The last few years have been characterised by frequent and intense spectacle, particularly for those of us who have been based in institutions of higher learning. In sharp contrast, the year 2018 – at least on a personal front – has not only taken the form of a fizzling and hollowing out character; instead, it has also been pontificated by a slow burning sadness and heartache which, too easily lingers on, when left in the darkening shadows outside spectacle. In many ways, both the political and personal struggles we face have been combated in the solitude of our own silos.

I suppose, as with most other young people around my age, the test lies in grappling with the common challenges of trying to know who you are and what you want from life; to understand what that is and how it aligns with your values or what you believe in (and of course the broader task of always interrogating what those beliefs or values are). I have never doubted my own will and resolve in confronting some of these challenges, however, what I did not anticipate was not only antagonistic resistance, but a hostile environment which makes the situation materially difficult to survive in and navigate.

It is perhaps tragically ironic that for the most part I do not declare or state what positions I hold in relation to values and so forth unless if it is necessary for me to do so. Yet, there is always an unspoken assumption by virtue of not only not saying anything, but also of just being physically present. I have come to accept this, for example, in the way people call me “Rasta” and walk up to give me fist bumps. Or, how folks assume I am an artist of sorts – a musician specifically. Strangely enough, people seem to approach me with ease in public settings. Conversely, this also plays out in how I also get stopped by police randomly for drug searches – and generally regarded with suspicion and caution when someone who looks like me is somehow in a place that they “should not be in”. I don’t think this acceptance is submission on my part – unless the acknowledgement of historical burdens we all need to carry is regarded as one such submission. In any event, like all double-edged swords, irony can cut both ways.

Visibly perceptible differences, or other identifiable markers of deviation such as thought patterns and how you conceptualise the world, can dampen the notions of how you want to navigate the world – in the sense of how the space to do that can either be given or denied to you. Contrary to what popular culture would have you believe, there has hardly been a point in human history where difference was not actively discouraged. Those who were different have often been scapegoats to be later hailed as being “born ahead of their time”. Too often we forget that we live in a world which actively punishes difference, and that those at the receiving end suffer material costs to being ‘different’. This is particularly important given how the discourse around diversity of people and inclusion of thoughts and culture has not only been embraced by both corporate, liberal and white establishments over the last few years in the wake of various dialogues around transformation, but also, how it is becoming an increased feature of exploitation and an entrenchment of the very same problems that diversity is supposed to mitigate.

The genealogy of difference as it presents in the status quo is interesting when one analyses the act of acknowledging or conferring “difference” on another person. This is important because on some level there is an awareness that we are all different: each of us are unique individuals. However, this additional recognition of difference does something more, which not only others the other person, but makes them separate from the whole. This supra recognition of difference is prone to being exploitative and is used as a mechanism to entrench oppressive relations because the separation creates antagonisms which in turn generate different interests for individuals. It is all the more complex because it taps into latent desires and ambitions, which if not properly channelled, can lead to destructive ends.

This by no means is a new phenomenon, particularly in a world dominated by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Within corporate spaces in particular, this difference is conferred to black people typically along the lines of “you are not like the other black people” – and this acknowledgement of difference confers privilege. In turn, a perception is created that there is substantive embracing of differences and diversity. In reality, it is simply a classic case of divide and rule.

On the other hand, this privilege is conditional and is not automatic; it is contingent on that individual on whom difference has been conferred to agree to play along to the script. The limitations of those who resist conforming to this role invariably leads to an irreconcilable conflict. And the smaller you are the bigger the fallout of such a conflictual confrontation. I must state that I already hold the position that the language of diversity and inclusion has been no more than cannon fodder so I have no illusions about the transformative potential of that project. Rather, the point I hope to illustrate is that when confronted with embracing diversity and differences in a way which is materially important – that is to say with the ability to significantly alter and impact the course of events, those vested with power will [perhaps not] always choose the safer, more familiar comfortable option. I do not want to apologetically explain why that approach may seem sensible because I think that is obvious.

So not only is the embrace of diversity facetious, but when it’s time to quite literally put your money where your mouth is, the sham is revealed for its insidious intents. The real tragedy perhaps, is that for every one persons who refuses to play along to the script, there are perhaps at least a dozen more people willing to play that role. And this is not necessarily to offer indictment because things are tough for people. Nonetheless, I must in part disregard that tragic outcome because it is meaningless without addressing the situations which make it possible.

So yes, differences matter, just maybe not in the way you think.