Rhetorical Analysis of Walter Benn Michaels, “The Trouble with Diversity” Essay

conversion isnt some sensitiveg to be ignored, but is that where our first focus should lie? It is in our rattling nature to celebrate our differences with break through it we lose our identity. As a society we literally dance in the streets to celebrate our individualities. However, Walter Benn Michaels points out a very kindle issue that is not only social but economical as well, in his book The Trouble with Diversity How We Learned to Love identity and Ignore Inequality. When we strip away our color, our heritage and begin to look at our wallets we become embarrassed, even shy about our how fat or thin it becomes.His political stance is intended for a general audience to file present concepts of cultural diversity, to illustrate how Americans oblige come to love be given, and to good luck the focus from race to economic divergence. The introduction of The Trouble with Diversity is plainly a glance at Michaels agenda and becomes quite conf subprogram to an average reade r. He spends a fair amount of time discussing how we eat up become engulfed in our, as Michaels puts it, love affair with diversity that his primary goals argon diluted within the text. When we break it down, his arguments become cleargonr.To fully control Michaels objectives one must take into account his general audience. It becomes clear with his use of the first person narrative, The argument, in its simplest form, will be that we love racewe love identitybecause we dont love variety. As Michaels points out the bulk of society is below the poverty line and when discussing economic inequality no one will listen more closely than those who ar suffering the most. The velocity class will also be capable to identify with because as he emphasizes, Survey after Survey has shown, Americans are very reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the press down class and even more reluctant to identify themselves as belonging to the upper class. As a society, we would rather asso ciate ourselves as being midsection class. In this way, no matter what the race, we are alike.Beginning The Trouble with Diversity with F. Scott Fitzgerald famous saying to Ernest Hemingway, The rich are variant from you and me. Expresses how some tribe view the upper class as a completely different race of individuals. Hemingways witty response, Yes, they put one across more money.Illustrated to Fitzgerald that there is no difference in the rich, or the poor, except their wallet size they are still human. Michaels goes on from there to describe how we have come to warship diversity. In Bakke v. Board of Regents, the Supreme Court ruled that it was reasonable for colleges to shoot race when accepting applicants, as long as was in the involvement of diversity and not to exclude members of certain racial background. Along with racial diversity, diversity became something to describe more than just the color of our skin. It now is utilize for sexual orientation, medical coding, and religious preferences. Unfortunately, diversity became closely associated with the struggle with racism and ended up with a notion that we should be a blind society.As Michael states, Why do we assume black people necessitate to stop being black why do we assume the desensitise want to hear? He finishes the intro of his book by illustrating how we have come to hate class. While we have become to love our identity, we have become increasingly uninterested in identifying ourselves based on the mixture of income. He even accuses the go away wing party (or liberals who have prided itself on working for social equality) in diverting focus of economic inequality. magnanimous the priority to issues like affirmative action and committing itself to the celebration of difference, the intellectual left has responded to the increase in economic inequality by insisting on the importance of cultural identity. So by his observation Michaels believes that even the liberals are guilty of t hinking the solution to inequality is simply to appreciate the lower class.