THE PLURALIST'S PARADOX

The sweet taste of co-existence.

Around 1,200 years ago, a group of Zoroastrians fled persecution from the Muslim invaders who had conquered their homeland, Persia. Their ship docked in Sanjan, on the Western coast of India. The story goes that they were met at the beach by the local ruler who was not particularly enthusiastic about a bunch of foreigners coming to his ancient land. Unable to communicate with the aliens -this was before Google Translate- but also being a softie and not wishing to slaughter them, the ruler expressed his concern in an ingenious way. He had his courtiers bring them a dish filled to the brim with milk indicating that- just like the dish- his land had no room for anyone else. Upon seeing this the leader of the Zoroastrians is said to have taken a spoon of sugar and dissolved it in the dish, saying in effect, “We will sweeten your land like the sugar sweetens milk- without disturbing it.”

These Zoroastrians (now called Parsis) lived up to their word, and for more than a thousand years they have consistently demonstrated their loyalty and value to their adopted land. They prospered in India without giving up on their own faith and culture. I call this the “sweetening the dish” approach to coexistence.

Pluralism is a social ideal where diverse groups coexist in a shared community- despite cultural, religious, or ethnic differences. Where Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is about "having more groups in the mix", pluralism is about "getting the mix to work together harmoniously".

The global ‘pluralism’ industry developed as a response to the breakdown of societal cohesion in the West after decades of disastrous multicultural experimentation. Alas, it continues to be held back by dogmatic and wooly-headed thinking. Their CEOS and thought leaders, driven by a ‘progressive’ and hence unrealistic conception of society, seem unable to understand, let alone accept, the tragic realities and limitations of the human condition. In another essay I shall critique some of their approaches in greater detail. For now, here is my counter-intuitive idea:

Developing pluralism by ‘increasing’ the diversity in society and ‘empowering’ minorities to make greater demands on society is foolish and (even) dangerously counterproductive. Pluralism is difficult enough to pull off without stoking conflict between groups by seeking to equalize power relations in society.

Contrary to what the diversity lobby may have us believe, the following axioms can be said to be fundamentally true:

1. A sudden influx of diversity almost always weakens the host society. Every family, company and nation has a particular character and culture. This culture is built over time, reinforced through its own unique values, assumptions, traditions, rituals, and practices. Each day this culture gets reinforced as members go about their personal and professional businesses in routine and predictable ways. It is this common culture and shared experiences that keep the society together.

   When immigrants arrive- with different values and practices- some adapt to the larger culture, while others hold on to their old ways. As more immigrants come and ‘stick with their own kind’, the increased diversity starts having a disruptive effect on society. Instead of civic life being routine and predictable as before, now every encounter between old timers and newcomers can be unsettling, could require negotiation, and might even need conflict resolution. When a critical mass of immigrants refuses, or is unable to adapt to the host culture, the society’s integrity is compromised and it starts to splinter. At this stage- without drastic counter measures to integrate the outsiders or strengthen society’s culture- it collapses.

   Immigrants, outsiders, aliens and rebels, unless they integrate or assimilate into the larger society become misfits, who increase the stress on the system. This is why groups discriminate against those who don’t fit in. While some may, indeed, be bigoted, most of those who discriminate against outsiders are not. They are merely driven by the need to protect their people and way of life from loss of integrity and collapse. It is the naturally intelligent thing to do.

2. Empowering minorities makes them (even more) vulnerable. This is my slow-burning realization that I call: The Pluralists Paradox: The more we empower minorities the weaker they become.

The Mythical Equal Relationship: Let’s start with the myth of equal relationships. In all my years as a consultant, even if many clients prided themselves on managing flat, non-hierarchical, organizations, I have never found one to sustain their egalitarianism for any stretch of time. The reasons are embarrassingly obvious- every relationship (human or animal) is unequal. You are richer, she is more beautiful, we are intelligent, they are stronger, and so on. Just as in the natural ecosystem with its interlocking and symbiotically coexisting parts- in human systems (families, companies, societies) every part (or partner) has a critical and unequal role to play. The charm and character of a relationship comes from the differences between the partners- and the way they negotiate them. If we negotiate our differences well we have a healthy relationship, if we don’t, we have a miserable one.

Even if a relationship starts out as theoretically equal (and many do) each day will bring new situations and negotiations. The way these negotiations pan out will determine whether a partner’s power increases or decreases. Those with temporarily diminished power will always seek to increase their power- in order to redress the balance. This will either result in a constantly shifting (and unstable) power equation- or establish one party as the more powerful.

It is important to remember that ‘inequality’- coming out of unequal power- doesn’t preclude healthy and productive inter-dependence. Older siblings and large clients, for instance, can be more powerful than younger siblings and smaller contractors and yet the relationships can be positive for all concerned. Successful relationships are happily unequal, where each person values different and complementary qualities that the other brings to it. Isn’t that what diversity is supposed to do anyway?

On the face of it, if we strengthen the weak they should be better able to protect themselves, right? In reality, any attempt to empower the weak will threaten the strong who will now need to recover lost ground- because not doing so risks being disempowered themselves. Hence, they will almost always attempt to redress the power equation by putting the newly ‘empowered’ in their place or by neutralizing them. This is how the non-democratic world works- either eat or get eaten.

Limits to Activism: The overwhelming attraction of a Liberal, Democratic, Republic is that it protects the weak and the poor- as long as doing so doesn’t threaten or take much away from the dominant communities. Slow and incremental shifts in power and minor loss of privilege can be absorbed by dominant groups- even if they bitch and moan through the process. But overt and radical attempts to wrest power or benefits (redistribution of wealth) are guaranteed to inspire a violent reaction.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, aggressive activism is not particularly ‘democratic’. As soon as parties try to drive change through emotionally-charged arguments, disruptive protest, or violence the democratic system- relying as it does on shared commitment to reason, deliberation, rule of law, and due process- collapses. When the weak and marginalized do this, dominant groups fighting to preserve their power and privilege will summarily abandon the democratic contract and revert back to what advantages them- the law of the jungle.

Everyone loses when we romanticize social justice activism and fight for absolute equality (or equity). Minorities in a democratic republic have a lot to gain from being unequal- it allows them to be the designated ‘weaker’ group that is worthy of protection. Not being a threat to the dominant group protects them and allows the intelligent and hardworking amongst them upward mobility. In other words, the social contract does not exclude them- it allows them to share in the riches- as long as they contribute. Upward mobility coming from constructive participation is easier for dominant groups to accept- however grudgingly- because:

• It adds discernable and substantive value to the larger society.

• Minority success within a democracy is a gratifying and powerful advertisement for the virtues of their system.

• It is also a tacit acknowledgement of the dominant group’s own benevolence- making them feel good about themselves.

In other words, if we are a minority (in a democratic society) it is unwise to challenge the dominant group or even compete for power. The democratic system has built-in mechanisms for upward mobility- as long as we can (intelligently) use reason, dialogue and due process. Minorities, even more than the dominant group, benefit from adhering and upholding the rules of the game- because we need the system more than they do. The greatest service we can do for minorities is not get them riled up about how terrible their situation is (relative to the strong)- but to build up their competence and capabilities. Most importantly, they must be taught to play the (democracy) game so well that they excel in it.

The Small Matter of Getting Along

Like the Zoroastrians, minorities can add (and must be seen as delivering) tangible and demonstrable value to the people, land and culture. It is an immense tragedy that minorities in the West and other democracies haven’t learned this lesson. Instead of seeking constructive and creative opportunities to add value to the larger society, they agitate to be compensated for historical disadvantages and current failings. I blame this on decades of socialistic ‘zero-sum’ thinking that views justice, equality and upward mobility purely in terms of economic redistribution. Worse, by constantly blaming the majority for all ills (and attacking them), activists give them fewer reasons and incentives to continue to support a system that constitutionally protects minorities.

I know this is not sexy or particularly radical- but the most important super-power that the weak possess is to simply get along. There are worse things than to be ‘protected’, and it is way smarter to collaborate and ally with the strong than to attack them. Just to be clear, it is possible to overthrow the dominant power structure- but that requires enormous material resources and military strength (Hard Power). Democratic power (reason, dialogue, negotiation, compromise, protest) is Soft Power, which works only as long as those with Hard Power indulge us by sharing the country and its system with us. If minorities are going to overthrow the status quo- they better be willing to finish the job. As Emerson said, “When you strike at a King, you must kill him”.

In an earlier article I had traced the intransigence of minorities and the freakish tyranny of the marginalized, to the wrong lessons that were learned from the halcyon days of the Civil Rights Movement. We imagined that just because a liberal democracy gives everyone a voice and allows dissent and protest, we can also be in perpetual struggle against the powerful. This is a fatal misunderstanding of how power works and a dangerous misconception of the role of dissent in a democracy. Just as the Opposition Party in the British Parliament is called the Loyal Opposition, civil society and minorities are required to be loyal allies and opponents, not sworn enemies of the government or dominant groups.

Think about this, democracy being an exercise in sharing power- why would anyone share power with us if we are going to use that power to destroy them? It is only in liberal democracies that minorities have any kind of a voice. The more we abuse our voice, the easier it is to take it away- courts or ACLU notwithstanding. The Trump administration’s actions against Pro-Palestine activists in campuses is a timely reminder that it isn’t smart activism to test the patience or will of the strong.

So then, this is the powerful and inconvenient lesson that the Pluralist’s Paradox offers. The role of minorities is to make life sweeter for the majority. Period. Anything else is confrontational and will end in tragedy- for minorities. In a liberal democratic republic the weak have the right to request, bargain, negotiate and radically improve their status and circumstances. However, this doesn’t give them license to disrupt the civic space or bully the larger public. Doing so will almost certainly cause the dominant group to lose trust in the system. Once they lose trust in the system, it is easy for them to roll back protections for minorities, destroy liberal institutions and take back complete power. Protests, placards, and pussy hats are curiosities that require the indulgence of the strong.

It is important here to recognize that Joseph Nye’s much vaunted Soft Power comes with serious limitations. Globally, America’s Soft Power (Hollywood, Music, Human Rights and Liberal Values) worked only as long as the US remained a military and economic hegemon. India’s Soft Power should be a cautionary tale: coming out of the Independence movement, India’s much vaunted soft power (Gandhi, Non-Violence and Nehruvian Idealism) lasted only until we were handed a crushing defeat at the hands of the Chinese military in 1962. Like the Karate Kid movie, your decades of sophisticated and subtle martial arts training are undone in an instant by a hick with a pistol.

Soft Power is tolerated only as long as it doesn’t challenge Hard Power. Similarly, democracy and rule of law work only as long as the existing power relations are not changed through force or diktat. When the ‘empowered’ weak get too strong for comfort, or become a nuisance, they get crushed. This is not a moral issue; it is just the way power works- whether it be in Washington DC or in the depths of the Amazon rainforest.

Do-gooders, who often see themselves as heroically fighting for the underdog, should be very wary- ‘empowering’ the weak could hurt them. Badly.

*I first thought I’d call this the Panikkar Paradox, because of the neat alliteration. I decided against it because I’m uncomfortable naming my ideas or organizations after myself- with the happy exception of the Village Idiot Studio!