The Trouble With Diversity

"...when the problem is inequality, the solution is identity."

As someone familiar with like-minded viewpoints of Walter Benn Michaels on diversity, neoliberalism, economic inequality, and race, reading The Trouble with Diversity was not only informative, but complementary to Adolph Reed's work. Indeed, Michaels shares a similar penchant for excellent one-liners, sarcasm, and surprisingly fitting sense of humor with Reed. All of the issues raised by Michaels are legitimate on race, class, economic inequality, fighting neoliberalism, and the ways in which our love of diversity and antiracism can be easily coopted by or manipulated by the forces of neoliberalism. Indeed, the author's provocative argument that the left has helped the right in allowing the diversity discourse to shift the center of attention to race or gender or indigeneity over the fundamental problem of growing inequality is a heavy charge, especially in light of the ongoing #Oscarssowhite controversy, as if more black and brown faces receiving meaningless statues is going to shape or change the material conditions of the poor, like those poisoned by the state of Michigan. 

More interesting and relevant to the relatively recent student protests regarding racism on college campuses, the ease in which whites can use the language of multiculturalism, diversity, or identitarianism to support ideas like "white student unions" is another challenge that should seriously make one question some of the central ideas of culture, race, identity, privilege that are so prevalent or even acceptable to the neoliberal turn. Michaels examines this tendency among Christian fundamentalists, for instance, to argue that they are victims of discrimination. The infamous Kim Davis exemplifies this trend, too, and should suggest we need to move away from identity or culture (which is used interchangeably with race, despite all the talk of race as lacking any scientific meaning or the obvious observation that the very idea of black, white or Jewish "culture" is not written in stone or unchanging) and the discourse which can be appropriated by those with regressive social and political views. The focus on "identity" and "culture" is flexible enough to encompass the Kim Davis's and Deray McKessons of the world. 

Furthermore, the author's bold assertions on attempts to make class the equivalent of race or gender as misguided and anti-left is worth hearing out. Michaels does not reject the possibility of working-class or poor people producing great literature or art, but is, I think, right to say attempts to highlight the deprivation and exploitation of the poor is not an attack on their "agency," but a realist perspective that wants to remove the obstacles to economic equality, an equality of outcomes that will ensure the poor and working-class will not experience the deprivation that leaves most unable to access the higher living standards, representation, and benefits of middle-class and elite Americans. Hence, the talk of classism as disrespect or sneering at the poor and disadvantaged, does not address the fundamental issue of growing class disparities. Yes, we should not look down upon those who are less fortunate, but ending the conversation there does nothing to change their conditions. The culture of the poor, maligned by the myth of the underclass, as elucidated by Adolph Reed, will not save them, and neither will attempts to valorize or romanticize the poor. As mentioned in the text, this is particularly relevant to some of the fixation on "indigenous" cultures and languages, as if languages or cultures are eternal and an indigenous or Latin American peasant identity is always anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, or socialist, or all cultures are equal. In short, Michaels has written a book that is bound to stir debate, especially today.