by Lorie Reilly in Accessibility, Civil and Human Rights, Immigration
Posted on November 5, 2010 at 11:37 am
Last Modified on November 6, 2010 at 5:05 pm
loading…
The first line of the recently crafted Somerville Vision Statement includes a sentence about valuing the diversity of our people, cultures, housing, and economy. Since “diversity” is so prominently represented in our vision for our community, I’ve been thinking about this word and what it means.
The dictionary definition of “diversity” is the condition of differing from one another. The areas where we differ hold the potential for conflict, but they are also the rich areas that invite personal growth and make our lives more interesting. It seems, however, that in many cases “diversity” is being used (by myself and others) to indicate racial and ethnic differences rather than all the many ways in which we diverge. In some settings, “diversity” has become a polite way to refer to the racial make-up of a group. I used to work at a corporation where the statement “we need more diversity” meant that the workforce was too white.
It’s interesting to me that the meaning of “diversity” has become focused around race and ethnicity. Obviously there are many other ways in which people can diverge from each other: religion, politics, physical abilities, family history, economic status, age, sexual orientation, and more. When my former employer’s human resource managers talked about seeking workforce diversity, I don’t think they meant they were actively recruiting more Jews, paraplegics, Catholics, or 60-year-old gay men — all of which were also under-represented on the company’s staff.
When we say here in Somerville that we value the diversity of our people, do we mean the full range of ways in which we differ? Are we saying that it’s fun learning about holiday traditions of different cultures? Or are we saying that we really value multiple points of view on hotly contended issues? Is it more socially acceptable to talk about including different races than it is to talk about including folks with missing limbs? Is it easier to talk about seeking a rainbow of skin tones than it is to talk about actively including Muslims, atheists, or transgendered individuals? And what about differences that require physical accommodation and not just laudable mission statements? (See Eila’s posting about access to city polling places for the physically impaired.)
Maybe we assume that if we pursue racial diversity that all of the other forms of diversity will naturally follow. It could be that after filling out so many forms on which we’re asked to identify our race/ethnicity that we’ve come to think of race as a public attribute and the other differences as more private and therefore not acceptable ways to identify and profile a population.
I’ve been a member of several local organizations that have made “diversifying” their membership a stated goal. In each case, the diversity sought was multicultural. In each case the group asked the question: “How do we get these folks to come to us?” They were asking how to integrate other races and ethnicities into their world view and value system. It seemed to me that they might be seeking racial diversity as a validation of their own mission, as a feather in their own cap. They were not actively seeking to move toward and understand the ways in which their group might not be relevant or accessible to those who were underrepresented.
It’s essential that we pursue racial and ethnic diversity in all aspects of our society. Until recently this was not possible, and there are still many places where it’s not practiced. As we do so, let’s seek what feels even harder to me right now — for us to really know and embrace the full spectrum of ways in which we might differ from each other.
loading…
Lorie, thanks for this thought-provoking essay. As far as the vision statement goes, I think we’d agree that “diversity of people” seems to be the most vague, whereas diversity of cultures, housing, and economy seems more concrete. On one hand, the scope of diversity is not easily definable, yet by not defining what we mean, we leave the interpretation up to those in authority. Perhaps, the vision statement should have specifically mentioned the other characteristics you cited, even though that implies that some types of diversity are more important than others. There’s nothing wrong with valuing certain types of diversity more than others, indeed we must to make any sense of the concept.
I also agree that we should broaden our understanding of diversity as much as possible. However, I think that diversity of appearances (differences in skin color, gender, ethnicity, age, etc…) deserves highest priority because it is what outsiders see first. For example, if your group only has white people, then a non-white person is likely to stop there and think your group does not value diversity, even if your members are diverse in other ways. Once you see that people look different, you’re more inclined to start looking for other types of diversity beyond what meets the eye.
loading...
Wonderful writing and thoughtful as usual, Lorie Relly!
The concept of “diversity” seems useful for distinguishing various attributes and characteristics. But since specificity and attributes, etc. are all just neutral details, we gotta wonder why we color unfamiliar characteristics with aversive or attractive meanings instead. Seems we’re quite dependent on all sorts of assumptions, prejudices, stigmas and special affinities, in choosing who we’ll hang with and where we’ll live and why we do most things.
Codes of socially-accepted discriminatory behavior grow up all around those “other than me” prejudices.
I remember last year when a friend of mine wanted to get into a culturally diverse restaurant and was told by the owner that “an entrance for people of your handicapped persuasion will be placed in the rear door so others won’t have to look at you.” (i wrote about it in “Pass the Green Dumpster, Please” )
For us to “really know and embrace the full spectrum of ways in which we might differ from each other”-beautiful aspiration, Lorie!!!- means we really do need to develop more abilities! It takes alot of courage to grow out of our little suits of armor and our assumptions about all sorts of things we value about ourselves and (subconsciously) despise or are timid about in others.
For example, If I want to genuinely be friends, and meaningfully communicate with, someone who is Deaf, I really do have to learn ASL. I have to be willing to tolerate my clumsy beginnings at communication, and be courageous enough to look my new friend in the eye while they are witnessing me being all mixed up and not a deft communicator, for a while!
Some friends with very obvious physical disAbilities, and/or “disfiguring” characteristics speculate that the simple reason most folks won’t take the dare of getting to know them, is because we human egos are just so frail- afraid of losing our cool. I definitely see that in myself. I recall being afraid to extend my hand in friendship exactly because of such timidity and self-protection. At the time, I understood that I was afraid I would hurt my frail-seeming friend; it was only with deeper reflection over time that I understood how much my ego kept me from reaching out and touching him, literally.
Thanks so much for the post, Lorie.
@Barry, what are you referring to with the word “priority?” Thanks!
loading...
eila, I mean that if your group’s goal is to create a welcoming atmosphere for the most people, then it seems best to prioritize types of diversity that are readily apparent to the casual observer.
loading...
here’s a beautiful video!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyB_U9vn6Wk
loading...
That’s wonderful, thank you eila!
loading...
This comment is posted in response to a conversation with Lorie. I deeply respect her efforts to broaden the real defination of diversity to include those individuals with physical impariments. As a psychologist with experience in various rehab settings, I know that individuals in that circumstance of life sometimes refer to others as “temporarily able-bodied individuals”. This is a clear reminder of the fraility of mobility and good health.
However, there is another group of individuals that seem even more forgotten and removed from a definition of diversity; those are the people with developmental or mental handicapping conditions. These are people who may seem or may be more difficult with whom to establish communication, so often we simply don’t try. The bridge to connection with these folks is not as “simple” as a ramp into a building, but rather it requires a ramp into our hearts and our patience. This could be a child with developmental needs, or a returning veteran who has difficulty re-adjusting. How do we accept and acknowledge these people as people? To me, this is the ultimate outpost of “diversity” and not an easy one to reach.
loading...