Social Diversity and Civic Unity

There is nothing simple about identity politics, even though it belongs to the basic creed of our nation: E pluribus unum out of many, one. The issues arise when we try to figure out a workable description of the many, and a normative analysis of the one. 

We are many, and the “one” does not erase the many, but rather unites them.  One way to think about this is to locate the many in society—social diversity—and the one in the civic realm—the realm of citizens and civilians.  (Both citizen and civilian are civic terms.) The social context, in other words, is different from, and yet related to, the civic realm.

One’s social identity originates from the various groupings to which one belongs that are taken as significant, such as skin color or sexual orientation.  Social diversity, in other words, is not an ideology, but a perception. “Do you see what I see?”  “If not, what do you see?”  “Why do we see different things?”  Because we live in different social worlds, have different backgrounds, experiences, and purposes.  Already, in seeing things differently, we experience social diversity. 

One problem here, let’s call it the missionary problem, is that some seek unity in the social realm rather than the civic.  In fact, as we see with Trump’s administration, there is an effort to eliminate the civic realm and control society with State power. The solution to this problem, as we are now witnessing, is supporting and protecting civic institutions, such as civic offices, the free press, and voting. 

A second problem is that the social differences are not benign.  Many of them carry the burdens of white supremacy, misogyny and domination.  Our social diversity exists, for the most part, in a climate of injustice that benefits some at the expense of others.  The solution to this problem, easier said than done, is to repair the injustices.  In any case, I believe this work of repair requires us to move into the civic realm, where our social differences are transformed into relationships between citizens and civilians—between those who have the resources (citizens) and those who are vulnerable (civilians).  The “one,” in the civic realm, is our shared humanity, which does not erase our social differences, but rather gives us a basis for dealing with them.   

A third problem is the absence in everyday conversations of talk about the solidarity of citizenship.  The talk is mostly about the cost of living, but not about the price of tickets to sporting events, and the affordability of housing. These are important social issues, but not issues that will unite us, unless we examine them from a civic perspective: a look from the civic realm that is grounded in our common humanity.  From this perspective, we may not only see ways of addressing social injustices, but also our environmental crisis.