[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
“Diversity,” a monoculture of anti-culture. Good stuff!
[i]Liberalism begins by claiming to be neutral among personal ends and choices, indifferent to the ultimate purposes of individuals so long as those purposes do not come into violent conflict. However, one can quickly see that this indifference must eventually become outright hostility toward those choices that involve ultimate purposes, particularly inasmuch as they involve not individually defined ends, but ends that require community and culture for their fruition. So long as such communities and cultures are open and make no authoritative claim on the individuals who belong to them–so long as there are strong opportunities and rights of exit–then such communities can be tolerated by the liberal state. But, this very logic proves destructive of the fundamental status of culture, which requires a kind of preliminary devotion and loyalty in advance of choice.
One sees, then, how a diversity of cultures becomes the liberal form of multiculturalism. Cultural diversity in the truest sense results from internal standards and practices within cultures, and cultures collectively and cohesively provide definition of their beliefs, their practices, their customs, their ways of life. Cultures patrol their borders, defining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and involves distinctions between members and outsiders. “Multiculturalism,” or–to use the updated language–“diversity”–reduces beliefs and ways of life to the level of the individual, demanding then in advance of any belief that every individual first assent and commit to a willingness to tolerate any other belief or way of life, so long as there is no threat of physical harm. What becomes intolerable are people who will not give that preliminary assent, who insist that certain standards or beliefs ought to govern in a particular context or setting. Such people need correction, restriction, or ostracism for their intolerance.
The result is the elimination of actual diversity in the form of groups, institutions, associations, in favor of a kind of uniform monoculture of individualistic diversity. A good example of this is to be found in universities today: universities everywhere constantly invoke the language of “diversity”–by which of course is meant the “diversity” of lifestyle choices based upon individual choice–and seek to eliminate any remnant of actual cultural diversity by which colleges and universities were once differentiated (e.g., different religious, regional, historical traditions…). What remains is a monoculture of completely identical individualists: no matter their individual “lifestyle” choices, they first must maintain a preliminary allegiance to the ideal of multiculturalism–that is, the indifferent toleration based in the logic of individual choice. This is the anti-culture of liberalism.[/i]
[/quote]
Couldn’t you just have shortened this whole thing and gotten right to the point by saying that liberals are tolerant of everything but intolerance, and that this is necessarily pradoxical in nature?[/quote]
No. I saw the need for sharing his view of culture, to start off. How a culture exists and continues to exist, it’s importance to orderly society, the inter-generational continuity it provides for, the transmission of beliefs and values (moral/intellectual), etc.
Further, his point about us spending off our inheritance, charging off of debt to our future citizens–less likely to bear, and when born, less likely into an intact family–is spot on if you ask me.
Lastly, his point about the anti-cultural is glaringly obvious. Culture, how we transmit our values, beliefs, and practices HAS to be intolerant to some degree. It has to “police it’s borders”. If a culture is viewed as if it was one of a number of different hats (as he puts it), which one simply tries on and takes off at will, it ceases to be a culture.
On a sort of related note, I noticed how sociologists have only recently beginning to talk openly again about the culutre–yes, culture–of poverty. What kept them?
Scholars Return to ‘Culture of Poverty’ Ideas - The New York Times
On another similar note, a recent study found that not only were black students doing even worse (compared to white students) than previously thought, poverty doesn’t seem to explain it away. Indeed, they found that poor white boys did just as well as non-poor black boys in reading and math. See, I don’t subscribe to a racial theory about this. No, mine is a cultural criticism.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/report-black-boys-lagging-badly-in-school