Mike Mertsock

• November 2001
• Ethics

Many of us have seen enough oppression and injustice come from our own society to question the legitimacy of the very structure of our culture. The ideal of equality upon which our nation was founded has allowed terrific progress for many oppressed groups. However, seeing the persistence of such wrongs as racism and sexism, some are calling for a more complete measure of equality: the elimination of socially constructed groups and roles. At odds with this ideal is that of diversity, which sees greater value in embracing difference rather than abolishing it. At the center of this conflict is the moral nature of the individual’s relation to society. Answering this can then determine whether socially differentiated groups should exist, and what sort of significance they should have in the political and other arenas.

There are two major ideals describing the place of these social groups; for this discussion, they can be identified as assimilation and heterogeneity, or diversity. Assimilation views the distinctions that lead to culturally fabricated groups are arbitrary, and that these distinctions in fact should be of no more significance, as Richard Wasserstrom describes, than eye color [1]. In addition, this differentiation can often serve as little more than a means to create and prolong oppression by creating social roles for the members of the groups. Thus, these groups should not exist at all. Supporters of diversity recognize that many basic rights and institutions should hold strict standards of equality. However, they believe that cultural groups can serve to enrich a society; a homogenous culture would not be any better, or even worse, than a heterogeneous one.

To make a choice between assimilation and diversity, one has to determine what kind of moral value differentiation has, toward both individuals and the collective of the entire culture. A good starting point is to inquire the nature of a person’s moral development, especially concerning the role society plays in determining an individual’s identity. In supporting a definition of moral identity that emphasizes the importance of social participation, I will attempt to explain the moral nature of both the cultural groups a person is born into, and the groups in which one later chooses to participate. These arguments result in choosing an ideal of diversity. A heterogeneous culture, such as ours, can have in it oppression and injustice, but I believe its nature allows the development of positive morality that can rise above injustice and improve the culture from within.

One way to begin an analysis of a person’s moral development in relation to a particular social environment is to look at his resulting sense of moral identity. Identity, as used here, builds around a communitarian understanding of the individual. Rather than liberal theory, which concentrates on “pre-social” [2] individuals who are morally disconnected from society, a communitarian self develops in relation to society. A person is undoubtedly born into certain social groups and communities, and it will be assumed that these communities have an effect on the development of one’s moral character. Following the work of Marilyn Friedman, I will describe two classes of communities or groups: those that a person “finds” (such as the community in which you are born), and those that one chooses [3]. An individual achieves moral identity beginning with the found groups, but most importantly through the communities he chooses as he matures. These chosen groups express a person’s moral journey, the process of finding his moral role in society.

Supporters of assimilation say that a society constructs roles for groups whose differences are otherwise insignificant. Referring again to Wasserstrom’s comparison to eye color, assimilation argues removing the social significance of groups would create a type of equality that allows every person to have a unique, self-made identity. Culture would not impose roles, for example, upon a woman simply because she is female. If one assumes a liberal logic, that a person’s morality is removed from society and works completely upon an objective rationality, assimilation makes sense. The reality of one’s moral identity, however, is more complex: it cannot be abstracted from the social environment [4].

Every person finds himself - against choice, and arbitrarily - born into specific social communities. A Black person does not choose to be Black, a person born in Alabama has the burden of a past of slavery, and a child of a poor family grows up with all the social ideas attached to poverty. In a non-assimilationist society, these given communities form an inseparable part of everyone’s identity. If these were the only type of groups that existed, one can immediately see that assimilation - erasure of these groups - is imperative, because so many people are born into groups that suffer from oppression. There is another type of group, though, that a person enters entirely by choice. A closer examination of both of these classes of social communities will reveal how diversity can be justified.

As a person matures, he becomes aware of the good and bad aspects of his given communities. Assuming a reasonably free society, a person can move beyond his given groups over time. This second part of the establishment of one’s moral identity involves reacting to his initial environment and choosing new communities that reflect and develop this reaction. These chosen groups, therefore, reflect the values of their members. In contrast, the given groups one is born into can tend to impose values upon individuals. As one finishes his moral journey, he has rejected the unfavorable aspects of his given communities for the values of his new chosen groups.

Assimilationists may react to this argument by saying that the given groups, the imposed social roles, should be abolished, leaving the chosen communities as means for people to find and express their identity. It is safe to say, then, that the justification of the chosen groups is not the crucial issue. To answer the assimilationists, one would have to justify the existence of the given communities. The key is that the given and chosen communities are inseparable in their origin. Every given community was formed, in the beginning, by the confluence of people with common values - they started as chosen communities. There is not any imposition of roles or oppression or any other moral wrong with the community during this first generation. Every group, at least at its inception, is originally good because it does reflect its members’ values.

Communities can exist for many generations, and it is these later generations that can feel the burden of imposed values. Communities, however, are not static. With every generation, members may leave, and some who support the values of the community will join it, bringing with them a unique moral identity. The collective moral journeys of all the members of a culture cause a continual state of evolution among all the groups of a society. Every person participates in the creation and recombination of communities. Thus, socially constructed groups are justified at both the personal level and the collective level. People (in a free society) are able to define their own moral identity in the context of social groups. Social groups are justified in being, originally, creations that give a collective voice and positive environment for the values of their members.

Social groups, even if they all are good at the start, can become unjust in imposing oppressive values upon their members of later generations. Many such oppressive communities exist today, exhibiting (for example) racism and sexism. The best solution is not to abolish outright these communities, as assimilation would do. Given the right environment, a heterogeneous society is capable of change from within, of moral improvement. The final key necessary for a heterogeneous society to work is freedom: its members need a supportive legal environment allowing freedom of choice and expression. People need to be able to embark uninhibited upon their moral journeys. They need to be able to leave any community they do not want to be a part of, and to join (or take part in creating) any type of community they choose. People find moral identity by changing their social environment, so a pluralistic and free society is necessary to allow everyone to be free to find and express their identity. People also need to have a positive moral attitude. In a heterogeneous society, social if not legal intolerance and oppression will always exist. Individuals need to know that the correct reaction to an oppressive environment is simply to leave it in favor of a morally friendly community. As people choose communities that reflect their values, the composition and collective moral attitude of the society will change. Good people can create a diverse society that is good, in all its variety.

Our heterogeneous culture has the ability to change itself, to evolve for the better. As an entire species improves through recombination and variation at the level of individuals, so the moral journeys of every person in a society create and recreate its moral makeup. As long each person is free to choose the moral identity he wishes, these choices will continue to reshape with each generation the groups that compose a society. With a little faith in the average person’s desire for the good, this social evolution can only tend to improve the moral environment of all.