Stranger Danger

The words, Stranger Danger, have, in our "developed economies," signalled a new warning. And that warning doesn't refer to the danger facing children at the hands of unscrupulous adults. The danger, as it is currently perceived, may be summed up in the following question: How much should developed nations allow entry to those who don't share their values, in order to offset a shrinking population, and a shrinking workforce?

To be sure, diversity has its problems, and aggravates other social problems, problems associated with sexism, racism, and homophobia. For the record: I never presume to tell anyone how to handle a perceived slight, or respond to a perceived attack against their race (racism), their sex (sexism), or their sexual preference (homophobia).

It's just not my place. I'm not going to call these persons overly-sensitive, conspiratorial, or just plain stupid, as some bloggers have. Here's the reason: racism, sexism, and homophobia (among other "isms" and "phobias") crisscross our national psyche, and social interactions like our nation's power grid, and, unlike our nation's power grid, they're in better condition, all to our national shame.

Were we living in a society where these "isms" were rare, and homosexuality received no more attention than that given to straights, then I could understand the continual bleating against those who would call out devils where none exists.

Recently, an article in the Guardian caught my attention. I know, this is not an American newspapers, but the article, although not specifically about the United States, could very well have had us in mind when it was written. Here, in a nutshell is the article's premise:

"The diversity, individualism and mobility that characterise developed economies - especially in the era of globalisation - mean that more of our lives is spent among strangers. [...] We share public services and parts of our income in the welfare state, we share public spaces in towns and cities where we are squashed together on buses, trains and tubes, and we share in a democratic conversation - filtered by the media - about the collective choices we wish to make. All such acts of sharing are more smoothly and generously negotiated if we can take for granted a limited set of common values and assumptions. But as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded.

"And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed."

As I read this, and the article in general, I was struck by the author's belief that, although people are unwilling to share with strangers, they aren't unwilling, so much, when they share common values, and a sense of "solidarity" with the other. And if they're strangers, this likelihood of shared values, and solidarity, becomes even more remote.

We're seeing some of this reluctance with the congressional health-care reform bill that seeks to install a public option. Much of the ballyhoo has been over the possibility that illegal immigrants may also qualify to participate in the system that the legislature is cobbling together.

The resistance to such a proposal came to a head in the words of Joe Wilson, "You lie," when the president assured listeners, during a recent address to the American people, and a joint session of Congress, that the health-care legislation under consideration wouldn't provide free health-care coverage for illegal immigrants.

Who, then, should be recognized as members of our family, those who were born in this country, those who are of our race, or gender, or those of us who share a common plight?

I believe that we're a stronger country because of our diversity. Diversity, and heterogeneity may bring with them certain problems, but it's unlikely that it will present us with this one:

"Finland is Europe's most homogeneous society, a nation of mostly blond ethnic Finns whose declining birthrate creates the classic 21st-century European dilemma: a fast-growing population of senior citizens whose promised benefits under a generous welfare state will soon be unaffordable. To compensate for fewer Finnish births, the country could encourage foreigners to immigrate, a subject much discussed here. But like most of Europe, "Finland is allergic to immigration," in the words of Manuel Castells, the renowned Spanish-born sociologist who lives in the United States."

As our nation becomes more diverse, perceptions of slights, and attacks are bound to rise. Rather than sweep these accusations under the rug, ridicule them, or even discount them, we'd be better off to meet them head-on with discussion, dialog, and a determination to create an environment that welcomes all, and a resolve to treat the stranger as members of the family, and not outsiders.

Otherwise, we could end up like Finland.