1 What Does It Mean to Take Diversity Seriously? On Open-Mindedness as a Civic Virtue HÉLÈNE LANDEMORE * ABSTRACT Taking diversity seriously should mean building political institutions that are open rather than closed to it and, similarly, cultivating civic virtues that are welcoming of it. Open-mindedness, in particular to the views of one’s political opponents, would seem to be such a civic virtue. This essay argues that this disposition cannot be properly cultivated in an institutional context—electoral or party democracy— which thrives on and encourages the exact opposite virtue, namely partisanship. The essay gestures instead towards a non-electoral form of democracy that would structurally encourage open rather than closed-mindedness and thus fully harness the benefits of diversity. INTRODUCTION Let us posit, at the outset, that diversity in political decision-making is desirable. And let us posit further that diversity is desirable for instrumental reasons, e.g., the epistemic benefits that derive from having a diversity of perspectives applied to a common problem, in addition to whatever intrinsic merits diversity may also have. This is a commonsensical premise and one that is now supported by a respectable amount of research and empirical evidence. If diversity—and specifically cognitive diversity (the kind I will focus on in this essay)—is thus seen as an uncontroversial good, what follows in terms of an “ethics” of diversity? As members—and more specifically as citizens—in a group, what dispositions and virtues should be cultivated to maximize the benefits associated with cognitive diversity in decision- making? Presumably, the dispositions and virtues we would want to cultivate as individuals and citizens would include empathy, 1 tolerance, curiosity, patience, hermeneutic charity, as well as a healthy dose of epistemic humility with respect to one’s own views. This essay, however, will focus on a related but distinct virtue: “open-mindedness.” Open-mindedness, as the term itself makes clear enough, is the property of having a mind that is open to, and thus receptive of, new and different ideas, views, and perspectives. An open mind is the opposite of a mind that imposes filters or even gates on the influx of other people’s ideas and contributions. An open mind is, by definition, the opposite of a closed mind, but it is also the opposite of a mind with self-imposed blinders. It is not necessarily an unbiased mind, however, since our psychological hard-wiring makes such an ideal an impossibility. It is a mind, * Hélène Landemore is Associate Professor of Political Science at Yale University. She studied at Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris, Sciences-Po Paris, and Harvard University (Ph.D. 2008). 1 For a thoughtful defense of this particular virtue, see Michael Morrell Empathy and Democracy (2010).