Diversity: when is it helpful and when is it harmful?

[Ahanu]

@Cino suggested I start a new thread. Here is the post below.

Not to derail this thread, open parenthesis (

Places like that (with widespread traditional religious culture) tend to be very oppressive intellectually and politically, and not very diverse. The place in question has a Muslim minority, who are massively disadvantaged. The government is always teetering on the brink of military coup - in fact, during my time there, there were two coups.

So you are in Germany now, right? How does it compare in terms of diversity? Is there any religious infighting in your country? Do you feel diversity helps to facilitate a more intellectually open society or does diversity create more problems than it solves?

 

[Cino]

So you are in Germany now, right? How does it compare in terms of diversity?

Depends on the federal state, I'd say. E.g. rural Bavaria will be a right-wing catholic monoculture where they are proud of their beer-brewing religion and eye Northern Germans with suspicion. Urban Berlin is as multicultural and diverse as it gets.

Is there any religious infighting in your country?

Some religious groups are privileged by law (the "state churches", Roman Catholic or Evangelical, depending on which federal state you're looking at). The religious politics I'm involved in revolve around achieving a proper separation of church and state: No religious indoctrination at public school, get rid of that "ban on dancing" on Good Friday, release the healthcare workers from the stranglehold of religious hralthcare providers, that kind of thing.

At my child's former school, which was very diverse and multicultural, we got some insight into the struggles within tbe Muslim community - mostly the power games of Turkish religious nationalists vs other Muslim groups.

Do you feel diversity helps to facilitate a more intellectually open society or does diversity create more problems than it solves?

A human right such as religious freedom must never ever fall into this category of "we can have it if it doesn't create too many problems", in my firmly held opinion.

It's always worth making trouble for those who would take away our basic human rights. That at least is a lesson Germans had to learn the hatd way, historically.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Diversity, as a whole, is usually a positive thing.
The one thing that comes to mind that would seem at all harmful is where it is politically right now, if there is a push to force each and every possible group of people to be perfectly diverse -- forcing and cramming anything just creates angst and messes up the free flow of people.

Also depends on the type of diversity. Many groups are filled with people who are self selected -- people having something in common getting together. If every Unity church had to have hard core Catholics, hard core fundamentalists etc -- who would be happy? If every group of people who liked antique dolls or something had to have raving sports fans in their group -- who would be happy? So some self selected groups are going to be full of people who are very similar in some dimension, rather than individuals who are radically different in every way.

 

[Ahanu]

Depends on the federal state, I'd say. E.g. rural Bavaria will be a right-wing catholic monoculture where they are proud of their beer-brewing religion and eye Northern Germans with suspicion. Urban Berlin is as multicultural and diverse as it gets.

I'm looking at the demographic stats for Bavaria now. According to Wikipedia: "As of 2020 46.9% of Bavarians adhered to Catholicism (a decline from 70.4% in 1970). Orthodox, Muslims make up 4.0% of the population of Bavaria. 31.9 percent of Bavarians are irreligious or adhere to other religions."

In Berlin religious demographics are far different (according to a 2018 survey): 67.4% not religious/other, EKD Protestants, 7.8% Catholics, 8.5% Muslim, 1% Jewish, and 1% other.

Some religious groups are privileged by law (the "state churches", Roman Catholic or Evangelical, depending on which federal state you're looking at). The religious politics I'm involved in revolve around achieving a proper separation of church and state: No religious indoctrination at public school, get rid of that "ban on dancing" on Good Friday, release the healthcare workers from the stranglehold of religious hralthcare providers, that kind of thing.

Is the steep decline in members of the Catholic church and Protestant church aiding your efforts? What changes (if any) have you noticed considering these declines in membership year after year?

 

[Ahanu]

It seems like Germany is becoming less religious.

 

[Cino]

Is the steep decline in members of the Catholic church and Protestant church aiding your efforts? What changes (if any) have you noticed considering these declines in membership year after year?

No, the government was firmly in Christian Democrat hands for 16 years. No chance of scratching at the church/state enmeshment.

The current gov't is headed by the social democrats. As the saying goes, "Wer hat uns verraten? Die Sozialdemokraten!" ("Who betrayed us? The Social Democrats!" - it rhymes in German) This goes back to the times of WWI, when the social democrats betrayed all international cooperation and supported the nationalist war effort instead. Screwing over their voters on their own core values is a sad constant with them ever since. They won't touch church/state separation either.

 

[Ahanu]

Diversity, as a whole, is usually a positive thing.

I don't know if diversity alone usually represents a positive development.

America is a case in point. I don't think diversity in America is working very well at the moment. One reason is that the repercussions of slavery and racial discrimination make it so. Too large of an economic gap between the haves and have nots. The haves are usually white and the have nots are usually minorities. A large portion in the upper echelons of American power are descendants of slaveholders and beneficiaries of the old system. A drive through many American cities is really a tour of residential segregation, revealing that an American's ZIP code often determines the quality of opportunities available. Although US cities have become more diverse, this alone has not led to a positive development in unraveling inequalities like residential segregation. Diverse groups of people must have some form of power in order for diversity to be a positive thing. Otherwise, we only have a bunch of diverse people fighting one another.

 

[Ahanu]

The one thing that comes to mind that would seem at all harmful is where it is politically right now, if there is a push to force each and every possible group of people to be perfectly diverse -- forcing and cramming anything just creates angst and messes up the free flow of people.

I suppose you're referring to societal views towards immigration?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't know if diversity alone usually represents a positive development.

America is a case in point. I don't think diversity in America is working very well at the moment. One reason is that the repercussions of slavery and racial discrimination make it so. Too large of an economic gap between the haves and have nots. The haves are usually white and the have nots are usually minorities. A large portion in the upper echelons of American power are descendants of slaveholders and beneficiaries of the old system. A drive through many American cities is really a tour of residential segregation, revealing that an American's ZIP code often determines the quality of opportunities available. Although US cities have become more diverse, this alone has not led to a positive development in unraveling inequalities like residential segregation. Diverse groups of people must have some form of power in order for diversity to be a positive thing. Otherwise, we only have a bunch of diverse people fighting one another.

Diversity does not ipso facto change economic inequalities. I hope nobody is claiming that it will...

 

[TheLightWithin]

I suppose you're referring to societal views towards immigration?

No, I wasn't even thinking of immigration.
I was thinking more of either quotas, or with more informal drives to make organizations more diverse...
You must have zeroed in on my turn of phrase "free flow of people" which was an awkward phrase but I wasn't even thinking of immigration.
I was thinking of people being able to self-select and join whatever organizations they want, live where they want etc.
I was thinking more in the abstract- challenging people who love diversity so much they would want every organization to be a reflection of society's diversity and that's not practical.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't know if diversity alone usually represents a positive development.

America is a case in point. I don't think diversity in America is working very well at the moment. One reason is that the repercussions of slavery and racial discrimination make it so. Too large of an economic gap between the haves and have nots. The haves are usually white and the have nots are usually minorities. A large portion in the upper echelons of American power are descendants of slaveholders and beneficiaries of the old system. A drive through many American cities is really a tour of residential segregation, revealing that an American's ZIP code often determines the quality of opportunities available. Although US cities have become more diverse, this alone has not led to a positive development in unraveling inequalities like residential segregation. Diverse groups of people must have some form of power in order for diversity to be a positive thing. Otherwise, we only have a bunch of diverse people fighting one another.

Those are just social facts. I'm not sure how this means diversity is working poorly as such. I think people who promote diversity are noticing the exact same thing you are noticing and they are hoping or aiming for more diversity within the workplace or elsewhere will help people be less divided. I don't think they are arguing that diversity is causing the divide as such. I think what most supporters of diversity would argue is that it is a history of racism which causes the problems of today. Not that diversity is causing the problems of today. Diversity is promoted as a way to address the problems. But I don't think anybody is claiming that diversity will solve economic inequality all on its own or anything.

 

[Ahanu]

Diversity does not ipso facto change economic inequalities. I hope nobody is claiming that it will...

I was thinking about your comment that "diversity, as a whole, is usually a positive thing." I was providing an example of how I think diversity by itself isn't a positive or negative thing. Maybe you can expand on your comment about what you mean with diversity usually being a positive thing.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I was thinking about your comment that "diversity, as a whole, is usually a positive thing." I was providing an example of how I think diversity by itself isn't a positive or negative thing. Maybe you can expand on your comment about what you mean with diversity usually being a positive thing.

Too much homogeneity is boring. A group that is very homogeneous often lacks much variety of perspective.
"Variety is the spice of life" as they say.
I assume we are in the context of social diversity, but biologically genetic diversity can help a species be more robust, and having a diverse array of varieties can keep food around if one species falls to blight.

Think of what is happening to bananas, for example.https://time.com/5730790/banana-panama-disease/

But back to the social / societal realities: In fact, many societies have been diverse in the sense of the population being multiracial, for ages.
However, as in our society some decades ago, many professional opportunities were blocked for nonwhites due to discrimination. Many organizations were homogeneous, racially, culturally, religiously, you name it.\

It was the push for public life to be more open to diversity, and for prestigious institutions to drop their homogeneity and become more diverse, that is, more inclusive of the population rather than representative only of the privileged few, that is usually what is being referred to by "diversity" when people talk about the need for diversity at this time.

 

[Ahanu]

Those are just social facts. I'm not sure how this means diversity is working poorly as such.

It is easy for us on this forum to distinguish the difference between social facts and groups of people on paper, but on the ground cops in America are still more likely to stop a person of color based on their assumptions that intertwine social facts and groups of people. Does that make sense?

 

[Ahanu]

Too much homogeneity is boring. A group that is very homogeneous often lacks much variety of perspective.

Okay. Both have pros and cons.

I would like to add homogeneous societies like Japan are far safer than America.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It is easy for us on this forum to distinguish the difference between social facts and groups of people on paper, but on the ground cops in America are still more likely to stop a person of color based on their assumptions that intertwine social facts and groups of people. Does that make sense?

Whether it makes sense or not, if I understand correctly the data seems to support that it is reality.
The things people do often do not come from anyplace rational.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Okay. Both have pros and cons.

I would like to add homogeneous societies like Japan are far safer than America.

Oh well...
Don't know whether the homogeneity is a causal factor in this or not.
That's assuming you are correct, I don't know the latest stats on the comparative safety.
Still don't know if our relative safety has anything to do with homogeneity vs diversity.
Regardless, homogeneity is not where we are.
If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.
Yet here we are.

 

[Ahanu]

It was the push for public life to be more open to diversity, and for prestigious institutions to drop their homogeneity and become more diverse, that is, more inclusive of the population rather than representative only of the privileged few, that is usually what is being referred to by "diversity" when people talk about the need for diversity at this time.

Good point.

I guess we need to define the conversation around diversity. So, when we talk about diversity, it is often thought of in terms of inclusivity. We should include a diversity of races and religious backgrounds in the workplace, universities, religious institutions, and so on. Does being inclusive and diverse mean giving an equal voice to everyone at the table? What if a bunch of people appear that don't want diversity and seek to undermine it at every opportunity? Let's not forget to include white supremacists?

Not only is diversity about inclusivity, but diversity is also a conversation about equity. What's the quality of our diversity? This is where we get into the heart of the problem in America. The answer is clear: NOT GOOD! For example, the ethnicity map of cities like Chicago reveal the truth. Compare that ethnicity map with gun-related deaths. One thing is for sure: I do not agree that inclusivity is what we should usually be talking about when we "talk about a need for diversity at this time." That's an incomplete conversation about diversity.

 

[Ahanu]

Depends on the federal state, I'd say. E.g. rural Bavaria will be a right-wing catholic monoculture where they are proud of their beer-brewing religion and eye Northern Germans with suspicion. Urban Berlin is as multicultural and diverse as it gets.

Why do you think individuals in rural Bavaria "eye Northern Germans with suspicion?"

I was trying to get a sense of the views northern and southern Germans have about one another while reading from a blog post. Their jokes are quite revealing:

When people think of a divided Germany, they are most likely to think of the Cold War period, when Germany was divided into east and west. However, despite the country having been united for 30 years now, lots would argue there is an invisible divide between north and south Germany.

It is not uncommon for the northerners & southerners of a country to hold stereotypes about one another, and Germany is no different. The stereotypes are: The people in the north view those in Süddeutschland (southern Germany) as country bumpkins with weird dialects, while southern Germans view those in Norddeutschland (northern Germany) as pompous and humourless.

There are several differences between north and south Germany, such as their predominant religions: those in the north are more likely to be evangelisch (protestant), while those in the south are more likely to be katholisch (catholic).

There are historical and political differences, too. For example, during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Bavaria was closer in both culture and religion to catholic Austria than protestant Prussia (former name for the northern states of Germany), and so Bavaria fought against the Prussians, with Austria. When Austria was defeated, Bavaria joined the Prussian-formed German Empire.

Not everybody in the south was happy about this, and the repercussions are still evident today: The southern state of Bavaria has a political party – Bayernpartei – that campaigns for Bavaria to leave Germany and be its own, independent state. You can read more about this here.

There are many jokes that reveal what north and south Germans think of each other, such as this joke by north Germans about south Germans:

“What happens when a blonde moves from Berlin to Bavaria? The collective IQs of both places go up.”

Some additional German terms explained there as well:

Preußen​

Preußen is the German word for Prussia. It is also what Bavarians call anyone who is not from Bavaria. Sometimes they use the more derogatory term, Saupreiß – literally ‘swine Prussian’.

Seppl​

Seppl is something north Germans call Bavarians. Sepp or Seppl is the shortened version of the name Josef in Bavarian. It’s a stereotype that every second man in Bavaria is called Josef (and due to the region’s catholic background, this name is, in fact, very common in Bavaria).

Weißwurstäquator​

There may not be a wall between north and south Germany, like there once was for east and west, but there is the Weißwurstäquator – the so-called “white sausage equator”, an unofficial name for the ‘cultural border’ between Bavaria and central/northern Germany. It is called this because Bavaria is famed for its Weißwurst (white sausage).

 

[Ahanu]

I laughed when I read the explanation for Weißwurstäquator.