Abstract
This paper contains two persuasive arguments – one relating to the concept of diversity and another, concerned with the principle of social inclusion. In the first part of the paper, the concept of diversity (in its Western interpretation) is exposed to be discursively erroneous. In the second part of the paper, a somewhat similar argumentative claim is applied to the principle of social inclusion. Both arguments, however, do recognize the theoretical soundness of diversity and inclusion as social constructs.
Diversity: Persuasive Argument
On October 21, 2016, the Supreme Court of Austria overturned the conviction of the Muslim refugee seeker, which was found guilty of having raped a 10-year-old boy. According to the Court, since the culprit does not speak German he could not have possibly known that the boy did not enjoy being raped, “The initial ruling should have dealt with whether the offender thought that the victim had agreed with the sexual act, or whether he had intended to act against his will” (Spencer, 2016, para. 12).
This can be deemed as the ultimate consequence of the EU’s commitment to endorsing the policy of multiculturalism throughout the last few decades, which in turn is based on the assumption that it will prove of a great asset to just about any society to grow increasingly diverse in the ethnocultural sense of this word. After all, it is namely due to their willingness to act in exact accordance with the policy’s diversity-promoting provisions that the EU bureaucrats succeeded in flooding Europe with the millions of refugee seekers from the Third World, who continue to arrive in European countries in ever-increasing numbers. Hence, the actual significance of the legal ruling in question – it shows that the continual implementation of the ‘celebration of diversity’ policy in the West has effectively ceased having anything to do with the notion of sanity.
This alone raises certain concerns about whether diversity is just as beneficial to the society’s well-being as its proponents would like us to believe. Therefore, there is nothing too odd about the fact that, as time goes on, more and more people in the West begin to regard the concept of diversity as nothing short of a propagandistic cliché, meant to justify the reverse colonization of the West by the hordes of ethnically visible immigrants. Such a development appears to have been dialectically predetermined. In the Western (politically correct) sense of this word; diversity stands out for the practice of bringing different people from different racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds together, and expecting that this would make the affected organization/society more harmonious and less oppressive (Kapoor, 2011; Deiser, 2009). However, once subjected to an analytical inquiry, the concerned assumption will appear being deprived of any credibility, whatsoever.
The reason for this is apparent – as it can be illustrated with respect to the recent demographic trends in the West, there is a positive correlation between the measure of a particular society’s diversification, on one hand, and the intensity of social tensions within it, on the other. Partially, this situation can be explained by the fact that, contrary to what the proponents of diversity believe to be the case, the specifics of one’s ethnic affiliation are indeed strongly suggestive of the concerned person’s behavioral tendencies. There is, however, even more to the issue. Apparently, it never occurred to the advocates of diversity to assess the significance of multiculturalism within the framework of the Evolutionary Theory. Had they done it, it would be revealed that there is nothing scientifically sound about one’s irrational belief in the possibility of turning the West into some sort of ‘multicultural paradise’ – a place where the racially, culturally and religiously diversified people would be able to do both: celebrate their non-Western identities and enjoy Western standards of living.
Some may object to this by pointing out the examples of the successful implementation of diversity, throughout history. It would indeed prove quite impossible to disagree with them in this respect. After all, the world’s most powerful empires have been prominently multicultural. The legacy of the Roman Empire stands out particularly exemplary in this regard – despite having been affiliated with different ethnocultural and religious backgrounds, most Roman citizens nevertheless used to share the acute sense of belongingness to the same empire. As a result, Roman society was able to preserve its structural integrity for the duration of many centuries. Moreover, there are also many contemporary examples of societies that are both culturally/religiously diverse and utterly successful. Today’s Russia is probably the most notable of them. Even though there estimated to be more than a hundred of different nationalities living in Russia, there is also the virtual absence of any substantial ethnic or religious tensions within Russian society. This especially became to be the case in the aftermath of the West has imposed economic sanctions against Russia – the development of contributed immensely towards strengthening the sense of ‘imperial nationhood’ in Russians.
One may wonder how come the idea of diversity proved beneficiary in the case of Russia, whereas its practical implementation in the West, resulted in turning many Western countries into nothing shorts of ‘Alice’s Wonderland’, where the rules of logic no longer apply and where judges are allowed to pass clearly insane judicial decisions? One of the possible answers to this question has to do with the fact that unlike it was the case in the West, the process of Russian society’s ethnocultural/religious diversification took place over the course of a few hundreds of years and it was never seen as something that has the value of a ‘thing in itself’. In Russia, it matters very little what happened to be the specifics of one’s cultural/religious identity – all for as long as the concerned person is able to prove himself/herself capable of contributing to the nation’s overall well-being (Prina, 2011). Therefore, it is not only that the representatives of the ethnically visible minorities in Russia speak the Russian language with ease, but they also enjoy the opportunity to be fully integrated within the society as its integral components.
In the West, in general, and the EU, in particular, the situation with the practical implementation of the idea of multiethnic diversity could not be more different. In essence, this implementation is concerned with qualifying the newly arrived ethnic immigrants for permanent residency, allowing them to receive up to 900 Euros in monthly ‘welfare’ payments, and going as far as exempting these people from the law – something best illustrated by the earlier mentioned court case. This, in turn, is expected to help ethnic immigrants to acclimatize to the realities of living in Europe. The policy’s actual outcome, however, proved to be much different. It is now native-born Europeans who are being required to adapt to the reality of having to share their countries with those who exhibit absolutely no desire to respect local cultural customs. This is exactly what the Western notion of diversity stands for in the factual (not formal) sense of this word. As such, it can be no longer deemed discursively sound.
Inclusion: Persuasive Argument
Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice in the West to praise social inclusion as one of the society’s main operational principles. After all, there can be indeed only a few doubts that the process of a particular society becoming ever more inclusive, in the sense of allowing all of its citizens to play an active role in defining the subtleties of the currently prevalent socio-political discourse, is reflective of the fact that this society has reached a new level of complexity. As Oxoby (2009) pointed out, “Inclusion… affects not only an individual’s access to institutions… but also the beliefs and attitudes an individual holds regarding her access to institutions and the expected returns (through optimism or pessimism) to investments in social capital” (p. 1135). This, of course, presupposes that it is indeed fully appropriate to strive to have the principle of inclusion defining the society’s operational paradigm. Nevertheless, as the popular saying suggests – just about anything that does make much sense, in theory, is more than capable of proving utterly senseless in practice.
The way in which the inclusion-facilitating policies are being designed and deployed in the West proves the legitimacy of this suggestion. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that when it comes to discussing the factors that contribute to the formation of the civic sense of self-identity in citizens, most political scientists and sociologists tend to focus on the specifics of these people’s racial makeup, their gender, and on what accounts for the observable characteristics of their lifestyle (Cortes & Wilkinson, 2009). This is exactly the reason why the public debates on the issue of social inclusion hardly contain any valuable insights as to what must be done to encourage people to be more socially active.
For example, it is now being widely suggested that due to the particulars of their ‘existential uniqueness’, gays should be represented in the legislative body of just about every Western country, as if these people’s sexual orientation itself was predetermining their heightened likelihood to succeed in lawmaking. The same can be said about the significance of the popular idea that women should account for at least half of governmental officials in just about any Western country. Somehow, it is being assumed this will make the government’s functioning much more effective. However, once it is being established that the functional efficiency of a particular organization/governmental body positively relates to the measure of its willingness to empower ‘minorities’, the next logical step would be suggesting to expand the scope of qualified individuals in this regard.
If gays are allowed to have their voice (as a distinctive group) heard, within the context of how the country’s socio-political policies are being enacted, why should be the one-legged people denied the same opportunity? The same logic applies to the population of bald men – due to being visibly distinguishable; they also deserve to have their representatives in the government. Apparently, there can be no end to dividing people alongside what accounts for their appearance/lifestyle – something that explains the often-comical sounding of many of the inclusion-facilitating strategies that are being now deployed in the West. If promoters of Neoliberalism/political correctness continue to remain in charge of conceptualizing strategies that are meant to ensure the adequate representation of different categories of citizens in the socially significant (and well-paid) professions, we will soon be hearing of the initiative to endow pedophiles and sexual maniacs with the legislative/executive powers as well.
Therefore, the Neoliberal approach to increasing the rate of people’s social inclusiveness is best defined as innately fallacious. The reason for this is that it does not take into account the fact that their very status of socially integrated beings presupposes that people should be qualified for social inclusion/exclusion with respect to their varying ability to act as the society’s productive members. This, in turn, suggests that it is specifically the fully employed/highly educated citizens who deserve to enjoy the benefits of social inclusion – not the ones who merely happened to be visually distinguishable and therefore ‘unique’. Given the logical soundness of this idea, it may appear somewhat unexplainable as to why most politicians in the West prefer to ignore it.
There is, however, nothing truly mysterious about – the very discursive paradigm of Capitalism denies the possibility that there can be any other motivation for people to try to live the lives of social significance but the prospect of material enrichment. This is the reason why in the West, the value of every particular individual is considered reflective of the amount of money on his or her bank account (Palmer, 2011). In their turn, one’s chances of social inclusion (which lead to social advancement) positively related to the concerned person’s willingness to conform to the externally induced stimuli. For example, just about anyone will be able to confirm that it is not only the most delinquent children that are being ostracized (socially excluded) at school but also the brightest ones (commonly referred to as ‘nerds’). On the other hand, those who have always been considered ‘mediocrities’ by their teachers, seem to have all that it takes to advance in life – it is namely those who comprise the bulk of the socially successful individuals in the West.
Thus, just as it was implied at this essay’s very beginning, there is little rationale in deeming the principle of social inclusion necessarily positive, regardless of what the ideological provisions of the currently dominant discourse are. The public hullabaloo, surrounding the Presidential elections in America exemplifies the validity of this suggestion perfectly well. After all, it is namely because the country’s intellectually marginalized but fully ‘included’ citizens used to play an active role in defining the essence of America’s internal and external policies (by casting ballots) that the US has now found itself on the brink of a civil war. Therefore, it will make much more sense referring to the principle of inclusion in terms of social responsibility, rather than in terms of some vaguely defined social right.
To be socially included, an individual must prove that he or she does have what takes to prioritize the interests of the society over his or her personal agenda in life and not the other way around. Another indication of one’s qualification for social inclusion is the person’s legacy of having acted in a socially conscientious manner in the past – this explains why old people are eligible to receive their monthly pensions in the first place. It is only when the realization of this fact becomes incorporated in the process of planning social policies in Western countries that there could be hope for the West to prevail in its current confrontation with Russia and China. I believe that both arguments (regarding diversity and inclusion) are fully consistent with the guidelines for effective arguing, contained in Vassallo’s (2002) article.
References
Cortes, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2009). Developing and implementing a multicultural vision. In M. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence (pp.17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deiser, R. (2009). Designing a smart organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kapoor, C. (2011). Defining diversity: The evolution of diversity. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4), 284-293.
Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1133-1152.
Palmer, B. (2011). Profits of doom: Specters of capitalist crisis. Labour, 3(67), 189-201.
Prina, F. (2011). Homogenisation and the ‘new Russian citizen’: A road to stability or ethnic tension? Journal on Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe: JEMIE, 10(1), 59-93.
Spencer, R. (2016). Austria: Muslim migrant who raped 10-year-old boy has conviction overturned. Web.
Vassallo, P. (2002). Persuading powerfully: Tips for writing persuasive documents. Et Cetera, 59(1), 65-70.