A Narrow-Minded Diversity

Every laloo panjoo and his cat in government has been harping on the importance of diversity in our public sector for more than two decades. It’s important that we have a diverse range of people in our government so that they infuse real, visceral knowledge from a representative range of identities into government’s decision-making. Life from the perspective of a single, black, homosexual, unemployed male may be differ unkindly from that of a married, white member of the landed aristocracy. And it’s important for the diverse citizenry to feel connected with those who administer government, who run our version of ‘democracy’ …. the one in which we, the people, in fact have almost no say.

Let’s agree on two aspects of this. A government exclusively of, let’s say men, will struggle to meaningfully understand and see the world from the perspective of women. Yes, I know for now I’m putting aside each gender’s heterogeneity, as I’m putting aside the impact of identity’s construction and narratives. There’s a second aspect that we can settle – despite all the chatter of diversity, decision-making in Western democracies is still directed by old, white men. They constitute less than a quarter of the population in every Western democracy, but typically dominate two-thirds of the key decision-making roles.

Let me forage a third aspect. ‘Diversity’ as-is is an oddly cramping tool of the politically correct movement. I’m not denying it has benefits in a more representative and connected democracy. But it’s no coincidence that those who push for it happen to be amongst society’s disenfranchised ethnic, age, religious, gender and age groups. Do they really seek a diverse public sector or are they really in it for better opportunities for their particular identity? Are the coalitions amongst the marginalized in the colosseum about better opportunities for only their specific identity, or are they more deeply rooted in an intrinsic belief in diversity as a defining principal of the good life? 

So, here’s a litmus test. If the commitments to diversity were indeed more faithful, would we not see a broader, more diverse construal of diversity? As opposed to a diversity amongst four or five categories of identity, might we not also entertain a diversity of childhood experiences – those born perhaps with the participation of only one, or perhaps no biological parent? Or perhaps a diversity of economics? That points to income or wealth. Perhaps a diversity of qualifications – it being a little odd that almost everybody in the upper echelons of government has a university degree?

Diversity is a good thing, but I do question the underlying motives which drive much of the movement today. While I like diversity, I don’t know if I fancy it being brought in disingenuously.