Upside/ Down Diversity?

I came across this Ted Talk given by Andrѐs Tapia titled, “Why diversity is upside down” and felt that it was worth sharing.  This talk provides a fresh take on what diversity means in today’s world.  The idea of the world being upside /down is really about reframing our understanding of the world, and ultimately of diversity.  His basic argument is that the world, as some of us have known it, and as others of us have imagined it, simply does not exist any longer.  Something that meant one thing previously now means something else entirely.

The rapidly shifting demographics in the U.S. have transformed communities that once comprised a numerical minority into the numerical majority, even though we remain “minorities” socially, politically, culturally, and economically.  Our changing landscape mirrors the changing global landscape in which nations that were once considered “backward” and “third-world” are now world powers or rising world powers. This means that peoples who have always been the numerical global majority are increasingly becoming the cultural and economic majority as well.

I appreciate this perspective because it requires a critical paradigm shift; for us to completely reframe how we discuss diversity in ways that will be really helpful moving forward:

• Andrѐs is asking us to acknowledge the reality of where we are NOW as a nation and not where we once were, or where we imagine ourselves to be.  Within this new America we really have to ask ourselves what it means to create organizations and institutions that are truly reflective of the nation.
• It points us to the elastic nature of society and the need to acknowledge that culture and the meanings that we ascribe to our world are continuously evolving and changing.
• By framing the conversation in this way, it helps us understand that diversity can no longer be regarded as just an ideal or a nice theory.   It is a reality that must be taken seriously if businesses and organizations are to remain competitive within this new social order.

Another very important point that he raises is that identity is multi-dimensional.  This idea of multi-dimensionality (or intersectionality) is really about understanding how our various identities intersect and converge.  I am not just Black.  I am not just a Black woman. I am an educated, able-bodied, heterosexual, Black woman, etc… This means that my interests and needs intersect and converge with other people who are also Black or women or able-bodied or heterosexual, etc… What he is calling the “1.0 version” or the “right-side-up” version of diversity is based in a one-dimensional identity that creates false binaries: White/ Mexican, heterosexual/homosexual, man/woman, that leads to me/us/them.   Within this paradigm diversity becomes about an essentialized “us” accepting or tolerating an essentialized “them”.

The “upside/ down” version of diversity that Andrѐs posits acknowledges the fact that there is not really a clear or clean us/them binary because we are not so easily compartmentalized.  Just as being a woman does not provide a complete picture of who I am or of my experiences, I cannot completely collapse another person’s experiences into a single element of their identity.  This requires me to engage with the person rather than my pre-conceived notions of what “men” do or what “Christians” act like.  This is why it is not enough to celebrate, recognize, or tolerate difference; we must ultimately understand that we NEED one another’s differences.  Diversity is not a question of preference or convenience, but of necessity.

There is one point of divergence that I will raise.  Andrѐs talks about inclusion, but I will replace inclusion with equity, because I think that in order to move beyond the binaries and get to diversity as necessity, there must be some notion of social justice.  We are where we are NOW because of where we were yesterday.  In order to get beyond the effects of yesterday’s actions, we must fully acknowledge and take responsibility for them.  This is also one of the ways that we come to understand our own multi-dimensionality as well as another person’s.  I do not think that inclusion will get us there.  Andrѐs says that diversity is the mix and inclusion is how the mix works.  I would argue that equity helps us understand the mix in the first place and provides us with the tools to make it “work”.

I will close by highlighting one of the most important points that he raises.  “Diversity is a skill and not an attitude”, which means that there needs to be good management and facilitation in order to make diversity work.  One of the difficulties with our present “right-side” up version of diversity is that it is so heavily based in ideas about intention and emotion, but our feelings, desires, and good intentions are not sufficient.  There are actual tools and skills that are necessary for helping people bridge gaps in understanding, their preferences, stereotypes, etc… This is one of the reasons why Diversity as Counting Bodies (see my first article) is insufficient.  The simple proximity of people who perceive themselves as being different is not enough, even when those people have the best intentions.  This means that the diversity and equity that we desire will not happen naturally or accidentally; it must be a thoughtful and conscientious process.