The Duck/Rabbit of Diversity/Intolerance

You’re probably already familiar with the “duck-rabbit.” From one perspective, this is a drawing of a duck. From another perspective, this is a drawing of a rabbit. If you’re strong-minded, you can toggle back and forth, with a gap between interpretations that only lasts a second or two.

I often think of this famous illusion when I read social scientists talk about the “costs of diversity.” Putnam, for example, famously laments that diversity reduces trust. The mechanism, presumably, is that it is easier to trust members of in-groups than out-groups. If you want more gruesome examples of the dangers of diversity, just look at countries where ethnic and religious pogroms kill thousands - or even millions.

What has the duck-rabbit got to do with the costs of diversity? Simple: You could easily look at the same facts and call them the costs of intolerance. Instead of saying, “Diversity reduces trust,” say “Intolerance reduces trust.” Instead of saying, “Diversity causes pogroms,” say “Intolerance causes pogroms.”

How would you be wrong? Indeed, how could critics even reply?

Here’s how: Say “We can’t do anything about intolerance, but we can do something about diversity.” Namely: Cut immigration. Intolerance is in people’s hearts, so we have to take it as a given. Diversity, in contrast, is in our policies, so we are free to take decisive action to preserve our community.

The obvious reply: Intolerance doesn’t just change over time; it radically changes over time. Catholic-Protestant animosities almost vanished over the last century. Anti-Semitism is a shadow of its former self. To “take intolerance as a given” is extremely foolish. The wise path is to study how to make intolerance die.

Though I wish we knew more, we do know this: The less people care about “identity,” the better. If most Catholics and Protestants were still super-excited about being Catholics and Protestants, they’d still hate each other. Strong identity inspires you to justify even your group’s worst misdeeds, which encourages your worst members to commit misdeeds, which makes rival groups hate you. And vice versa.

As I’ve said before: If you want cohesion, don’t talk about cohesion. Instead, treat members of outgroups well. Be the change you want to see in the world. And be it first.

Is the duck-rabbit “really” a duck, or “really” a rabbit? The answer, the pedant said, is that there’s no answer. For diversity and intolerance, however, there probably is an answer. Consider this: Suppose your society was divided into two groups that got along perfectly. Would that count as an example of diversity working? Not for long, because when the mutual tolerance between two groups gets high enough, we stop thinking of them as two groups. The “cost of diversity” verges on tautology. The cost of intolerance, in contrast, is a fundamental feature of the social world.