Diversity - defeated by the default

Diversity (likewise inclusion) is a word I hear frequently. Diversity appears in technology, education, the arts, music, and science, sometimes accompanied by 'diversity' targets. We hear about the diversity of culture and opinion in Australia. Many companies have Diversity and Inclusion Divisions with KPIs for their annual reports.

 

The driver for diversity is fairness. It entails welcoming all people, ensuring decision-making groups are representative of the broader society, and more people can participate in a greater range of life's opportunities. 

But I think diversity and its adjective diverse are most often just buzz words: they make a 'buzz', but they communicate little (likewise inclusion and inclusive).

 

The word diversity should convey an important idea: diversity is a positive characteristic of societies and groups. But the word has been emptied of this idea in many uses. This has happened through a subtle linguistic 'shift' to use diverse to describe individual people, usually meaning a person from a minority group.

 

Is this just a normal change in meaning? Is it just the all too common loss of a useful word? (I've written previously about accepting that words can change meaning over time, even really useful words, see Alternate - a small grief.)

 

Or is there something else going on here? Has this subtle linguistic 'shift' been engineered? It seems to me that this way of using the word diverse actually serves to keep people out.

Definitions that shift from noun to adjective.

As usual, the dictionary is my starting point.

 

Diversity:

♦️ the condition of having or being composed of differing elements - variety

♦️ an instance of being composed of differing elements or qualities - assortment.

 

The meanings of 'variety' and 'assortment' tell us that diversity is a characteristic of groups (e.g. work teams) or compound systems or collections (e.g. the bio-system or share portfolios). Its synonyms confirm the word describes a group (e.g. heterogeneous). Variety and assortment cannot be used to describe an individual or even a set of two.

 

Contrast this with the definition of diverse:

♦️ differing from one another - different from

♦️ composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities - separate and unalike.

 

The meanings of 'different from' or 'unalike' do not require that diverse is only used to describe a group even though diverse is the adjective from diversity. This meaning allows it to be used to describe an individual person, and allows the subtle linguistic 'shift'. With this meaning, diverse could refer to a group, but could just as readily refer to a comparison between two things or people.  

 

The synonyms for diverse confirm the shift away from the concept of 'variety' conveyed by diversity: different, disparate, dissimilar, distant, distinct, distinctive, distinguishable, nonidentical, other, unalike, unlike.

 

Somewhere between diversity and diverse, we lost the idea that the concept should only apply to a group, not just two people, and never an individual. We lost the core concept of various and assorted.

But it's something more than the dictionary definition 'shifting', I think. 

 

What is it that is not stated?

You can say that a share portfolio, an insect collection, or a natural ecosystem is diverse - this means 'composed of various elements'. The way in which the element vary is understood.

However, when you say that a group of people is diverse you also need to state in what way the members of that group vary, for example, culturally, racially, economically. We accept that everyone is unique, and that everyone is different from everyone else in any number of ways, so we mean something beyond that. 

When applied to a group of people, diverse usually refers to one or perhaps two specific, but sometimes implicit, characteristics of those people.

Here's an infamous example: in January 2016, The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences released a statement which included this text:

Goal to double number of diverse members by 2020;   

…to make the Academy’s membership, its governing bodies, and its voting members significantly more diverse. The Board’s goal is to commit to doubling the number of women and diverse members of the Academy by 2020.

 

The statement uses sentences in which 'the group' is the thing considered diverse (the Academy's governing bodies) and sentences in which 'the individual' is considered diverse (diverse members) and commits to doubling the number of 'those' individuals. We all know that 'diverse members' refers to people of colour, and yet they didn't write 'double the number of women and members of colour'. (Perhaps, it was a word game to avoid overtly saying that white men continue to dominate the governance of the Academy.)

Given the word diversity should only apply to groups, an individual characteristic of a person (e.g. their skin colour or their sexuality) cannot be described as 'diverse' in itself. 

An individual person cannot be 'diverse'...

... unless, the meaning of 'diverse' has shifted to 'different from', and a comparison is being made with something else...

... that is not being stated. 

If someone describes an individual as 'diverse', they use an unstated reference point which that person is 'different from'.*  The speaker implies the existence of a shared understanding of what is 'standard' or 'normal'. They imply a 'default human' reference point.**

Here are examples of diverse used to mean 'various/varying' contrasted with diverse meaning 'different from the default' with its implied default. 

Various/ varying	Different from the default	The implied default
A diverse culture in Australia	People from diverse cultures coming to Australia	Anglo-Saxon middle brow Australian culture
A diverse project team	50% diverse people on the team	White male worker
People have diverse sexual preferences	People with diverse sexuality/ sexualities	Heterosexual person
A diverse crowd	Half the people in the crowd are from diverse backgrounds	White people
Diverse golf club membership	Number of diverse members of the golf club	White (male) people
A class with students of diverse abilities and ages	A student with diverse abilities	An able-bodied student

The 'implied default human' is the problem.

When it is used to describe individual people, the word diverse means 'a person with a particular characteristic which is different from the default or standard, as set by me.' Diverse no longer means 'characterised by variety' it means 'different from me', or more often, 'different from us'.

People who describe someone else as diverse claim themselves to be the 'default'.

 

It is increasingly used with this meaning by white people to mean 'from a minority group', in male-dominated professions by men to mean 'women', and by able-bodied people to mean 'a person with a disability'. When the Academy wrote 'diverse members', it implied the shared understanding that the default human is white, and diverse means 'different from us, the white members'. 

 

A great illustration of this is the joke made during a panel at a conference about increasing diversity in the workforce in Silicon Valley in 2015:

'We have two new partners who are so diverse, I have a challenge pronouncing their names.'

 

In this joke, diverse means 'different from us', different from our shared idea of the standard or the default human. That's why it works as a joke - he knows the audience shares his perspective on the world. 

LOL. Not. That's me and the 'diverse people' in the audience with the challenging names. (The speaker later apologised.)

 

How can there be a default human? When we are all unique? When it’s a fundamental concept in Western culture that we are all individuals; we are all unique?

  

It's the idea that there is a default human against which others are considered 'different from' that is problematic for the 'shifted' meaning of diverse. To those outside this assumed idea of 'default human', it can also be offensive and deceitful and sometimes malevolent.

 

Interestingly, this problematic use of diverse stems from something we all do. It stems from how we each develop a concept of 'self'. 

My 'self' and I

It might be hard to contemplate from our adult perspective that very small children do not have a strong idea of their 'self'. They literally don't know where they 'end' and their parent 'starts'. We gradually learn that 'I am me' and 'you' are a separate other person (that is, in Western culture).

 

As we grow up, we build our sense of 'self' and of others with forms of self-description, for example, 'I' am a boy, have short hair, am excitable, etc. and 'you' are a mummy, have long hair, are calm, etc. Over time, we add more attributes to our 'self', e.g. 'I' am white, sporty, funny, etc., and others, e.g. 'he' is black, smart, kind, etc. At each stage of development, we consolidate more of our sense of 'self'.

 

An integral part of this is contrasting our 'self' to others - He is black, not like me, as I am white. She is a girl, not like me, as I am a boy. In this process, children use 'not like me' to clarify and confirm 'I am me'.

It's me! Busy becoming my 'self'!

It is a normal and necessary developmental process for our culture. It's a core part of Western culture to have a strong sense of self, and a sense of individuality (although not all cultures do).

 

As adults, we continue to consolidate and validate our sense of 'self'. We do this by constant external checking that involves, 'yes, like me' and 'no, not like me'. In general, the attributes we use to consolidate our sense of 'self' (like sex, gender, race, sexuality, nationality, intellect, sociability, economic status, etc., and interests, like reading or soccer, etc.) are not necessarily problematic in themselves. However, if our social context means we can't validate our sense of 'self', if we see no other people like our 'self', it can be traumatic, e.g. gay teens growing up in environments where homosexuality is repressed. 

 

It's normal for a young child to consider their 'self' as the default; after all they have a small world and limited perspective on humanity. As they grow, children are very receptive to being taught to see 'not like me' in a positive way, to appreciate difference and to see 'variety as the standard' with their own 'self' as part of the rich variety of humanity. 

Others and 'othering'

Or, they can be taught to see other people who are 'not like me' negatively. 

 

It is very easy to slide into thinking 'not like me' is bad, and to develop a negative view of difference.

 

Just how entrenched this thinking becomes depends on a child's upbringing, culture and experience. I think it is important, though, to realise 'not like me' exists within a necessary (in Western cultures) and normal developmental process of learning to be a 'self'. (It may plausibly have had an evolutionary value, when 'like me' in a small early hominid community was more likely to signal 'safe' while 'not like me' signaled possible danger.)

 

An individual can be taught that being 'not like me' is negative, and to see people with those characteristics as 'bad' or 'dangerous'. This leads to what is sometimes called 'othering'. The verb 'to other' means to see people with certain characteristics different from you, like a specific skin colour, as a uniformly negative group - apart and opposite in all ways, and perhaps even less human.

 

'Othering' is awful jargon from sociology (making a verb out of an adjective!!), but it is a handy term to describe a complex psychological and social process that happens a lot.

 

'Othering' is very useful to explore what has happened to the word diverse.

Self as default or self as unique

The use of the term diverse as code for 'not like me' rests on seeing your 'self' as the default.

 

I have drawn some mind maps to illustrate how a person's ideas of 'self' and 'other' can fit together. (Mind maps provide gross simplifications of our ideas/beliefs to highlight a single idea).

 

The first mind map represents the perspective of those who use the word diverse to mean 'different from me, the default human' and involves 'othering' those non-standard humans. This person claims themselves as the standpoint for the definition of diverse.

 

Mind map 1 highlights that it is depersonalising, even dehumanising, to refer to an individual person as diverse. 

It involves seeing that other person as non-standard, and as somehow a lesser human. It is the process underpinning tribal politics, racism, sexism, etc. And if you can see some people as 'lesser humans', it is not too much further to see some 'very diverse' people as 'sub-human'. This perspective is used to justify going to war against those awful, dangerous, 'not like us' sub-humans. It's been done by political leaders for millennia (we humans seem to need to dehumanise the people we kill.)

 

In contrast, this second mind map is the perspective of a person who uses diverse to mean 'various or assorted people of many attributes' and is used only to describe the whole group.

Mind map 2 contains no assumption about any kind of 'default' human. It considers human difference as a matter of variety, not standard versus non-standard (and definitely not a hierarchy with the 'self' as default at the top!).

 

As adults mature and move on from the early childhood view of your 'self' as 'the default human', they develop more like the second mind map.

 

Engagement with a variety of people is the key factor. 

Family and school enormously influence your understanding of your 'self' and others, and are critical in developing a positive view of difference.  

It can also happen if you are willing to think about the views you have about people who are 'not like you', perhaps prompted by a book or a study in the area, or a conversation with someone who challenges your assumptions. Perhaps 'bias training' at your workplace could prompt a shift in understanding.

 

But not always!

For many of us raised within fairly homogeneous sub-cultures within Australia, it often first happens when we travel outside our 'home territory' and to other countries, as long as that travel involves genuinely engaging with other people, and not just art galleries, getting drunk or shopping.

Anyone who takes some time to think about it at all will see that claiming to be the 'default-human' is ludicrous. It might be part of a normal development process, yes, but one we should grow out of, or at least become aware of. 

For those not included in an imposed 'default human' group, often quite early their experience of exclusion and being considered as a lesser human or 'other' provokes this awareness.  (Unless they share the mind map that they are 'lesser/other', for example the many women who rejected 'women's liberation' in the 1960s claiming that 'men are naturally superior'.) 

So, learning to value the diversity (variety) of humanity is a personal psychological process of experience and growth and refining our early sense of 'self'. 

 

However, some individuals never experience a challenge to their personal mind map that places them as the 'default human'.

 

Some people continue to think of their particular attributes - their 'self' - as THE way to be, and people like them as 'the default human'. They never leave their childhood view of 'self' at the top of their mind map of humanity, and they consider that everyone else is not only different from them, but strange, wrong, and somehow failing to 'make the grade' as a human - too bad for 'them', but that's just how it is right?

 

From their self-claimed default human position, they see the world in terms of 'us and them'. If they are white, they see a black or Chinese person as 'other' and 'different from the default/standard', not just different from them. If they are able-bodied, they see someone with a wheelchair as 'sub-standard' and an object of pity, not just different from them. If they are a man, they see women as 'other', as secondary or lesser humans, not just different from them. They see everyone else as 'other' in a real way, a concrete way, and in a flawed way. Sometimes, even as dangerous.

 

If our world is narrow, if our thinking is unchallenged, if we continue 'selfing' and 'othering' throughout our lives thinking we are 'the default', then we end up using the word diverse as a label to categorise and de-humanise other people.  

 

When we do this, we can't see it. When we operate with a mind map with 'me' at the top as 'default', we don't do it consciously. 

 

It takes a challenge to our mind map to become aware that we have one.

 

If we operate only within an environment, workplace, subculture etc., that reinforces our sense of 'self' as the default, we don't learn anything further about other people. As part of growing up, most of us are challenged about this at some time. This can lead to a broader perspective of the world. It can, however, lead to fear and hunkering down with 'us' and avoiding 'them'. The latter leads to an unwillingness to engage with people 'unlike me', to segregated roles, schools and suburbs. 

 

And keeping away from that diverse person.

Diversity is not about difference itself, but about fairness. 

In this exploration, the dictionary definition has not really helped, because the meaning of diverse depends on who uses it.

 

Those who consider themselves in the 'default human' in any particular category (of sex, race, nationality, etc.) often unconsciously use it to mean 'different from (me)', while most people outside this category use it to mean 'various/assorted'.

Diversity is a word employed to try to change society for the better, to improve opportunity for everyone, to increase understanding and inclusion. Diversity is driven by the value of fairness. But it has been dis-empowered for this purpose; it has become an empty 'buzz' word.

I don't accept that this is the result of the natural process of changing the meaning of words through use, like humans so often do.

 

I think it stems from a failure of those who consider themselves as 'the default' to accept diversity as a legitimate goal, a genuine good. They have denatured the word diverse through comments like those by the executive from Silicon Valley and The Motion Picture Academy.

The barrier to genuine diversity resides in the mind map of those who consider themselves 'the default'. 

 

For these people, diversity is an attribute of the 'other' person. 

This leads to the perverse situation where increasing diversity (and inclusion) is considered the responsibility of those who are 'different-from-the-default' - they need to just work harder! And if an individual from 'outside the default' makes it onto the team, such as Ellen Pao, an Asian woman who worked in the white male dominated world of share trading, they are excluded in a million subtle ways that remind them they are 'other', regardless of their work and achievements. And if they push back, they are punished - Ellen Pao was dismissed from her job after she challenged the entrenched sexism.

People who consider they are 'the default' aren't likely to change their world view because of a challenge from one person, and a lesser human at that! Particularly, if it means letting go of any power. For them, the default defeats diversity any day! These people can go through 'bias training' and learn nothing, and without understanding bias and prejudice is about one's mind map, and one's view of 'self' and 'other'.

 

We sure know that!

Changing society doesn't happen easily. Diversity doesn't just happen.

In the business, technology, education, the arts, music and science contexts, increasing diversity has to be driven by policy and specific actions (like affirmative action). Change involves setting short and long-term targets, and monitoring and reporting on progress. And to do this, you need to take measures.

 

In part 2, I explore how the very measuring of diversity has helped to make the word diverse almost useless. And consider further why it is that diversity doesn't just happen.

 

 

Footnotes

*I know, I know! Grammar!! But I need to keep the word 'from' with the word 'different' for the point I'm making.

** 'The default' meaning 'the standard' is not in American dictionaries. I had to use the Oxford to confirm that 'the default' means normal, standard, usual, typical, stock, ordinary, customary, conventional, habitual, accustomed, expected, wonted, everyday, regular, routine, established, settled, set. Its etymology and current use derive from the French word for 'to fail', with the meaning of default as 'a failure, shortcoming, lack of completion' (e.g. default on a loan). Its use in computer technology as the 'factory preset settings' first appeared in the 1960s, this being the meaning similar to how it is used in this post. 

Image credits, used under Creative Commons Licences

• Welcome: https://hafuboti.com/2017/03/21/welcoming_diversity/ [CC-BY-SA]
• Raised hands: http://lemasney.com/consulting/2012/12/07/20121207-raised-hands-in-a-diverse-classroom-by-john-lemasney-via-365sketches-org-illustration-creativecommons/ [CC-BY]
• Diversity: cci.utk.edu [CC-BY-NC-ND]
• Kids: http://mochaparents.com/high-costs-and-high-expectations-racial-diversity-in-day-care/ [CC-BY-NC-ND]
• Mind Map 1 and 2: the author
• Unamuno: snipped from the socials
• String: https://www.peoplematters.in/article/expert-views/diversity-is-business-for-us-a-baxter-international-story-19247 [CC-BY-SA-NC]
•  Change diversity doesn't just happen: the author