based on mathematical formulas. America’s own conservative movement in the ‘50s arose against the crushing political conformity of that era. All throughout, conservatives everywhere celebrated or at least tolerated a degree of human variety as a bulwark against uniformity and as an expression of human wonder and growth.
One would think, then, that the now-dominant liberal idea of diversity, while not necessarily aligning with conservative views, would be a welcome sight and a matter of negotiation between the two sides rather than an all-out war.
We may not agree with the Millian approach arguing for constant disruptive social experiments or the Marxian obsession with power relations among groups one can see nowadays, but that is a matter of the practice and parameters, not the overall principle.
So why is this not the case? Why do conservatives not actively celebrate diversity and variety in a way that aligns with their own principles?
There is of course the sad and tragic reality that some on “our side” oppose diversity measures because they oppose diversity, period. This includes a belief that being “too open” to people around the world could result in America’s
losing its identity and
Republican unease at other kinds of diversity in American life. The questions of how many diversity opponents exist, and how influential are they, does not erase their reality and presence. Dealing with them is unpleasant, but necessary.
Another reason is the nostalgia throughout the United States for the same conformist and non-diverse era of the ‘50s, for various reasons (conservatives due to the relative social stability and prosperity, liberals due to the power of unions and other groups). Arguing in favor of diversity seems like an argument for chaos against the backdrop of a longing for a “simpler time,” even if many conservatives themselves found that time quite stifling.
Even if we set aside those issues, conservatives would see very little in common between their idea of diversity and variety and the liberal conception.
The conservative idea of diversity is not as easy to define as the liberal one; the latter is based on an easily applicable formula of groups broken down by race, gender, and class. The liberal approach is also often laser-focused on just a few issues concerning those groups—fairness, justice, equality, power relations.
Important as those issues are, they are not all that man is. And traditional conservatives are interested in variety not (only) as a means to correct previous injustices but because they see wisdom and value in the existence and interplay of different human groups from different times, places, and origins as such. Sometimes the differences can be understood and explained—such as differences in religion or language—and sometimes they are more instinctive, such as habits or superstitions.
(full article online)
Are conservatives against the campus diversity administrative machine or are they opposed to diversity itself? The argument in favor of the former seems like an easy one. Ever since debates … Continue reading "A Conservative Definition of Diversity"
www.jamesgmartin.center
www.foxnews.com
