Introduction
David Brooks looks at the issue of diversity. He argues that human beings resist diversity and that this will continue to be the case for many years to come. Human beings should be concerned with the issue of cultural, political, ideological, and religious diversion. I think that this concern must not be excessive as this would disrupt human nature and society. The issue of diversion is controversial in society. A lot of accusations befall companies and other institutions that are seen as intolerant to diversion. (Brooks, 6)
Discussion
David Brooks asks Americans to admit that they are not concerned about diversity. He argues that it is hard for one to find a truly diverse community in America. He argues that neighborhoods initially contain people from various demographics. As time progresses, a trend emerges and the same neighborhood becomes flocked with people from a certain section of society. This section can include democrats, republicans, bankers, academics, evangelists, or pro-life activists.
He argues that a neighborhood with a diverse population that includes several of the above-named sections does not exist. Brooks posits that human beings create fine social categories and subsequently merge their lives into them. (Brooks, 68) People move into a new neighborhood. A pattern develops over time and people such as republicans start to dominate the neighborhood. Subsequently, more republicans move into the neighborhood while democrats stay away. Human beings confirm these groupings by not daring to challenge them. It is hard for a pro-choice activist to move into a neighborhood that is full of evangelical Christians.
People view the other social groups as strange and unfamiliar. They consider the behavior of other social groupings as below their pride. They think that their groupings and characteristics are superior to others. This is even though the features endorsed by the rival groups may be more or less the same. “In the Washington, D.C., area Democratic lawyers tend to live in suburban Maryland, and Republican lawyers tend to live in suburban Virginia.
If you asked a Democratic lawyer to move from her $750,000 house in Bethesda, Maryland, to a $750,000 house in Great Falls, Virginia, she’d look at you as if you had just asked her to buy a pickup truck with a gun rack and to shove chewing tobacco in her kid’s mouth.” (Brooks, 6) I agree with the opinion that “every place becomes more like itself”. (Brooks, 68) This is to means that people will base their decisions on their cultural affinity.
People will always choose to live or work with people that they believe they are more similar to. A good example is the case of the middle class and upper middle-class black families. There has been an increase in the population of the middle and upper-middle classes of the black community. This emergence has however not changed the living patterns of African-Americans. Census results have revealed that these families still tend to live in predominantly African-American communities. (Brooks, 68)
This segmentation increases our happiness. People can find areas where they feel comfortable. These places do not restrict them from flourishing. These choices end up becoming impediments to diversion. Despite the overall population of a country is diverse, it is the blocks within that paint a clearer picture. “The United States might be a diverse nation when considered as a whole, but block by block and institution by institution it is a relatively homogeneous nation.” (Brooks, 68) Institutions and neighborhoods paint a clear picture of the segmentation or diversion in our society. Our choices are informed by human nature.
It is hence not right to challenge them head-on. A delicate approach should be taken towards diversion. The choices people make unconsciously fight government policies that combat housing and other discrimination. Although such attempts have been largely successful in the US, statistics on the ground indicate very minimal cultural integration. For uncertain reasons, populations such as African-Americans tend to crowd together in the same residential areas.
The reasons might be racism or even psychological comfort. Many areas change their initial population as time progresses. People who are similar to the ones who live in a neighborhood will move in. Arizona suburbs show this feature. One area was initially well integrated. The people who initially settled here chose the location due to economic reasons. This suburb grew a personality over time. (Brooks, 69)
Certain careers are limited to people from a particular political belief. For instance, it is highly unlikely for one to find a registered republican professor at a top American academic institution. Evangelical Christians also lack in these careers. This suggests that the people who admit new members to these careers are either consciously or unconsciously biased against them. Certain privileges contribute to segmentation in society. A major issue is a finance.
Finance dictates a lot of issues such as access to quality education. This in turn determines the availability of other resources. The race is a major determinant of the availability of finance. Human beings will continue to socialize with the same people and the result is the continuing homogeneity of our governments and other organizations. (Brooks, 70)
Conclusion
Human nature forces us to make decisions based on where we feel most comfortable. Man is a social animal. This sociability is however restricted to people that we feel we can socialize with. Human beings identify with people that they share a common background. This is only natural and should not be a cause for alarm. This segmentation will continue to exist among human societies. This segmentation must not be combated too actively. Human beings should socialize with people from other social, religious or political groups. Positive and persuasive methods should be enforced in the attainment of better social integration. (Brooks, 70).
Works Cited
Brooks, David. “People Like Us.” The Atlantic Monthly (2008). 6, 68-70.