The Idolization of Diversity And Identification

It is fitting and expected of a liberal individual to promote the diversification of societies, but often the advocation is without the understanding of the dangerous implications behind the philosophy. With riots in metropolitan areas, it is not unusual for media sources to inform the general public of the events through a methodology that would not be incorrect to call glorification. Those who do not question the validity of such reports will express their means of support on social media by either sharing their personal experiences of discrimination or how they had been emotionally affected by the pictures taken by an ignorant photographer. Why call some photographers ignorant? Take a look at any major headline on a national newspaper and realize that the photographer will have taken photos of a certain group of peoples that is representative of rebellion or is, to put it simply, different. It is admittedly not intriguing to see pictures of a demographic that is of the majority or is compliant to traditional ideologies. It is fascinating, on the other hand, to observe what responses will be resultant from being an oppositional force to the more conservative parties within a nation. Why? Because we are a self-centered species.

There is an obvious appeal to the propaganda of diversification because societies are stratified beyond repair. But how ironic is it for educational institutions to try and appeal to the masses by stating their missions to represent a “diverse community?” How ignorant is it for formally educated students to not recognize that such a “diverse community” is an effort to lessen the percentages of the Caucasian body versus other racial groups? The diversification of a school campus does not imply the inclusion of all minorities and the promotion of their well-being. To a student, it often seems to simply be for the annual reports and the act of luring of donors of all backgrounds. Of course there are aspects of the running of an educational institution that students are not privy to, but it would be foolish to underestimate the skepticism and curiosity youth brings.

Whether it be political or social leaders, their main message that “our differences make us stronger” is overused and unoriginal. This tactic is often utilized by those in power to supposedly bring together various demographics under an umbrella, but it is a strategy that only further destroys a society. The ideal society consists of a population that has no majority or minority and is able to collaborate in a civil manner in regards to the creation of policies or reform. The modern structuring of political and social bodies, however, has closed off any possible means of reform. A sudden education reform or the rewriting of statutes is impossible simply due to the time that has passed since their creation. Whether or not current leaders disagree or wish to amend particular mandates, they will never be able to convince the “wise elders” of our societies, the conservatives, or rather, the blind. There is an unsurmountable amount of value in heeding the guidance of more experienced leaders within the economic, social and political sectors, but there is only so much wisdom they can provide. Take the recent head press associate at the German Mission in New York. This gentleman in his early forties, spoke openly about his mission’s wish for reform within the United Nations and his mission’s wish for the inclusion of smaller nations within the Security Council—all to a group of American adolescents who did not expect such honesty and had only known about Germany through their research for MUN. On the other hand, The United States Mission’s press executive was a man about the same age as the German gentleman, and yet his response to reform was as expected: traditional, unrevealing  and status-quo. Denying the possibility of shifting the Security Council hierarchy, he spoke as if from a pre-made speech. Furthermore, this kind of representation of America, a country identified as liberalistic was disappointing to say the least. Germany’s and America’s narratives are not so different in terms of their tumultuous histories—yet the expected responses from the two countries’ representatives were oddly reversed.

Speaking of identification, I recently read an article by Wesley Morris in The New York Times called “The Year We Obsessed Over Identity” at the suggestion of Opinions Editor Julie Chung. I found myself nodding unconsciously to the references Morris made to support the proposition that in the past year there has a been a “smashing of binaries” and fluidity of identification has begun to take hold. Back in June, a woman named Rachel Dolezal had become a face to the start of the revolution of breaking down traditional racial and gender lines within America. Dolezal had been biologically born as a white female, and yet she had felt compelled to darken her skin and perm her hair. As Morris says in his article, many were insulted by Dolezal’s identification and others called her “transracial,” a term not yet assimilated into popular culture. Understandably, because Dolezal identified as a race that she was clearly not biologically a part of, it would have insulted those who had had to suffer at the hands of her ancestors. Nevertheless, there is an appeal to Dolezal’s case because she represented how there is only so much tradition and conservatism that can be upheld in an ever changing world. Yes, there are the obvious signs of improvement through technological advancements and increasing involvement of social media, but in terms of politics, not much has changed. Perhaps the largest eye-opener in American politics was President Barack Obama’s election to office. Here was a black man who had been given the responsibility to lead and represent a country in which his people had stereotypically been subservient. But with that extra label of “president” added to his name, he was no longer the face of the black opposition, but rather the source of all “Americans’” problems and solutions and the usher of a identity revolution.

It is rather odd for me to see yet another article in national news about a riot or some sort of a parade that symbolizes a specified population’s means of differentiation. What those individuals call a unification, I call a source of alienation. Take the term “American,” for example. Those whose parents were immigrants often identify themselves as hyphenated Americans—but, those who are clearly Caucasian feel more comfortable and proud to simply call themselves “American.” Republican presidential hopefuls have brought to the international stage the supposed issue of immigration and anchor babies, and yet they fail to recognize the fallacy of their argument. They and their kind were also an immigrant body, so who in the world do they think they are to so outlandishly stab fingers at others? It is unrealistic to expect reform in regards to identity, when the way to gain national attention to a cause has been to emphasize the nonconformity of a group, rather than to highlight their similarities with the majority. And so here is a toast to yet another year of so-called diversity and the redefining of identity.