Valuing Diversity: Buddhist Reflection on Realizing a More Equitable Global Future

2. Variety and Diversity

47 C H A P T E R T W O Variety and Diversity Two Qualities and Directions of Difference T he historically evident trend of especially the last century has been toward both global integration and fragmentation, both homogenization and the multiplication and magnification of differences. If, indeed, differences are always occurrences or propensity-expressing processes of differentiation, this trend should not be assumed to be value neutral . Yet, the dualistic opposition of sameness and difference, even when refracted through postmodern lenses, is simply not conducive to realizing the kind of conceptual resolution needed to discern precisely what qualities and directions of relational dynamics are opportune for the sustained and deepening realization of equity. The sought-after route to breaking through the contemporary aporia of difference can only be accessed by relinquishing the view that difference is an axiomatic relationship that may vary in degree as it manifests in lived experience and in the structures of our lifeworlds, but not in kind. We are in need of a concept of difference that is itself differentiated, not only quantitatively, but qualitatively. If we follow Buddhist traditions and those streams of contemporary thought that affirm the ontological primacy of relationality (and not individual things that are or are not in relationship with each other), this means that we are in need of a concept of difference that is irreducibly relational. This should not be confused with taking difference to be a specific kind of relationship—akin to relationships like identity, greater, smaller, older, and younger. A relational ontology is not equivalent to an ontology of (logical/functional) relations. If we consider how “difference” is used in everyday discourse, it’s possible to intimate what moving in the direction of a truly relational concept of difference might mean. 48 Valuing Diversity It is, of course, common practice to categorize differences depending on the domains in which they manifest. We talk, for example, about “political differences,” “cultural differences,” “gender differences,” and “differences in taste.” But in fact, the concept of difference remains essentially unchanged across these domains, and differences within them are customarily ranked along a spectrum of measured intensity. And so, we speak of “great” and “small” differences, and differences that are “sharp,” “acute,” “extensive,” “slight,” “major,” and “minor.” People can be passionate about their differences, but difference itself signals nothing more than some quantum of dissimilarity, some expressed magnitude of mismatch . Likewise, current conceptions of change or differences over time are mathematically biased. Change is “rapid” or “slow”; it is “accelerating” or “outstripping” us in our efforts to “keep up.” These conventional ways of talking about difference focus concern on the “things” that “are different.” To note a difference is, fundamentally, to make a comparison. A nondualist conception of difference focuses attention on differing itself as a relational dynamic. To play with the common locutions of “major” and “minor” differences and changes, what we are talking about is not a numerically expressible comparison, with major differences or changes being, for instance, something we would rank as more than seven on a ten-point scale in a questionnaire. Instead, we are talking about an expressed quality. To speak of a “major” or “minor” change or difference in relational terms is to direct attention toward something (metaphorically) like the total harmonic or tonal character of a piece of music played in a major or minor key—an immediately appreciable and unique pattern of relational dynamics among the notes being voiced in the piece. Differences occur as qualitatively distinct relational modulations.1 MODULATIONS OF DIFFERENCE: RELATIONAL SCOPE AND QUALITY To begin the qualitative rehabilitation of difference, I would like to distinguish between two ways in which differentiation occurs: as means-to (with the meaning-of) increasing variety, and as means-to (with the meaningof ) enhanced diversity. Here, variety and diversity can be seen as denoting distinct modulations of differentiation processes—a bifurcation or branching out of the meanings of difference. Variety is a function of relational dynamics that are conducive to the production and sustained presence of multiple things, beings, or processes: a pattern of random, simple, or complicated coexistence. Variation is a means-to and has the meaning-of generating novel incidents of nonidentity—a process of increasing the quantity of individual things present. Diversity is a function of relational Variety and Diversity 49 dynamics that are conducive to the production and sustained presence of a particular quality of interaction: a...