If you have been unfortunate enough to pay close attention to America’s “culture wars” over the past few years, you will be familiar with the regular accusations of “cultural appropriation” over issues as trivial as white women selling authentic tacos in Portland. On one hand, cultural isolation is heralded as evidence of segregation and marginalization, yet when those seen as oppressors use the culture of a minority group, that is also seen as problematic.
We want two things to be true at once: both unity and harmony between groups and for each one to retain a distinctive identity.
While obviously often puerile and foolish in nature, these controversies reveal both an oft-ignored tension in the modern Western view of diversity and a deep longing of the human soul.
Perhaps the most fundamental point our culture wants to ignore is that any diversity of any kind requires distinction and differentiation. It is impossible to talk about how thing A is different than thing B unless you are willing to define what makes thing A not thing B. Drawing of distinction also requires some objective, external measure of reality.
Yet, the modern view of humanity often sees the application of this sort of measure as inherently oppressive. The spirit of the age is instead for smashing boundaries or tearing down “labels.” For instance, more traditional feminists have tended to promote the unique value of femininity, but with the rise of transgenderism, they can no longer draw any line on what femininity is, biological or otherwise. This leaves feminists in the awkward position of promoting the interests of women without being able to clearly define what a woman is.
Interestingly enough, while the trend is for sexual distinctions to disintegrate in modernity, race has, in some ways, followed the opposite trend as shown by the emergence of critical race theory. CRT tends to emphasize cultural differences based on race, even to the point of a kind of racial essentialism. Syncretism tends to naturally blur cultural lines unless there is some sort of social barrier between the two groups, so those who wish for distinct cultural identities to be maintained really have to advocate for some sort of separation. Perhaps this is why new forms of segregation are en vogue and assimilation is seen as problematic.
For diversity to have value, it must also have order based on something greater than itself. A significant difference in form also implies a difference in function in the cosmic order of reality. Take modern gender theory, for instance. As the number of “genders” skyrockets, the relative significance of each one diminishes, ultimately renderering the category of gender meaningless. The reason modern gender theory leads to chaos is that differences between the newly created genders are only a matter of personal taste and individual expression; there is no defined role or relationship between the new genders. The result is a startingly uniform gender-queer blob, rather like play-doh when all the colors have been mixed together.
On the other hand, the biblical view of man and woman allows for harmonious diversity because there are unique roles for each sex defined both horizontally in relation to each other by biological function and vertically in relation to God by the reflection of Christ and the church.
The Pauline vision of ecclesial structure is another example of this view of diversity — each member of the church is given a unique function to fulfill to strengthen the whole body. The Christian vision of racial and ethnic diversity is likewise informed by the vision of all peoples, tribes, nations, and tongues worshipping God as part of the church universal. If our modern age can’t provide a higher telos for diversity, we will do nothing more than create chaos.
On a more philosophical note, the desire for both diversity and unity is an expression of the need of the human soul for that which is infinite. One of the reasons (though certainly not the only one) humans value diversity in any of its creaturely forms is because it gives us a sense of novelty and complexity, something to stave off the boredom of the same old. Yet, in the very same breath, we want to find something that unites the various pieces of our fragmented lives to give us a sense of order.
What we need is something with the depth and diversity to occupy us for eternity, but also with the unity to give us a sense of wholeness. The many and the one must be harmoniously combined somehow. I think the classical doctrine of God provides a solution to the conundrum our souls face.
God is simple, with a oneness in being that means all of His character is essential to His substance, yet God’s many attributes also cannot be reduced to a single property. The Trinity provides both diversity between the persons of the Godhead (note that these differences are ordered in relation to each other) and inseparable unity. In God’s being, we have something incomprehensible, something to marvel at for an eternity to come, but also an indivisible wholeness that leaves no fragmentation.
Whether we know it or not, our souls long for the day when all the redeemed, from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, are gathered in unison to praise the Three-in-One God who made us to be satisfied only in Him.
The views and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the values and beliefs of Cogitare Magazine, nor of Grove City College.
