The Reluctant Activist / 10

A blog today with no answers or thoughts, but a mess of questions, comments, and thoughts from a busy mind.

Diversity, unity. Opposites? Complements?

Pros and Cons

Diversity: makes communities stronger, more resilient, less viable to sudden collapse from pressure on a certain sector.

Unity: globalization, an increasing move towards togetherness and worldwide standards of living.

Diversity: a rich variety of tastes, cultures, languages, learnings.

Unity: the universal requirement for peace and harmony.

Diversity: Threatening, dangerous, uncertainty, disparity.

Unity: weak societies, totalitarian governments, susceptible to disease and disruption.


If diversity makes us strong, why is unity the ideal for peace?

Is the trend towards globalization really making us stronger as a species? How do we maintain diversity in a globally standardized world?

Are the recent conservative political pushbacks are a reaction to “too much” diversity and the negative feelings associated with it?

If our natural instinct is to reach for unity and harmony, can we balance local harmony with worldwide diversity? Is that even possible? Would local harmony create locally unstable/vulnerable communities?

A few musings

I’m pretty sure no one has the answers to these. But as the world goes global, without rhyme or reason, and as peace and war fight for prominence in public discourse, we need to deal with these questions. Do we want to be unified? Is there any strength in unity? Can there be unity in diversity, or diversity in unity?

How on earth can we talk about/build peace when we don’t have any idea what it looks like?

What do you think about this? If you have any thoughts on the many questions here, leave your comments and thoughts below, and don’t forget to recommend and share if you enjoyed.

Like what you read? Give Gillian Rhodes a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.