Does respectability politics have a place in America’s value of harmony?

In the U.S., relying on “respectability politics” undermines the very foundation of the country’s stated reverence for diversity. Respectability politics espouses the philosophy that, to earn respect, the only route is to adopt the dominant culture’s value system and to speak in the value-language of that dominant culture. Where’s the diversity in that?

The long-standing challenge for those who are not part of the dominant culture is to balance respect for one’s “tribal” culture with respect for some forms of assimilation. President Obama, for example, tried to encourage more men in the African-American community (along with other “Black identity” individuals) to embrace the practice of keeping nuclear families intact— as an involved father and partner. Yet, he was quite vocal that one need not apologize for “being Black." Rather, one should celebrate positive cultural traditions and values (while remaining aware of the harshness of Black history).

No community or subculture should think of itself in terms of needing “self-policing” (another aspect of respectability politics). Every community should think of itself in terms of benefiting from self-improvement. There’s a huge difference here. One is oppressive and the other is empowering. Self-improvement suggests that we are in charge of our cultural and individual behavior and that we get to decide what constitutes an “improvement.”

I am sympathetic to the notion that we are all a whole lot more alike than we are different, but that does not mean that one community should spend its energy proving that it is happy to be totally aligned with the dominant culture. To be so is to, at best, stand in the shadow of that dominant culture—receiving none of the light. A social psychology in which one feels the metric is “to what degree the culture aligns with what the dominant culture says, does, and believes” sets up an unhealthy imbalance in terms of respect and appreciation. The challenge is that most (all?) dominant cultures insist on this imbalance and on using themselves as the metric for superiority.

However, any community/subculture that has an inadequate voice does well not to be outright oppositional. It’s my experience that it is not possible to find acceptance from anyone we are shouting at with a hostile epithet. Any community that wants acceptance and respect needs to embrace ways of commanding respect without alienating those who are most receptive to the right for that respect. There’s a difference between righteous indignation and in-your-face hostility. I am looking at this from the perspective of someone who has lived within the dominant White American culture my whole life. However, I pay attention to what goes on around the world. No matter what regional culture I’ve observed (e.g., Nigerian, Indian, Brazilian, French), no one is “converted” by hostile attacks.

A mature individual knows how to command respect without demanding it. And if commanding respect without demanding it works best when dealing with those who are sympathetic, that is even truer when dealing with those who are not receptive, such as many people in a dominant culture.

Respectability politics reminds us that a culture is unlikely to be embraced if it loudly negates the values and behaviors of the dominant culture. That is just a practical observation of the way that societies and individual human psychology work. It is dangerous, though, if that realization is not balanced with insistence on retaining what is beautiful and cherished in the culture that commands respect.

In the U.S., the choir must sing in harmony, never in unison. Do not ask the baritone to sing the soprano's part.

What is the advantage of a multicultural society?

Diversity of cultural origins means diversity of ideas and perspectives.

Synergy is the outcome of diverse contributions, where the combination is far better than the sum of the potential for separate contributions. There is something amazing that happens when people listen to each other and integrate what they learn from those who don’t think like them, who come from another point of view. One is the tinder; another is the kindling; another is the fuel; and yet another is the flint. Not one of these can create a fire alone. Neither can a subset create a fire that can be sustained. It takes all of these elements to sustain the warmth. What of the fundamental human element that strikes the fire with the flint and all the other elements that become the warmth? It is the synergy.

Cultures, as they morph, as they come together in a new place with new ideas, are part of the richness that is inherent in any culture. Cultures adapt to changes in environment, changes in circumstances— but always they remain true to their origins, to their past. Values, mores, language, cuisine, traditions, spiritual beliefs, the arts, and notions of society and government. Change is not abandonment. It is what a culture needs in order to stay alive.

Think of a forest made of only one species of tree. The weather gradually changes, permanently changes. The animals in the forest change. What becomes of the trees in that forest? In all probability, the single-species forest first becomes sick and, eventually, dies.

But a forest of redwoods and oaks and cypress and pines, subjected to the same changes in weather and animals would not only survive but would thrive. The balance would shift. Probably, new species of trees and shrubs would arrive to make the forest vibrant again. That is the sign of a natural culture where diversity is what makes the place healthy and the region thrives. That is how multicultural societies surpass any society based on a single dominant culture.

Capturing the Voice(s) of the United States’ Society

The U.S. does not have “a society”; we have distinct cultures and belief systems. None of these cultures represents a majority of Americans. We are separated by our beliefs about the role of government, how to handle socioeconomic discrimination and the growing wage gap between the richest and poorest Americans, who counts in the list of those who are included in the Declaration of Independence preamble (“All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights”), the role of regulatory constraints in financial institutions and environment management (for example), and what it means for the U.S. to have international leadership. Many people identify with one position in one category but do not like another position that some might call part of the same culture. We can each speak for ourselves, but we cannot speak for an imagined single society in the United States.

Someone who claims to know what “American society” thinks and believes is likely talking just about his personal beliefs or his caricature of those who believe differently. For example, there are many people who voted for Donald Trump for some reasons but found some his beliefs, behaviors, and/or political positions wrong-headed or even reprehensible. Pundits talk about the desire of voters to stop governance by the political establishment. However, despite claims that people want to get rid of the political establishment, they voted for their establishment incumbents for the most part. (One must now include Tea Party politicians as their own establishment, of course. They’re not much different from any other politician demographic; they’ve become “established” too.)

We also have to consider that, in the 2016 presidential election, the popular vote was narrowly for Hillary Clinton. As far as the Electoral College goes, if we had proportional representation (the same number residents per electoral vote across states), the election outcome could have been quite different. For example, Wyoming has about 592,000 residents and 3 electoral votes. California has about 39,000,000 residents with 55 electoral votes. The country does not have a one person, one vote system for president. Wyoming has one vote per 197,000 people while California has one vote per 709,000 people. Of course, even the guidelines for how a state’s Electoral College representatives should vote varies and can be further evidence that we do not have a one person, one vote election process. This adds to a further difficulty in stating anything about our “society” based on who gets elected.