Brooks can get carried away with his own conceits, but often -- very often, I'd say -- he illuminates. Sure, generalizations by definition will misrepresent. But really, do we think there are a *lot* of Boston-dwelling, computer programmer NASCAR fans? No we do not.
Brooks' latest in the Atlantic is a fine example of good generalization in the service of a deep truth.
Well, the counterexample is Cox's own conceit and we take it for what it's worth. What I think is dead-on is her description of Brooks "spinning nothingness into conventional wisdom."
In fact, I didn't want to make it an overly long post, but the column you cite seemed like a perfect example. Brooks takes what he quite rightly identifies as a tendency of people to commune with their "own" (whatever that means in context) and uses that tendency to argue that we don't really care about "diversity." But he's working with a very narrow notion of diversity: he completely ignores, for example, the exemplary and ongoing efforts to extend full legal protection to all groups (homosexuals being the latest), even when those groups are segregated and not even quite welcome. He also ignores--completely--the workplace. I work in a firm of ten people which employs two jews, two iranians, two japanese, a chinese, an african american, and a couple of mutts. Some of those people are very rich, some not at all. Some are Republicans, some Democrats, some devout, some not. All are friendly with one another.
So, yes, people do "segment" and there are disturbing divisions between races and classes and people who believe and those who don't. But that's a long long way from saying we're not diverse and don't care. If Brooks simply made half the point, he'd be worth reading; as it is, in addition to being wrong, he does real damage in saying that not caring about diversity is the status quo. People who are comfortable with the status quo may conclude that they are, ipso facto, pretty comfortable with a lack of diversity. Not to mention the fact that he's a mean-spirited carica...no no, sorry, my bad.
I think Brooks spins nothingness into pure gold, baby! At least in this case. He's right, right, right, to point out that most of us live in cocoons of like-mindedness. Heck, Anne Applebaum made the same point about ideological echo chambers in the Post -- and guess what? She's right too! Brooks is also right that "diversity" understood in Michigan law school terms (race, sexual orientation) can provide an awfully poor proxy for diversity of outlook and background. Nor so I think the workplace is such an obvious counter-example for many Americans.
Do we care as a nation care about diversity -- in the sense of wanting to read magazines whose politics and mindset we find disagreeable, or live in neighborhoods where trivial social norms differ. I think Brooks has basically got us tagged -- it's not a huge priority for most people. (and here's some nifty evidence on that point: http://www.orgnet.com/leftright.html)
You seem to be making a Marx vs. Hegel point here: the point is not to understand but to change. But this seems unfair to Brooks -- heck, he even suggests that we *do* celebrate diversity more! If you want to define support of gay rights as celebrating diversity, then fine. But as I take it Brooks is saying that as a people, we're *tolerant* of other modes, customes, and mores, but not particularly eager to experience them in our lives beyond an ethnic restuarant level. Further, he thinks this is too bad. Do you think he's wrong about this?
I don't think we're really so far apart on the substance. I don't disagree with what he says about people segmenting themselves. A fine point, well made. I don't think that's the same as not being diverse and not caring about diversity. I was trying to say that diversity is much broader than the kinds of examples he gives and he's not justified in drawing conclusions about diversity from those examples. I objected ("he does real damage") because I think it's important to recognize that diversity is an important and shared value and we shouldn't say people don't care about it when, in many (though not all) ways, they do.
I think if we try hard enough we can keep arguing and expand the gap between us! (and then never visit each other's web sites again!)
It all depends, suppose, on what we mean by diversity. My two cents: We Americans are, by and large, immensely tolerant. But we do not, by and large, seek new experiences, or go out of our way to expand our circle of acquaintance beyond our class and cultural set. Thus, I think Brooks is right to call us on phoney "celebrate diversity" talk.
You're killing me here, BAA (deliberately, even). I'll play the generalization game. Name me a country where people are more likely to seek new experiences and expand their circle of acquaintance. There is class, and cocooning, and there is segmenting and segregation, but Americans are fascinated by people who are different and their tolerance often translates into interaction.
I don't know about you, but I've lived in podunk. Hell, I was the foreigner in podunk. People in podunk thought foreigners were pretty cool and they loved being invited over for foreign food and they thought it was neat to have foreigners go to church with them to check it out. That's America! It's great!
If Brooks were saying that our diversity talk is often belied by our actions, I would be more sympathetic, but he's saying that we don't really care about diversity and that strikes me as plainly false.
(I'm available to say more offensive things if the gap demands it. Let me know.)
Brooks can get carried away with his own conceits, but often -- very often, I'd say -- he illuminates. Sure, generalizations by definition will misrepresent. But really, do we think there are a *lot* of Boston-dwelling, computer programmer NASCAR fans? No we do not.
Brooks' latest in the Atlantic is a fine example of good generalization in the service of a deep truth.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/brooks.htm
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 9:21 AM
Well, the counterexample is Cox's own conceit and we take it for what it's worth. What I think is dead-on is her description of Brooks "spinning nothingness into conventional wisdom."
In fact, I didn't want to make it an overly long post, but the column you cite seemed like a perfect example. Brooks takes what he quite rightly identifies as a tendency of people to commune with their "own" (whatever that means in context) and uses that tendency to argue that we don't really care about "diversity." But he's working with a very narrow notion of diversity: he completely ignores, for example, the exemplary and ongoing efforts to extend full legal protection to all groups (homosexuals being the latest), even when those groups are segregated and not even quite welcome. He also ignores--completely--the workplace. I work in a firm of ten people which employs two jews, two iranians, two japanese, a chinese, an african american, and a couple of mutts. Some of those people are very rich, some not at all. Some are Republicans, some Democrats, some devout, some not. All are friendly with one another.
So, yes, people do "segment" and there are disturbing divisions between races and classes and people who believe and those who don't. But that's a long long way from saying we're not diverse and don't care. If Brooks simply made half the point, he'd be worth reading; as it is, in addition to being wrong, he does real damage in saying that not caring about diversity is the status quo. People who are comfortable with the status quo may conclude that they are, ipso facto, pretty comfortable with a lack of diversity. Not to mention the fact that he's a mean-spirited carica...no no, sorry, my bad.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 11:12 AM
I think Brooks spins nothingness into pure gold, baby! At least in this case. He's right, right, right, to point out that most of us live in cocoons of like-mindedness. Heck, Anne Applebaum made the same point about ideological echo chambers in the Post -- and guess what? She's right too! Brooks is also right that "diversity" understood in Michigan law school terms (race, sexual orientation) can provide an awfully poor proxy for diversity of outlook and background. Nor so I think the workplace is such an obvious counter-example for many Americans.
Do we care as a nation care about diversity -- in the sense of wanting to read magazines whose politics and mindset we find disagreeable, or live in neighborhoods where trivial social norms differ. I think Brooks has basically got us tagged -- it's not a huge priority for most people. (and here's some nifty evidence on that point: http://www.orgnet.com/leftright.html)
You seem to be making a Marx vs. Hegel point here: the point is not to understand but to change. But this seems unfair to Brooks -- heck, he even suggests that we *do* celebrate diversity more! If you want to define support of gay rights as celebrating diversity, then fine. But as I take it Brooks is saying that as a people, we're *tolerant* of other modes, customes, and mores, but not particularly eager to experience them in our lives beyond an ethnic restuarant level. Further, he thinks this is too bad. Do you think he's wrong about this?
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 12:26 PM
I don't think we're really so far apart on the substance. I don't disagree with what he says about people segmenting themselves. A fine point, well made. I don't think that's the same as not being diverse and not caring about diversity. I was trying to say that diversity is much broader than the kinds of examples he gives and he's not justified in drawing conclusions about diversity from those examples. I objected ("he does real damage") because I think it's important to recognize that diversity is an important and shared value and we shouldn't say people don't care about it when, in many (though not all) ways, they do.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 1:58 PM
I think if we try hard enough we can keep arguing and expand the gap between us! (and then never visit each other's web sites again!)
It all depends, suppose, on what we mean by diversity. My two cents: We Americans are, by and large, immensely tolerant. But we do not, by and large, seek new experiences, or go out of our way to expand our circle of acquaintance beyond our class and cultural set. Thus, I think Brooks is right to call us on phoney "celebrate diversity" talk.
Posted by BAA | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 2:27 PM
You're killing me here, BAA (deliberately, even). I'll play the generalization game. Name me a country where people are more likely to seek new experiences and expand their circle of acquaintance. There is class, and cocooning, and there is segmenting and segregation, but Americans are fascinated by people who are different and their tolerance often translates into interaction.
I don't know about you, but I've lived in podunk. Hell, I was the foreigner in podunk. People in podunk thought foreigners were pretty cool and they loved being invited over for foreign food and they thought it was neat to have foreigners go to church with them to check it out. That's America! It's great!
If Brooks were saying that our diversity talk is often belied by our actions, I would be more sympathetic, but he's saying that we don't really care about diversity and that strikes me as plainly false.
(I'm available to say more offensive things if the gap demands it. Let me know.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-15-03 2:48 PM