One of the goals to go to the birthday party last night was to meet new people of the faculty, to enlarge the bubble I’m in, and to exchange good personalities for further days in faculty. The conclusion is that such expectation didn’t take place, since the already existing groups are hard to enlarge or to be opened for new comers. It might be the same logic that one makes more friends on the first day of school rather transferring in the middle of school year. When there is no certain bubble in the beginning, it’s fair to make an utopic gathering beyond gender, nationality and languages. Eventually small grouping will occur.
But being in an environment that claims to be internationalist, what does this psychological bordering into small groups mean? Why being in a same big category (example; Sciences Po) cannot gather all those students together? Where does the tendency of dividing into Exchange, Full Master, PhD, different branches school under same Sciences Po, Erasmus programme beneficiaries, or linguistic similarities? It seems like that all of us are playing a power game, of which components give them pride and over others. Maybe dividing is a human nature, and integration is artificial and unnatural. Yet, human progress has based on integration.
The example can be easily found even in biology, not to mention a political and social scientific approach. We know of psychological and mental illnesses that the European royal families had since they committed incest to preserve their pure blood. They didn’t go out of their bubble and resulted in mutant disasters. Same story goes with the poorest decile group in an island society that they eventually couldn’t mix their blood that ended up resulting another mutant psychopathies. Simply proven, and the impact would be even disastrous in political and social incest; which we easily can observe cases everywhere.
Even this school isn’t holding much diversity. Different nationalities don’t give diversity to a group, rather these give only an illusion of wide spectrum of diversity. We’ve already heard what Taiye Selasi told us: “To call one student American, another Pakistani, then triumphantly claim student body diversity ignores the fact that these students are locals of the same milieu. The same holds true on the other end of the economic spectrum. A Mexican gardener in Los Angeles and a Nepali housekeeper in Delhi have more in common in terms of rituals and restrictions than nationality implies.” Surely those who study here suit in the range of similar economic and political group whose rituals and restrictions dictate no other variation.
Talking to one new person a day should be a goal everyday, and doing this might get me out of this incest bubble and keep me away from laying psychological mutancy. This very idea realised in New York, in the project name of The People of New York, interviewing people encountered on the street to talk about their thoughts and lives. No name, no nationality, no language, but just ideas and stories were laid out and not only people of New York but also people across the globe could share those stories; which is close to diversity. It’s hard to talk to a new person, but there lays the beauty. Maybe our bordering comes from the fear of rejection, but there I share also a story why we need to confront the rejection.