Thoughts on Russell Jacoby's "On Diversity"

I'm part-way into chapter 4. After laying out a broad picture in chapter 1, chapter 2 is largely about the homogenization of the modern world, with fashion being a particularly illustrative focal point. Besides the obvious fact that many people around the world have adopted Western attire, Jacoby also notes that within the confines of Western fashion the visual differences between rich and poor have become more subtle, at least in day-to-day attire.  That's not to say that some clothes aren't more expensive than others, but if you aren't a fashionista and you're looking from a distance, the difference between an expensive pair of slacks and a cheap pair may not be obvious. On the other hand, the finery of an earlier era was often more ostentatious.

Jacoby notes ways in which both the left and right have lamented decried sartorial homogeneity. Conservatives of the modern era may be cautious about saying this out loud (and may not even believe it anymore, in many cases) but in an earlier era there were people who decried commoners looking like their "betters." (In the present, I suspect that conservatives willing to decry modern fashion would lambast the poor for NOT dressing as respectably as their successful "betters.") Likewise, many leftists lamented that with fashion gaps closing between rich and poor the poor were going to feel less solidarity with each other.

Chapter 3 is about childhood and how children spend less time on spontaneous, unorganized play and more time in either structured activities or indoor amusements.  This is hardly a novel observation, and some of this is no doubt a function of class (one sees more kids outside in working-class neighborhoods), but he made two interesting points:
1) This was going on even a century ago, when sociologists went and studied children's games and found that over the decades there was less variation in the rules of games played on streets.  Whereas kids improvised more of their own rules in earlier eras, as time went on more homogeneity set in, even when kids were playing without adult supervision.  I suspect that mass media promotion of professional sports inspired more homogeneous rules.  Formal schooling with gym classes may also play a role.

2) Though the phenomenon of suburban parents spending the entire weekend sitting in various parks and gyms watching kids in organized sports may be more or less modern (at least as a large scale thing), people were noting and lamenting the onset of this phenomenon several decades ago. Adults and leagues impose more uniformity on childhood rites of passage.

Chapter 4 (which I'm only part-way through) is about the concept of diversity throughout the ages.  He notes the many thinkers who spoke approvingly of diversity, of the right of individuals to differ.  But he also notes the efforts to standardize weights and measures in the interests of trade, to standardize national languages and assimilate speakers of local dialects, etc. I don't know that we lose much culturally if everyone measures weighs grain in the same units, but commercial standards enable people to join a global economy, and also enable the global economy to enter the local village.

Cultural and technological innovations spreading across the world is hardly a new thing.  Wheat was domesticated in the Middle East, the horse was probably domesticated in the steppes of Eurasia, and the wheel was invented in the Middle East, but these things quickly spread around the world, and even entered into religions. Writing originated in a handful of places, but religions based on holy books came to supplant religions based on oral traditions.

Still, what is new is the extent to which everyday life becomes similar around the world. We're actually becoming less diverse, not more diverse.  However, we talk so much about diversity because we're bringing more people under this common umbrella, which means that we sometimes encounter a wider range of skin tones, facial features, hair types, etc. in our standard-issue malls, recreational sports leagues, chain restaurants, and corporate employers.

(Never mind that even today, the lower economic classes continue to live in neighborhoods that often have more small businesses than comfortable suburbanites sometimes realize, perhaps because catering to low-income consumers is something that not every large company wants to pursue, whereas everyone loves to go for affluent consumers.)

My next post will deal with the implications of this.