The BFI diversity standards leaflet says “Our definition of diversity is to recognise
the quality and value of difference.” In a bid to dodge accusations of sanctimonious
political correctness, the preceding paragraph is careful to point out that “diversity
is not just about doing what’s right: it is good for creativity, supports economic
growth, taps into under-served audiences and makes good business sense.” For
them, the argument for diversity is anything but political. It could be – and indeed
it is – about so much other than racial and ethnic exclusion. The pamphlet small
print goes on more soberly later to explain that “The Standards focus on disability,
gender, race and sexual orientation (as they pertain to the Equality Act 2010)”.50
In a similar vein, ACE’s Creative Case for Diversity51 is an energetic, persuasive
and well meaning endeavour to make instrumental and practical arguments for
diversity. One supposes that its reasoning is that no one can reasonably argue against
the economic and creative case for promoting diversity. This seems like a practical
strategy in many ways; why would someone who is constitutionally opposed to
including people who don’t look like them be persuaded by arguments like virtue
or justice? The pragmatic approach seems so much more appealing. And the whole
idea of diversity is after all a powerful metaphor for life itself and healthy ecologies
more generally, borrowed from Darwin’s own observations: the word diversity
appears twenty times in On the Origin of Species (twenty-six times in The Descent
of Man); once with the qualifying adjective beautiful, as in beautiful diversity, and
once as wonderful diversity.52
Yet criticism of diversity as a cultural policy too has been steeped in the language and
thinking of evolutionary biology. Goodhart, who uses diversity in its primarily racial
and ethnic sense, in a 2004 essay, criticised diversity on the following grounds, pitting
it against the centripetal forces of social belonging, community and “solidarity”.
On the other hand, the logic of solidarity, with its tendency to draw boundaries,
and the logic of diversity, with its tendency to cross them, do at times pull apart.
Thanks to the erosion of collective norms and identities, in particular of class
and nation, and the recent surge of immigration into Europe, this may be such
a time.53
He identified diversity as a threat to social cohesion, in so far as it provoked in
him an anxiety around the “erosion of collective norms and identities” and seemed
counter to evolutionary self-interest.
The problem is perhaps that diversity confuses people, for meaning too many
things to too many people. It has, in current usage, become an umbrella term with
varying emphasis depending on the user and their context. So for some, diversity
means disability; for others, class; race; gender; sexuality. But in all these cases
what emerges is the reification of difference. These groups are defined against the
supposed norm – that of the white, able-bodied, middle class, heterosexual man.
And both sides of the divide – for it is in many ways a divide – feel alienated and
misunderstood.
Some practitioners don’t accept the umbrella usage for the word diversity. For
Madani Younis there’s an uncomfortable awareness that “Okay, diversity is a
euphemism for the word ‘black’.”54 His use of the term euphemism is indicative
of the perceived shame and lack of sincerity in the conversation. It also points
towards the slippery understanding of diversity reflected in the “Pulse Report”,
which showed professionals using the term to talk about whichever protected
characteristic seemed most relevant to their work; very few had an overview which
brought an awareness of different types of diversity. Interestingly no one suggested
that straight white British men might be considered diverse in any context. If they
were considered at all, it was with hostility, and this too is part of the problem.
Certain usages expose this problem more than others. For example, a number
of comments in the Pulse Survey use the phrase “more diverse” which seems
particularly odd and illogical if one considers that difference is an absolute (you
are either different from something or the same as it – how can we objectively
measure degrees of difference)? Then there is the hidden referent inherent in the
idea of difference, which celebratory narratives of ecological diversity dodge by
focusing on the idea of infinite variation. Here it is not the idea of diversity per
se that is the problem – it is the fact that the idea is layered upon the entrenched
subject positions of a system that privileges a particular perspective or position. The
“I” which measures or discerns difference is invariably white, male, economically
secure, able bodied and heterosexual. And it is from his position of power that he
discerns difference, and defines that which does not look like him as diversity. Thus
diversity becomes a narrative that continues to pigeon hole and limit people who do
not speak from this normative position.
You are diverse. You are different. You need special measures to help you achieve
our standards, we are not sure you are good enough, but we are going to help you
join us at the high table because we are good people and that’s what good people in
good societies do. And this narrative of superiority is woven into several diversity
initiatives which seek out and patronise “diverse” talent. Thus ACE’s Change
Makers Programme aims “to provide opportunities for Black, minority ethnic and
disabled leaders to gain the skills, knowledge and experience required to compete
on merit when future senior leadership positions become available.”55 As if they did
not already compete on merit. The problem of underrepresentation is parked firmly
at the feet of the “diverse” who have up until now lacked the “skills, knowledge and
experience” to be senior leaders. Unconscious bias and institutional prejudice has
no part in this account of their exclusion.
While critics like Mirza claim that the diversity discourse aimed to dismantle
establishment cultural policies,56 other thinkers and professionals argue that
diversity has been co-opted by the establishment. In his work, psychoanalyst
and Group Analyst Farhad Dalal makes the argument that diversity has become
a disingenuous box ticking exercise that does nothing to tackle institutionalised
systems of prejudice and inequality. Instead, he argues that the differences enshrined
by the idea of diversity reify the cultural and racial other and facilitate further
exclusion while pretending to create more equal conditions.57
Dalal confronts the questions around quality and excellence head on, by advocating
for greater not less discrimination. He critiques a system of thinking that alienates
subjects from their deeply held values in order to accommodate an ‘other’ who seems
not to measure up to their standards. He argues that in the long run, such a system
can only breed resentment and anger. If accommodating you means disavowing
the very heart of who I am, I can never be at peace. To apply this idea to cultural
organisations: if an organisation values quality and excellence it can’t be asked to
compromise these. Racism lies beneath the failure to imagine that excellence won’t
exclude people who aren’t white, but the obligations of diversity monitoring rarely
allow for this.
In all these discussions, diversity features as a noun and a verb that encapsulates an
endeavour and a desired state of being. It is both the process and the goal. We want
diversity, and to get it, we will embrace or ‘do’ diversity. But the confusion arises
when anyone considers what doing diversity really means.
