Pluralism or DEI?

Even before Trump's actions against DEI, there were many in the academic community and elsewhere that felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.  

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who currently and historically have suffered from discrimination, became a sign of exclusion of all others because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention on others.  Those left out were assumed to not need any help, but that was mistaken.  And they were and are angry.

Another problem with DEI is that it maintained if not amplified an attitude of victimization and anger at the broader society.  It supported an us v them perspective.  There was no effort in DEI to bring minority and majority groups together to help change the current dynamic.  The assumption was that if you were going to protect your rights, you had to fight for them.  And so it unintentionally further polarized an already polarized society.

Because of these problems, some in academia and state government have adopted the concept of pluralism to replace DEI.  The concept of pluralism, broadly stated, is that everyone is recognized as being part of the whole, that all voices are allowed to speak and be heard, and that opposing groups learn to speak to each other and hopefully find a way of bridging historical animosities.

This is a good thing; polarization is very harmful for all concerned.  But from what I've read, it appears that the baby has been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater.

Discriminated-against groups need their own space, their own support group, because the rest of society is so lacking in understanding their history and nature and of the fact and impact of the discrimination that they not only have suffered from historically, but are still suffering from today, despite all the laws the have been passed.  

If the dominant culture truly comes to accept pluralism, then there might be less need for such identity-groups, but I think there would still be a legitimate need.  I have never understood, for example, why the gay ghetto, which was such a wonderful, nourishing experience, was felt by gays to no longer be necessary once society became more accepting of gays.  We have truly lost something, which was not necessary.  We may be accepted, but we have our own culture, which is rich, and that culture can only thrive when you're living together.

Further, it should not be seen as destructive of or inconsistent with pluralism for groups to speak out against current discrimination, racism, or misogyny in our country.   Pluralism requires the respect of everyone for everyone else.  It's the equivalent of the classic lawyer's statement that, "Reasonable men may differ."  It's about coexisting with civility regardless of differences.  

If that is not the current status—and that is certainly not the status now with racism, discrimination, and misogyny being widespread—then not only should it be ok to call out such violations of the spirit of pluralism, but this must be done.   Otherwise, pluralism will be a delusion.

In the 90s, multiculturalism was given a bad name, just as DEI has now,  And for much the same reason.  For emphasizing our differences, rather than our commonality.   Through pluralism, we must find a way of both emphasizing our commonality—the fact that we are all Americans and human beings—and supporting the vitality of the subcultures within our midst.

 

Living in Trumpland

I live in semi-rural Maine, in what's called Mid-Coast, not the vast interior hinterlands.  This is Trump country.  Before the election, Trump banners, signs, constructions, icons, and of course the American flag, were everywhere.

What has surprised and disheartened me is that after 3 months in office, wreaking havoc on the country, doing nothing that helps the economic situation of the Trump voter and actually increasing his difficulty, fulfilling none of his promises other than those that relate to the deportation of illegal immigrants and fighting wokeness, the banners and signs, etc. are all still there.

That is a pretty clear indication that Trump's actions in office have done nothing to lessen his core supporters' enthusiasm towards him. 

Supposedly many who voted for him—certainly the formerly Democratic middle-class voters and the more traditionally conservative Republican voters who held their noses when they voted—were primarily moved  by economics; they thought their situation would improve more under Trump than Harris.  I would imagine that a poll of those voters would find that many if not most have seen that they have been deceived and that Trump is not going to deliver for them.

But as to his core base, the truly committed Trump supporter—those are the ones who display the symbols of Trump allegiance—his actions seem to increase their support; they love it.   They love the chaos, the way he is dismantling the Federal government.  They love the way he is going after his enemies, be it law firms or individuals.  They love his defiance of the courts.  They love the deportations.  And they love his leading the culture wars against DEI.  Their economic status seems to be irrelevant to them.

How did so many Americans become besotted with Trump?  For one thing, they must have had plenty of anti-establishment feelings that Trump tapped into.  People who were left behind by the American dream.

But beyond that there is the question of how they could believe his preposterous claims, his huge lies.  I read recently that data shows that 30% of adult Americans can only read at a 10-year-old level.  At that level, one has a limited capacity to critically think or to analyze.  I would hazard to guess that a large percentage of Trump's base falls into that category and that that helps explain why they accepted anything he said with such enthusiasm, without any questioning.

I fear that absolutely nothing will dissuade his base that Trump is king, messiah, their hero all rolled into one.  Our country's only hope is that the more mainstream Republicans who voted for him as well as the Black and Latino Democrats who voted for him have already or will soon see the light that he has deceived them and is not doing anything to improve their economic position.

The Failure of Contemporary Arts Culture, including Broadway

Artistic culture has a role to play in society, historically.  Whether it was art, plays (e.g. Shakespeare), or music, the function of art was to lift the souls or lighten the hearts not just of the well-to-do but also the common man.  And so, until recent times, there were always a decent number of affordable tickets for the common man for such events/venues.

But no more.  For example, if we look at Broadway—a popular culture destination—in 1970, the top price for tickets was $15, with starting prices around $6, including standing room tickets.  Now that sounds unbelievably cheap, but when you account for inflation since 1970, the current top price would be $122; the $6 ticket would be $49. 

What are current ticket prices?  Currently, the top shows—the ones in greatest demand—have top ticket prices of over $900!  Those shows not in significant demand have a top ticket price of around $200, with many shows somewhere in the middle.  The difference is that starting in the 2000s, Broadway adopted the dynamic pricing strategy of airlines and hotels, with prices going up with demand.  But even the $200 top ticket is considerably more than the $122 inflation adjusted figure.

The cheapest ticket is inline with inflation, however for top shows that price is only available by lottery or a student rush.  More importantly, while the price is inline with inflation, the average person's income has not risen inline with inflation.  For the American middle class worker, their wages have mostly stagnated since 1970, so $48 is a much greater share of their income today than $6 would have been in 1970.  And so they cannot even afford the cheapest tickets.

While the examples I am using are from Broadway, the same basic point can be made about orchestras, the opera, and even museums.  Most museums today, not just in places like New York City, charge $20-25 for entrance, and for many that is a flat fee, rather than a suggested fee with a "pay-what-you-will" policy.  So a family of 4 would pay $80-100 for entrance.  That's a lot of money for a middle-class working family.

And so as a result of this escalation in pricing, the average person, the common man, has been priced out of cultural events and venues.  For example, the average income of Broadway theater goers currently is $276,000, while the average household income in New York City is $122,000.  Tourists make up the bulk of Broadway ticket buyers (65%).

If the average person no longer can afford to attend arts cultural events or venues, are cultural organizations fulfilling their mission?  The answer should be, "no."  However, if you look at their mission statements, they typically say nothing about accessibility regardless of income level.  The purpose of art has morphed in our society to something to be enjoyed by people of means.

Arts organizations will sometimes attempt to serve the broader public by taking performances to neighborhood streets during the summer.  But while this certainly has some value, it barely scratches the surface of need out there and does not open the hallowed halls of theaters and orchestras to the common man to experience art together with the rest of society.

The problem with arts cultural organizations today is similar to that of business corporations in that they have lost sight of their function in society.  Their function is not just to produce great product, but to benefit the common good.  For a cultural organization, it benefits the good by being accessible to a large section of the public.

Any organization that is created by government registration (and by being incorporated, it is) should through its mission statement and goals serve the public goals for which the government gave them permission to exist as a corporation or nonprofit,  That is not currently the law, but it should be. Even without it being compelled legally, any serious cultural arts organization should have this commitment as part of its mission.