Diversity

COMING from Singapore and from USP, I have heard a lot about how there can be unity in diversity. The essence of the matter, it seems, is for people to develop their own cultures and inclinations; ultimately contributing back to the larger community. It is a rather intangible concept. As such, some useful models to think about might include: 


1) Google
Brilliant minds are allowed to work on their own pet projects; once someone discovers something, he or she gets to present it for implementation. That explains the mass of products that Google has uncovered (and also the over-stretching of resources that has ultimately required them to cancel some of these projects).


2) Soccer clubs
Players play for individual teams and often develop into amazing individual players. Every 4 years (or 2, depending on the championships you follow), players are selected from a myriad of individual clubs and brought together to play for their country. Players from diverse backgrounds, styles of play and upbringing are in other words expected to grow to understand each other's styles of play within months. Often, we don't see that happening. Players like Messi, Rooney, Ronaldo (Cristiano) and many others consistently get criticised that they play for club better than for nation.


But these examples pretty much highlight the issue, right? How can people be devoted to 2 separate causes at the same time? By definition, "devotion" should be an all-consuming attitude that comes to define who you are as a person. For some, this may be macro-systems of values like religion; for others, it may be the individual pursuit of happiness.




PERHAPS then my understanding of the diversity-into-singularity model is wrong. From what I can understand, the alternative would be for society to encourage only the areas of diversity that benefits itself. It would be like the leader that delegates different projects. In other words, as long as everyone keeps the larger ideal of "unity" in mind, then it does not matter what each of them independently seek to do.


Again, the models we have include:


1) Parenting/Mentorship
The traditional parenting system involves harsh discipline of children to the point where they become "mature" enough and can start to live on their own. Often, this transition is marked by rituals like bar-mitzvah or the 21st birthday celebration or in more primitive societies, men undertake their first hunt or a scarring of their body to mark their transition into manhood.


The idea is simple. Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it. Ok, so I am loosely quoting from the Bible. Still, you see the same mechanism of mentorship sprinkled across (what tends to be perceived as) traditional forms of lifestyles.


The recent movie "Karate Kid" starring Jaden Smith is representative of similar film genres and of the portrayal of traditional Asian culture. In the movie, Jackie Chan begins training Jaden by requiring him to learn discipline. In other examples, books heralding the era of the tiger mom have also suggested the same style of upbringing. A third example would be the harsh training that China imposes upon their athletes -- today, they are one of the sports powerhouses have drawn criticism from many countries.


In all these examples, the same mechanism is seen -- impose a singularity in mindset first before allowing diversification to happen. In other words, such models would not advocate a hands-off approach towards allowing diversification.


2) Motivational speeches
The idea of motivational speeches is often to unite the people towards a common goal. It is to guide them towards placing a common, singular goal above any independent agenda. Again, the idea is that people should always be reminded of the larger goal that ought to unify all their actions.




PRESENTLY, societies seem to be inclining a lot towards the former model. Perhaps it is a problem with democracy, where power is given to the individual.


Don't get me wrong; democracy does have its benefits. Leaders cannot be allowed to abuse their power. Yet, because leaders are ultimately humans, they tend towards selfish gains. Allowing power to the people ensures that these leaders will always need to keep the people as their priority.


In turn, the model only works if people similarly are able to put society above self. What happens, in particular, if the common person does not see the big picture that the leaders see? We cannot expect everyone to deeply understand the workings of society; nor can we expect that people would be bothered to understand it. It's either "the leaders' job; why should I bother?" or "the leader's duty to ensure that I am well-taken care of". It does seem to be a very unfair and selfish demand of the leaders of society.


How can a country move forward if difficult decisions cannot be made? If you look at the trend of rising China/India and failing America/Europe, perhaps one striking difference is the people and their relationship towards the government. In America/Europe, the leaders who are in the position to make decisions are not being supported in making these decisions. The ideal of "unified society" begins to fall apart both for leader and people, leading to every person for themselves... which is a very broad generalisation (I admit) of the situation we are seeing right now.




IN the end, I don't know. We see in ecological systems that organisms of separate niches working for their own survival leads to a nice balance, but insofar as predator-prey and survival-of-the-fittest paradigms are in effect. For society to allow the development of diversity without a larger "unification plan", are we not in essence devolving and encouraging a return to our primitive states?


I remember someone once wrote that although evolutionary theories demand the merciless treatment of each other, the calling for humanity is to overcome these inclinations by imposing on ourselves a set of moral values and codes to live by. We need leaders we can trust; who are able to hold fast to over-arching ideals. In turn, we need a people who are responsible in electing honorable leaders and understanding when they need to make sacrifices (for lack of a better expression) for the greater good. It's a difficult, complex symbiosis that immediately falls apart when either party falters in their duties.


And right now, it seems we have...

171111 / 2207 HRS

Have you ever felt like you were living off
The memories of what a former you achieved?


You feel and know that you've changed;
You're no longer someone you can be proud of.


You wouldn't like yourself.
And yet, your friends hang around.
But is it because of who you are;
Or for who you used to be?


What have you achieved since then?
What can you offer them?
And if nothing...


Then perhaps it's best to step back (away)
Preserve at least the memories.


Because yes you were far better;
But only once upon a time...

2335 HRS / 151111

I love how it's always "be humble" but also "be wise". I like that it's always a "but" that is used. It's as though as if surviving in this society requires a complete abandonment of all the ideals that had been taught to us as young children.

If that is the case, then why bother about moral values in the first place? Why teach your children to share and think about others if doing so is only going to "get them bullied" later in life? Maybe Jack London was right in writing that "mercy is for gentler climes".

It's strange that humans have always yearned in a different direction from societal development. We long for friendship, trust, love and all those other idealistic concepts you often only see in movies (correction: *you used to once see in movies). In addition, E.O. Wilson has also noted that our concepts of a safe haven/paradise often always involves the image of serene, pristine nature.

On both counts, the capitalist system that dominates our current society have often been thought to be in disagreement. We are taught to earn money so that we can afford that ideal home-by-the-beach or farm-in-the-countryside. In so doing, we push industrialisation to its limits. We increasingly invade and replace such spaces that we yearn for. In turn, supply drops and prices increase. We are cheated into pursuing a dream that constantly drifts further and further away from us.

Likewise with moral values. We constantly complain about the dearth of society, wishing for a revert to the "golden era" where things were "a lot more simple and less complicated". In turn, we ourselves do nothing to achieve such aims. Our rhetoric says it all -- it's terrible for someone to steal from us, but it's just too bad for the one we successfully steal from.

There is often still a desire to pursue "moral values", "nature" and other such ideals. But you see, the one who steps in such a direction will inevitably get beaten down by society. For sure, people will take advantage of you. Is it worth it, really?

Perhaps, succumbing and yielding to societal currents is ultimately most wise...