On Diversity: The Eclipse of the Individual in a Global Era

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, to stop and think.

Genres: Nonfiction

229 pages, Kindle Edition

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

[Gauthier · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Martin von Haller Groenbaek · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.