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...