In recent years, we often hear that we should respect diversity. Each individual has unique thoughts, values, and circumstances. Certainly, it is crucial to tolerate these differences. However, “respecting diversity” in the modern sense has become synonymous with treating it as something manageable—making diversity something that can be manipulated and controlled.
True diversity is the difference that manifests during the process of finding common ground when people attempt to engage with one another. No matter what differences one may carry, they only surface as a “problem” within the context of an interaction. Whether or not differences exist beforehand, they do not become a social issue without engagement. Even personal struggles are only framed as “differences” within a social context. Furthermore, these variations are tolerated as long as the relationship continues. Conversely, when an intolerable difference arises, maintaining that relationship becomes difficult.
These outcomes are merely a result of the process, and they should be left as such. There is a fundamental reversal of order between “accepting differences that emerge through interaction” and “valuing diversity for the sake of interaction.” We are preemptively capturing unknown differences—which should naturally manifest later—under the guise of “respect.”
Preemption means assembling the requirements for “respect” before any actual interaction takes place. At that point, the interaction is already forced into a predetermined mold. In other words, through the very act of “respecting diversity,” diversity itself is being lost. Human connection is most diverse when it exists within a framework that is not predefined; that is where human richness lies. Is it not the protection of this very richness that should be called the true respect for diversity?
