The current paradigm of “diversity” is mostly hypocritically hollow with really very little content indeed. What is needed therefore is a science of Multilogy that would endeavor not only to understand and appreciate but also no less importantly learn to economically value idiosyncrasy, coexistence and diversity indeed.
Critical Theory in academia has by discursive extension indirectly brought the paradigm of diversity to the political arena as well. While modernity for much of the 20th century typically regarded diversity as a liability has the so called ‘post-modernity’ in contrast nominally come to adopt what tends to be an uncritically favorable view of ‘diversity’. The question however is what content this paradigm really has and whether the nominal profession of support for diversity is merely a cover for the toleration of the very lack of appreciation for diversity itself?
The so called ‘nation state’ has indeed for most of its history tended to be highly intolerant of diversity and those deemed representative of diversity are typically still described as so called ‘minorities’. There has been a process of discursive transition from the notion that ‘majorities’ should assimilate/eliminate ‘minorities’ to the idea that mere toleration on the part of majorities is sufficient in accordance with the liberal dictum of ‘live and let live’.
However, mere ‘toleration’ of certain diversity is neither acceptance nor mutually respectful coexistence and the pervasive contemporary existence of informal structural discrimination within nation states with ethno-cultural majority populations is clear evidence that the paradigm of diversity is so far highly superficial indeed in terms of societal behavior of most of those who claim to subscribe to the paradigm of diversity.
Academia has for virtually all of its collective career of existence from Plato and onwards been the study of sameness rather than a study of diversity. Diversity has for long been structurally reduced to the study of of ‘norm’ and ‘abberation’. The question therefore now arises what diversity is and of course why it should be studied at all? The current nominal paradigm of diversity however typically regards diversity as a synonym of ‘aberration’, i.e. so called ‘minority’. This in turn opens the question to what degree aberration/diversity is accepted beyond cooking and the arts? Many pre-colonial cultures practiced public nudity yet most societies now nominally professing belief in the paradigm of (in fact rather hollow) diversity are not accepting of public nudity, whether legally or socially so.
The term ‘culture’ as currently used has two distinctive meaning, the first refers to social norms and social behaviors of ethnic formations and civilizations alike and the second meaning refers to the production and consumption of food, art, music, literature and the like. However, the two meanings although highly distinctive indeed are typically used interchangeably in a manner prone to promote confusion about the very meaning of the paradigm of diversity, i.e. if there is a meaning at all?
The hegemony of the paradigm of diversity in academia came into force as career scientists typically experienced a need to legitimize their own imperialist discursive practices as academia has always been about the study of so called ‘universals’, namely the very Hellenistic study of ‘sameness’.
‘Norm’ has thus come to be known as “structure” while ‘aberration’ has come to be known as “diversity”. There has been some amount of increased acceptance with regard to mere consumption of cultures of other ethnicities as as well as with regard to the overt existence of same-sex intimate relationship. However, this is superficial indeed as this like the other neo-hellenistic projects (liberalism, socialism, nationalism and fascism) of modernity of supplanting the once socially hegemonic imperialist Christianity with a new “secular” testament rather merely reinvents Christendom in yet other Para-Christian terms. Antinomian Neo-Hellenism is all about leaving Jerusalem for Athens, an eschatological semiotic journey as originally in typically Para-Christian manner inspired by Christian Anti-Judaism and mimicking Christian Supersessionism and which indeed never completes itself.
The notion of utopian urban multicultural coexistence is derived from St. Augustine whose utopian, multiethnic city is inspired by the biblical vision of the future heavenly Jerusalem to which persons from all countries will arrive. While typically not regarded as such is the paradigm of diversity an expression of merely superficially “secularized” imperialist Christendom. In fact, the current hollow paradigm of diversity legitimizes the very transethnic, imperialist cultural veneer of Christendom. Indeed, civilization precisely legitimizes itself by its intrinsically transethnic character in therefore laying claim to “universal” (i.e. human pan-imperialist) stature. Diversity is thus in the current hollow paradigm of diversity mostly limited to the celebration of LGBTQI Pride Parades as well as the consumption (and of course cooking) of ethnic products, including within the arts.
Yet what is really needed is a science of diversity as divorced from clearly unhelpful Para-Christian circular semiotic expressions of the ‘false consciousness’ of imperialist Christendom. First, it needs to be clear that ‘norms’ no less than ‘aberrations’ are indeed expressions of the diversity of life and life forms as the distinction between ‘norm’ and ’aberration’ is just another imperialist expression of neo-hellenist academia as the hegemonic study of the illusory ‘metaphysical’ sameness that ignores the individual and idiosyncratic.
What is rather needed is a rigorous scientific discipline of multilogy as devoted to the study of diversity as both problem and opportunity. Multilogy therefore needs to become an applied science as devoted not only to understanding diversity in forms of life but also to devising and developing models for successful accepting coexistence in diversity both within and beyond the Homo genus.
Early Stone Age humans faced tremendous challenges in ensuring that surrounding environments were successfully and sustainably exploited without in the process destroying those very environments which would then have threatened the very survival of those Stone Age human tribes. Contemporary humans face very similar challenges as humans during the Neolithic revolution and the ensuing process of so called ‘civilization’ has caused mass extinction among life forms on Planet Earth in therefore indeed precisely threatening diversity itself.
Multilogy therefore needs to study how life forms successfully share the same space across the same locus and multilogy should therefore never take coexistence for granted as something given or even natural. Also, far from all forms of diversity are laudable and worthy of preservation. Criminal recidivism and viruses causing illnesses are but two examples of “diversity” that are neither laudable, nor worthy of preservation.
A very important question for multilogy as for ethics is therefore to understand which forms of diversity that are “good”, which ones that are “bad” and which ones are neither “good” nor “bad” or both. This question should be repeatedly and continually answered from different cultural/ethnic perspectives. There can probably not be a conclusive comprehensive ‘classification of good and bad’. While seemingly easy to answer, the factor of cultural bias (and especially Para-Christian cultural bias) makes this a problematic, yet still always vitally important question to engage with. The discipline of multilogy should therefore largely supplant the discipline of metaphysics.
Sameness of course is rarely about being identical but rather there being “some kind” of formally identified common denominator of varying actual relevance. The metaphysics of sameness therefore consistently hides diversity as purported (but usually not actual) sameness.
For example, are human persons with orofacial cleft really intrinsically a social group? Persons with orofacial cleft can certainly be socially constructed into a group despite usually having very little in common with each other and not constituting a group unless of course socially constructed into “a group”, i.e. a socially constructed category of purported but but not actual ‘sameness’ through a social process known as othering. Indeed, persons not born with orofacial cleft are rarely if ever considered a distinctive ‘group’ of their own.
As Capitalism is being rapidly, increasingly supplanted by Talentism are human societies facing the utmost, in fact unavoidable necessity of societal individualization in the system of education, in the labor market, in the economy, in health care and in fact in society generally. Thus the essential, indeed completely unavoidable transition from Capitalism to Talentism requires a vastly improved understanding of the individual nature of diversity. As human sameness in the labor market is rapidly being supplanted by increasingly advanced technologies will individual cognitive abilities that cannot be supplanted by technology therefore increasingly matter more and more in the era of Talentism.
Markets will indeed learn to appreciate diversity as an economic value. This is true for appreciating the tremendous economic value of rich, clean, sustainable and diverse environment as well as the vast and so far mostly unappreciated economic value of human psychometric diversity. Human society in the era of Talentism will therefore not be able to afford to not utilize and develop the intrinsic talent of almost every human child. Therefore, every child will need a tailored education whereby children are provided education in virtual reality together with children not only with similar needs but also with very similar cognitive potentials. Rather than as of now mindlessly focusing on shortcomings in individual pupils/students ought the focus be on developing and expanding the individual idiosyncratic potential (i.e. talent) of each and every pupil/student in increasingly developing and therefore vastly economically refining the human national capital.
However, human cognitive diversity certainly needs to be be far better understood in order to successfully utilize it in the national economy and this surely requires a new applied science of multilogy. After all, it is more difficult to economically appreciate individual human capital unless it is first scientifically well understood. Psychometry, a long established subdiscipline of psychology as devoted to measuring psychological diversity – only measures and neither demeans nor appreciates the richness and value of human cognitive diversity. Multilogy will not only need to incorporate psychometrics, but will need help society at large (including especially the system of education and the business sector) to appreciate the immense contemporary and future economic value inherent in human individual cognitive diversity. Multilogy will therefore need to help merge the science of economics with the science of psychometrics as only those individual cognitive abilities that cannot yet be supplanted by machines will matter in the dynamic and increasingly heavily specialized labor market in the emerging economic era of Talentism that is rapidly replacing the dying economic era of Capitalism.
Multilogy will therefore not only need to generally aid appreciate psychometric diversity but also help economically appreciate the value inherent in individual cognitive ability collectively constituting the human national capital. Multilogy will similarly need to help economically value the immense richness in living in green environments rich in organisms. Multilogy will all need to prepare for a future increasingly without purported so called ‘majorities’ with human beings leading increasingly diverse lifestyles in virtual reality as humans will be able to work and spend much of their time in virtual cities while also relaxing in green environments IRL. VR cities will become increasingly specialized and humans will be able to live in VR cities with their own preferred specialization whether sexually so and/or in other social respects.
Multilogy will therefore need to very substantially deconstruct the mostly baseless binary between so called ‘norm’ and so called ‘aberration’. Multilogy will furthermore help appreciate individual persons whether human animals or non-human persons as intrinsic carriers of most valuable idiosyncratic diversity indeed. Individual, idiosyncratic personhood must therefore not only be respected; but cherished, appreciated and valued indeed.