On Diversity

by Russell Jacoby

A brilliant examination of a timely concept from one of the nation’s great public intellectuals.

Diversity. You’ve heard the term everywhere—in the news, in the universities, at the television awards shows. Maybe even in the corporate world, where diversity initiatives have become de rigueur. But what does the term actually mean? Where does it come from? What are its intellectual precedents? Moreover, how do we square our love affair with diversity with the fact that the world seems to be becoming more and more, well, homogeneous? With a lucid, straightforward prose that rises above the noise, one of America’s greatest intellectual gadflies, Russell Jacoby, takes these questions squarely on. Discussing diversity (or lack thereof) in language, fashion, childhood experience, political structure, and the history of ideas, Jacoby offers in plain language a surprising and penetrating analysis of our cultural moment. In an age where our public thinkers seem to be jumping over one another to have the latest correct opinion, Jacoby offers a most dangerous, and liberating, injunction: to stop and think.

Genres: Nonfiction

256 pages, Hardcover

First published February 25, 2020

About the author

Russell Jacoby (born April 23, 1945) is a professor of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), an author and a critic of academic culture. His fields of interest are twentieth-century European and American intellectual and cultural history, specifically the history of intellectuals and education.

Reviews

[Craig Fiebig]

I chose this book based on a review, a review from which I erroneously made assumptions about the arc of its narrative. Even so this was well worth the read for anyone interested in, as this book names it, "...the ambient noise of our era" aka 'diversity'. Now before you get all bothered about this momentary lack of obeisance for one of the standards of our time, ask whether a homogeneous opinion on any topic is consistent with a healthy or even accurate notion of diversity. Sadly, the author reserves the tension between diversity and intellectual homogeneity for two sentences in the epilogue. That said, the bulk of the book traces the ebb and flow of the intellectual development of the concept. The book articulates a deeply well-informed and instructive discourse, replete with reference to a panoply of writing. Well done Mr. Jacoby.

[Niklas Pivic]

This book was a hard one for me to crack.

As a matter of fact, I think it's still cracking around.

I don't think I would have loved to be the editor where this material is concerned, as Jacoby skips not only between subjects, ages, and personal theories much like a bouncing ball but altogether, it's a dense read. It reminds me of trying to read Hegel, who Jacoby references in one of these pages.

He starts the book by problematising diversity in the sense that he makes a case for diversity not necessarily being for good:

For instance, Asian American actors want more roles in Hollywood films and American television. Fine. But only in the loosest sense does this entail more diversity.

He goes on:

Whatever the group and whatever the context—African Americans, Latinos, disabled people, women, immigrants—the issue is always their underrepresentation; and the implicit or explicit argument is that they perform equal to any other people. Compare this common situation with the less typical one where groups stand outside the mainstream, and only want to stay outside. We do not hear complaints from the Amish or Hasidic Jews of underrepresentation. They wish to remain apart, rare exemplars of difference that seek to remain different. “The Amish are so different,” writes Ira Wagler in his memoir, Growing Up Amish. The Amish reject cars, trucks, electricity, and telephones—and sometimes indoor plumbing. They speak a variant of German; and throughout his memoir, Wagler refers to outsiders as “the English.” He observes of the Amish, “Mostly, they just prefer to be left alone.”

I almost started feeling badly at that point, but Jacoby digresses:

In a period of political regression, I do not want to be misunderstood about group diversity. All groups deserve representation. To end discrimination in any domain is exemplary. But to halt discrimination under the guise of diversity muddies the waters. The demand for equality or justice does not need cultural enhancements. Sometimes more is less. Nevertheless, I do not want the criticism I offer of diversity to be misconstrued. If the choice is between the KKK’s white supremacy and Bank of America’s diversity, I stand with the Bank of America

[...]

My object, in any event, is not to criticize the jargon of diversity for something worse, but for something better. To understand what renders diversity ideological is to understand what devitalizes it, an endeavor to realize, not junk it.

Phew, good.

Jacoby veers between childhood and Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, questioning "known facts" and using blatant and exaggerated language. A couple of examples of this:

“Most people around the world,” writes the historian Niall Ferguson, “dress in much the same way: the same jeans, the same sneakers, the same T-shirts.” He notes “there are just a very few places where people hold out against the giant sartorial blending machine.” Consider the worldwide success of blue jeans, which originated at the firm of a German-Jewish American merchant, Levi Strauss, in San Francisco. Ferguson attributes the success of blue jeans to money and marketing.

Yet he admits it was more than just hype. The great answer to capitalism, Soviet communism, could not manufacture desirable trousers. “Perhaps the greatest mystery of the entire Cold War is why the Worker’s Paradise could not manage to produce a decent pair of jeans.”

The poor person who manages to dress like a rich person wants to be a rich person. Fair enough. Let us not pretend otherwise.

He goes into language via colonialism, childhood (again) via Stefan Zweig, and how boredom affects children:

Benjamin might be considered a specialist in boredom. He once asked, What is the “dialectical antithesis to boredom?” He never answered. In any event, the issue is not just boredom, but the activities and imagination that boredom might sustain. Does boredom have a history? Does its form change over time? Strange to say, boredom too has its specialists, who contrive an exact method, the Multidimensional State Boredom Scale, for an inexact topic.

Others gather in international conferences—yes, international conferences on boredom!—where they lecture to each other about boredom. Its history does not get much attention, although some scholars have sought to trace the genesis of boredom and distinguish it from kindred conditions such as melancholy or sloth. A Philosophy of Boredom and Boredom: A Lively History are two of many recent books. A few historians view boredom as little more than an eternal ailment of life, a new name for “acedia,” the torpor that bedeviled monks.

There's an interesting section on the evolution of Lego, the toy, and how it compares with the Erector set.

All in all, this book is interesting, but I don't recommend it to readers who aren't willing to crack the nut that is Jacoby's language; as unwieldy and spiraling that it is, it also has quite some payback to offer if you're willing to invest time and your mind.

[Aaron Richardson]

Excellent counterpoint to mass-mindedness.

[Gauthier]

Diversity is a prevalent theme in our modern Occidental societies. We talk about it all the time, we see it everywhere, we hear it, we eat it, we love it, we hate it. Diversity is all around us and takes many shapes. Whether it's about food, language, music, politics, nations, beliefs, and so much more, it is everywhere. It is just part of life. Yet, it can be a sensitive topic and its meaning can be very different depending on who we ask.

In this book, Russel Jacoby takes a philosophical approach on diversity, analyzing the concept and how it was viewed by intellectuals from the US and Europe in the XVIIth, XVIIIth, and XIXth centuries. He shows us that diversity is not a brand new topic and that many intellectuals of our past already considered diversity (or variety) to be positive in contrast to homogeneity, that they perceived to be negative. Yet, while today's narrative seems to focus mostly on the fear of diversity in regards to immigration, demographic changes, and revision of past events, it seems that past intellectuals were actually worried about the loss of diversity and they were observing a world that was, in their view, becoming more homogeneous. It is this view that Jacoby conveys throughout his book.
Noticeably, he gives several examples of what amounts to be, in his view, a loss of diversity: people tend to dress more and more alike, regardless of culture or social class, we tend to enjoy the same activities such as social medias, how we increasingly speak the same language, and more. He considers that as diversity increases at an individual level, it is actually decreased in terms of groups. He develops further by raising themes such as the fact that children increasingly lose the ability to interact with world by developing their own personal characteristics because they no longer have space for creativity, which comes from boredom. We fear boredom and we have now so many distractions that we can't get bored. I thought this was an interesting point although I think it is too soon to determine if Jacoby is right. For now, it seems that humankind is able to carry on quite well despite the fact that children are always busy, no longer know what boredom is, and play with games designed by adults.
Jacoby also raises the issue that concerned many intellectuals: as individuals become more alike they become masses and threaten democracy. This is another interesting point that also shows Jacoby's true concerns: how do we prevent democracy from becoming the tool of a tyrannical mass, comprised of individuals who all think alike. As a reader, we can only muse on it.
As mentioned above, Jacoby relays the past intellectuals' view that diversity was positive for mankind, that it was natural, while homogeneity was an obstacle to human development and, per say, life.
I find this was a very interesting view to ponder. Jacoby mentions that in the past, progressives tended to condemn diversity and support homogeneity but now it is the reverse. He gives as an example the French Revolution where efforts were made by the French Republic to harmonize language and measurement units by imposing the French language in all the regions of France (which had the time has numerous dialects) as well as the metric system. Today, progressives support, some would say sanctify, diversity while Conservatives actually abhor it. In any case, this brings us to an interesting reflexion point where one can argue that, contrary to what many intellectuals thought, homogeneity can have its advantages. Speaking a common language unifies, having a standard system of measurement facilitates trade, having a unified system of law ensures that one can receive the same justice everywhere. Additionally, homogeneity has often been associated with stability while diversity has often proved to be a source of conflict. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire partly fell after World War I due to the pressure of its numerous ethnic minorities. Today, tensions are increasingly rising in many Occidental societies due to ever more present and vocal ethnic minorities.
At the same time, many studies show that diversity has many benefits and that is why modern societies seek to encourage it.
The truth is that diversity like most things in life, is paradoxal. It has its upsides and its downsides. Jacoby is somewhat able to show us that in his writings. He helps us reflect on what numerous intellectuals have thought before us. Yet, while those people were certainly very smart, it does not mean that they were custodians of the truth. Today, one can easily see how both diversity and homogeneity serve their purpose depending on the context. As when one sees diversity disappear, another sees it appear. We might increasingly believe in the same values and dress alike, we still nurture enormous difference. Ask a French and an American if they believe in democracy and freedom of speech, chances are that they will both say yes. Yet, a world sets them apart because they have many differences that make them diverse. Thus, as diversity may seem to disappear, it will always be there. But what kind of diversity are we talking about? The kind that allows us to eat whatever we want be it Indian, Italian, or Iranian food? Or that the kind that makes us think as a community and allows us to live in a true democracy or a tyranny by the masses? Those are the questions that Jacoby raises and we are thankful for him doing that.

[Bilal Khurshid]

Super informative. I think about the stuff I learned from this almost every day. Namely, diversity of play and language

[Martin von Haller Groenbaek]

What is diversity? This really well-written and easy-to-read book takes us behind one of today's absolute buzzwords: diversity. Today, the term is used so uncritically that it has almost lost its meaning. Russell Jacopy's book provides the basis for a deeper understanding, both philosophically, culturally and historically, of what the concept of diversity covers and how it should be seen in the context of other concepts such as plurality versus uniformity, homogeneity versus heterogeneity, the mass versus the individual and so on. The book certainly does not reject the value of diversity, quite the contrary. Diversity is a value in itself. However, the book clearly shows that the uncritical use of the concept today often has the consequence that group-fixated diversity means conforming to conformity and standardization of the individual.

[Jack]

Don’t waste your time.

The pedantic, academic , verbose writing style used by the author might work well in academic circles, but it does not work in the real world. If you have a point, make the point without citing ever author on the planet who shares your point of view. This book does an exceptional job of burying the lead. In addition it tries to address multiple types of diversity that are barely relevant to his thesis. Why would I want to hear what a social scientist thinks about biodiversity. There are real scientist who can do a better job. I could say more, but why bother. This book was a total waste of time and money.