Diversity 2 - comfort, power and counting

By Fred Shivvin

In part 1, I explored the word diverse which means 'various or assorted' and what sits behind the misuse of diverse to mean 'different from me'.

 

Learning to value diversity in humanity involves positive interactions with a variety of people.

 

However, some individuals never have this experience. With their limited interactions, they can grow up to think people 'like me' (according to sex, race, economic status, ability, etc.) are 'us', and anyone 'different from me' is 'them' or 'the other'. 

 

The two mind maps in part 1 explained that these individuals see their 'self' as the 'default human' and the 'other' as a lesser human.

The idea that any person could claim to be the 'default human' is patently ludicrous but it operates subconsciously, deep below our awareness (except for white supremacists and others who promote this idea).

It is far from clear-headed and it spawns unfairness and injustice in the forms of racism, sexism, ableism etc.

 

How can some people never experience a real challenge to such a distorted view of the world that they are the 'default human'?

 

COMFORT RATHER THAN MALICE

The primary reason is lack of exposure to diversity in humanity.

 

We are all drawn to people 'like me'. We can interact - chat at the pub, work with others, and sound off about what's wrong with the world - without being challenged on our biases and assumptions, because people 'like me' share a perspective on the world. People 'like me' serve to validate our sense of 'self' and our broad world view (our mind map); which is comforting and minimal effort. It's just easier.

 

People tend to seek 'like me' comfort with their families, job and housing choices, and broader societies. We display an implicit bias toward people 'like me', even when we consider we are not racist or sexist, etc. 

 

Compared with a century ago, Australian society and workplaces are more diverse - more of us now interact with people 'different from me' more often.

 

Awkward much.

So, when we chat, work or sound off, someone may challenge our biases and assumptions, including our perspective on the world. This makes interaction much harder, sometimes awkward and considerably less comfortable. It takes real effort: thoughtfulness, self-awareness and patience to be in diverse groups. 

These challenges undermine our subconscious sense of 'self' and 'other' - which can feel not just uncomfortable but even threatening. (Waiting for the team meeting to start, Steve is complaining about his ex-girlfriend. 'Women always lie and trick men, right.' 'Excuse me?!' 'Oh, sorry Laura, forgot you were there.' 'Yes, Steve, I'm here, and I've never tried to trick a man.' Uncomfortable silence in the group. Steve avoids Laura afterwards despite their deadline.)

 

Because being with people 'like me' requires less effort, and less risk of conflict or embarrassment, we are naturally drawn to it. Lack of exposure to diversity can be an outcome of our human preference for comfort rather than malice.

 

And despite the increase in diversity without our Western culture, some people - those with social and economic power - have more control over who they interact with and can often limit their world to a circle of people 'like me'.

 

This allows those in power who see their 'self' as 'the default human' to maintain this distorted world view. 

They may see no problem at all.

 

REJECTING BEING 'THE OTHER'

Who can see the idea of 'default human' is a problem? Those who are treated as 'other'.

 

Those outside the self-proclaimed 'default human' group are likely to find the idea incredibly insulting. They are deeply affronted by being considered as 'other', inferior, flawed (unless they share the mind map that positions them as 'other'; that happens).

 

A person with a disability does not define themselves by their body's capacity and does not consider they are a 'lesser human' than someone else. A woman does not consider she is a 'secondary human' to a man. People of colour do not consider they are a 'lower standard human' than white people. Poor people do not consider those in the offices of Wall Street are better humans, just more advantaged ones. But they get these messages all the time from people who exclude them as 'the other'. 

 

So, those with less social or economic power are more likely to reject both the idea of anyone being the 'default human' and any concept of people as 'the other'.

 

We each want to have control over our life decisions. We want to be valued, respected, and considered equal human beings. We resent intrusions, restrictions and limits imposed on us. We take exception to unfairness.

 

However, people with less power in a situation are forced to understand and accommodate the demands and world view of those who claim the 'default human' status. They have to learn to get by despite the unfairness. They have to fit into a world view imposed on them while they reject this world view.

 

In contrast, those with power do not have to accommodate the world view of 'others', and are rarely challenged about their biases and assumptions, including their sense of 'self' as the 'default human'. People in power enjoy automatic inclusion and greater opportunity. They may be entirely unaware that others feel affronted, uncomfortable or excluded. Their 'othering'* of people is part of their power and sense of superiority.

In western culture, power tends to be held by white affluent men. Not only do many powerful white affluent men see no problem with their worldview, their social power means they are able to close ranks with others in the 'like-me' group against any potential threats. 

Threats like diversity policies.

 

MALICE RATHER THAN COMFORT

 

The drive for greater diversity in workplaces, movies, social groups, education, government, etc. is to counter the tendency of the powerful to close ranks and include only people 'like me'. 

 

To the dis-empowered, 'diversity' means greater fairness.

 

If you are powerful, however, 'diversity' means sharing power.

 

This is not likely to happen. We might see power mongering as a behaviour of rich white (macho) men, but none of us wants to yield power or control. Some of us don't have much of it, but whatever power we have, we fight to keep.

 

Unfortunately for those hoping diversity will deliver fairness, those with power have no intention of changing the ideas and structures that make them powerful. If so, they would not be in positions of power to start! And the idea of being surrounded by those discomforting 'others' is unlikely to convince them to change.

And that's why 'diversity' doesn't just happen. Sharing up power doesn't just happen!

 

I'm not saying anything new about power.

 

But I want to look beyond that. If you are powerful, genuine diversity can also mean a threatening challenge to your mind map and sense of your 'self' as the default human.

'...get a good job that pays good money'. 

As I said in part 1, some people can go through bias training without  learning anything about the world or themselves. Their world view is entrenched and they are surrounded by people 'like me'. Their power, privilege and sense of self as 'the default' blind them to how the world is for 'others'. They make out of touch comments, like Joe Hockey's infamous advice to young people wanting to buy a house.

Their world view means these people use the word diverse to mean 'different from me' and they tend observe diversity initiatives only enough to meet reporting targets. They may appoint people of colour, but subject them to regular racist jokes (Why are you so uptight, it's just a joke!). They will enrol students with a disability, but not provide access to the curriculum or manage other students' bullying behaviour toward them. They will recruit women, but demean and degrade them (She needs to get back to the kitchen!). 

And they definitely won't share power or decision-making control.

 

To hold their power and defend their sense of self as 'the default', those holding the reins may only take token steps toward diversity. 'What are you complaining about, we have a diverse person on our team?'' 

 

And if they are directly challenged, they nuke, sack, punch, exclude, belittle, insult, or sue the 'other'. See examples in Asian woman Ellen Pao's book about the way she was treated in workplace dominated by wealthy white men. 

I'm sure those in power find it all rather unpleasant too, but I doubt they realise the challenge is aimed at their assumption they are the 'default human'.

 

Using the word diverse to mean 'other', 'minority', 'not like me/us' is a strategy to disempower and exclude 'others', it is not about comfort; it is is unconsciously or deliberately malicious.

 

Social and economic power allows some people to rebuff challenges to their distorted world view and they discount any 'push back' as sour grapes and unreasonable.

 

COUNTING 'THEM'

 

Against their preferences, people in power are often required by law, policy or shareholders to increase diversity. Some may even accept the research that diverse work teams produce better outcomes. 

Too often though, unless they have an epiphany about their distorted world view while on holiday in the Maldives, they put diversity policy into practice using the word diverse to mean 'certain' individuals.

 

The step from the dictionary of diversity meaning 'various' to measuring diversity has turned the word diverse into a numbers game of counting specific characteristics, like sex or race.  

 

For example, the 2016 goal of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences to 'double number of diverse members by 2020' implies the 'diverse' members were to be counted each year.

 

To start, the decision about which characteristics to count to measure diversity involves a comparison with an assumed 'default human'. Tick a box: default/white or diverse/other?

 

However, this diminishes people to the one or two attributes that are counted. These characteristics then become proxies for the whole person; it makes them 'lesser' humans. In this way, counting becomes an exercise in 'othering'*.

 

The activity of counting specific narrow attributes of people in order to report on diversity targets reinforces the tendency to locate 'diversity' in individuals. Individual people are then described as 'diverse'.  It leads to sentences like '…12 per cent of culturally diverse women surveyed…'.

 

This is reinforced by language with the word the in front of single attribute to define a group of people: 'the blacks', 'the disabled', or 'what do the women want now', 'the poor need to work harder', etc. It implies there is an homogeneous group of 'diverse' people.

 

We all know the term 'diverse members' of the Academy stands in for the 'not white members'. 

 

One of these directors is not like the others

However, tallying all the non-white people as a category of 'diverse members' is not an approach designed to remedy exclusion and dis-empowerment. Those in power have no intention of making moves in those areas.  Instead, they treat diversity as performance (maybe there will be a company bonus!), rather than genuine engagement with people who are 'different from me'. Because at no point do they intend sharing their power.

Counting the characteristics of people to achieve diversity targets doesn't say anything about the actual inclusion and empowerment of those individuals, and what happens beyond the targets, the annual report and the photo of the 'diverse' membership. 

 

TARGET TO GET WHERE?

 

Are we heading the same way?

Setting targets and measuring change are strategies to get 'somewhere'.

Since we are counting, what number of 'them' would represent diversity in a workplace or social group? Is it one/any; is it proportional to population, is it equal numbers? Is the 'diversity' measured in relation to measures of skills, aptitudes or outcomes?

 

And how will we know we are 'there'? Is diversity to be judged by who gets a film award, the winner's trophy or the Nobel prize, the number of female CEOs of major companies, everyone experiencing respect and ease at work and socialising?  Will it just be regularly interaction with more people who are 'different from me'?

 

Most importantly: do those implementing diversity policies share the same idea of diversity as those currently excluded?

 

As I said in part 1, the meaning of the word diverse depends on who is using it. Interpretations of what a diverse society looks like depend on your personal mind map, how you see your 'self' and 'others', and your comfort with being surrounded by people 'different from you'. For example, this 2004 survey in the US found that African-American people would prefer to live in diverse areas with equal numbers of black and white, but white people reported being uncomfortable with living in areas with more than a few black people. 

 

We do not have a shared understanding of what a diverse society, workplace, school or sports club looks like, or how we will know we are 'there'.

 

This suits those who do not really accept diversity as the 'somewhere' they are heading anyway.

 

AN ALTERNATIVE

 

Diversity is only superficially about the characteristics of historically excluded people. It is considerably more than getting better opportunities or more pay, although let's celebrate changes in these areas.

 

I've been in workplaces with diversity programs and in jobs focusing on the inclusion of people who are frequently overlooked or excluded. And I've seen the best intentions amount to little.

 

I think this is because the words diverse and diversity remove the need to name the unfairness that lead to the lack of diversity. Consequently, the underlying unfairness doesn't change. 

Aiming for 'diversity' allows people in power to avoid acknowledging the historical injustices and power structures that gifted them their current status. Addressing historical power imbalance is hard to make sound good in the annual report, but 'increasing diversity' makes good PR!

 

The denatured word diversity allows people to sidestep the emotion and rawness of the struggle for fairness.

 

Fairness is not what people look like, but how things happen. It is who makes important decisions, who has the final say, who feels comfortable, who sets the parameters and the tasks, and who can use rudeness, abuse, violence or threats with impunity. These are the things to measure fairness, or lack of it.

Real diversity would involve a greater number of people influencing decision-making and expressing their perspective; transparency about who applied but didn't get the job, golf club, or school placement; respect and understanding in personal interactions.  A diverse society would acknowledge and reward the personal effort required to work through the discomfort and challenge of varying perspectives.

 

My suggested alternative for diversity targets is to name the processes that sustain power and identify the change required for those with power currently. The Academy goal would be re-written: 'Halve the number of white men controlling the decisions of the Academy by 2020.'

Given the aim is to increase fairness, to measure diversity we need both the characteristics of all people in the group PLUS how things happen with regard to the expression of power.

 

I don't know if it would succeed. But a positive step would be to admit that we are not really measuring diversity now.

 

MIND MAP SHIFT

 

Another understanding is required too. We must recognise that genuine diversity requires a shift in the mind map of those who currently hold power. A process we can't measure.

And it is no easy process. For those involved, it means completely changing their view of the world and of their 'self'. This is challenging and deeply unsettling even if someone wants to do it, and few do. No one starts off thinking their mind map and their claim to be 'the default human' is ludicrous. They probably don't even know there is an alternative. Making the shift from mind map 1 to mind map 2 (as explained in part 1) requires support and time. It is not assisted by abuse - which only reinforces the feeling that their 'whole world' is under attack and triggers defensiveness and avoidance - most unfortunately for the quite reasonably angry and dis-empowered.

I think that a failure to appreciate the scale of change required at a deep, usually unconscious, level is the key reason 'diversity' initiatives have had minimal success. 

 

And that's why 'diversity' doesn't just happen. Mind map shift doesn't just happen! 

THE 'DEFAULT' HAS TO GO

 

In summary, diversity and diverse are often just buzz words, emptied of meaning to avoid taking 'fairness' seriously.

 

Lack of diversity is both an outcome of the human tendency to prefer comfort and a strategy in the human tendency to maintain power.

 

See part 1 for an explanation

The misuse of diverse to describe individuals stems from seeing one's 'self' as the default human and seeing 'others' as somehow lesser humans. This world view reinforces, rather than challenges, existing power structures and lack of fairness.

Diversity training or bias recognition workshops that focus on the superficial characteristics of people misses the mark. If we want a fairer world, we need to understand that we each have a personal mind map, and work to counter the concept of the 'default human' and the 'other'.

 

I believe diversity can only flourish when no-one considers they are the 'default human'. 

That's hard to change and hard to measure. But a big hint that someone holds this view is when they use the word diverse to describe another individual. 

Footnotes

* 'Othering' is jargon from sociology, that describes a complex psychological and social process. The verb 'to other' means to see people with certain characteristics, like a specific skin colour, as a uniformly negative group - apart and opposite in all ways, and perhaps even less human.

Images, all used under Creative Commons licences

1. Baldwin quote: the author
2. Awkward much: the author
3. Sharing power: the author
4. Joe Hockey: Andrew Meares SMH June 2015 
5. Woman at work: https://get.pxhere.com
6. Board of directors: Investa Property Group Board The Fifth Estate, June 2013 
7. Map to where: https://www.goodfreephotos.com/albums/vector-images/location-and-destination-icons.png
8. Fairness: the author
9. Mind map shift: the author
10. Mind map 2: the author; see Diversity - defeated by the default