Diversity Research and Policy: A Multidisciplinary Exploration 9789048513970

Citation preview

diversity research and policy

Diversity Research and Policy

A Multidisciplinary Exploration

Edited by Steven Knotter Rob De Lobel Lena Tsipouri Vanja Stenius

Cover design: Studio Jan de Boer, Amsterdam Layout: V3-Services, Baarn isbn 978 90 8555 044 0 e-isbn 978 90 4851 397 0 nur 740 © Steven Knotter, Rob De Lobel, Lena Tsipouri & Vanja Stenius / Pallas Publications – Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2011 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owners and the authors of the book.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

7

1

An Introduction 9 Rob De Lobel, Vanja Stenius, Lena Tsipouri & Steven Knotter

2

Diversity and Social Anthropology Zdenek Uherek

3

Diversity and Sociology Emilio Gardini

4

Diversity and Criminology Vanja Stenius

5

Diversity and Ecology/Ecological Economics Peter Nijkamp & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes

6

Linguistic Diversity 83 Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Kathleen Heugh

7

Diversity and Architecture 99 Hisham Elkadi & Mirjana Lozanovska

8

Diversity and Urban Planning 117 John Betancur & Tüzin Baycan-Levent

9

Diversity and Economics 135 Lena Tsipouri & Tonia Damvakeraki

21

43

57

73

5

10

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business and Organisation Studies 159 Kiflemariam Hamde, Maddy Janssens, Koen Van Laer, Nils Wåhlin & Patrizia Zanoni

11

Diversity and (Organisational) Psychology Myriam Bechtoldt

12

Diversity and Law 191 Elena Dingu-Kyrklund & Linus Kyrklund

13

Diversity and Public Policy 215 Lena Tsipouri, Rob De Lobel & Steven Knotter

14

Conclusion 233 Rob De Lobel, Steven Knotter, Lena Tsipouri & Vanja Stenius About the Authors About the Reviewers

6

247 248

Diversity Research and Policy

181

Acknowledgements

This volume was produced under auspices of the SUS.DIV (Sustainable Development in a Diverse World) collaborative Network of Excellence (NoE) funded by the European Commission and administered by FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei). We are happy to acknowledge the participation of our partners in this network and others who contributed so generously to this volume either as author or reviewer.

7

1

An Introduction Rob De Lobel, Vanja Stenius, Lena Tsipouri & Steven Knotter

“The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity.” UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Article 4

e Background

Interest in diversity that extends beyond the biological realm has seen a significant increase in multiple spheres, from the academic to the political. While concerns about diversity have their roots in ethics, the discussion has evolved rapidly to address social and economic considerations that stress not only societal duties regarding the treatment (and protection) of diversity, but also the benefits that diversity, in its multiple manifestations, brings to society. Unlike the ethical debate, in which issues are relatively clear, the diversity discourse in socio-economic research has become a source of both hope and concern, having been attributed with the capacity both to enrich life and society as well as to endanger “peaceful” coexistence. This contrast is evident in the growing debate about diversity, its meaning and its role, as efforts to date can largely be said to have been incapable of arriving at a consensus view of the term (see Van Londen & Ruijter 2010). These differences and disagreement exemplify the complexity of the term and the issues that it encompasses as well as a certain immaturity within the debate itself. The tacit agreement to disagree is emblematic of diversity itself as studied and understood by researchers, scholars, policymakers and others. This volume on diversity recognises both the significance of these differing views and the need for a greater cross- and multidisciplinary understanding of the importance and meaning attributed to diversity. It examines how to address the challenges that arise within a constantly evolving world in which diversity represents a multifaceted, dynamic and continuously changing variable. The aim is to bring together different discipline-based perspectives in order to provide scholars, policymakers and society as a whole with an under-

9

standing of the approaches and views within other disciplines. Diversity exists everywhere and hence represents a subject of primary interest both within individual disciplines and to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. This volume seeks to contribute to the efforts by researchers and scholars in Europe and beyond to engage in collaborative and multidisciplinary research that enables them to address complex issues in a more comprehensive manner, utilising perspectives and means of analysis that are either borrowed from another discipline or created through exposure to work done in other fields. This volume departs from the assumption that multidisciplinarity, collaboration and an increased awareness of the study of diversity in all fields represent an added value to efforts to understand and study diversity in its numerous manifestations – whether social, cultural, biological or ecological. It should be noted that the volume limits itself to social and cultural diversity and does not attempt to define diversity as such, but rather provides a space for each discipline to present its use and conceptualisation of the term.

e Importance of Diversity

Some degree of diversity is essential for the survival of both ecosystems and social systems. As in ecosystems, societies require a certain equilibrium and variety in order to develop in a sustainable way. However, certain groups in eco- or social systems often attempt to dominate or even remove other groups in favour of their own position. Difficulties arise, particularly in the case of social systems, in understanding how the amount and variety of diversity influence the stability of the system and its evolution and capacity to flourish. Examples of this can be found throughout recorded history, as the dominant – and usually majority – group has generally inflicted its will upon minority groups subject to extreme control if not near eradication. The desire to contain, reduce or control diversity is indicative of what is arguably a doubleedged sword: diversity, while essential for biological and social life, can also contribute to strife and conflict. Recent work by scholars such as Putnam (2000), who argue that cultural diversity can lead to a loss of social cohesion through a reduction in bonding and bridging social capital, illustrates this at times delicate balance between diversity and social stability. Diversity, then, must be understood in the light of its capacity to not only enrich a situation or context but also destabilise it or contribute to conflict. The increasing focus on diversity in today’s world can be seen as part of the continually evolving dynamics and changes in the political, social and cultural world order, as evidenced by a shift in power throughout history, more recently

10

Diversity Research and Policy

from Western culture to rising new world powers. In contrast to the past, technology now facilitates the movement of people, cultures, information and goods around the world and contributes to what is a process of both homogenisation and diversification. Shifts are evident in Europe, where largely “homogenous” countries are experiencing high levels of immigration, resulting in changing demographics and the increasing presence of other cultures. A significant movement of goods, representing both perfect substitutes of national production from a different/cheaper country (textiles, food and more recently machinery) and new products with an ethnic identity (Indonesian furniture, Chinese food and Japanese sushi), is evident in the West – a movement that has created both positive (enriching choice and diminishing cost) and negative (substitution of national production leading to structural unemployment) reactions. Similarly, capital flows increasingly from Western countries to developing countries, China and India in particular. Reactions to these changes are manifold, as evidenced by calls for tolerance and multiculturalism in some cases and xenophobia and discrimination in others (EUMC 2008) – issues that have become a focus of research in numerous fields. Deficits in the balance of payments and, more recently, exchange-rate fluctuations nurture further potential destabilisation. The threat that diversity presents is evident in political actions and individual attitudes throughout Europe. This can be seen in changing attitudes towards asylum seekers in countries such as the Netherlands (Maurice 2004) and the rise of right-wing political parties in countries such as France (Le Pen’s Front National), Italy (Alleanza Nazionale) and Denmark (Danish People’s Party). Former less favoured regions see themselves as net immigration hubs for people from the 12 newest member states and neighbouring countries. These political movements are indicative of the perceived threat that cultural diversity represents for a nation-state. This is not to say that these countries were completely homogenous, but rather that certain types of diversity may, at certain times, be a source of conflict and generate social responses that effectively seek to control and minimise its presence. Similarly, a quantitative aspect needs to be taken into consideration: diversity may be tolerated in low numbers, but not in larger ones.

e Moral Challenge of Diversity

Utopia – an ideal community based on Sir Thomas More’s eponymous work written in the sixteenth century – and Plato’s Republic both embody and control diversity. The dream of such an idealised society, often seen as unrealistic, became a key focal point during the Enlightenment and the birth of positiv-

An Introduction

11

ism. Conceptualisations of utopia take many forms, including religious (e.g., the Garden of Eden) and economic utopias. The prominence of utopia as an inspiration for writing and thought during the Enlightenment emerged when a desire for the rule of reason and greater concern for humanity began to supplant aristocratic and church rule, which was often authoritarian and oppressive. Positivism, promoted by Comte, replaced metaphysical speculation, as philosophers and scientists sought evidence-based knowledge acquired through the scientific method.1 Comte’s positivism – which continues to have a significant influence across academic disciplines – as well as other schools of thought that have their roots in positivism can be seen as being in a state of collapse. The shift from the metaphysical to the strictly scientific to the modern and post-modern represents a progression in the approaches used in seeking to understand the world. Notions of utopia can be seen as undergoing a similar transformation, as our notion of “progress” needs to be reconsidered in the light of new challenges and the realisation that growth, in economic and social terms, is not necessarily desirable or sustainable. “Progress”, in many respects, can be seen as something that gradually extinguishes diversity. In the quest for greater development, economic or otherwise, there is often a tendency to seek to maximise the production of goods, thus sidelining and doing away with elements that do not contribute to mass production and development. The McDonaldisation of the world represents both the spread of something that was once local and the marginalisation of the local on a global scale. Multinationals and internationally known brands represent an ideal for the business community that in fact plants the seeds for extinguishing diversity in a given place. It simultaneously introduces diversity (by bringing something external into a local environment) and reduces it (as the external becomes omnipresent and replaces the local). The creation of a new choice may in turn lead to the elimination of previously existing choices, thereby reducing individual freedom and contributing to sameness, as mass production reduces the capacity of local “goods” to compete. This has ramifications at every level of society: from consumption goods (e.g., drinking Coca Cola rather than traditional tea), means of production (e.g., the use of artificial fertilisers produced by multinational companies rather than traditional or more natural methods), cultural goods and entertainment (e.g., American music and films), clothing (e.g., the replacement of traditional dress by Western attire) to ecology (e.g., single-crop agriculture as opposed to the cultivation of local but less marketable, crops). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it demonstrates how the notion of progress that accompanied the industrial revolution and played a dominant role in the twentieth century needs to be reconsidered if we want to ensure diversity at the biological, individual and cultural level.

12

Diversity Research and Policy

The (normative) importance of diversity can also be seen in UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2002) which, in Article 1, states that cultural diversity is “as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”. The Declaration points both to the need to accept the plurality of our own, individual identities and to respect those of others in order to support a “more open, creative and democratic world”. The apparently noble notion that one can manage diversity in order to take advantage of the associated advantages while minimising the problems that may arise can, in its extreme form, be connected with literary depictions of totalitarian (and dystopian) societies as well as actual totalitarian governments such as Nazi Germany. Fictional depictions of highly regulated societies include Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. Huxley’s classic is of special relevance in considering diversity, as its portrayal of a world striving for sameness, de-individualisation and the division of labour represents a concerted effort to stamp out diversity. Within this framework, diversity is only valued within a highly regulated scheme and to the extent that it is essential for continued life (genetic diversity) and the computation of tasks that assure the operation of fundamental activities (division of labour), all of which are stripped of their individuality and the possibility of unique input by distinct people. Despite the extremity of Huxley’s depiction, the key elements can be seen in more moderate forms in historical and current governmental regimes and movements. As E.H. Carr noted in an observation about the rise of communism and the Soviet state, “ The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable” (1947). This is not to say that diversity is solely about individualism, but that individual differences can be seen as the foundation of diversity at other levels. Group diversity is not possible in the absence of individual diversity, which in turn depends on diversity at the biological or molecular level. This line of reasoning points to the interconnectedness of the different forms of diversity, beginning with the biological and moving up to individual characteristics followed by social and cultural elements such as language and traditions.

e Management Challenge of Diversity as an Asset

Whereas dystopian and totalitarian societies exercise extreme control over individual and group diversity, seeking to limit its existence to what is arguably the minimal level required for the functioning of a society, a greater degree of diversity is generally accepted as representing an enrichment and benefit to society. This is not to say that higher levels of diversity do not lead to conflict:

An Introduction

13

in fact, a brief review of history as well as theory in numerous disciplines clearly demonstrates the challenges that a group, community or country may face when diversity increases or changes. The “other” is ever present and may represent a real and/or perceived threat to the “in” group. In the light of the double-edged sword that is diversity, the challenge for scholars, researchers and leaders lies in understanding the nature of each form of diversity and how they interrelate and finding ways to maximise the benefits while minimising the drawbacks or potential for conflict. Cultural diversity is seen as a source of greater creativity (see the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity) or even productivity and is considered a desirable “good”. This is generally recognised across academic disciplines and within different political and social spheres and organisations. The question that arises is how can we turn it into a benefit and how can we then enhance it? How is it possible to support diversity while avoiding the “us” versus “them” conflicts? This is not to say, however, that the desire for diversity should be taken to an extreme, as this would lead to complete chaos and anarchy. While it would take us away from a totalitarian state, it would mean moving from an absence of individual freedom to complete individual freedom. The management challenge lies in finding a balance and creating an environment in which diversity leads to a net good. Living in the social world, we can never expect to achieve this equilibrium; however, it may be possible to arrive at something that approaches it. Through the combined knowledge in economics, sociology, anthropology, ecology and other disciplines, we can perhaps begin to understand the interconnectedness of different diversities at different levels. This understanding can then be used to support the development of policies and actions that consider diversity in a more holistic manner, taking into consideration diversity’s complexity and capacity to not only enrich life but also threaten it. As in the biological, ecological world around us, the challenge for scholars of cultural, social and economic diversity is to find the situation(s) within a given system in which diversity contributes positively to the operation of the system. More importantly, this management is not expected to eliminate barriers but rather create value in the form of cross-fertilisation as well as enrich images, techniques and entire cultures.

e Volume

This book stems from the conviction that in the light of the increasing flows of goods, people and capital and the growing diversity in all societies, it is crucial to support policymakers with solid research-based evidence for inter-

14

Diversity Research and Policy

ventions rather than leave diversity management to the market. It is believed that multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research and theory development are essential for effectively understanding and responding to the challenges and questions posed by the diverse world in which we live. Although the book is not (and cannot) be exhaustive in the number of disciplines it covers, an effort was made to look at diversity from as many disciplines and angles as possible. While the inclusion of other classical disciplines such as biology and history and newer disciplines such as gender studies would certainly have enhanced the volume, the list of possibilities is extensive. We believe that the topics treated here open the debate in a comprehensive manner. We strongly encourage further research in the area and suggest that the reflections on diversity developed here be extended to other disciplines. The chapters were designed to include: – Theoretical approaches, which relate more to the historical origins and development of diversity; – Disciplines focusing on the identification of trends and leading to the creation of a collective set of ethical values and their criticism in Western societies (in fields such as social anthropology, sociology and linguistics); – Disciplines that look at the way in which values and social life are shaped and directed (such as criminology, ecology and law); and – Very practical investigations into how diversity affects or is affected by certain disciplines (looking at diversity as a practical element feeding positively into creativity in architecture or creativity and productivity in psychology, business management and economics). The twelve contributions in this book share several characteristics that fall into different groups: – In terms of the role of diversity, we see disciplines where diversity is inherent (as in history, social anthropology and linguistics), others where diversity is a background for practical applications (urban planning and law) and still others where diversity is studied as a tool for better policy developments (psychology, business and economics). – In terms of timing – or changes in the level of awareness or focus – diversity is originally either totally unobserved in the discipline or uniformity is a preferred state. In most cases, diversity becomes an element of study only in modern society (e.g., sociology, law, architecture, urban planning). – In terms of level, diversity is studied both at the micro and macro level (e.g., micro- and macro-sociology, micro- and macroeconomics).

An Introduction

15

We now describe more specifically the disciplines included in this book, categorising them on the basis of the role of diversity in each. Two disciplines where diversity is part of the core of their analyses are: 1 Social anthropology, which studies human behaviour and knowledge including human relationships, symbols and their meanings, values, norms and related phenomena, addresses the permanent tensions between the concepts of unity and diversity (variability) of humankind as well as the concept of culture as a universal human characteristic and as a commonly shared group bond. Social anthropology is somehow the cornerstone of this book, as it holds that diversity within human society is necessary for its existence, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds that allow for their mutual cooperation. 2 In sociology, research focuses on the individual in society and the totality of meanings that describe social relations. Within this framework, “diversity” as a subject of study becomes a fundamental element, since it defines the variability in human action in society. Diversity is understood here as nonconformity. Somehow it brings the values of the system of reference into question and requires – if we view the facts from a functionalist perspective – solutions in order to manage it. In this way, the behaviour is understood as something that is not shared by the majority. Two disciplines define diversity with one parameter only; this can be used to draw analogies and enrich the theoretical thinking in our sense of diversity. In both cases it is clear that market mechanisms are not only insufficient but also endanger the preservation of diverse species and languages, justifying public intervention: 3 In the case of ecology and diversity, the authors make an analogy between nature and society. The chapter looks at how issues of biodiversity affect the economy and society. The recognition that biological diversity is of critical importance for the stability of the earth’s ecosystem offers a complementary perspective to the view that biodiversity provides a fundamental potential for human use, such as sustainable development, recreation, human health and scientific research. The chapter is an illustration of the controversy evident in the relationship between society and the economy: the social value of various biodiversity goods and service flows is insufficiently (or not at all) reflected in market prices. The authors also stress the relevance of public intervention to eliminate negative externalities. 4 Linguistics is another area that strictly defines diversity. While the application of diversity within linguistics is particular, relevant analogies exist, especially in the case of regional minority language groups. To some ex-

16

Diversity Research and Policy

tent it is close to the ecology chapter since, as with species, the number of languages in the world is diminishing at a fast rate. The recognition of the need to preserve linguistic diversity has led to special language policies to maintain and promote the use of minority languages, especially in Europe. Based partly on the above disciplines – which provide the theoretical justification – and partly on research and evidence, seven disciplines include diversity both in their research and policy arenas. Diversity in architecture and urban planning is reflected in artefacts, creativity and routines that affect both daily life and cultural heritage. Law, criminology and economics deal with the way society protects and is protected from potential dangers of diversity as it simultaneously strives to exploit diversity for productivity growth and welfare. Finally, at the micro-level, psychology and business organisation studies investigate how to turn diversity into profitability in the workplace: 5 Architecture is determined by the prevailing social and economic conditions while the architect unconsciously acquires society’s underlying ideological assumptions. As such, architecture is an expression of the age and society in which “cultural diversity” has emerged as a leading concept. Cultural diversity is expressed in the debate about the ethnicisation of architecture versus the need to support creativity and innovation in the built environment that derives from contemporary living conditions in which diverse cultures come to share both the assets and goals directed at securing an attractive and sustainable environment for a better future. 6 At an aggregate level, diversity in urban planning describes the range of visible and non-visible differences, characteristics or attributes of cities that both challenge traditional approaches of standardisation and seek to recognise and appreciate factors that make individuals and groups unique. Diversity has permeated all subfields of planning, becoming increasingly central to the study and planning of cities – especially as they become the ultimate places of cultural encounter, changing land use, aesthetics, architecture, the ecosystem and meeting places for peoples from or of different backgrounds, races, social classes, gender, age, languages, beliefs, etc. In conformity with the other disciplines described above, the oldest and most dominant tradition of urban planning claimed that homogeneity and shared identity are conditions for manageable and prosperous cities. Diversity entered planning theory principally through post-modern/ post-structuralist critiques of modernism’s master narratives and more specifically in response to urban landscapes of segregation, urban renewal, massive housing projects or sterile environments of repetition and waste.

An Introduction

17

7

Diversity is not a consistent notion within economics. The closest systematic enquiries within this discipline are the economics of discrimination in the US, which focused on issues referring to gender and race; this began in the 1960s but has diminished over the years. Increases in migration and capital flows in recent years have led to a growing focus on diversity as an element of study in research, looking at how different forms of diversity affect productivity and economic expansion. Diverse groups are individually studied as a means to achieve the goals of stability and growth. Gender, race, skills and other dimensions have been used as interdisciplinary input by distinguished scholars. Once seen in relation to a hostile attitude towards labour substitution by migrants, diversity is now seen as either endangering social capital or as nurturing creativity through tolerance. 8 Business studies and organisational psychology, a branch of psychology, focuses on the functioning of individuals and groups in organisations. Work and organisational psychologists analyse working individuals’ and workgroups’ behaviours, attitudes and performance to identify ways to improve performance or eliminate barriers to performance. 9 Based on organisation psychology, diversity has become a popular topic in business management among Western managers, practitioners and scholars emerging in the US, where the workforce has become more diverse. Studies on diversity management in Europe often analyse how the meaning of diversity and diversity management practices change in the process of institutional translation due to the distinct contextual factors and the power local actors have in the process of “implementing” diversity. In explaining why people hold prejudices or display discriminatory behaviour, organisational research commonly draws inspiration from traditional psychological perspectives. Diversity management literature in the European context, however, is still at its beginnings and rarely attempts to identify and describe effective practices. 10 In the case of law, the general principles of equality are considered as an application of human rights. Equality before the law is an important principle in legal philosophy and juridical theory and practice, linked to the fundamental idea that all people are of equal worth – a conceptual universal equality beyond inherent differences, which embeds the concept of diversity. From a legal perspective, diversity is largely linked to principles related to the observance of specific aspects of human rights, especially with respect to equality of treatment and non-discrimination, combating discrimination on various grounds (e.g., sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) without exclud-

18

Diversity Research and Policy

11

ing other possible grounds. In recent decades, legislative measures have moved away from the protection of minorities and towards proactive affirmative actions as anti-discrimination provisions. In criminology, the idea of diversity is fundamental to the discipline in that individual, familial, social, political, economic and other differences provide explanations not only for why people commit crime, but also for what constitutes a crime. This latter consideration is important in that criminology is based on the occurrence of a phenomenon that is defined within a community or society. A behaviour or act (or failure to do something) does not constitute a crime until it is defined as such within the law and punishable in accordance with the law. This means that diversity in culture and social conditions may lead to markedly different laws and hence different notions of what is and is not a crime.

Taken together, these chapters represent an effort to bring together multiple conceptualisations and usages of diversity – as a term or as a concept – across disciplines. Each chapter provides: 1) an overview of the meaning and categorisation of diversity within the discipline and relevant sub-disciplines; 2) the relevance and place of diversity in theory, research and policy/practice; and 3) a consideration of the role that diversity will play within the discipline in the future. Inevitably the emphasis in each discipline lies in different sub-sections, not all of which are included here. For social anthropology and linguistics, theorising is more important than policy, whereas the opposite is true for business management. No efforts were made to further standardise or limit the degrees of freedom in each discipline. Policy implications and theoretical insights from all disciplines are discussed in two final overarching sections that provide policy conclusions and an academic synthesis that includes areas for further research. The work is intended to be of interest to diversity scholars and researchers in multiple disciplines who engage in multidisciplinary research or seek to enhance their own research by turning to knowledge and advances in other disciplines. Furthermore, it is of interest to policymakers, as it provides important input on the political implications of diversity in all its forms. It is important to recognise that diversity cuts across disciplines and that the study of diversity or a consideration of its impact on different spheres of life can greatly benefit from collaboration between experts in different fields and research that incorporates multiple, and more nuanced, understandings.

An Introduction

19

Note 

As described and promoted by thinkers such as Émile Durkheim.

References

Carr, E.H. 1947. The Soviet Impact on the Western World. New York: Macmillan. EUMC. 2008 Annual Report. http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction =content.dsp_cat_content&catid=4860badc7f081. Huxley, A. Brave New World. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maurice, A. March 2004. Foreigners are seen as danger and their invasion as out of control. Le Monde Diplomatique. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/ archives/60/126.html More, Sir Th. Utopia. Orwell, G. 1984. Plato. The Republic. New CUP translation by T. Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

20

Diversity Research and Policy

2

Diversity and Social Anthropology1 Zdenek Uherek

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Social Anthropology

Social anthropology is a discipline situated between the social sciences and the humanities that studies human behaviour and knowledge including human relationships, symbols and their meanings, values, norms and related phenomena. These areas of the study of social anthropology are frequently incorporated into the synoptic term culture.2 Social anthropology includes two areas of study: 1 the interactional area, which studies human behaviour in groups, concentrates on the question of how human groups are structured, the power relations and relations of responsibility and obligation that exist within them, and how the groups conduct themselves in mutual contact. 2 the ideational area, which focuses on the knowledge, symbols, values and norms that are applied in human activities, studies what objectives people want to achieve, which models they follow, what they believe in, what attitudes they adopt towards the world around them, and what significance their activities and the context have for them. This discipline has two aims: 1 To examine, describe and analyse human behaviour, knowledge symbols, values and norms and related phenomena and thus to contribute to the study of human beings as a specific form of life in its unity and diversity; 2 To comprehend how people perceive the world, how they evaluate and categorise it, and how they reflect on their own activity. Social anthropology works with two points of view that are relevant to the aims of this volume: a the etic perspective, a perspective of scientific categories, concepts and explanations (observer’s perspective);

21

b

the emic perspective, a perspective of the studied agents and their view of the world (participant’s perspective).3

Social anthropology is currently developing in many diversified milieus, which influence its priority topics. Whereas in Great Britain it largely focused on research of populations outside of Europe until the second half of the twentieth century, in the United States it concentrated on studies of the native population of the American continent and immigrants, alongside research on the Third World. In contrast, Russian anthropology devoted a great deal of attention to the study of non-Russian nations within its territory. In continental Europe, the discipline was dominated by studies of the researchers’ own nations, namely from an historical perspective. This concerns the Northern European countries, where social anthropology played an important role in the consolidation of nation-states, just like the countries of Central Europe where, in addition to national emancipation, anthropological studies allowed for the definition of minority groups. Social anthropology had a similar role in the Balkan states. Following existing models, particularly those of British and American social anthropology, social anthropological schools have also emerged in the Third World. Many of these stand in sharp disagreement with the original European models particularly in their assessment of the research results of their own territories. This illustrates how anthropology often serves to recognise the social diversity of groups within their own territory, as is the case in China, India and Indonesia, as well as for national or ethnic emancipation.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Anthropology

Social anthropology develops within a state of constant conflict between the concepts of unity and diversity. On the one hand, it works with the concept of the unity of mankind and studies its possibilities and limitations, and on the other hand it works with the variability of the manifestations and symbolic worlds of individuals and social groups. The permanent tensions between the concepts of unity and diversity (or variability) of humankind also manifest themselves in the variability of the elementary concept of culture, which is central to the study of social anthropology. On the one hand, social anthropology works with the concept of culture as a universal human characteristic. In this concept, culture is an elementary human bond arising in every human grouping. It is a specific way of how people react to the world around them as well as to each other. On the other

22

Diversity Research and Policy

hand, social anthropology works with the concept of culture as a commonly shared group bond. In this case, cultures are referred to in the plural as specific manifestations of individual human groupings. In the sense of cultures as group bonds, it is assumed that every culturally defined group has a different culture. The concept of culture can thus be used as a tool for the study of both human unity and diversity. Both basic concepts of culture consider human diversity to be an unavoidable human characteristic, a part of human history. Without regard to the concept of culture/cultures, social anthropologists study humankind by studying human diversity. Along with the concept of culture/cultures, social anthropologists work with other concepts that make it possible to capture human diversity as well as people’s need to form groups and other organisational units. These include the following concepts: – individual – family – kinship group – age group (category) – gender group – local group (community) – ethnicity, ethnic group – nation – religious group – professional group – interest group – social strata (class) These concepts are of various levels of generality. The categories of diversity that are used by social anthropologists differ depending on the social organisation of the society. Not all the diversification categories that are employed in relation to complex societies can be used for simple societies. Whereas phenomena related to the concepts of individual, family, kinship, gender, age, or religious groups can be studied in all human societies, ethnicity, nationality, professional and class differentiations are only typical for some human groupings and developmental epochs. These basic concepts used for the study of social diversity, are simultaneously of emic and etic character.4 Although they are used as analytical terms, they are derived from a conceptualisation of the world by the agents under study. The phenomena ascribed to the concepts of individual, age group, local group, professional group and social class are perceivable even if they are

Diversity and Social Anthropology

23

not conceptualised by the agents themselves. Phenomena assignable to the concepts of ethnicity, nationality, family and ancestral membership are social constructions which disappear as soon as the agents themselves do not define themselves that way. Whenever they themselves, or their social surroundings, do not use the given concept in reference to them, such delimited groups cease to exist. From this perspective, gender definition is not unambiguous, because gender differences are largely defined by the actors. However, considering the biological differences between men and women, gender remains latently present independent of the will of the actors. In our contemporary diversified world, additional categories, alongside the ones listed above, are used for grasping human diversity. These include but are not limited to: migration group, minority, social network, and socially excluded group. The contemporary categorisation of diversity reflects the fact that a large part of the contemporary world is organised in nation-states, on whose territory one or several official languages, a state-approved version of history, preferred religion and values and normative systems are codified. The power relations in individual states create the picture of the majority and minority cultures, preferred, tolerated and forbidden religions, ways of life, values and norms as well as interpersonal relations. Every continent, and Europe in particular, has many examples of stormy transformations of marginal groups into majority groups, suppressed cultures into preferred ones. The groups delimit each other in mutual contact and under the influence of power pressures. The change of social context alters also the character of diversity. The concepts used by social anthropology for the description and interpretation of diversity are normally derived from the context of Euro-American civilisation. In other contexts, they often assume different meanings or their interpretation is imprecise. This problem was already encountered by, for example, British researcher William Henry Robert Rivers, when on the expedition of Alfred Cort Haddon to Torres Straits in 1898-1899 he attempted to utilise his modification of the genealogical method in research on fertility for the first time. His seemingly objectivistic and universal method based on the application of family genealogical trees failed not only due to the difference in kinship systems and terminology, but also due to the fact that on Murray Island, where Rivers conducted the research, the population basically did not distinguish between their ‘own’ and ‘adopted’ children, or did not distinguish between consanguinity and adoption. William Rivers claimed that he knew about this fact and tried to avoid the misunderstanding, but his text demonstrates that he was not 100 certain of success in this area (Rivers 1900: 76).

24

Diversity Research and Policy

In the field of social anthropology, the diversity of society has led to the diversification of the research instruments and of the subject of study itself. The sustainability of this diversity within the field has been widely discussed and comes into conflict with the need for a standardised scientific discourse.

e Relevance of Diversity In Theory

Social anthropology rests on the doctrine that the diversity of human society is necessary for its existence, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds, which allow for their mutual cooperation. These social bonds create social cohesion and create the impression of homogeneity in a diversified society. Since the beginnings of sociology and social anthropology, the principle of social cohesion has been seen in the mutual relations of congruity and diversity. This topic was already dealt with by Émile Durkheim in his examination of mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim [1893] 1997). Diversity in the Durkheimian concept is a desirable social trait; it is a sign of development, a basic characteristic of modern society. The idea that social cohesion is achieved by the balance of shared conceptions, aims, values and norms on the one hand and on the other hand by the diversification of capabilities, knowledge and interests, which are mutually complemented by individuals and groups, is still relevant in the field of social anthropology. The topic was similarly addressed by Robert Redfield, who also based his work on the difference between traditional and modern societies. Unlike Durkheim, however, he sees internal structure and hierarchy as core characteristic of traditional (simple) societies. Nevertheless, modern, complex societies are more diversified: mutual relations interconnect more coherent ‘traditional’ segments that were formerly closed to each other. The high level of social cohesion within simple societies and the suspicion of the world around them is suppressed in modern societies at the expense of social contacts outside the original groups. The original social bonds, such as religion and family ties, recede before formalised law, institutionalised education and the morality of urban society (Redfield 1953). The conception of modern societies as diversified, segmented and characterised by heterogeneous social contacts is relatively frequent. In sociologist Louis Wirth’s treatment of the subject, diversified urbanised society leads towards greater tolerance, rationality and secularisation of the person, although he also mentions its ‘schizoid’ character. He states that diversity and numer-

Diversity and Social Anthropology

25

ous social contacts lead to superficiality and a feeling of loneliness (Wirth 1938). The knowledge that mutual contacts do not necessarily bring individuals and groups together was, however, brought to anthropology in the 1930s by Robert Redfield, Ralph Lindton and Melville Herskovits in their Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation (1935). With the increasing amount of anthropological research as well as the growing diversity of society, the number of examined variations of how individuals and groups can react to each other also increases. In his work Urbanism and Suburbanism as a Way of Life, Herbert Gans points out the schematic nature of Wirth’s portrait of an urban person and claims that the city provides space for isolated individuals as well as for building ethnic villages (Gans 1968). Whereas French and Anglo-American social anthropologists, in particular, saw a rather positive and unavoidable phenomenon in the diversification of society that accompanied the processes of modernisation and industrialisation, nationalistically oriented social sciences saw diversity as being a danger for national unity and required that scientists stimulate society to a return to its historical roots and the strengthening of the national spirit. This tendency continued up until 1945 in the German Volkskunde as well as other academic schools in Central Europe, in Italy and in the Balkans. From the extensive pleiade of researchers, we should at least name the pioneer of this concept in Germany, Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1862). In the given conception, diversity was connected with the individualism of industrial society and the destruction of pre-industrial ‘tribal’ solidarity. One of the most known concepts reflecting this view is Tönnies’s concept of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, the concept of human sociability arising from two types of will, of which the one that leads towards coherent communities (Gemeinschaft) is natural (Wesenwille), and the one that leads towards diversification and individualistic society (Gesellschaft) is arbitrary (Kürwille) (Tönnies 1887). The specific concept of the dichotomy of homogeneity and diversity in connection with traditional and modern societies, which played into nationalistic ideology and elitism, was criticised in Germany after World War II by Hermann Bausinger, who showed that the creation of borders between traditional and modern societies is artificial and teleological. His ‘third way’ lay in the abandonment of the creation of a boundary line between traditional and modern societies (Bausinger 1961). Durkheim’s tendency to ascribe a preference for uniformity and homogeneity explicitly to simple societies and the movement towards diversity and division of labour to complex societies has also been subjected to criticism. As argued for instance by Alban Bensa, strong individualities are also appreciated in simple societies and even here

26

Diversity Research and Policy

the division of labour exists on the basis of principles similar to those on which the concept of organic solidarity is built (Bensa 2006). Whereas the division between traditional and modern societies was gradually perceived to be less significant as anthropological thought developed in the twentieth century, the difference between individual cultures appeared to be increasingly complicated, especially with the development of methods for studying language, thought, values, and norms within individual social groupings. Cultural relativity in anthropology, which was already evident in the Franz Boas’ historical particularism and his students’ configurationism, became the dominant direction of anthropological thought in the second half of the twentieth century. Inspired by Clifford Geertz, interpretative anthropology in the 1960s-1990s emphasised the complicated comparability of groups, delimited mainly in religious and ethnic terms, in the areas of values, norms, symbols and meanings (Geertz 1973). The aims of an anthropology so conceived are to read and reconstruct the symbolic worlds of individual cultures and to be the interpreter of the symbolic system of one culture to another. Other than demonstrating the incomparability of individual cultures and their poor mutual compatibility, interpretative anthropologists attempted to de-exoticise cultures, especially those of the Third World, to show their functionality, ‘normalcy’ and right to free development. The doctrine of cultural relativism formed in parallel with the concept of a global economic-political system (Wallerstein 1974) and was an effect of the decolonisation of the Third World and the emergence of a globalised society. The concepts of the singularity and unrepeatability of individual cultures led to an understanding of human diversity as a value that is possessed by humankind and must be preserved and protected. Social anthropologists began seeking parallels between attitudes towards biodiversity and human diversity. The problems of research on cultural contacts and reactions of groups to cultural contacts stood at the birth of the theory of ethnic boundaries. The concept – which makes it possible to comprehend the social organisation of ethnic otherness in a diversified environment – was formulated by Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth (Leach 1954, Barth 1969). Barth’s hypothesis that ethnicity is not a product of cultural difference but of social organisation has become an important guideline for research in diversified contexts. Researchers doing empirical research began to focus on culturally delimiting phenomena and on processes creating otherness. In terms of methodology, Leach’s and Barth’s research into the social organisation of cultural difference has been a significant scientific breakthrough. At the end of the twentieth century, the number of individuals as well as groups of people acting beyond the borders of clearly delimited cultures in-

Diversity and Social Anthropology

27

creased. The conception of closed cultures in the plural is made ever more problematic by the increasing number of modern nomads, who are not tied to one place, and the increasing importance of global cultural flows and standardised products used on a global scale. At the same time, national cultures do not have to be tied to one territory: mass media and migration encourage a culturally hybrid society (Eriksen 2006). Local varieties of religion, art and food can be enjoyed by people all over the world, even if the object of their interest is far away, and everyday contacts with acquaintances and relatives thousands of kilometres away are easily maintained. Thanks to schools, media and supranational institutions, people have similar perceptions of time and space all over the world, use the same measures and weights, have the same knowledge of health and illness and similar concepts of what human rights should be. In light of new social phenomena, the view of national identities has begun to be reassessed; they have started to be perceived as constructions conditioned by time (Hobsbawm 1990, Gellner 1997). The nation and nationstates, which for more than a hundred years created the perception that the world is a mosaic of definable cultures, have begun to lose many of their functions. The concept of diversity as variability among spatially well bounded cultures diversified by different languages, values, norms and habits has been contested. With growing globalisation, the conception of how globalisation would affect mankind started to be modified at the beginning of the 1990s. The presumption that global contacts automatically unified the cultures of diversified human groups began to recede. Instead, the concept of a global asymmetrical network of centre-periphery flows, where individuals and groups themselves actively participate in the reception and modification of the contents and meanings of global cultural impetuses (Hannerz 1992, Paine 1992), and the concept of glocalisation as a new form of interpersonal and group contacts where the global system enables direct contacts between locally situated communities (Robertson 1992) started to assert themselves. The new situation found a response in anthropology of proximity and distance, when in local situations people cope with impetuses that originate in distant places and also with people who come from such distant places (Augé 1994). The perspective of local cultures also started to change. Development began to be perceived in the wider context of power relations, as well as of an individual as a social agent, whose specific behaviour and decision-making have been hidden up to now behind the ideas of shared values, norms or collective identities. With the nation gradually withering away, more attention is paid to local identities in complex societies. In this connection, human society

28

Diversity Research and Policy

already ceases to be conceptualised as a mosaic of distinctive cultures and with this anthropologists’ research strategies have also changed. Diversity is still at the centre of interest in anthropology, but there has been a visible change in focus from diversity in spatially located groups to an action orientation and thus diversity in relation to acting individuals; from the diversity of local cultures to the diversity of spatially unbounded movements, fashions, rumours, tendencies; and from spatially limited power relations to worldwide interdependencies, stigmatised and handicapped categories of people. In Research

From its beginnings, the study of social anthropology has developed from research on human diversity by means of studies of closed individual cultures to the – sometimes comparative – study of diversified human society in its local manifestations. Research on diversified society assumes a number of forms and varies with the subject studied. The development of research tools proceeds from studying clearly defined groupings in social distance and conceptualising them either as primitives or folk (Kuper 1988), to acknowledging different forms of human variety and sociability. Anthropological research of diversified society has created new research tools and concepts that are no longer tied to one place and group, as was the case in studies of closed separated cultures or small isolated groups of individuals. The monographic method of long-term participant observation and interviews began in the 1940s and 1950s; these were complemented by situational analyses that developed into case studies. Max Gluckman (1940) and Clyde Mitchell (1956) were among those who masterfully applied this approach in diverse African settings. Max Gluckman (1955) also introduced conflict analysis at that time in his work in Africa. In the urban milieu and in socially diversified areas, the classical genealogical method in social anthropology was complemented by network analysis (Barnes 1972). In reaction to interculturalism and the multiple cultural flows influencing individuals as well as groups in post-modern society, anthropology in the 1980s and 1990s began to work with Wallerstein’s concept of a global system and centre-periphery relations. The discipline developed so-called multi-sited ethnography, which endeavours to capture wider system bonds and focuses on a group or individual who acts in a number of milieus and contexts rather than on a locality (Marcus 1998). Through research on the population of the Tonga archipelago, a part of whom live in Great Britain and Australia, George Marcus showed that not every person perceives the centre-periphery relations

Diversity and Social Anthropology

29

as outlined by Immanuel Wallerstein, and that for a number of immigrant groups in Europe that have their roots in non-European regions, the centreperiphery flows act conversely (Marcus 1998, Paine 1992). Changes in the world order have also modified the subject of study. Geertz’s research results (1973) led to a deviation from seeking the exotic and cultural differences. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was shown that the fascination with exoticism, alterity, as it was presented by anthropology, rather aided the expansion of Western imperialism into the Third World (Wolf 2001). Anthropologists have therefore not focused on exotic and exclusive topics but rather on system bonds and on authentic depositions of the agents through which an anthropologist can articulate their own view of the world and life in it. Interpretive anthropologists developed interviewing techniques and joined anthropological concepts with contemporary philosophical notions. Paul Rabinow introduced the notion that the collection of data is a mutual dialogue between the researcher and the actor to social anthropology; both personalities are seen as crucial to the process of gaining anthropological knowledge. In this conception, anthropological knowledge is intersubjective (Rabinow 1977). The problem of diversity of cultures is now extended to include diversity of information, meanings, its interpretation, and individual reception. The ‘de-exotification’ of anthropology and the travelling of cultures in the global world blurred the differences between the anthropologies of distant continents and civilisations and anthropologies implemented in localities where anthropologists are the autochthonic populace. Still in the second half of the twentieth century, the localisation of research differentiated AngloAmerican anthropologists from Continental European researchers, but currently this division is irrelevant. An anthropologist commonly implements research abroad and subsequently studies similar language cultural groups as migration groups in the country of origin or studies phenomena in the country of origin similar to those that he/she studied abroad on other groups. The combination of the view on distant cultures and on one’s own culture was developed already by Claude Lévy Strauss (1961), David Schneider (1968) and Jack Goody (1976). The focus of the view on one’s own culture in the second half of the twentieth century began to be labelled as repatriated, or ‘at home’, anthropology. In connection with the reassessment within scientific anthropology of social distance and the elucidation of the role of anthropology in colonial empires, an anthropology critical of Western colonialism gradually developed along with the ‘at home anthropology’, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when graduates of Western universities who were originally from Third World countries attempted to apply the perspective of their countries of origin. De-

30

Diversity Research and Policy

spite the problematic question of what perspective was actually applied, a whole range of interesting polemical works emerged implying the diversity of views and perspectives of a diversified world. Most likely, the best-known work of this sort is Edward Said’s Orientalism, which endeavoured to conceptualise how West Europeans create a picture of ‘the others’ (Said 1978). For example, the publications of Talal Asad (e.g., 1973) also received wide acceptance. Mondher Kilani (1994) and other authors later built on this discourse. The topics of critical reflexive anthropology have also been dealt with by, for instance, George Marcus and James Clifford, with his concept of anthropological authority (Clifford, Marcus 1986). ‘At home’ anthropology provides greater scope for the academic communities of the Second and Third Worlds to establish their own anthropological schools, to study their own cultures and to articulate their own opinion not only as Third World graduates of Western universities, but also as people who have worked in the Third World their entire lives. Sometimes, this approach is labelled from a Eurocentric perspective as indigenous anthropology. Indian anthropology, in particular, was close to that, and the problems of indigenous anthropology were widely discussed in connection with the works of Indian as well as Arab anthropologists in the 1980s (Fahim 1982). Nevertheless, the ‘at home’ perspective remained an anthropological constant that permanently changed the optics of near and far. As Mariza Peirano suggested in the case of Brazil, exoticism and the concept of ‘the others’ acquires other meanings for Third World researchers than for Western researchers (Peirano 1998). Yet the concept of home can also be understood quite diversely. For example, in 2009 the members of the authorial team coming from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe applied this perspective in an effort to offer alternative views on the transforming states that had recently acceded to the European Union (Kürti, Skalník 2009). Leach’s and Barth’s boundary research had already weakened the concept of closed cultures. The question has again arisen about the anthropological method used in specific research. The view that it is necessary to focus on the study of specific social events rather than on the study of the phenomena that could represent culture has been well received. Only from such events is it possible to deduce the social relations involved in them, or symbols used in them, or values manifested in them (Barth 2001). This methodological demand makes it possible to eliminate ‘finding’ closed cultures where they are arbitrarily projected by the researcher. The emphasis on the study of social events indicates a tendency towards empirical research. Diversity of cultures becomes unimportant; diversity in social behaviour and actions represents the main point of interest.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

31

The disintegration of traditional and national cultures currently leads to greater individualisation of research. Researchers have a greater tendency to consider the fact that the creators of social situations are primarily individuals, collectives only in the transferred meaning of the word. The concept of shared values, norms and meanings is thought of by some researchers as groupism, behind which it is necessary to seek a specific creator and agent (Brubaker 2004). The main question currently is how to study individual conduct in a social context. Research on the diversity of groups has shifted in some works to research on the diversity of the individual and diversified people in a social context. For Policy/Practice

Social anthropology was influenced by, and in turn influenced, specific political practice, especially that of European colonial powers towards non-European countries (Stocking 1991), as well as issues of interethnic coexistence in Europe and on the American continent, especially where they concern migrant groups and indigenous people. The issue of coexistence in diversified non-European societies was addressed in the 1950s and 1960s by the so-called Manchester School, which focused primarily on Africa, where it developed perspectives on newly formed urban ethnicities, social change, conflict situations and the adaptation of indigenous societies to urbanised culture. British anthropologists were part of the British colonial apparatus but held sceptical or directly critical attitudes on colonial practices (Werbner 1984). They drew attention to the unfavourable social trends and the failure of individual groups to coexist, although the anthropologists usually could not directly influence political practice. Max Gluckman, in particular analysed the weak social ties between the British colonial power and local chiefs in ethnically diversified African society. A strong impetus to utilising anthropological knowledge in practice was World War II with its encounters of troops as well as mentalities. First of all in the United States, anthropologists organised areal studies and tried to use their notions directly in war practice. Significant examples are provided by the works of Margaret Mead, which attracted the attention of the American public during World War II as well as during the subsequent Cold War. Examples include her analysis of the behaviour of the American soldiers in the United Kingdom during their war mission and her Soviet studies (Mead 1944, 1951). Anthropological knowledge also influenced a number of political doctrines. Classical anthropological works describe multicultural coexistence on

32

Diversity Research and Policy

the Indian subcontinent and mention colonial practices in this part of Asia. From the research in the Asian milieu, the concept of multiculturalism was transferred to Europe (Furnival 1948), which was later applied as a political concept in the Euro-Atlantic area, although it has recently been reassessed critically. The works capturing the ways in which modern political states were established in the multi-ethnic milieu of the Third World are also significant (e.g., Geertz 1964). The anthropological works that utilised the concept of social transformation, which became the political doctrine in the last decade of the twentieth century, are interesting albeit seldom quoted. Already in the 1950s, the concept of social transformation was applied by Robert Redfield on the emergence of a diversified urbanised society (Redfield 1953) and at approximately the same time by Melville Herskovits on the topic of African societies (e.g. Bascom, Herskovits 1959; Herskovits, Harwitz 1964). In the US, works published by sociologists that used data acquired mainly by anthropological research methods had both a direct and indirect impact. Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan, who at the beginning of the 1960s began to criticise the melting pot theory as a specific American variant of assimilationist policy (Glazer, Moynihan 1963) and developed new concepts that overturned the existing theory. Anthropologists have directly contributed to the preservation of human diversity by discovering and documenting human cultures, by building museums and by increasing our knowledge of indigenous people. In this way anthropologists also enhanced the declarations penned by UNESCO, especially its 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and its 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Anthropologists currently make pronouncements on the emerging European society and refer to its diversification, specificity and its being full of contradictions (Llobera 1994). They also express themselves on European integration policy (Gastelaars, Ruijter 1998; Shore 2000) and the issue of interculturalism or transculturalism (Kraidy 2005). The social anthropology community has had a significant impact on the sphere of political decision-making via UNESCO programmes, especially in the Management of Social Transformations [MOST] programme, the goal of which is to interconnect social science knowledge with political decisions. Anthropologists such as Charles Depaule, Christian Topalov, Arie de Ruijter and others have participated in research addressing the problem of diversity; this work has been directly oriented towards application in political practice. The UNESCO MOST programmes that are directly related to the issues of sustainable diversity include the ‘International Migration and Multicultural

Diversity and Social Anthropology

33

Policies’ and ‘Urban Development’ programmes. These programmes focus on: the eradication of poverty, aggression, and racism; the elimination of conflicts and discrimination; and the study of new forms of migration and inequalities all over the world. Intergenerational coexistence and ageing (i.e., diversified age groups) is currently considered to be an important topic for European countries. The need to participate in the decision-making process and create a knowledge society was dramatically declared at the International Forum on the Social Science - Policy Nexus in 2006. This led to the Buenos Aires Declaration, which called for a new approach to the social science - policy nexus. Through UNESCO, anthropologists began to utilise a condensed form of professional reports and policy papers for communication, where they present research results in an abbreviated and concentrated form, which makes it possible for decision-making bodies to quickly understand the issues and implications. Applied anthropology also plays an important role. Anthropologists participate as observers within war conflicts, serve as members of missions monitoring the course of elections or the observance of human rights, as well as programmes for people suffering from serious diseases, drug addicts, and people in socially excluded communities. Anthropologists’ motto when applying anthropological knowledge is that their research and application instruments are modified for interaction with minority and marginal groups as well as groups whose behaviour requires non-standard approaches. Anthropology can, for instance, recommend methods for the treatment of serious diseases that would correspond to the specific local cultural customs and conditions and thus facilitate therapy. It can also map out the local informal economy of health as it affects treatment-seeking and health-care decisions (Wallman 1996).

e Future of Diversity in Social Anthropology

Social anthropology is based on the study of diversified society, but its subject changes when studying the unity and diversity of humankind. The original study of diversified societies distant from the country of origin of the anthropologists is now only one part of the subject of anthropological study. Anthropology provides increasingly expressive answers to the questions that directly affect life in the countries of origin of the anthropologists both because their research is done in these countries and because the way of life in these countries is approaching the lifestyle in Europe or North America. Whereas anthropologists’ original objective was to study different cultures

34

Diversity Research and Policy

in order to acquaint themselves and others (their readers) with otherness, the attention has turned to learning about people in a world that is now perceived as shared. Social anthropology was designated a science at the time of the emergence and blossoming of nationalism and national cultures. Anthropologists measured diversity and the otherness of the studied nations and ethnic groups in comparison to the national cultures of Europe and North America. By thus becoming acquainted with otherness, Europeans gained an awareness of who they were (Said 1978). Currently, with nation-states beyond their zenith and the concept of national cultures becoming problematic, national cultures cannot be the measure of diversity and measure of research or assessment of global processes. A position paper by UNESCO prepared for the international forum of social sciences in Buenos Aires and Montevideo, which took place in September 2005, points out that an important step awaits social scientists because they will have to change their basic frame of reference from the state as the principal analytical basis to the global society. Changing the principal analytical basis not only reintroduces the question of who the main agents of social changes are, but also changes the research aims and priorities. National or state objectives and interests no longer stand in the foreground. The idea of how the world is structured is changing. From a global perspective, the division into ‘three worlds’ appears unsatisfactory today. The concept of the Third World neither corresponds to realistic economic flows, nor to the networks of world urban centres. The division of the world into the rich North and poor South is also not appropriate (Lee, Martin, Sonntag, Taylor, Wallerstein, Wieviorka 2005). In its ability to see the world in its unity and diversity, social anthropology is a step ahead of other social sciences: it has never focused exclusively on its own state and nation. While anthropologists have attempted to cope with Eurocentrism since the 1960s, it is questionable whether the discipline has ever managed to achieve a global perspective. In any case, anthropologists can view the world through the perspective of diversified objects of research. Anthropologists began the process of de-exoticising ‘others’ as early as the 1960s and are now beginning to work with hybrid groups. No one is evaluated or put into a certain category in advance; everyone is categorised solely on the basis of their behaviour and self-definition. With the decline of nation-states and nation cultures, the principal meaning of diversity as a subject of study in anthropology is changing from the diversity of nations and ethnic groups to the study of diversified interest groups, power relations, and acting individuals. Instead of focusing on the diversity of cultures, the anthropological agenda comprises the diversity of social events,

Diversity and Social Anthropology

35

narratives and their interpretations. The meaning of the concept of diversity has changed. We can speak about the privatisation of diversity: instead of the diversity of big groups we have the diversity of individuals; instead of ascribed diversity that is fatally shared for one’s entire life by imagined communities, we have flexible diversity that is subject to change during individuals’ lives, chosen diversity, and negotiated diversity. Given this new situation, the topic of ethnic diversity will probably recede from the foreground of social anthropology. Despite this, ethnic diversity remains a thorny issue and ethnic reactions may still affect relations in a glocal society. On the one hand, the continued inflow of migrants ensures that the theme of ethnicity will be a key topic in Europe for a number of years. On the other hand, the number of ethnically indifferent persons and people who perceive themselves as having two or more ethnic and national identities is likely to increase. However, the fluid individual diversity does not eradicate the sharp differences in access to resources and the numerous forms of power relations and loyalties that bond individuals together in social groups that compete against each other. In this sense of the world, concepts of collective behaviour are still reasonable. Even new types of ethnicity and national awareness, which are not tied to a place, can appear. An interesting example is the Roma’s national (un) consciousness (Uherek 2007). Specific local identities will also appear that will need to be given attention. An increasing number of studies address: the diversity of social representations; power manipulations with ethnicity and nationalism in a diversified society; individual agents in a diversified social and cultural context; and the abilities of various professional groups to cooperate and coexist. New perspectives on family, kinship and gender relations – all of which are related to the study of diversified society – are also topics with noteworthy shifts forward. The ‘at home anthropology’ and the increase in the quality and ability of universities outside Europe and the US have given rise to a diversity within the discipline of anthropology in different parts of the world. Present-day anthropologists often do not speak about anthropology but about world anthropologies and about searching for a new global scenario in the diversified discipline (Ribeiro, Escobar 2006) that is not rigidly imbedded in the ‘Western ideals of progress, modernity and development that have in turn inscribed a Western cosmology of thought patterns and knowledge-production methods within the discipline’ (Kim 2005: 135). Nevertheless, besides regional disparities, the common experience of new technologies, power relations, ecological and other problems poses similar questions across continents. As Marylin Strathern noted: ‘One of the enduring methodological conundrums

36

Diversity Research and Policy

of anthropology is how to hold in the same view what are clearly cultural and historical constructs and what are equally clearly generalities about social existence’ (Strathern 2005: vii).

Notes 

 



The discipline is denoted by different terms in accordance with the tradition of research developed in particular areas of the world. The term cultural anthropology came to be used in the US, while the term social anthropology was preferred in the UK. Both terms, along with the term ethnology, were used in continental Europe. Germany is a special case in this regard because of the division of the discipline into two branches: Volkskunde and Vőlkerkunde. For more details, see Barth, Gingrich, Parkin, Silverman . In this text, we refer to the discipline as social anthropology. For more details, see especially Borofsky ; Kuper ; Clifford . The linguist Kenneth Pike coined these terms by adapting the concepts of phonemic and phonetic, which describe linguistic behaviours, into the more neutral emic and etic, where the term etic refers to the professional description of the processes being observed and emic to the meanings that these processes have for the entities involved. These terms were introduced into anthropology by Marvin Harris (, ) and Ward Goodenough (). For more information, see Headland, Pike, Harris . The only exceptions are the concepts of social strata and class, which have also been used as analytic categories when the actors were not aware of their belonging to these categories.

References

Augé, M. 1994. Anthropologie des mondes contemporains. Paris: Aubier. Barnes, J. 1972. Social networks. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bascom, W.R. and Herskovits, J. (eds.) 1959. Continuity and change in African cultures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barth, F. (ed.) 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Barth, F. 2001. Rethinking the Object of Anthropology. In: Borofsky, R., Barth, F., Shweder, R., Rodset, L. and Stolzenberg, N. When: A Conversation about Culture. American Anthropolist. 103(2): 435-437. Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R. and Silverman, S. 2005. One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

37

Bausinger, H. 1961. Volkskultur in der technischen Welt. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Bensa, A. 2006. La fin de l’exotisme. Toulouse: Anacharsis. Borofsky, R. 2001. Introduction. In: Borofsky, R., Barth, F., Shweder, R., Rodseth, L., Stolzenberg, N. When: A Conversation about Culture. American Anthropolist. 103(2): 432-446. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. 1986. Writing Culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Durkheim, É. 1997 (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. Eriksen, T.H. 2006. Nations in Cyberspace. Short version of the 2006 Ernest Gellner lecture, delivered at the ASEN conference, London School of Economics, 27 March 2006. http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdf Fahim, H. (ed.) 1982. Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Furnival, J.S. 1948. Colonial Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gans, H. 1968. Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of Definitions. In: People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. New York: Basic Books. Gastelaars, M. and Ruijter, A. (eds.) 1998. A united Europe: The quest for a multifaceted identity. Maastricht: Shaker. Gellner, E. 1997. Nationalism. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press. Geertz, C. 1964. Agricultural Involution: The process of ecological change in Indonesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures; Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Glazer, N. and Moynihan, P. (eds.) 1963. Beyond the melting pot; The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gluckman, M. 1940. Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand. Bantu Studies. 14: 1-30. Gluckman, M. 1955. Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford: Blackwell. Goodenough, W. 1970. Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38

Diversity Research and Policy

Goodenough, W. 1970. Describing a Culture. In: Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104119. Goody, J., Thirsk, J. and Thompson, E.P. (eds.) 1976. Family and Inheritance: Rural society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hannerz, U. 1992. The Global Ecumene as a Network of Networks. In: Kuper, A. (ed.) Conceptualizing Society. New York: Routledge, 35-56. Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory; A history of theories of culture. New York: Crowell. Harris, M. 1976. History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5: 329-350. Harris, M. 1980. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York, Random House. Headland, T.N., Pike, K.L. and Harris, M. (eds.) 1990. Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Herskovits, M.J. and Harwitz, M. (eds.) 1964. Economic transition in Africa. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Hobsbawm, E. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kilani, M. 1994. L’invention de l’autre: essais sur le discours anthropologique. Lausane: Payot. Kim, D.H. 2005. Theory and Practice in the World Anthropology Network (WAN): An analysis of its goals and future developments. Journal of the World Anthropology Network. 1(1): 135-145. Kraidy, M.M. 2005. Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformation of an illusion. London and New York: Routledge. Kuper, A. 1999. Culture: The anthropologists’ account. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kürti, L. and Skalník, P. (eds.) 2009. Postsocialist Europe. Anthropological Perspectives from Home. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Leach, E.R. 1954. Political systems of highland Burma; A study of Kachin social structure. With a foreward by Raymond Firth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lee, R.E., Martin, W.J., Sonntag, H.R., Taylor, P.J., Wallerstein, I. and Wieviorka, M. 2005. Social Science and Social Policy: From National Dilemmas to Global Opportunities. Paris: UNESCO. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1961. La crise moderne de l´anthropologie. Paris: UNESCO.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

39

Llobera, J. 1994. The God of Modernity. The Development of Nationalism in Western Europe. Oxford, England and Providence, USA: Berg Publishers. Marcus, G.E. 1998. Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Mead, M. 1944. The American Troops and the British Community. London: Hutchinson. Mead, M. 1951. Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority; an interdisciplinary approach to the problems of Soviet character. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mitchell, C. 1956. The Kalela Dance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Paine, R. 1992. The Marabar Caves 1930-2030. In: Wallman, S. (ed.) Contemporary Futures: Perspectives from social anthropology. A.S.A. Monograph: Academic Press. Peirano, M. 1998. When Anthropology is at Home: The different contexts of a single discipline. Annual Review of Anthropology. 27: 105-128. Pike, K.L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Rabinow, P. 1977. Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press. Redfield, R. 1953. The primitive world and its transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M.J. 1936. Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist. 38(1): 149-152. Lins, G., Ribeiro, L. and Escobar, A. (eds.) 2006. World Anthropologies: Disciplinary transformations within systems of power. Oxford and New York: Berg. Riehl, W.H. 1862. Die deutsche Arbeit. Stuttgart: Cotta. Rivers, W.H.R. 1900. A Genealogical Method of Collecting Social and Vital Statistics. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 30: 74-82. Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Schneider, D. 1968. American Kinship: A cultural account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Shore, C. 2000. Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London and New York: Routledge. Stocking, G.W. (ed.) 1991. Colonial Situations: Essays in the contextualization of ethnographic knowledge. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Strathern, M. 2005. Kinship, Law and the Unexpected: Relatives are always a surprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40

Diversity Research and Policy

Tönnies, F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. Leipzig: Fues. Uherek, Z. 2007. Romany Migration Activities as Factor of Social Innovation. In: Vojtová, P. (ed.) Markers of Ethnic Marginalization on Aboriginal People in Canada and on Roma in Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. České Budějovice, University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, 269-283. Wallerstein, I.M. 1974. The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press. Wallman, S. 1996. Kampala Women Getting by: wellbeing in the time of AIDS. London: James Currey; Kampala: Fountain Publishers; Athens: Ohio University Press. Werbner, R. 1984. The Manchester School in the South-Central Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology. 13: 157-185. Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology. 44: 1-24. Wolf, E. 2001. Pathways of Power. Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

41

3

Diversity and Sociology

Emilio Gardini1

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Sociology

The birth of the discipline of sociology took place along with society’s efforts to respond to changes in advanced Western modernity. Following the industrial revolution and the major changes that have influenced human history, sociology presented itself as a discipline that seeks to identify the elements that allow for a reading of these major events. Sociology, then, is a response to changing societal conditions. One can affirm that the changes within advanced “modern” society and individuals’ subsequent responses to these changes represent the object of study in sociology. Sociological research today, which is based on the macro theories that we have come to know in recent history (e.g., functionalism, structuralism, conflict theory), reflects the intellectual culture of western Europe in the 1800s. Sociological research today does not make originality a prerogative, but rather influences future developments that will in turn impact sociological thinking. The technological changes that took place in England in the second half of the 1700s and the subsequent birth of major urban centres represent the elements of interest for the first sociologists and the prevailing focus of research. The positivistic studies by Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim reflect the bourgeois post-revolution French situation, while Karl Marx’s studies stem from the birth of classes within society and Max Weber’s socio-historical reading is an expression of capitalistic modernity. Sociology, then, is a response to the difficulties encountered in managing a situation that was markedly “diverse” in respect to the past and that European society found itself having to confront during a particular moment within “modern” history. The social change that followed the industrial revolution imposed a social order that led sociological thought to have to confront itself with that which is considered different from the past, mutable, in transformation.

43

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Sociology

Sociological research focuses on the individual in society and the totality of meanings that describe social relations. Within this framework, “diversity”, as a subject of study, becomes a fundamental element since it defines the variability in human action. It is from this premise that we can depart in order to focus on “sociology of diversity”. Diversity is a concept that, in and of itself, assumes multiple meanings that then become part of common usage from the moment in which they enter within the realm of “socio-economic ends” or become “useful” as assertion strategies. As such, “diversity” can mean many things; this chapter provides a sociological look at the various implications of “diversity” and how it is treated within the discipline. If, by diversity we mean (as we can derive from the etymology of the word) “that which converges elsewhere” (di-verse), whether this be a concept, a fact, a premise, or any other condition of a social phenomenon, then from the moment in which the concept “diversity” connotes some form of mutation or other divergence, we can deduct how diversity has become an object of sociological study and analysis as far as sociology is a discipline that studies social change. Within sociology, that which is “diverse” diverges from a pre-existing condition (if this exists), and hence undergoes a change in respect to the original condition. Or, vice versa, one could suppose that that which is diverse “maintains”, even from the beginning, conditions that on the basis “of their nature” differ from a presumed ideal type. It is necessary, however, to keep in mind that when one denotes social conditions as “natural”, one runs the risk of carrying the concept in question to extremes. If sustaining that something is “by nature” diverse induces one to consider diversity as an abnormal factor, then it is easy to develop prejudices that present the diversity as not being in line with the norm and consequently not in line with that which is right. The naturalisation of some concepts – and the case of diversity may be amongst these – renders the facts “ahistorical”, depriving them of possible critical operations. This occurs when the collective sense, the cultural system based on the experiences of the collective (Geertz 2001, Hannerz 1998, 2001), makes some concepts part of their cultural vocabulary and then attribute a multiplicity of meanings that often distance themselves from the object of reference. It is easy to recognise that the word diversity, from the moment in which it becomes a noun that assumes a connotative character – “the diversity of...”, for example – usually refers more to that which is abnormal, and hence beyond the norm, not in line with existing rules, than to a situation that is divergent in respect to another. The concept of diversity also denotes “a diverse condition” in which case one speaks about a condition of difference that does not

44

Diversity Research and Policy

necessarily include an element of judgement or value in which one is better than the other. If the concept of diversity assumes a character that focuses on value, then the element in question is subject to judgement. The role of sociology – which principally focuses on collective behaviour, the behaviour of individuals within society, and the means by which individuals construct relations with others – is that of questioning arbitrary constructions and revealing their implications. Diversity, understood as non-conformity, in some manner brings the values of the system of reference into question and requires – if we view the facts from a functionalist perspective – solutions in order to manage it. In this way the behaviour is understood as something that is not shared by the majority (Santambrogio 2003). Diversity, understood in this manner, determines two changes within a social system: the first is given by the presence of components of “diversity” within the context, the second by the adjustments made to manage the diversity. The systemic (and functionalist) view, however, is not helpful in the deconstruction of the concept of diversity in a social context; within this framework, diversity is understood either as an element that leads to a rupture in socially shared values – as understood in the youth sub-cultures and the outsiders in the 1960s and 1970s – or as a functional value and not as an element that brings different meanings that in some way enter the social context.

Diversity in Sociological eory

Often that which is considered to be the objective diversity of individuals in society (e.g., cultural diversity, social diversity, different status and roles) can be translated as a universal principle that one finds in the concept of identification – a group or collective’s reason to exist. The construction of identity intended as shared values takes place within the cultural universes as an element that brings together “the different diversities”, establishing the confine that both allows the recognition and enrichment of differences and reinforces the feeling of community (Bauman 2003) that societies today increasingly require in order to remain stable. The premises of sociological thought rest on the construction of meaning that is socially significant within society, in social action and collective behaviour; individuals construct the meanings that they attribute to facts and events through social relations, in this manner constructing that which we consider to be society. From a theoretical perspective, micro-sociological currents principally focus on social relations and the means by which individuals exchange meaning,

Diversity and Sociology

45

while macro-sociological theories primarily focus on the study of structural dynamics and the institutions that comprise social order. It is by moving in the direction of “micro” reflections that we can identify some elements that allow us to place the concept of “diversity” within sociological theory, placing attention on individuals and their relationships with “the others”. If we consider the social practices of the construction and attribution of meaning, we see how social action becomes an element that in some way imposes change within the social structure. It is individual and collective behaviour that generates the elements that constitute society (Berger & Luckman 1966). The construction of subjects as individuals within society occurs through the phases of socialisation during which the individuals internalise the norms, values and meanings of the context of reference; this occurs in a first phase (primary socialisation) through relationships with parents and family, and in a second phase (secondary socialisation) in peer relationships, at school and at work. It is in relation to society in general, then, that individuals gain awareness of the self and of the surrounding environment as part of a continual reflection on meanings (Mead 1934). The phases of socialisation are obviously not so clear-cut, but are part of a process that lasts one’s entire life and extends across different contexts. Individual identity, then, is a construction that occurs during the individual’s entire existence by means of experiences gained and lived. The specification process may be understood as an act of recognition of the self in relation to the environment and the other, a first “distinction” between the self and that which is not the self. The process of identity construction assumes a dialogical connotation, the self and “that which is not the self ” return as elements that define a dual process of reciprocity and conflict. That which is not the self is “diverse” in the sense that it conforms by means of diverse, but not necessarily incompatible, specification processes. In this way the process of specification of the self also becomes a process for recognising the other. The first stage is described by Alfred Schutz from a phenomenological perspective: the self has an alter-ego and it is through the possibility of experiencing the alter-ego that the self manages to identify itself directly (Schutz 1974). At a later stage the recognition of the self allows one to experience the “other” and the social world. Identity and difference are in this sense considered dialogical elements that in some way encounter each other, thereby defining themselves. From an interactional perspective, the interaction with the other takes place through a process of symbolic communication within which individuals attribute a shared meaning to the symbols that interrelate within the communication. The interaction process, then, is one of awareness that places the self in relation to the differences and the diversities, initiating a process of reciprocal recognition.

46

Diversity Research and Policy

For that which concerns the macro-sociological perspective, it is necessary to consider diversity from a point a view that pays greater attention to the institutional dimension. If we consider “diverse” behaviour in relation to the behaviour dictated by social norms, then we find that diversity is a nonconformist element and hence deviant. Diversity cannot be misunderstood as a statistic that does not conform with the norm. If a behaviour is considered “diverse” or “rare”, or is not engaged in by the majority of people, then it cannot in any case be considered deviant. Consequently, in order to identify a behaviour as being “diverse”, one cannot make a comparison with behaviour that is considered “normal”; in this case the “diverse” behaviour would be socially labelled as such. From a macro-sociological perspective, then, diversity can be considered as an element that is either functional for society or generates conflict. In both cases, diversity influences the internal social order at the macro-systemic level: for conflict sociologists, by breaking down cohesion, and from a functionalist perspective, by acting in relation to social order and its adjustment. Robert Merton’s theory of anomie (1968), for example, provides an interesting perspective by which to understand the relationship that diversity has with society. The diverse behaviour (or diversity in terms of gender) can become deviant from the moment in which a state of anomie, or rather a situation that includes a contradiction between that which is socially acceptable and the means by which it can be attained, exists. In this sense, even in the case in which “diverse” behaviour fully reflects the norm – that is, it does not violate any legal or moral order – from the moment in which it becomes stigmatised as abnormal or non-conformist, it generates that which Merton calls anomie. Anomie, which in Durkheim’s sociology is the lack of norms that regulate social behaviour, generates conflict within society. Suicidal behaviour, for Durkheim, is one of these (Durkheim 1964). It is clear, then, that from a micro-sociological perspective, the attention given to diversity in sociology largely focuses on the meaning that derives from social interaction while, from the macro-sociological perspective, it is the entire social system that reacts in function with or in conflict with the “diverse” behaviour.

Diversity in Sociological Research

In sociological research, diversity is dealt with in relation to different points in accordance with the historical-cultural context in which it takes place, and consequently in relation to the various theoretical positions.

Diversity and Sociology

47

In a first phase, the positivistic sociological studies from the 1800s demonstrate strong prejudices by focusing on the relationship between biological elements and social effects. Cesare Lombroso’s criminological studies of deviant behaviour (Lombroso 1884) are based on the “objective diversity” of the deviant in relation to somatic tracts, physical form and behaviour. Sociological research, then, oriented itself towards that which regards cultural aspects that influence diversity, the means by which behaviour reproduces itself through “cultural transmission”. It is in this direction that the environment and social context generate different forms of behaviour. It is important to note how these research perspectives place the primary focus on how learning can generate “diverse” behaviours, but the theories are lacking in their failure to distinguish between diversity and deviant behaviour. At the beginning of the 1900s, however, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Chicago founded by Albion Small began the so-called Chicago School of ecological research, which focused on that which at the time was defined as social problems. The major transformations taking place in American cities at the beginning of the century – migrations and differentiation within society – pushed the Chicago School sociologists to study the city and the new social forms that characterised it. Numerous studies focused on gangs, the homeless, nightlife, and the new urban community, with the intention of contributing to the resolution of social problems. The dimension of diversity in these studies can be seen in the transformation of the urban reality (Park, Burgess, McKenzie 1999, Wirth 1928, 1938) and the social forms that exist within the urban contexts that generate lifestyles considered to be diverse (Anderson 1923, Cressey 1932, Trasher 1927, Zourbaugh 1929) in respect to the past. With regard to behaviours and how these become internalised by individuals, it is important to make a reference to labelling theory. Belonging to the micro-sociological interactionist perspective and based primarily on the work of Howard Becker (1963), labelling theory is concerned with the individual’s behaviour as they have been labelled by others. The moment in which others label the diversity as deviant, this behaviour becomes internalised by the labelled individual, who subsequently considers him/herself as such. This process can spread out by means of a sort of “epidemic of representations” (Sperber 1996) and render the diversity an objective fact that cannot be questioned. A fundamental study that, however, brings into crisis the relationship between diversity and normality, and which perhaps more than others reveals the inferences in terms of identity, can be found in Erving Goffman’s Stigma (2003a). Goffman sustains that being stigmatised as diverse determines not

48

Diversity Research and Policy

only the construction of conventional images and stereotypes, but also the loss of social status. Goffman’s concept of stigma is useful in reflecting on the issue of homosexuality, which has often been understood as “non-conformist behaviour” on the basis of judgements made about presumed “biological and natural” conditions. While stigma on the one hand brings out the desire to openly declare one’s preference, on the other hand it forces people to give voice to their desire for personal liberty as an instrument for revenge. Goffman also explains how “diversity” becomes institutionalised by what he calls total institutions, which includes prisons and psychiatric hospitals, that authorise treatment for the “diversity” (Goffman 2003b). All of Goffman’s sociology revolves around individual behaviours and the roles that people have within society. The various roles are the different personalities that the individual must inevitably assume in order to face and manage situations in which he/she is in need of “assistance”. Goffman’s individual is an individual that is always “different” in relation to him/herself, that betrays and tricks the other, carries out strategies and imposes his/her public behaviour in accordance with the situation. Among Goffman’s works, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life is probably the work that presents the strongest criticism of American mass society in the 1960s and the homologation of behaviour. Pierre Bourdieu’s studies (1998, 1970) are relevant for that which concerns diversity from a gender perspective or in relation to models of the reproduction of power. Within Bourdieu’s theory, society determines the differences and their expression via “symbolic violence”, which describes the imperceptible power present in social relations. Social relationships are in this way inscribed in the physical bodies, thus constructing diversity as an element of conquest. This also holds for Michel Foucalt’s work on madness and prisons (1976, 1998, 2006), where diversity becomes an object to be submitted that arises from the forms of knowledge expressed in the relationship between “power and knowledge” present in all institutions and dimensions of human experience. Another interesting classical sociological work, which is indicative for current migration studies, is provided by George Simmel in his work on the foreigner (1989). Simmel’s foreigner is a stranger to the community; he comes from the outside and does not identify with the community because he is not part of it. The foreigner does not have ties with the community, making him in a certain sense free. His marginality is a position, more so than a condition. He does not live with the others, but covers a borderline position that is nonetheless within the society. The marginality of Simmel’s foreigner, then, is also a new means of participation in modern social life; he lives in a diverse space in which he attributes new canons, searching for a space to live within the in-

Diversity and Sociology

49

terstices of society. This means of being diverse certainly disrupts the stability of the social system, influencing the low rate of social change that leads one to consider the vast majority of behaviour as being out of line (Santambrogio 2003), but in some ways it proposes an adjustment to the social system that takes place through “other” forms of existence.

e Relevance of Diversity for Policy

Individuals use the means at their disposition in order to participate in the processes of existence. This is very interesting within the sociological studies carried out in the 1970s in the United States on public behaviour (Goffman 1997, Garfinkel 1984) that reflect upon the public actor’s inclinations in regards to standard relational behaviour. Here the social actor is the unquestioned author of the behavioural strategies that bring to light his/her choice in relation to the other by means of role play. Within Erving Goffman’s dramatological perspective, the actor plays diverse roles in accordance with the situation that he/she faces, “adjusting” his/her behaviour and manipulating the situation as if he/she were on stage. This kind of sociological approach provides the basis for a sociology of micro-relations that collect the social structures that make up societal rules. Goffman’s work is useful in order to demonstrate how diversity can be used to create a process specifically aimed at awareness. For example, in some cases the fact of being “diverse” justifies political actions and claims. In these cases the origins of the diversity can be found in history and in the conditions that offer confirmations justified by tradition, by the past, by time. The historical recording of events – a typical occurrence in contemporary society ( Jameson 2003, 2007) – makes it possible to insert the events required for the confirmation of the collective identity within “history”. In this manner the invention of tradition (Hobsbawn, Ranger 1994) and the identity politics of autonomy or the nation-state as an element that confirms the collective narrative (Anderson 2004, see also Appadurai 2001 and Bhabha 1997) have become powerful means by which to reinterpret belonging and diversity. In this way one turns around the belonging/diversity dichotomy in such a way that the former is justified by the latter simply because it connotes certain elements that determine the subject’s origins. Diversity, then, makes it possible to distinguish between that to which one does not want to belong and that to which one wants to belong. It is in this manner that some secessionist movements that make claims to autonomy find confirmation in their “diversity”, which in this case is not a discriminatory element but a factor upon which the claim

50

Diversity Research and Policy

is built. The case of the Northern League (Lega Nord) in Italy, for example, refers to a series of claims that seek a political outlet by means of narratives that hook the principles of cultural diversity – which become instruments for confirming their claims – onto a series of belongings that do not fit into the Italian context but “belong” abroad. This type of historical manipulation seeks to achieve a political autonomy that remains the objective of a confirmation strategy with purely economic interests. The diversity elements help sustain the “distinctive models” to which the collective imagination refers back to with the passage of time. The same auto-ethnicisation processes are elements of confirmation that make diversity (cultural and historical) an instrument with which one can respond to the dynamics of cultural subordination. The indigenous movements in Latin America, for example, claim their rights in the name of indigenism, which makes them owners of that history, and use their ethnicity – which can be translated as their diversity – in order to claim rights that have been denied them by colonisation. In this way, diversity becomes an element that can be manipulated in order to achieve specific goals in the name of respect for minority groups or tolerance as well as in the name of the autonomy to which they aspire – as in the case of secessionist movements – or as a motive for making claims through auto-ethnicisation policies and inclusion processes.

e Future of Diversity in Sociology

Diversity as a concept is inherent to sociological theory and research at the individual and collective level. Sociologists have and will continue to focus on issues of diversity given ongoing changes in the world in which we live on a global as well as local level. The rhetoric that at times speaks of a trans-cultural world where differences meet does not prove itself to be very useful to our discussion if it is not supported by theses that seek to understand how these processes are products of often arbitrary social constructions or moved by “cultural representations” that turn people into individuals capable of managing the meaning of their existence. While the stigmatisation of an individual as “different” is not unique to modern society, the dynamics and changes taking place call for the need to discuss the “facts” as they appear on the basis of a superficial glance and to engage in further reflection and deconstruction. The need to consider the “cultural and identity whirlwind”, which involves the contemporary world, as a process in continual transformation that privileges encounter rather than conflict is a fairly obvious fact; this conceptual proposal requires connections that sociological theory and research can of-

Diversity and Sociology

51

fer. The question of migrants, for example, is once again considered either a problem or a resource depending on the political climate that privileges one position or the other. Migration is rarely viewed as a condition that proposes other or different means by which to interpret the “text of existence”. Similarly, the question of rights, of minorities, and individual diversity is once again dealt with in terms of the functional politics of cohabitation; an effort is not made to consider these issues in light of another perspective that focuses on the politics of cohabitation themselves. It is in this direction that diversity not only becomes an element that connotes personal aptitudes that are considered divergent (e.g., homosexuality, limited motor skills, cultural attitudes) but also makes it possible to capture the various shades that the possibility of being in the world offers. This could be the middle road for confronting diversity without having to choose between communitarianism and universalism (Wieviorka 2003, Bauman 2003), where one reduces everything to the point of limiting autonomy and the other favours a completely relative view where, in reality, individuals cannot express that which they really define as being “their” necessary diversities. In this sense, sociological research converges towards the deconstruction of diversity to the extent that this concept is determined by judgements and values while seeking to propose readings in relation to the implications of diversity. Sociological research considers the facts studied as concepts to “bring into crisis and problematise” from which one can extract the elements that make it possible to construct a body of knowledge. It is difficult to say how the research can concretely intervene in the politics of diversity in that the focus of the research is on the relation between politics and social practice. If diversity becomes a political concept, then it would be easy for diversity to become an instrument to be manipulated and to orient the choices that are then reflected within society; rather, diversity should be considered as that which influences the transformation of society. Diversity, then, is a necessary condition for human existence that annuls the homogenous forms tied to the indistinct communitarian reality and to the reductive concept of the so-called globalised world where culture, identity – as well as that which pertains to the personal sphere – intersect. This can be translated into diversity research as a factor within a multi-faceted scenario where individual histories go beyond the collective “history” (Gardini 2008), inserting themselves within those inbetween spaces (Bhabha 2001) that also comprise humanity. In this sense it would be necessary to conduct a reading of the self that includes the multiplicity of the individual, viewing the diversity of the self as an instrument that describes personal belongings (Maalouf 1999).

52

Diversity Research and Policy

Note 

Department of Social Sciences, University of Rome, “Sapienza”.

References

Anderson, B. 2004 (1983). Comunità immaginate. Origini e fortuna dei nazionalismi. Roma: Manifesto Libri. (Immagined communities. London and New York: Verso.) Anderson, N. 1923. The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Appadurai, A. 2001. Modernità in polvere. Roma: Meltemi. (Modernity at large.) Bauman, Z. 2003 (2001). Voglia di comunità. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Becker, S.H. 1963. Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Berger, L.P. and Luckmann T. 1997 (1966). La realtà come costruzione sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino. (The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.) Bhabha, H.K. (ed.) 1997 (1990). Nazione e narrazione. Roma: Meltemi. (Nation and narration. London and New York: Routledge.) Bhabha, H.K. 2001 (1994). I luoghi della cultura. Roma: Meltemi. (The location of culture.) Blumer, H. 1996 (1969). La metodologia dell’interazionismo simbolico. Roma: Armando. (Symbolic interactionism:perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California press.) Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. 2006 (1970). La riproduzione. Per una teoria dei sistemi di insegnamento. Firenze: Guaraldi. (La reproduction. Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignemen. Paris: Minuit.) Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. 1999 (1998). Il dominio maschile. Feltrinelli. (La domination masculine. Paris: Seuil.) Cressey, P. 1932. The taxi-dance hall. A Sociological Study in Commercialized Recreation and City Life. Chicago: Chigago University Press. Durkheim, E. 1964 (1897). Suicide. Glencoe. Foucault, M. 1976 (1975). Sorvegliare e punire: nascita della prigione. Torino: Einaudi. (Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.) Foucault, M. 2006. Follia e psichiatria. Detti e scritti 1957-1984. Milano: Cortina. Foucault, M. 1998. Storia della follia nell’età classica. Milano: Bur-Rizzoli. Gardini, E. 2008. Storie oltre la ‘Storia’. Tra linguaggi, luoghi e testi. In: Studi Culturali. 3. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Diversity and Sociology

53

Garfinkel, H. 1984 (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Blackwell Publishers. Geertz, C. 2001. Antropologia interpretativa. Bologna: Il Mulino. Goffman, E. 1997 (1959). La vita quotidiana come rappresentazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. (The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.) Goffman, E. 2003a (1963). Stigma. L’identità negata. Ombre Corte. (Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identità. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.) Goffman, E. 2003b (1968). Asylums. Le istituzioni totali: i meccanismi dell’esclusione e della violenza. Torino: Einaudi. (Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin.) Hannerz, U. 2001 (1996). La diversità culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino. (Transnational connections. Culture, people, places. London and New York: Routledge.) Hannerz, U. 1998. La complessità culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Hobsbawm, E.J. and Ranger, T. 1994 (1983). L’invenzione della tradizione. Torino: Einaudi. (The invention of tradition.) Lombroso, C. 1884. L’uomo delinquente. Torino: Bocca. Jameson, F. 2003 (2002). Una modernità singolare. Trebaseleghe (PD): Sansoni. (A singular modernity.) Jameson, F. 2007. Postmodernismo. Ovvero la logica culturale del tardo capitalismo. Roma: Fazi editore. (Postmodernism, or the cultral logic of late capitalism.) Maalouf, A. 1999 (1998). L’identità. Milano: Bompiani. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the standpoint of social behavior. Chicago: Chigago University Press. Merton, R. 1968. Social theory e social structure. New York: Free Press. Park, E.R., Burgess, W.E. and McKenzie, D.R. 1999. La città. Torino: Edizioni di Comunità. Schutz, A. 1974 (1932). La fenomenologia del mondo sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Santambrogio, A. 2003. Introduzione alla sociologia della diversità. Roma: Carocci. Simmel, G. 1989 (1908). Excursus sullo straniero in Sociologia. Milano: Edizioni di Comunità. (Soziologie Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.) Sperber, D. 1999 (1996). Il contagio delle idee. Teoria naturalistica della cultura. Milano: Feltrinelli. (Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic approach.) Trasher, F. 1927. The Gang. A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Wieviorka, M. 2004 (2001). La differenza culturale. Roma-Bari: Laterza. (La différence. Editions Balland.) Wirth, L. 1928. The Ghetto. Chicago: Chigago University Press.

54

Diversity Research and Policy

Wirth, L. 1998 (1938). L’Urbanesimo come modo di vita. Roma: Armando editore. (Urbanism As A Way of Life.) Zorbaugh, H. 1929. The Gold Coast and the Slum. A Sociological Study of Chicago’s Near North Side. Chicago: Chigago University Press.

Diversity and Sociology

55

4

Diversity and Criminology Vanja Stenius

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Criminology

Criminology is a relatively new discipline that has emerged in the past halfcentury as a multi-disciplinary outgrowth of sociology that incorporates law and psychology, as well as other disciplines. Criminology primarily concerns itself with the study of the etiology, causes, prevention, and control of crime, exploring crime both at the individual level as well as at the broader social level. As such, crime and its causes are understood both in terms of individual characteristics and the context (familial, social, political, economic) in which crime takes place. The discipline also includes criminal justice, or the study of the system and responses to crime as opposed to what may be referred to as pure criminology, which focuses on the causes. Both of these aspects are generally included when one speaks of criminology today as a discipline.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Criminology

Diversity, as a distinct concept, is not inherent to the study of criminology and rarely discussed. In fact, the use of the term “diversity” is rarely used, especially in the American context, which is responsible for the vast majority of criminological research and advances in theory in which criminology is recognised as an independent discipline. Despite this lack of specific focus, the idea of diversity is fundamental to the discipline in that individual, familial, social, political, economic, and other differences provide explanations not only for why people commit crime, but also for what constitutes a crime. This latter consideration is important in that criminology is based on the occurrence of a phenomenon that is defined within a community or society. A behaviour or act (or failure to do something) does not constitute a crime until it is defined as such within the law and punishable in accordance with the law. This means that diversity in culture and social conditions may lead to markedly different laws and hence different notions of what is and is not a crime.

57

It should be noted that diversity is often seen as a cause of crime. The notion that individual and social differences contribute to crime is not new, but can be found in the writings of Émile Durkheim (1982) who argued that deviance and deviants are essential for the healthy functioning of a society. Hence, even the most peaceful communities identify some behaviours that are deemed to be worthy of punishment and hence defined as criminal. More recently, research demonstrates (Adler 1983) that crime tends be lower in more homogenous societies and groups. Diversity in the population also presents itself as a problem in that minority and disadvantaged groups tend to have higher rates of involvement in the criminal justice system than other groups. Discrimination, bias and racism are major concerns in Western countries, where minority groups are overrepresented in crime statistics as both offenders and victims and, even more notably, as prison inmates.

Diversity in eory and Research

Diversity, or differences, in theory and research has historically been considered at two levels: the individual level and the social level (e.g., family, group, community). While the number of criminological theories is quite extensive, they can be divided into four primary groups: the classical school, the positivist school, the behaviour of law and critical criminology, and situational crime prevention. Each group includes a number of unique theories that nonetheless share common elements that also relate to how diversity is understood. Classical School

The classical school of criminological theory sees crime in terms of rational actions that can be addressed via appropriate punishment. This school of thought does not look at the causes of crime in terms of the individual or his/her social environment, but rather views crime in relation to the law. Thus, individual and social diversity are not really taken into consideration whereas the diversity of punishment is – with specific focus on disparity in punishment. In this sense, diversity can be said to be found in the crime, and not in the individual. This line of criminological thinking has its roots in the enlightenment and is an outgrowth of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of the social contract, which serves as a basis for Cesare Beccaria’s classic work Dei delitti e delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments) published in 1764. Beccaria was primarily concerned with the deterrent element of punishment and argued for proportionality and fairness in the imposition of punishment – a

58

Diversity Research and Policy

notion that has gained new appeal in many Western countries in the past decades due to critiques of disproportionality, disparity, uncertainty, and discrimination in association with numerous sentencing practices, most notably indeterminate sentencing due to the discretion afforded to both judges and parole boards. More recently, Andrew von Hirsch (1976) laid out a modern system that has its roots in Beccaria’s work, arguing for just desserts – i.e., the punishment should fit the crime, be proportionate, not be more severe than need be, and reflect the crime committed rather than the characteristics of the offender. In von Hirsch’s work, diversity is conceived in terms of the extent to which punishments imposed and carried out reflect ordinal proportionality (a more serious crime should result in a harsher punishment) and cardinal proportionality (crimes that cause more harm are ranked as being more serious – e.g., murder is more serious than burglary) and disparities in sentencing that give rise to either systematic or unsystematic bias in the imposition of punishment. In recognition of practical difficulties in the implementation of a completely impersonal form of sentencing 1 that does not allow for any differences between offenders in sentencing decisions, not even between adults and children, the neoclassical school is somewhat more flexible than Beccaria in that some room for difference was granted to the individual, as punishment focused both on the offender and the crime. This change represented a break in the administration of justice, but not in regards to the overall view of humans as rational beings with free will who deserve to be punished. It did, however, reflect a means of thinking within the administration of justice that allows for differences at the individual level and in terms of the crime committed. Positivist School

Positivist criminology looks for the causes of crime either in the individual or in society. As such, it embodies the vast majority of criminological theory, both contemporary and classic, which seeks to understand and explain the why of crime. The positivist school assumes individual and social diversity, as these elements provide the rationale for why people engage in crime. Individual diversity can be conceptualised in numerous ways, ranging from inborn characteristics (biological and neurological factors) to more external or social factors such as the level of education and marital status (see Vold, Bernard & Snipes 1998). Cesare Lombroso – the father of the Italian positivist school of criminology – was among the first to introduce this line of thought, although his theories, which relied upon physiological features to explain criminality (1918), are

Diversity and Criminology

59

now considered outdated. His legacy, however, is felt quite strongly within both theory and research, as criminologists increasingly turn to the variations in people and society in their effort to explain crime and hence find potential means for reducing it. Biological theories, such as Lombroso’s theory of the natural born criminal, have evolved from their focus on visible, physical characteristics (e.g., skull size and shape, body type) to a look at heritable factors (e.g., twin studies, see Christiansen 1997) that looked at genetics and inheritable traits (e.g., aggressiveness, impulsiveness) in explaining criminality and finally to more subtle differences in hormone levels and brain functioning (see Moffitt 1993b). These aspects may be more abstract on some level, but when measurable can present an interesting insight into the functioning of the human mind and body and a potential means for addressing specific types of criminality (e.g., sex offending). More modern theories focus on development (developmental criminology) (Farrington 1991, 1996, Moffitt 1993a) and criminal careers (Blumstein et al 1986). These theories seek to understand the life course of the individual, often in terms of individual-level characteristics and the context in which s/ he lives. Explanations for crime and delinquency can be found in factors such as age, gender, education, employment, relationships, family context, assorted risk and protective factors, and major turning points in an individual’s life such as getting married. All of these variables, or diversities, are seen as key in explaining why people commit crime or engage in antisocial behaviour and why they desist from or reduce the rate of offending. Research focusing on individual characteristics has largely discarded the validity of the earlier, classical theories. A great deal of current research focuses on the above-mentioned endogenous and exogenous individual-level variables and have had some success in explaining the onset, persistence and desistance from crime (e.g., Ayres et al. 1999, Collins 2004, Maimon & Gibbs 2006, Piquero Farrington & Blumstein 2007). Community or societal theories look to the social or community context in order to explain criminal behaviour. These theories see differences in offending as stemming from societal and/or cultural differences that are external to the individual. This may be at the national level (e.g., the concept of anomie has been used to explain why some nations have higher crime rates than others, see Adler 1983) or on a local or community basis. Ecological theories dating back to the Chicago School have used the conditions of place to link offending with environmental factors (Shaw and McKay 1929, 1931, 1969). The work carried out in Chicago represents the development of researchbased theory that connects key neighbourhood characteristics (e.g., economic status) with the level of crime and delinquency in the area. The key aspect of

60

Diversity Research and Policy

their work was the finding that the rate of offending in a given area remained essentially the same as groups of individuals moved in and out, indicating that the environment or setting (economic, social, cultural) was largely responsible for the level of criminal activity in a given area. These early studies have led to more recent work that has tried to explain and change the level of offending in high crime areas, turning to factors such as social capital that emphasise the importance of social relationships and the capacity for building relationships and capital in a given neighbourhood (Sampson 1995). Behaviour of Law and Critical Criminology

While generally not given credit or recognition for this aspect of his thinking, Beccaria also argued that laws “have always favored the few and outraged the many” (see Vold et al. 1998: 24), thus implying that laws were often unjust and presented an undue burden on the lower classes who tended to commit the most “crimes” and therefore come within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. This line of thought has since been taken up by other social thinkers and serves as the foundation of what is now called critical or radical criminology (Chambliss 1999, Groves & Newman 1986, Quinney 1973, Quinney & Wildeman 1991). While generally considered a niche area and not granted much weight within the discipline, especially in the United States, critical criminology nonetheless points to some basic realities that have been highlighted by thinkers throughout the centuries. The lack of attention given to critical criminology can be seen as stemming from its roots within the writings of Karl Marx and its focus on power relations within society. Critical criminology essentially holds that laws are written by those with power in order to maintain current power structures. The definition of an act as a crime does not necessarily reflect moral reasoning, but the desire of the elite to maintain the status quo and control the masses. The criminal justice system (including imprisonment) represents a powerful tool by which to do just that. If we want to consider diversity within this school of thought, then we need to look at the socio-economic structure of a society or other elements (e.g., race or ethnicity) that determine who has and does not have power. At a theoretical level, the sustainability of a stratified and segregated, but also diverse, society can be seen as being possible through the imposition of control by the powerful elite. Rebellion or other trouble on the part of the lower classes can be controlled through the creation of laws that primarily target this group. As such, crime is not rooted in philosophical or moral reasoning, but is simply an act so defined. This recognition of the meaning of crime, in front of the law, raises numerous moral and practical questions about existing laws, many of

Diversity and Criminology

61

which target specific groups of the population. Labelling theory may also be considered in this section (see Becker 1963). The theory is relevant, based on the notion that the label attached to an individual or group, rather than actual behaviour, determines how s/he is viewed and treated within the criminal justice system. As Becker indicates, adolescents generally seen as “good boys” getting into a bit of trouble may be let off the hook and hence not have a criminal record whereas juveniles viewed as troublemakers are likely to be processed by the system, which in turn increases their chances of future system involvement due to the presence of a criminal record. The diversity in this case is between those who have and have not had prior involvement in the criminal justice system and/or a criminal record. Generally speaking, the more severe the system response (regardless of the act committed), the greater the likelihood of future system involvement. Situational Crime Prevention: Designing Out Crime

An alternative response to crime can be seen in a series of criminological theories that have been developed in the past 30 years or so that see the individual as relatively unimportant in crime prevention efforts. Loosely grouped as “situational crime prevention” theories, the different approaches seek to explain how one can reduce crime by changing the physical environment rather than attempting to change people. Here, human and even social diversity are largely ignored in favour of environmental or situational diversity. The primary theories in this school include: rational choice (Clarke 1995, Clarke & Cornish 1985, Clarke & Felson 1993), broken windows (Kelling & Wilson 1982, Kelling & Coles), and routine activities (Clarke & Felson 1993, Cohen & Felson 1979, Felson 1998). Each theory is particular in its own way, but they share a common element in that they see crime as being a function of the physical environment and the available opportunities. Hence, crime reduction efforts should target largely physical and contextual features of the environment rather than focusing directly on people. This has been referred to as the designing out of crime through changes in architecture, lighting, security systems (primarily surveillance) and other physical or structural changes, the idea being that one can reduce crime by making relatively simple changes (e.g., improving the line of sight within a convenience store) that do not require indepth work with the potential offender. Changes in social routines, and hence social diversity, can have a notable impact on crime as pointed out by Cohen and Felson (1979), who ascribe the increase in daytime burglaries in the US in the 1970s to two primary factors: the increased presence of easy-to-carry and valuable goods in the home (i.e.,

62

Diversity Research and Policy

electronics) and the lack of a human presence during the day as more and more women joined the workforce. Thus, societal changes are seen as having an influence on crime not because they inherently change the individual, but because they change the opportunities for crime and ease with which it can be committed. Using the case studied by Felson, one could argue that a more diverse situation, in which some women worked outside of the home during the day whereas others worked at home, would make it possible to both achieve a certain level of crime prevention and allow for women’s entry into the workplace. Current trends may in fact promote such a situation, as telecommuting and flex hours are changing work patterns for men and women alike and increasing the probability that someone will be home during the day. Each theory has its merits and has been applied extensively in practice with promising results in many cases. The methods, however, are highly controversial in that attempts to limit or change the environment may impinge upon individual liberties and freedoms. A walk down nearly any street in London demonstrates this, as closed circuit cameras have become ubiquitous. Put in place on the basis of rational choice theory, the cameras represent a form of surveillance intended to reduce the external motivation for the crime. Similarly, the implementation of broken windows theory in cities like New York demonstrates that lack of tolerance for relatively minor “crimes” or forms of social disorder can effectively address some pressing social issues that influence the quality of life within cities such as graffiti and the presence of “squeegee men” at stoplights who insist on being paid for washing the windows while drivers are stopped at traffic lights. It is debatable whether the cleaning up and “Disneyfication” of Times Square really had a significant impact on crime in New York City. It did, however, have a clear impact on the area itself, as porn shops and theatres have been replaced by more familyfriendly shops, restaurants and entertainment, thus encouraging tourists and locals to visit the area. In this case, efforts to reduce crime and disorder effectively forced out certain groups, or forms of diversity, while inviting in others and altering the entire landscape. Such a massive transformation of an area does not come easy and some would debate its desirability. While disorder and vice are generally eschewed by city dwellers, the relatively homogenous nature of Times Square after the intervention begs the question as to how much one should manipulate the environment of a given neighbourhood. Times Square is certainly much safer now, but also arguably less characteristic or interesting.

Diversity and Criminology

63

Diversity in Research

The relevance of diversity in criminological research should be considered at three different levels: the individual, the community and the system. In general, criminologists are not concerned with diversity per se, but see it as an explanatory tool in order to explain why an individual does or does not engage in crime and delinquency, why the individual is treated in a specific way within the criminal justice system, and the impact of punishment on criminal behaviour. The former line of research tends to be based in positivistic theories (whether individual or social), whereas the latter is connected with classical school and/ or concerned with the behaviour of law or the “systems approach” to criminology, which looks at how the “criminal justice system” operates through research focusing on the structure of the criminal justice system and the behaviour of the actors within it, and policies and their implementation. Individual Level

Research using individual-level data tends to assume that certain variables are essential as control variables even if they are not the direct focus of the research. This choice of variables reflects the sum of the research on the subject, which has demonstrated that factors such as race/ethnicity, gender, age, marital status, income and education are often closely linked to criminality and delinquent behaviour. Some of these variables raise major moral and ethical concerns in regards to how certain members of a community are seen by others and ultimately their role in the community. Here it is crucial to distinguish between fixed characteristics (e.g., gender or race) and variable characteristics (e.g., education or income). Attributing criminality to a fixed characteristic, as has been openly done in the past and to some extent continues today, is akin to arguing that crime is innate to the individual and that little can be done to alter his/her tendency to commit crime. Variable characteristics, however, provide a degree of optimism in efforts to reduce or prevent crime in that these variables can be altered. Criminologists today generally recognise that fixed variables are essential in studying crime, but that they may be proxies for other variables. For example, race may be a proxy for poor living conditions and a life with few opportunities. The only fixed variable that is not greatly debated is gender, although even this has been challenged by some researchers in the past few decades (e.g., Adler 1975, Chesney-Lind 1997) and is becoming a topic of greater relevance as more and more women enter the criminal justice system (largely for drug offences, although there is also concern about a rise in violent crime).

64

Diversity Research and Policy

Issues of Race and Ethnicity

Race and/or ethnicity is generally considered a default control variable in criminological research in many countries and represents one of the most essential but also most controversial factors. How the variable is defined depends on the local and/or national context, but it remains an inextricable part of most analyses. The reason for this can be seen reflected in prisons and jails around the world, as minority groups tend to be overrepresented in these populations. This of course does not mean that some groups are inherently more inclined to commit crimes, although some scholars, beginning with Lombroso, have made this argument. The reality is complex in that research must take into consideration the conditions in which minority groups tend to live (poor, high-crime areas, low levels of social capital), the labels applied to certain groups (e.g., Chinese Americans are seen as hardworking and smart whereas African Americans are generally associated with crime), the extent of outright discrimination in the criminal justice system, inadvertent discrimination, and the impact of laws that target specific groups. In the case of the US, there is general acceptance among criminologists that African Americans commit more crimes of a specific nature, those that tend to lead to imprisonment, than other groups. This, however, cannot be associated with race per se, as differences between groups tend to disappear when one controls for socio-economic variables (see Barak Flavin & Leighton 2007, Gabbidon 2007, Gabbidon & Greene 2005). Community/Social Level

There is general recognition, at the community level, that all space is not equal – some areas of a city, whether entire neighbourhoods, apartment complexes or individual street corners, tend to have higher rates of crime than other areas. This diversity within the distribution of crime in geographical space (the same can be said to be true for time) represents a relatively fixed feature that, without external intervention, is not conducive to change irrespective of the people who live in or frequent these spaces. The first modern research to examine this idea came out of the Chicago School with Shaw and McKay’s analysis (1931, 1942) of crime and the movement of people through Chicago’s “concentric zones”. Shaw and McKay’s pioneering work provided a look into the power of place in influencing criminal behaviour, noting that as individuals moved up the socio-economic ladder and were able to move towards the outer rings, the criminality did not follow but rather remained in the inner zones as new groups arrived. More recent analysis moves deeper within such

Diversity and Criminology

65

troubled areas or zones towards the micro-level (i.e., street corners), looking at the presence of crime and how to address it in so-called “hot spots”. Research on crime in these areas tends to rely on mapping and geographical systems (GIS) to pinpoint where and when crimes take place. The goal is ultimately practical in nature – to enable police and others to focus resources in areas and at times when it is most likely to have an impact. This approach to the study and prevention of crime can be said to be nearly atheoretical, although it is closely tied to situational crime prevention. Moving beyond the local, and building upon theories of anomie, research trying to understand why some cultures have lower crime rates than others have found that more cohesive societies tend to have lower crime rates. These findings also reflect Durkheim’s notion of organic societies (1994 [1897]), and more recent research looking at the “creation” of diversity within society by diverse groups and the demonisation of specific groups in order to ensure ingroup solidarity. Research by sociologists such as Stanley Cohen (Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and the Rockers) and Kai Erikson (Wayward Puritans) have contributed greatly to this line of research by looking at the process by which the majority society defines and demonises specific members, thus creating an out-group that can serve as a scapegoat for perceived social problems. Diversity in this case is found in the contrasts and differences, whether real or constructed, between groups within a society. The creation or demonisation of the “other” and subsequent criminalisation of behaviours associated with this group is a relatively common occurrence across cultures. Systems Level

Systems research focuses both on individual characteristics (of the offender or the victim) and on the operation of the system itself. This line of research often tries to understand system differences focusing on disparities in sentencing or other treatment within the system itself. Most of this research concerns itself with the front end (who do police stop and/or arrest) and the outcome (what sentence is imposed and carried out). Bias and discrimination, especially for minority and other disadvantaged groups, represent major concerns although the research shows that while discrimination is an issue, it is not as outright or blatant as often presented. The literature in the US demonstrates that while certain groups are overrepresented within the criminal justice system and tend to receive more severe punishments than other groups, this is not necessarily due to outright discrimination, but the result of a mix of factors relating to law (e.g., these groups commit crimes that may have

66

Diversity Research and Policy

disproportionately harsh sentences as in the case of some drug offenses) and the process through which a series of small, essentially non-biased decisions add up to a disparate outcome (Spohn Gruhl & Welch 1981-1982). It should be emphasised that systems-level research is highly rooted in the local and national system and practices, making it difficult to make general statements that may be possible at the individual level of research (e.g., differences in age and gender are broadly accepted as being key to explaining criminal behaviour and delinquency). One can however see a recurring concern about discrimination within the system – whether intentional or not – and disparities in the means by which certain groups are treated with a higher concentration, or overrepresentation, of minority or disadvantaged groups such as the poor.

Policy and Practice

Diversity is a key issue in criminal justice at the policy level largely due to the potential for discrimination and bias. “Driving while black” is an oft-cited “crime” in places like the UK and the US where racial profiling of suspects has been a hot political issue. Other countries face similar situations as specific minority groups find themselves subject to greater surveillance and control by the police. At a practical level, some of the theory and research that has been carried out in the effort to reduce crime, while potentially effective, also subject specific groups of individuals to greater police control, increasing the possibility of being observed committing a crime. This is especially true for more targeted policing measures that concentrate more resources with a specific geographical area. Residents may want the police to “do something” about the crime in their neighbourhood, but this means that the chances of being caught committing a violation or offence increases for everyone. Given the limited availability of resources, it also means that fewer resources tend to be allocated to other neighbourhoods where the chance of being caught committing crime effectively decreases. Thus, increasing patrols or police presence in a poor, high-crime area raises the odds that its residents will find their way into the criminal justice system without having increased their actual rate of offending. The targeting and incarceration of specific groups has potentially detrimental effects that go beyond the direct “costs” of punishment. Earnest efforts to reduce crime in high crime areas may actually increase social problems, crime included, through the overincarceration of its male population. The idea, put forth by Rose and Clear (2004), is based on the notion that the imprisonment, or removal, of a high percentage of adult males within a given

Diversity and Criminology

67

area leads to greater social instability and alters the perception of imprisonment (e.g., it may become a badge of honour rather than a source of shame). The legal and cultural basis of criminal justice policy differ by country. Some of these policies are less subject to the impact of public opinion, the media and politics whereas in others it is much easier, or more common, to change penal legislation in accordance with changes at the political level. In recent years this has become especially crucial as countries, some would argue following a trend started in the United States, have become increasingly punitive in responding to crime and punishing offenders. “Penal populism” (see Pratt 2007) is a movement that has raised concern amongst criminologists across Europe and elsewhere as the push to be tough on crime not only increases the severity of sentencing, but tends to do so in a disproportionate way, targeting some groups more than others and introducing more elements that could lead to bias and/or discrimination. In fact, one of the key criticisms of the American “war on drugs” is that, while it did not directly discriminate against African Americans, the impact that this set of policies would have on this group was foreseeable and hence, in Michael Tonry’s words, represents “malign neglect” (Tonry 1994).

e Future of Diversity in Criminology

Criminologists are not likely to begin to engage in discussions about “diversity” per se, but the elements of diversity at multiple levels are inherent to the discipline and will continue to play a crucial role in the development of new theories, research and policy considerations. This stems from the fact that criminologists turn to human and social diversity to understand and explain the complexity of crime and delinquency, relying upon a multitude of theories in the effort to identify ways to effectively reduce and prevent crime. At the same time, crime is a sensitive issue that evokes strong emotions that can be utilised by other parties whether it is the media trying to catch the audience’s attention or politicians seeking to curry social favour. This renders the issue of crime subject to potential manipulation within which a common tactic is that of demonising or blaming a specific group. The frequency of such actions varies across time but can nonetheless be said to be a constant. Concerns about discrimination and bias, then, are to some extent inherent and hence group difference remains a key social and political issue in respect to crime and society’s response to it.

68

Diversity Research and Policy

Note 

See Franko Aas () for a discussion about the increasing use of impersonal forms of sentencing intended to reduce disparity in sentencing.

References

Adler, F. 1975. Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Adler, F. 1983. Nations Not Obsessed with Crime. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman & Co. Ayres, C.D., Williams, J.H., Hawkins, J.D., Peterson, P.L., Catalano, R.F. and Abbott, R.D. 1999. Assessing Correlates of Escalation, Deescalation, and Desistance of Delinquent Behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 15: 277-306. Barak, G., Flavin, J. and Leighton, P. 2007. Class, Race, Gender, and Crime: The Social Realities of Justice in America. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Beccaria, C. 1963 (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Henri Paolucci. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril Co., Inc. Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: The Free Press. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. and Visher, C.A. (eds.) 1986. Criminal Careers and ‘Career Criminals’. Report of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Research on Criminal Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Collins, R.E. 2004. Onset and Desistance in Criminal Careers: Neurobiology and the Age-Crime Relationship. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 39: 1-19. Chambliss, W.J. 1999. Power, Politics and Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chesney-Lind, M. 1997. The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Christiansen, K.O. 1977. A Review of Criminality Among Twins. In: Mednick, S.A. and Christiansen, K.O. (eds.) Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behaviour. New York: Gardner Press, 89-108. Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational crime prevention: Achievements and challenges. In: Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. (eds.) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diversity and Criminology

69

Clarke, R.V. and Cornish, D. 1985. Modelling offenders’ decisions: A framework for policy and research. In: Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.) Crime and Justice. 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R.V. and Felson, M. 1993. Routine Activity and Rational Choice. Advances in Criminological Theory. 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review. 44: 588-608. Cohen, S. 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and the Rockers. Third Edition. London: Routledge. Durkheim, É. 1994 (1897). Suicide. In: Joseph E.J. (ed.) Classics of Criminology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Durkheim, É. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. London: The Free Press. Eriksen, K.T. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Allyn and Bacon. Farrington, D.P. 1991. Antisocial Personality from Childhood to Adulthood. The Psychologist. 4: 389-394. Farrington, D.P. 1996. The Development of Offending and Antisocial Behavior from Childhood to Adulthood. In: Cordella, P. and Siegel, L. (eds.) Readings in Contemporary Criminological Theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Felson, M. 1998. Crime and Everyday Life. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Gabbidon, S.L. 2007. Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. New York: Routledge. Gabbidon, S.L. and Greene, H.T. 2005. Race and Crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Groves, W.B. and Newman, G. (eds.) 1986. Punishment and Privilege. New York: Harrow and Heston. Groves, W.B. and Newman, G. 1989. The Origins of Crime: The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Home Office Research Bulletin. 27: 29-32. Hirsch, A. von 1976. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. New York: Hill and Wang. Kelling, G.L. and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Touchstone. Kelling, G.L. and Wilson, J.Q. 1982. Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety. The Atlantic Monthly. March 1982. Lombroso, C. 1918. Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

70

Diversity Research and Policy

Maimon, D. and Gibbs, B. 2006. Social Control and Adolescents’ Desistance from Delinquency: Embracing the Life Course Perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Convention Center, 1 November 2006. Moffitt, T.E. 1993a. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review. 100(4): 674701. Moffitt, T.E. 1993b. The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology. 5: 133-151. Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P. and Blumstein, A. 2007. Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Studies in Delinquent Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pratt, J. 2007. Penal Populism. London: Routledge. Quinney, R. 1973. The Problem of Crime. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company. Quinney, R. and Wildeman, J. 1991. The Problem of Crime: A Peace and Social Justice Perspective. Third Edition. London: Mayfield Publishing Co. Rose, D.R. and Clear, T.R. 2004. Who Doesn’t Know Someone in Prison or Jail: The Impact of Exposure to Prison on Attitudes Toward Formal and Informal Social Control. The Prison Journal. 82: 208-227. Sampson, R.J. 1995. The Community. In: Wilson, J. Q. and Petersilia, J. (eds.) Crime. San Francisco: ICS Press, 193-216. Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. 1931. Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J. and Welch, S. 1981-1982. The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A Re-examination of an Unsettled Question. Law & Society Review. 71-88. Tonry, M. 1994. Malign Neglect – Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J. and Snipes, J.B. 1998. Theoretical Criminology. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diversity and Criminology

71

5

Diversity and Ecology/ Ecological Economics1 Peter Nijkamp & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Ecology

Our world is dependent on the services provided by our ecosystems such as energy, water, food and wood, not only for our daily consumption and production, but also for our long-term survival. This has led to an increasing transformation of the earth’s surface into productive land, with a subsequent loss of species and the decay in biological variety. The mean species abundance2 – a proxy indicator for biodiversity – has shown a reduction of more than 30 in the past decades worldwide. The awareness is growing that the current development is entirely unsustainable and has to be converted into a balanced long-run development path. The recognition that biological diversity is of critical importance to the stability of the earth’s ecosystem – as a key resource for sustainable functions of natural systems – offers a complementary perspective on the view that biodiversity provides a fundamental potential for human use, such as sustainable development, recreation, human health or scientific research. Against this background, ecology proposes to study the complex patterns and interactions of living nature. It may formally be described as the scientific study of the “branch of biology dealing with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings” (Oxford Dictionary). Ecological economics is a branch of science at the interface of ecology and economics (see Van den Bergh 1996, 2002). It aims to adopt a broad perspective on relevant causes and effects in time, space and parts of economic-environmental systems. It addresses in particular environmental and policy issues in relation to sustainable development. Ecological economics is thus a rather recent discipline that emerged largely in the 1980s as a scientific challenge to analyse the new scarcity due to the loss of environmental quality, natural resources and biodiversity. Ecological economics has since developed into a major branch of research on economic aspects of our ecology. Biodiversity has become an important component of ecological economics. An important step in the analysis and valuation of biodiversity is the definition of the term ‘biodiversity’. This is certainly not an unambiguous concept.

73

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as “...the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine and the ecological complexes of which they are part...” (United Nations Environment Programme 1992, Article 2). Biodiversity encompasses four levels of analysis or observation: 1 genetic diversity corresponds to the degree of variability within species; 2 species diversity refers to the variety of species on earth, or in a given region; 3 ecosystem diversity refers to heterogeneity at the community level, i.e. at a supra-species level; 4 functional diversity addresses the variety of ecosystems functions.

e Relevance of Biodiversity

In the past decades there has been growing concern worldwide about ecological quality. In particular, biological diversity (or biodiversity) has received much attention in research and public policy (see Nunes & van den Bergh 2001) and in recent discussions about sustainable development. Biodiversity requires our attention for two reasons. First, it provides a wide range of direct and indirect benefits to mankind that occur on both local and global scales, such as stable environmental systems. Second, many human activities contribute to unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss, which threaten the stability and continuity of ecosystems as well as their provision of goods and services to mankind. Consequently, in recent years much attention has been directed towards the analysis and valuation of the loss of biodiversity and the associated loss of ecosystem services. Interest in biodiversity issues initially developed in the 1970s when the growing recognition of worldwide environmental decay and severe resource depletion, fuelled by a population explosion, received unexpected but welcome support during the oil crisis. This was complemented by the First Report to the Club of Rome called The limits of growth, which was based on a scenario analysis with a systems dynamics model of the world. Although the scientific contents of the study left much to be desired – due to conservative estimates of resource availability and insufficient incorporation of behavioural and technological feedback mechanisms in the model – it created a shock effect among social scientists. This gave rise to an intensive debate between growth optimists and pessimists (Daly & Townsend 1993, Van den Bergh & de Mooij 1999). In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused their attention on biodiversity.

74

Diversity Research and Policy

Biodiversity is clearly a multi-faceted concept that is not easy to grasp in a few unambiguous descriptors. The study of biodiversity comprises a great variety of domains (e.g., aquatic biodiversity and terrestrial biodiversity), ecosystems (ranging from local to global scales) and interactions (e.g., between man-made environments and natural environments). This will be illustrated in the next paragraph. Biodiversity may indeed reflect a great variety of appearances depending on specific geophysical and climatological conditions. For example, the tencountry African Great Lakes region contains a wide range of habitats including deserts, savannas, and dry and humid tropical forests. In this region of six million km2, 12 of the area is protected. Biodiversity-rich tropical evergreen broadleaf forests cover approximately 1.4 million km2 of the region, but only 7 of these forests are protected, leaving the bulk of the tropical forest unprotected. The total number of species that inhabit the area is unknown, and it is believed that many species will become extinct even before they have been identified, named or described. The quality of ecosystems has, in the past decades, become a major source of concern, both globally and locally. Biodiversity in particular has been experiencing significant decay, partly as a result of population growth, partly as a consequence of modern consumption behaviour and leisure time patterns, and partly as a result of changing land-use patterns (in particular, in agriculture). Moreover, land-use fragmentation – caused by urbanisation and infrastructure – and global climate change mean additional threats to sustainable biodiversity. There is a clear need for innovative solutions to save biodiversity.

Diversity in Ecological Economics

The loss of biodiversity is a consequence of the decisions of billions of individual users of biodiversity products and service flows. This is a result of the very nature of the environment, biological resources and biodiversity, where scarcity is unpriced and property rights do not hold. Biodiversity is a public good, offering many benefits to society (e.g., a gene pool) that are not incorporated into economic transactions. This means that the social value of various biodiversity goods and service flows is insufficiently or not at all reflected in market prices. Thus, the loss of biodiversity results in externalities that are associated with external social costs to humanity’s well-being. As a result, a socially undesirable level of provision of these goods and services will lead to a non-Pareto optimal3 situation, in which it is not possible to consume the available biological resources without making somebody else worse off.

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

75

Next, many human activities have contributed to an unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss, which threatens the stability and continuity of ecosystems as well as their provision of goods and services to mankind (Pimm et al. 1995, Simon & Wildavsky 1995). When biodiversity generates so many benefits for humans, one can question why it has been ignored and why biodiversity loss has been allowed to occur. The answer is that many biodiversity services are public goods, available for consumption for free, which leads (or might lead) to their destruction.

Diversity and Ecology in eory

In scientific research, biodiversity has both quantitative and qualitative characteristics. It is generally accepted that biodiversity cannot exclusively be expressed in hard numbers, as it also depends on the ecological structure and processes of a whole area. Nowadays it is broadly recognised that human activities are adversely affecting the earth’s biological diversity as a result of prevailing production and consumption patterns and changes in land-use. It is estimated that 85 to 90 of our planet’s species can be protected by setting aside areas of high biodiversity before they are further degraded, without having to make an inventory of species individually. As said before, biodiversity tends to become a scarce economic good for which, however, a (proper) pricing system does not exist. In recent years, research on the economic valuation of living natural resources and also of biodiversity has progressed significantly, but there is certainly not yet an established framework for valuing biological variety. Recent methods used by ecological economists are inter alia stated preference methods such as contingent valuation techniques and conjoint analysis. Apart from the lack of a solid economic valuation mechanism for biological diversity, there is also a serious lack of reliable and up-to-date information and monitoring systems with a sufficient geographical detail on biodiversity. In order to obtain a balanced trade-off between programme costs and benefits, it is necessary to optimise the use of the information available. Fortunately, the number of studies concerning monetary biodiversity evaluation is growing rapidly. Consequently, there is the need to deploy and develop adjusted methodologies and analysis instruments that can improve our understanding of the monetary value of economic biodiversity and, concurrently, allow for a more accurate forecast of biodiversity values. Comparative analysis of many case studies is key to enhancing our understanding. In addition to an analysis of methodological complexities, there is also a need to draw policy

76

Diversity Research and Policy

lessons and general findings from past applied research. The large number of applied economic valuation studies currently available has spurred the search for commonalities and contrasts in different empirical investigations and has also induced the current popularity of meta-analysis and value transfer. In particular, in recent years we have seen a rising number of publications on the economic aspects of biodiversity, both theoretical and empirical. This prompts the intriguing question whether (and what combination of ) ecological and economic insights can help us to better understand the available policy choices and to map out proper roads towards the future.

Diversity and Ecology in Practice

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), an international consortium of over 1300 scientists, has focused intensively on the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (see MEA 2003, 2005). Its conceptual framework of assessing the status of biodiversity and ecosystem services is based on the notion that biodiversity underpins ecosystems and ecosystem services, which in turn contribute to human well-being. Against this background, a new conceptual framework was produced in which ecosystem services (including supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services) are the cornerstone of human well-being, which in turn shall be anchored inter alia in the levels of biodiversity. When using this MEA approach, the economic valuation of biodiversity is to be characterised by a three-step approach. The first step is the modelling and assessment of the role of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. The second step is the estimation of the bio-physical impact of changes on the levels of biodiversity on the quantity, and quality, of these ecosystem services. The third and final step refers to the welfare assessment of changes in the levels of supply of the ecosystem services, portraying as much as possible these changes in monetary terms. The general acceptance of the MEA framework is a major step in explicitly linking biodiversity, ecosystems and human well-being. For this reason, nowadays this framework is often used as a basis to value biodiversity benefits, in particular when working on the policy agenda and management of biodiversity resources. A recent example is the Potsdam Initiative, which was launched at the G8+5 environment ministers meeting in Potsdam in March 2007, calling for a study on the economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity, looking at the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation (see Markandya et al. 2008, Sukhdev et al. 2008).

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

77

The studies on biodiversity require a multi-disciplinary approach. Examples can be found in water management, land-use policy, climate change initiatives and so forth. In fact, today the economic valuation and management of natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular are among the most pressing and challenging issues confronting today’s environmental economists and natural scientists. Economists value biodiversity, because valuation allows for a direct comparison with economic values of alternative options, a cornerstone of any cost-benefit analysis exercise. In addition, the monetary valuation of biodiversity allows economists to perform environmental accounting, natural resource damage assessment, and to carry out benefit assessments. Furthermore, valuation is also essential in the research of individual consumer behaviour: it indicates the opinion of individual consumers about certain biodiversity management objectives and identifies individual consumer preferences and/or motivations with respect to biodiversity conservation. This involves a clear need to continue with developing rigorous valuation tools in order to cope with complicated trade-offs in environmental policy analysis in the context of sustainable development initiatives and emerging policies that take explicit account of the variety in the earth’s ecosystem. The current available biodiversity conservation programmes in various countries require considerable financial expenditures for their implementation, which have to be traded off against alternative uses. Although much progress has been made worldwide in identifying and prioritising such programmes, innovative valuation strategies are still needed to generate additional information in order to support, for instance, the actions advocated in Agenda 21 of the 1992 Earth Summit (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio, Brazil. Biodiversity conservation programme funds have, in general, a rather poor economic underpinning and are not based on solid and explicit economic choice mechanisms. The reasons for this are manifold, but in general they are due to insufficient information on a given biodiversity issue as well as on undefined property rights, high transaction costs, divergence between private and social costs, inappropriate economic instruments and bureaucratic inertia of relevant political institutions. Public authority choices concerning biodiversity preservation programmes should ideally be based on sound economic principles and information, such as fair market prices, the benefits of specific biodiversity policies and the cost opportunities of alternative decisions. Against this background, many efficiency problems and issues regarding the fair allocation of public funds have arisen. Although general information about biodiversity programmes is available through traditional policy channels, it

78

Diversity Research and Policy

is challenging to allocate and manage biodiversity funds adequately from the perspective of the non-market value of environmental resources. We need, therefore, to embrace this challenge by endorsing specific efforts in mapping biodiversity values, on the one hand, and by ensuring that these are embedded in concrete policy action. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the potential and limitations of the different policy tools, including the payment for ecosystem services instruments, and their broad acceptance by different stakeholders. In short, this calls for the need for an innovative and effective governance approach, but the design of such a policy model goes far beyond the points discussed here.

e Future of Diversity in Ecology/Ecological Economics

The role of biodiversity and their host ecosystems has been increasingly recognised in current sustainable development strategies. In particular, at a time when human society is confronting the challenges of climate change, terrestrial and marine ecosystems are thought to play an essential role in regulating the climate and should therefore be evaluated in future climate adaption and mitigation policies (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2009). This has focused increasing attention from both the political and scientific communities in recent years on the issue of how to conserve nature to fight climate change. In the new arena of ecological economics, efforts have been made to develop and use ecosystem-based approaches to address climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation in an integrated manner and to develop strategies that achieve mutually supportive outcomes (Convention on Biological Diversity, ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 2009). As a result, a fruitful collection of scientific publications (e.g., International Union for Conservation of Nature 2009, United Nations Environment Programme 2009, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2009, Nunes et al. 2009, The Nature Conservancy 2009) has emerged in recent years addressing the wide ecosystem challenges and economic potential of using biodiversity and ecosystem services to mitigate climate change and to help societies adapt to its impacts both globally and locally. However, the economic assessment of the costs and benefits of biodiversity and ecosystems’ contribution to the climate regulation are subject to a high level of scientific uncertainty as to the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. In particular, answering questions regarding to what extent biodiversity and ecosystems’ natural capacity can be affected by continuing climate change and how to project the magnitude and sensitivity of climate change in itself

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

79

impacts biodiversity ecosystems in a dynamic manner. Therefore, more efforts must be dedicated to biological modelling and projections of climate-changeinduced biodiversity and ecosystem degradation. Furthermore, as ecosystem services are characterised by both market benefits (e.g., timber products, food and tourism) and non-market benefits (e.g., carbon regulation and cultural services), they call for the development of new economic approaches from both micro and macro perspectives in the literature. Different instruments are available to assess the economic value of biodiversity; the choice, however, is not always evident due to the existing non-use value of biodiversity. Therefore, alternative integrated valuation techniques must be developed (Nijkamp et al. 2008).

Notes  



This contribution relies heavily on Nunes et al. () and Nunes & Nijkamp (). In the International Biodiversity Project report published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in , the Mean Species Abundance (MSA) is defined as “an index which calculates the mean trend in population size of a representative cross section of the species, in line with the CBD  indicator for species abundance”. A Pareto optimal outcome is one in which no-one could be made better off without making someone else worse off. The concept of Pareto optimality is used in a number of areas in economics. If it is not possible to change the allocation of resources in an economy in such a way as to make some people better off without making others worse off, then this is referred to as Pareto optimal, often called Pareto efficient.

References

Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den 1996. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den (ed.) 2002. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den and Mooij, R. de 1999. As Assessment of the Growth Debate. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CBD COP9. Towards a Strategy on Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Discussion paper prepared by the EU Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change.

80

Diversity Research and Policy

Carraro, C., Bosello, F. and Nunes, P.A.L.D. (eds.) 2009. Impacts of Climate Change and Biodiversity Effects. Final Report, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. Daly, H.E. and Townsend, K.N. (eds.) 1993. Valuing the Earth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. IUCN 2009. Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). Policy Briefing. Markandya, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Brauer, I., Brink, P. ten, Kuik, O. and Rayment, M. 2008. Review On The Economics Of Biodiversity Loss: Economic Analysis and Synthesis. Final report for the European Commission, Venice, Italy. MEA 2003 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press,. MEA 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Nature Conservancy, The 2009. Adapting to Climate Change – Ecosystembased Approaches for People and Nature. Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G. and Nunes, P.A.L.D. 2008. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: A Comparative Study. Ecological Economics. 67: 217231. Nunes P.A.L.D., Ding, H., Silvestri, S. and Chiabai, A. 2009. A hybrid approach to the valuation of climate change effects on ecosystem services: Evidence from the European forests. In: Carraro, C., Bosello, F. and P.A.L.D. Nunes (eds.) Impacts of Climate Change and Biodiversity Effects. Final Report to the European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den 2001. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: Sense or Nonsense. Ecological Economics. 39(2): 203-222. Nunes, P.A.L.D., Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den and Nijkamp, P. 2003. The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Nijkamp, P. (eds.) 2008. Special Issue on ‘Biodiversity and Policy’ of Ecological Economics. 67(2). Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L. and Brooks, T.M. 1995. The Future of Biodiversity. Science. 269: 347-350. Sukhdev, P. 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. TEEB September 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Climate Issues Update. Jointly published by UNEP, European Commission, the German Federal Environment Ministry and the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Made at the United Nations Conference

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

81

on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. http://www. unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 UNEP June 2009. The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation. http://www.unep.org/pdf/BioseqRRA_scr.pdf Wildavsky, A. 1995. But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

82

Diversity Research and Policy

6

Linguistic Diversity Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Kathleen Heugh

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Linguistics

The discipline of linguistics can be defined as the systematic study of language(s), its nature, its structure and the variation in and between languages. Language permeates, gives direction to and in many ways determines human experience. Linguistics as a discipline is closely related to sociology, anthropology and psychology. The main intellectual thrust in linguistics has shifted from historical work at the beginning of the twentieth century to currently three predominant areas of focus: 1 language systems (semantics, syntax, phonetics/phonology), 2 the processes of language acquisition, and 3 language in culture and society.1 Variation and diversity within and between languages can be studied under any of these three areas. Here we will focus on the third area: diversity in languages in culture and society. Language diversity and multilingualism are closely related concepts, sometimes used synonymously or interchangeably. However, language diversity usually refers to the number and variation of languages and multilingualism to the use of more than one language in a given society as well as the proficiency in more than one language by individuals. ‘Plurilingualism’ is a term also used for the latter, among others by the Council of Europe. Already in the 1950s, Greenberg (1971) devised different measurements of linguistic diversity. He started with a simple index relating to the chance that two random members of a community speak the same language. He then further took into account the factors of linguistic distance and of ‘polylingualism’ (speakers who command two or more languages). A linguistic diversity index must take into account several factors such as the unit of analysis or the probability of finding speakers. Factors to consider are the number of languages (richness), the distribution of languages (evenness) and the distance between languages (distance) (Van Parijs 2006). Several other indices for linguistic

83

diversity could be constructed based on economic theories, as has been shown for bio-ecological diversity (Maignan et al. 2003), where similar dimensions of diversity such as number, size and distinctiveness are considered. Language communities are unequally spread across the globe. Most of the world’s 7,000 languages are found in a broad belt around the equator. Language diversity decreases as one moves toward the poles and is low in arid environments. The highest density of languages exists in Central and West Africa, in South and Southeast Asia and in the Pacific. The unequal geographical distribution of linguistic diversity is a product of the expansion, movement and organisation of human societies through time (Nettle 1999: 1). Over half of the world’s languages are threatened with extinction (Krauss 1992). An increasing number of linguists became concerned in the 1990s with the high rate of language death in the modern world. Today, the concern has become more general. The year 2008 was proclaimed “International Year of Languages” by UNESCO. According to UNESCO, “language diversity is essential to the human heritage”. Language diversity has to be preserved because “each and every language embodies the unique cultural wisdom of a people. The loss of any language is thus a loss for all humanity. There is an imperative need for language documentation, new methods, new policy initiatives and safeguarding strategies to enhance the vitality of these languages. The cooperative efforts of language communities, language professionals, NGOs and governments will be indispensable in countering this threat.”2 Moreover, linguistic diversity is closely linked to cultural diversity, as indicated in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (see Matsuura 2007). Given that a large number of languages are considered weak, a parallel has been drawn between linguistic diversity and biodiversity. In both cases, some of the species are at risk and need specific protection. Crystal (2000) highlights two of the arguments used to support biodiversity for their applicability to linguistic diversity: (1) the whole concept of an ecosystem is based on networks of relationships and “damage to any one of the elements in an ecosystem can result in unforeseen consequences for the system as a whole”, and (2) diversity is necessary for evolution, and the strongest ecosystems are those that are more diverse. The disappearance of a species is a great loss for the world but the death of a language is also a significant loss because languages imply a loss of inherited knowledge. Cultures are transmitted through languages, and languages also reflect the history of the people who have used them. As Krauss argues,

84

Diversity Research and Policy

linguistic diversity is not less important than ecological diversity: “Surely just as the extinction of any animal species diminishes our world, so does the extinction of any language. Surely we linguists know, and the general public can sense, that any language is a supreme achievement of a uniquely human collective genius, as divine and endless a mystery as a living organism. Should we mourn the loss of Eyak or Ubykh any less than the loss of the panda or California condor?” (1992: 8). Similar views have been discussed by Maffi (2000), who refers to biocultural diversity as the link and interdependence between the various manifestations of the diversity of life: biodiversity, cultural diversity and linguistic diversity. Another well-known analogy between linguistic and ecological diversity is the ‘language garden analogy’ proposed by Garcia (in Baker & Prys Jones 1998: 205). According to Garcia, it would be dull and boring to travel around the world and see that all gardens have the same flower. The variety of flowers of different shapes, sizes and colours makes our visual and aesthetic experience rich and enjoyable. Linguistic diversity also makes the world more interesting and colourful but, as in the case of flowers, it makes the garden more difficult to tend. Some flowers (and some languages) spread quickly and others need extra care and protection. Language diversity requires planning and care and involves some actions such as: (1) adding flowers to the garden: learning other languages can be an enriching experience; (2) protecting rare flowers: protecting languages at risk through legislation and education; (3) nurturing flowers in danger of extinction: intervention may be necessary and may imply positive economic discrimination; (4) controlling flowers that spread quickly and naturally: spread can be allowed as long as it does not kill other languages. Languages play an important role in the construction of ‘Europe’. Languages are perceived to be one of the key features of cultural identity. “Unity in diversity” is the motto of the European Union. The motto also reflects linguistic diversity as a central feature of Europe. At the same time, however, a monolingual way of thinking still prevails in many societies around the globe today. It is expressed in the slogan ‘One state, one nation, one language’, which found its origin in Europe ( Judge 2000). Linguistic diversity is viewed as a fundamental value of the European Union and is recognised in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.3 Today the European Union considers its “linguistic and cultural diversity part and parcel of the European identity, it is at once a shared heritage, a wealth, a challenge and an asset for Europe”,4 as expressed by the Council of Ministers in a recent resolution. However, this opinion has thus far had little political and no legal consequences.

Linguistic Diversity

85

Most important are the 23 official languages of the 27 member states of the European Union, which are used for all official publications and are simultaneously interpreted at meetings of the European Parliament, for example. The regional minority languages Catalan, Basque, Galician and Welsh have also been awarded special status for communicating with the European Commission. The European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1998) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1998) together form a European standard for the protection and promotion of regional minority languages. The charter functions as an international instrument for the comparison of legal measures and facilities of member states in this policy domain (Craith 2003) and is aimed at the protection and the promotion of “the historical regional or minority languages of Europe.” The concepts of “regional” and “minority” languages are not specified in the charter, but immigrant languages are explicitly excluded. States are free in their choice of which languages to include. Also, the degree of protection is not prescribed; thus a state is free to choose loose or tight policies. The result is a wide variety of provisions across EU member states (Grin 2003). The European Charter is much more elaborate on the use of language than the European Framework Convention. The charter offers the adhering states the opportunity of choice between alternatives (Woehrling 2006).

Language Diversity in Europe

To the average citizen, Europe may appear to have many languages, but in fact compared with the other continents in the world, Europe has a relatively small number of languages. Only 3.5 of all the languages in the world are spoken on the ‘old continent’. Historically, around 240 different languages were spoken in Europe. The languages in Europe vary greatly in size and strength. There are languages with millions of speakers – German has over 100 million mother-tongue speakers. There are also many small languages with just a handful of speakers that are unknown to most Europeans. An example is Livonian in Latvia, spoken by perhaps 25 elderly persons.5 Some of the most widely spread languages in the world today find their origin in Europe, such as English or French or Spanish. Due to processes of colonialism, trade, migration, diplomacy, mass-media, technology, etc., these languages have spread over vast territories and are the official state language of many countries. Today there are strong organisations to support the learning and use of these languages such as the British Council, the Alliance Française and the Instituto Cervantes.

86

Diversity Research and Policy

The majority of European languages belong to the Indo-European family, which can be divided into branches of Baltic (Latvian and Lithuanian), Celtic (e.g., Breton or Welsh), Germanic (e.g., English, German or Frisian), Romance (e.g., French, Spanish or Catalan) and Slavonic (e.g., Russian, Polish or Slovene). Greek, Albanian and Armenian also belong to the Indo-European family, as well as some languages of North India (e.g., Hindi, Urdu or Bengali). Other European languages belong to the separate family of Uralic languages, the Finno-Ugrian group of Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and various Saami languages. Maltese is a Semitic language and Basque is an isolated language on its own with no links to other languages. Almost all European languages are written in the Roman or Latin script. Some Slavonic languages use the Cyrillic script, and Greek and Armenian both have a script of their own. The next table provides an idea of the diversity among the current 27 EU member states in terms of population sizes and related official state languages.

Table 1

Overview of EU member states with estimated populations ranked according to size and the official state languages (EU figures for 2007)

Nr

Member states

Population (in millions) Official state language(s)

1

Germany

82,5

German

2

France

60,9

French

3

United Kingdom

60,4

English

4

Italy

58,8

Italian

5

Spain

43,8

Spanish

6

Poland

38,1

Polish

7

Romania

21,6

Romanian

8

The Netherlands

16,3

Dutch

9

Greece

11,1

Greek

10

Portugal

10,6

Portuguese

11

Belgium

10,5

Dutch, French, German

12

Czech Republic

10,3

Czech

13

Hungary

10,1

Hungarian

14

Sweden

9,0

Swedish

15

Austria

8,3

German

16

Bulgaria

7,7

Bulgarian

17

Denmark

5,4

Danish

Linguistic Diversity

87

Table 1

Overview of EU member states with estimated populations ranked according to size and the official state languages (EU figures for 2007)

Nr

Member states

Population (in millions) Official state language(s)

18

Slovakia

5,4

Slovak

19

Finland

5,3

Finnish, Swedish

20

Ireland

4,2

Irish, English

21

Lithuania

3,4

Lithuanian

22

Latvia

2,3

Latvian

23

Slovenia

2,0

Slovenian

24

Estonia

1,3

Estonian

25

Cyprus

0,8

Greek, Turkish

26

Luxembourg

0,5

Luxemburgish, French, German

27

Malta

0,4

Maltese, English

[Adapted from Extra & Gorter 2008: 5]

The table shows the large differences in population size between different EU member states as well as the connection between the reference to the member states and the names of the official state languages. In 24 out of 27 cases, the name of the state and the name of the language are in agreement (Barbour 2000); the exceptions are Austria, Belgium and Cyprus (for different reasons). There are 23 different official languages of the EU.6 However, in actual fact, different minority languages are also in use in all EU member states. Minority languages also contribute to the rich mosaic of linguistic diversity in Europe. On the one hand, there are regional minority languages indigenous to a certain area, and on the other hand, there are immigrant minority languages whose speakers have arrived from abroad (Extra & Gorter 2001). Most official state languages are spoken on the territory of one European state only. The case of German is a clear exception, because German is a (co-) official language in four EU member states (Germany, Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium), in two non-EU states (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) and also a recognised regional minority language in two other EU states (Denmark and Italy). Several other languages are at the same time the dominant official language in one state and spoken in areas of neighbouring states, e.g., French in the Aoste valley of Italy and the western part of Switzerland, or Italian in western parts of Slovenia and some small southern parts of Switzerland. Also Hungarian and Polish are well spread beyond their state borders. Today, most of these cross-border languages (or languages with a

88

Diversity Research and Policy

kin-state) are recognised as official minority languages; but sometimes they are not recognised at all. The geographic distribution of languages is related to state formation, administrative borders and migration. Moreover, some “modern foreign languages” have spread across Europe, mainly through (secondary) education as well as through cultural advancement in, for example, adult courses. German, French and English stand out in Europe because all three have strong institutions behind them that have a global reach (the Goethe Institut, the Alliance Française and the British Council, respectively). Although their organisational structures and budgets may differ, these bodies act like ‘cultural multinationals’, with similar aims to promote the learning of their respective languages as foreign languages and to boost the related cultures (Extra & Gorter 2008: 11-14). The geographic dispersion of regional minority language groups in the EU can only be approximated because there is so much diversity in statistical data. In some member states, figures are available because languages are included in the census; in other states, only (unreliable) estimates can be obtained. In the literature one can find different typologies for minority languages. For instance, they can be grouped together according to geographic spread (Edwards 1991, 2007) or ranked for strength on key variables (Euromosaic 1996), or by simply taking their size. Here we will distinguish five categories of regional minority languages in the EU (Ó Riagáin 2001, Gorter 1996, Grin & Moring 2002).

Table 2

Typology of minority languages in the European Union

Category

Examples

Unique minorities in one EU state

Breton, Corsican in France; North Frisian, Sater Frisian, Sorbian in Germany; Friulan, Ladin, Sardinian in Italy, Frisian in the Netherlands, Welsh and Cornish in the UK

Unique in more than one EU state

Basque in France and Spain; Catalan in Andorra, France, Italy and Spain; Saami in Finland and Sweden

Cross-border, minority/majority

German in Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland

Official state, but some similarity to minority languages

Irish, Maltese, Luxembourgish

Non-territorial

Romani, Yddish

Linguistic Diversity

89

This typology refers mainly to the geographic dimension related to state boundaries and partially to legal status (level of recognition). The distinctions may be gradual and some language groups may not fit in very well (e.g., Slovenian, Croatian or Czech). We present the typology here for the purpose of making the diversity of contexts across Europe visible (figures and text adapted from Extra & Gorter 2008: 24-28). In 2002, the European Council in Barcelona set as a long-term objective that all EU citizens should speak two other languages in addition to their mother tongue. This is far from the current reality. An EU-wide study found that 56 of EU citizens are able to hold a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue (Eurobarometer 2005), but only 28 fulfills the objective of being able to speak two languages besides their mother tongue (and an even lower 11 claims proficiency in at least three languages). The same study showed some further interesting results about multilingualism and language diversity in the European Union. The range of languages spoken is limited. It is predominantly English, mentioned by 38 on average as a second language. In countries such as Sweden, Malta and the Netherlands, over 85 of the population claim to be able to speak English. Four more languages are also mentioned: French (14), German (14), Spanish (6) and Russian (6). Other languages are hardly mentioned as second or third languages beside the mother tongue. These second languages are most frequently used by EU citizens on holidays abroad. In terms of attitudes, some questions were asked about the usefulness of languages, the policy to learn two languages and views on minority languages. 83 of Europeans believe that knowing foreign languages is or could be useful for them personally. Again, English (68) is mentioned by far the most as the language that is most useful to know; French and German follow (25 and 22 respectively). The policy to learn two languages besides the mother tongue is supported by about half of the citizens; the statement that everyone in the EU should be able to speak one language in addition to the mother tongue receives much more support: 84. In general, Europeans have a positive attitudes towards regional and minority languages because 63 “totally agrees” or “tends to agree” with the statement that “regional or minority languages should receive greater support”. In Europe, there are no monolingual countries. All states have groups of regional or immigrant minority languages speakers on their territory. The way the different state governments deal with their minorities varies. Over the last decades, regional and minority languages have found more recognition and respect. The outright repression or discrimination may have disappeared, but the situation of many minority languages is precarious and almost all of them are defined as endangered (Unesco Atlas 2009).

90

Diversity Research and Policy

Linguistic Diversity in Africa

Africa is one of the most linguistically diverse regions of the world with around 2000 languages, or approximately one-third of all known languages (Grimes 2000, Heine & Nurse 2003, Ouane 2003). Endogenous (indigenous) African languages are generally regarded as falling within four phyla or major groups (as classified by Greenberg 1963, 1966): Niger-Congo (1,436 languages), AfroAsiatic (371 languages), Nilo-Saharan (196 languages) and Khoisan (35 languages) (Grimes 2000). The Afro-Asiatic languages span North Africa from Western Sahara, Morocco and Mauritania to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea). The Nilo-Saharan languages are concentrated mainly in Sudan and Chad. The largest group, Niger-Congo, occur in West, East (south of the Horn), Central and Southern Africa. The Khoisan languages are found in small groups in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. Malagasy, in Madagascar, belongs to a fifth language group, Austronesian. The linguistic diversity of Africa is frequently presented in international literature across several disciplines as a problem and a barrier to effective communication, education and economic development. In particular, the contemporary literature even within linguistics has offered a one-dimensional view of African languages as oral and without literary traditions. There is, however, an extensive body of literature in numerous languages dating back to the Ancient Egyptians’ use of hieroglyphics, which influenced many writing systems in countries further south. The Gicandi script of the Kikuyu in Kenya, the Nsibidi pictograms of the Efik in Nigeria, the Mende script of Sierra Leone and the Loma script of Liberia, as well as the Dogon, Bambara and Bambum (Cameroon) scripts show similarities to Egyptian hieroglyphics (Battestini 1997, Ki-Zerbo 2003, Heugh 2006). In the Horn of Africa, the influence of hieroglyphics is found in scripts from the seventh century BC onwards. These early scripts gave rise to a South Semitic language, Ge’ez (ancient Ethiopic), identified by the first and second centuries AD. The spread of Christianity across this region was accompanied by a flowering of literature in Ge’ez, including the Holy Book, Kebra nagast, (e.g., Bloor & Tamarat 1996) from the fourth century AD, and peaking between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. Modern Ethiopian and Eritrean languages in both their spoken and written form (e.g., Tigrinya, Tigre and Amharic) have emerged from Ge’ez which, like Latin in the West, is no longer spoken or used except for religious purposes. A second wave of religious influence – the spread of Islam from the seventh century AD onwards – played a significant role in both the spread of Arabic and the development of written languages across North and West Af-

Linguistic Diversity

91

rica. Ajami, which is the use of Arabic-based orthographies for the transcription of African languages, has been used in the development of many written languages (e.g., Fulfulde, Mende, Wolof, Hausa and Yoruba). It has also been used for Kiswahili and Somali in East Africa (Abdulaziz 2003, Alidou 2004, Heugh 2006). The establishment of ‘Islamo-Sudanese’ religious and educational centres, such as the Sankore university-mosque in Timbuktu, with 25,000 students in the fifteenth century, resulted in large volumes of written texts. Over 150,000 manuscripts dating from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries have been recovered. Although mostly written in Arabic, they include several other languages (Djian 2004). From the fifteenth century onwards, European settlements along the coast of Africa introduced several exogenous languages. The partition of Africa by the European powers at the Berlin Conference of 1884-5 brought about divisions within African linguistic communities, often accompanied by renaming languages across new geopolitical borders. Several European languages have been preserved as official languages, in most cases. Twenty-six countries have French as (one of ) the official languages – these constitute a powerful Francophone bloc. Twenty-two countries have English as (one of ) the official languages, and together these constitute the second largest linguistic bloc: Anglophone Africa. Portuguese continues to occupy a prominent position in Mozambique, Angola, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau. Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara, as well as the Canary Islands off the West coast, use Spanish for prominent functions. Italian still has some presence in Libya and even had a short history of prominence in Eritrea and Ethiopia. A third wave of religious influence – the introduction of Christianity to Southern and Eastern Africa by missionaries – resulted in the transcription of many African languages for biblical translation and for primary education in missionary schools in British colonies. Across the continent, the former colonial languages – French, English, Portuguese or Spanish – are now regarded as desirable languages of education, usually from the first grade and certainly by the second or third grade. This has had a negative impact on the use of African languages for high status functions, while also blocking successful education for most African children (e.g., Alidou et al. 2006). From a European perspective it is interesting to be aware that it is commonplace for people to be multilingual in African countries. In addition to being able to communicate in several different languages, people use their multiple languages to negotiate meaning amongst different languages. Most African scholars dispute the notion that multilingualism poses communicative difficulties and increasingly point towards the artificial division and re-

92

Diversity Research and Policy

naming of languages subsequent to the partition of Africa (e.g., Djité 1993, Makoni 2003). The external-to-Africa view of ‘linguistic diversity as a problem’ and the Western notion of lingua franca appear to be inadequate in African debates. The co-existence of multiple languages does not in the African context require the emergence of a single lingua franca. From within the continent, the African lingua franca is not ‘a single language ... but a multilayered and partially connected language chain that offers a choice of varieties and registers in the speaker’s immediate environment’ (Fardon & Furniss 1994: 4). This multilayered linguistic continua spills across to multilayered identity. Thus it is possible to be a Wolof speaker who uses Fulani for some functions and Hausa for others, to be simultaneously a member of the Francophone community and to have a Malian and West African identity, but sometimes to claim a Senegalese or Nigerian identity through familial associations. The study of linguistic diversity in African contexts offers rich contributions to the field of sociolinguistics as well as studies in diversity more broadly. One could say that there exists a diversity in views on diversity.

e Relevance of Language Diversity for Policy

Although several definitions of ‘language policy’ have been provided, it is clear that the promotion and protection of linguistic diversity is an urgent matter for policymakers at different levels. On a world scale, UNESCO declared 2008 to be the International Year of Languages in an attempt to attract the attention of state governments to the problems of the survival of small languages and the provision of mother-tongue education. In Europe, both the European Union and the Council of Europe have developed policy plans for linguistic diversity and multilingualism. Politicians, decision-makers, language experts and activists try to keep the issue on the policymaking agendas, but progress is slow and the implementation of solemn declarations and international agreements has been sluggish. In Africa, only a limited number of overall actions on linguistic diversity have been undertaken. It is the level of the nation-state, in Africa as well as elsewhere, that is of decisive importance when it comes to policymaking and the implementation on policies for linguistic diversity. There are substantial differences between the different states. Some state governments still deny the existence of linguistic minorities, emphasising the age-old idea of ‘one nation, one state, one language’. On the other side of the spectrum are states that have given full legal recognition to the languages on their territory, which is followed by extensive economic and financial support for the revival and survival of the languages. However,

Linguistic Diversity

93

in most states the issue of linguistic diversity is a relative minor policy issue, even though ‘language’ has great symbolic, ideological and political impact. In many cases it is the levels below the central state – the regional and the local levels – that are of the utmost importance for the development of policies. A rich mosaic of different policy measures exists at this level. Adaptation to the local situation is often a fruitful and relevant way of making policy.

e Future of Diversity in Linguistics

The number of languages in the world is diminishing at a fast rate. When the percentage of endangered languages is compared to the percentages of species at risk, Harrison estimates that more than 40 of the world’s languages are at risk as compared with 18 of mammals, 11 of birds, 8 of plants and 5 of fish (2007: 7). These estimations are extremely difficult to make and there may be some problems of accuracy, but it is a fact that linguistic diversity is on the decline. The loss of languages in the world is occurring extremely fast: “At the current pace, we stand to lose a language every 10 days for the foreseeable future” (ibid.: 5). Some countries and regions, particularly in Europe, have special language policies to maintain and promote the use of minority languages. These policies include the teaching of languages at school and the legal recognition of these languages, but these efforts do not apply to most languages that are at risk. Indeed, the current trend indicates that in the future there will be fewer languages spoken in the world. The vitality of languages is related to the complex interaction of different factors. Among these factors, economic variables play an important role as can be seen by the spread of English to different parts of the world. Nowadays, urbanisation is also a very strong trend. Speakers of minority and endangered languages coming from more remote rural areas often switch to majority languages when moving to cities. Another factor that can influence the future of diversity is demography. Immigration and differential birth rates do influence language groups in different ways. An additional factor that can have an impact on the future of linguistic diversity is the use of new technologies. It is still difficult to determine whether this will have a positive or negative effect on linguistic diversity, but Graddol (2006) reports that less English is used on the internet nowadays than a few years ago because more speakers of other languages use internet, and more kinds of computer software is available for different scripts. He also argues that monolingualism is declining in many parts of the world. Focusing on Europe, it is a fact that multilingualism is in-

94

Diversity Research and Policy

creasing because of a combination of different factors including the arrival of immigrants who speak other languages, the promotion of minority languages and the spread of English. It is difficult to foresee the future but the trend seems to be going in different directions. On the one hand, there is a decrease in the total number of languages in the world, particularly in the more multilingual areas of the world, but on the other hand there is an increase of multilingualism in many countries that were traditionally more homogeneous.

Notes      

See further: http://oldwww.ru.ac.za/academic/departments/linguistics/resources/ define.html Source: http://www.indigenous-language.org/YOL/index.html http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/ev.php?URL_ID=&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&U http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/action/linguistic/lingui_en.htm COUNCIL RESOLUTION of  November  on a European strategy for multilingualism (/C /), p . Redbook/wikipedia:  speakers; Ethnologue: - speakers, nearly extinct. This is because the Turkish speaking part of Cyprus did not enter the EU in .

References

Abdulaziz, M.H. 2003. The history of language policy in Africa with reference to language choice in education. In: Ouane, A. (ed.) Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 181-199. Alidou, H. 2004. Medium of instruction in post-colonial Africa. In: Tollefson, J.W. and Tsui, A.B. (eds.) Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 195-214. Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. and Wolff, H.E. 2006. Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa – the Language Factor. A Stock-taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in SubSaharan Africa. Paris: Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA). Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. 1998. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Battestini, S. 1997. Écriture et Texte: Contribution Africaine. Québec and Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; Paris: Présence Africaine.

Linguistic Diversity

95

Bloor, T. and Tamrat, W. 1996. Issues in Ethiopian Language Policy and Education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 17(5): 321338. Craith, M. 2003. Facilitating or generating linguistic diversity. The European charter for regional or minority languages. In: Hogan-Brun, G. and Wolff, S. (eds.) Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 56-72. Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Djian, J.-M. 2004. Mali: the fabulous past of Africa. Translated by Cragg, G. In: Le Monde diplomatique, August: 10-11. Djité, P.G. 1993. Language and development in Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 100/101:149-166. Edwards, J. 1991. Socio-educational issues concerning indigenous minority languages: Terminology, geography and status. In: Sikma, J. and Gorter, D. (eds.) European Lesser Used Languages in Primary Education. Leeuwarden: Mercator Education/ Fryske Akademy, 207-226. Edwards, J. 2007. Societal multilingualism: Reality, recognition and response. In: Auer, P. and Wei, L. (eds.) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 447-467. Eurobarometer 2006. Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer Wave 64.3: 243. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc631_en.pdf [accessed 6 March 2009] Extra, G. and Gorter, D. 2001. Comparative perspectives on regional and immigrant minority languages in multicultural Europe. In: Extra, G. and Gorter, D. (eds.) The Other Languages of Europe (Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-41. Extra, G. and Gorter, D. 2008. The constellation of languages in Europe: An inclusive approach. In: Extra, G. and Gorter, D. (eds.) Multilingual Europe: Facts and Policies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-61. Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. 1994. Introduction: frontiers and boundaries – African languages as political environment. In: Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. (eds.) African languages, development and the state. London and New York: Routledge, 1-29. Gorter, D. 1996. Het Fries als kleine Europese taal. (Frisian as a small European language). Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Graddol, D. 2006. English next. Why Global English may mean the end of English as a Foreign language. London: British Council. Grimes, B.F. (ed.) 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

96

Diversity Research and Policy

Greenberg, J.H. 1956. The Measurement of Linguistic Diversity. Language. 32(1): 109-115. Greenberg, J.H. 1963. The Languages of Africa. International Journal of American Linguistics. 29(1): part 2. Greenberg, J.H. 1966. The Languages of Africa. Second edition with additions and corrections. Bloomington: Indiana University. Grin, F. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Grin, F. and Moring, T. 2002. SMiLE – Final report: Support for minority languages in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. http://europa. eu.int/comm/-education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/files/support.pdf [accessed 6 March 2009] Harrison, D. 2007. When languages Die: The extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B. and Nurse, D. (eds.) 2003. African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heugh, K. 2006. Language Education Policies in Africa. In: Brown, K. (editor-in-chief ) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Second edition. 6. Oxford: Elsevier, 414-422. Judge, A. 2000. France: ‘One state, one nation, one language?’ In: Barbour, S. and Carmichael, C. (eds.) Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44-82. Ki-Zerbo, J. (ed.) 2003. General History of Africa Vol 1 (Abridged): Methodology and African Prehistory. Cape Town: NEA & UNESCO. Krauss, M. 1992. The World’s Languages in Crisis. Language. 68(1): 4-10. Maffi, L. 2000. Language Preservation vs. Language Maintenance and Revitalization: Assessing concepts, approaches, and implications for language sciences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 142: 175-190. Maignan, C., Ottaviano, G., Pinelli, D. and Rullani, F. 2003. Bio-Ecological Diversity vs. Socio-Economic Diversity: A Comparison of Existing Measures, NOTA DI LAVORO 13.2003. http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/CD0D91F5-12B9-4E20-B905-00E25D73187A/691/1303.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Makoni, S. 2003. From misinvention to disinvention of language: Multilingualism and the South African Constitution. In: Makoni, S., Smitherman, G., Ball, A. and Spears, A. (eds.) Black Linguistics. Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas. London and New York: Routledge, 132-151. Matsuura, K. 2007. Message from Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, on the celebration of 2008, International Year of Languages.

Linguistic Diversity

97

http://portal.unesco.org/-culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=35559&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed 7 March 2009] Nelde, P., Strubell, M. and Williams, G. 1996. Euromosaic: The production and reproduction of the minority language groups of the EU. Luxembourg: Publications offices. Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ouane, A. 2003. Introduction: the view from inside the linguistic jail. In: Ouane, A. (ed.) Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 1-22. Parijs, Ph. van 2006. Linguistic diversity: What is it? And does it matter? Proceedings Challenges of Multilingual Cities, Brussels, 9-10 June. www.ecare.ulb.ac.be-/ecare/ws/lingual/papers/vanparijs.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Traill, A. 2002. The Khoesan Languages. In: Mesthrie, R. (ed). Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-49. UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger 2009. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00206 [accessed 7 March 2009] UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2001. http://unesdoc-.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Woehrling, J.-M. 2006. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A critical Commentary. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

98

Diversity Research and Policy

7

Diversity and Architecture Hisham Elkadi & Mirjana Lozanovska

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Architecture

Architecture can be defined as the art and tectonics of place making. The discipline of architecture involves a broad set of practices including design of the built environment, development of architectural projects either communitybased or oriented towards a (private) client, and advisory work for governments. Architecture also involves a wide spectrum of knowledge including urban design and urban planning, and a variety of architectural ideas, theories and movements. Various dominant ideologies have manifested themselves in built form, whereas other, marginal cultural parameters have emerged in the vernacular or traditional architecture. Architecture is considered the medium through which society is organised and materialised. It resonates with symbolic meaning as well as pragmatic order through built places.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Architecture

Architecture is perceived as a cultural product, but the architectural community and discipline have been slow to engage with diversity as a cultural parameter in architecture. Diversity in architecture, particularly the debate of inclusion and exclusion, is not a part of the mainstream discourse. Mainstream architecture is largely dominated by the publicity and discussion of the work of internationally established architects, something that has become more dominant through globalised information technologies. The notion of the ‘starchitect’ has been a rising phenomenon in the architectural world to the extent that nations that are rising in the global economy of late capitalism seek the ‘starchitect’ for the design of significant and large projects. Agents engaged in nation-building have added the dimension of cultural capital to its contemporary agenda of economic strength. One example of this is the ‘Bilbao effect’, named after Frank Gehry’s design for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which engendered a dramatic increase in international tourism to Bilbao.

99

Another example is the major facilities developed for the Olympics in Beijing (China), many of which were commissioned to, and consequently built by the world’s most renowned architectural firms. As stated, cultural diversity is largely marginal in architectural discourse and not often considered an influencing factor in architectural practices. There is not much evidence of currency of terms related to cultural diversity such as identity, ethnicity, culture, multiculturalism, cultural difference. In 2007, Carey Lyon, former president of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), argued that architects have not participated or contributed to the debates about culture and identity (Lyon 2007). This is despite the usage of the term diversity or related themes in other cultural disciplines for more than four decades. Art disciplines such as literature, cinema, music and the visual arts have no trouble engaging with issues of value, colonisation, multiculturalism, ownership and authorship, also in the form of internal critique. Although not centred in the mainstream of the discipline, these themes do seem to have their place at the fringes of architectural practices and research. Some ideas regarding diversity appear to have entered the thinking about architecture at the end of the 1960s. Key practices and texts such as the works of Hassan Fathy and Christopher Alexander induced the architectural profession to look at diversity within sustainable design and argued that this was a creative potential in architecture. A surge in work on women and architecture emerged at this time, putting gender and sexual identity on the radar of architectural discussion. Paul Oliver’s research on vernacular architecture has documented diversity as a form of an architectural culture that emerged from the way people organised their spatial world. He argues that such vernacular architecture is eroding and much of it is already extinct due to the effects of globalisation on ways of living as well as on materials and construction techniques. At the community level, architects in the 1970s attempted to develop design processes that entailed user participation, especially if they involved underprivileged communities, in order to produce a more relevant and dignified architecture. Interest in the vernacular and the local prompted research on ‘regionalist architecture’ and ‘critical regionalism’ aiming to understand and categorise the work of architects that attempted to work with local traditions. Some architects have had success within this paradigm of ‘critical regionalism’, developing languages of architecture that mediate the (Western) modern and (local) tradition. Through his work in Rural Studio, Samuel Mockbee has built aesthetically attractive and inexpensive structures for needy people and communities located in one of the world’s most advanced economies. Some of these practices of diversity in architecture were only significant in their particular period or era, while others continue to be relevant, sometimes

100

Diversity Research and Policy

in different guises. Work around architectural and urban heritage, relevant to international organisations such as UNESCO and to local policy organisations that produce town planning codes and laws, have emerged from a revaluing of and research in architectural history and architectural tradition. To some extent, their efforts aim to prevent the erasure of symbolic structures and/or local traditions in the wake of urban growth and building development. The development of heritage value in the built environment is a movement largely driven by an elite community protecting their cultural and economic capital. While significant heritage value may have been assigned to a place and structure in India, the Indian community in a city like Melbourne, Australia built on immigration has not established a dynamic forum for the discussion of heritage value to the Indian community in Australia. This brings us to the issues of diversity in architecture that are underrepresented and relevant to our contemporary society. As outlined in the introduction, the conditions of diversity, largely produced through migrations and resettlement of people, present challenges to a discipline like architecture. The following section expands on these areas.

eoretical Discourse on Diversity in Architecture

The general debates around inclusion and exclusion through architecture revolve around conceptual frameworks of cultural diversity, cultural difference and multiculturalism. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably and yet theorists elaborate on some of the distinctions. A literature review of diversity in architecture can be organised under four main categories: 1 concepts of multiculturalism in architectural production; 2 ethnicisation of architecture; 3 the role of tradition and vernacular architecture; 4 ownership and authorship of architecture. Multiculturalism in Architecture

Gunew’s study of Australian multiculturalism in relation to the cultural industry is informative for a global context. Gunew (1993: 2) distinguishes between two types of multiculturalism: “a system of government policies designed to manage cultural diversity, and multiculturalism in so far as it arises from the desires of various communities and individuals who feel excluded by the discourses and practices surrounding (Australian) nationalism”. In the policy definition, multiculturalism is advocated as “cultural diversity”, and it

Diversity and Architecture

101

serves to challenge both unequal power relations and a fully homogeneous national culture. Elaborating on this earlier work, Gunew again addresses the concept of multiculturalism as a concept by nations with the agenda to “represent themselves as transcendently homogeneous in spite of their heterogeneity”, and in its service towards minorities assumes itself always in relation to a majority (2006: 16). Architectural theorists have drawn from cultural and postcolonial theories to formulate a discourse of cultural diversity in architecture. Lozanovska (1997) has argued that signs of cultural difference are produced even in the most normal and assimilatory processes of home ownership and homemaking. Because houses are public artifacts, at least their facades produce appearances of an aesthetic perceived to be different from the context. Baydar (2004) promoted the need to shift from cultural diversity to cultural difference in architectural thinking. Homi Bhabha (1994) portrayed cultural diversity as a category of comparative ethics and aesthetics that emphasises liberal notions of multiculturalism and cultural exchange. Cultural difference, on the other hand, “focuses on the problem of the ambivalence of cultural authority: the attempt to dominate in the name of a cultural supremacy which is itself produced only in the moment of differentiation” (Bhabha 1994: 34). One of the main causes that brings about conflicts is the difference between the systems of values treasured by different groups or ethno cultures. Friction may emanate from ideology and find its way into the minds of the common population, encouraging it to perceive this friction as a confrontation of cultural values and symbols. Architecture and artifacts of the cultural-built heritage are usually perceived as strong historical evidence for the grievances of certain groups. Preservation or in many cases destruction and demolition of such symbols are attempts to delete such physical evidence. There are many global incidents of violence deliberately targeting not only the people but also their cultural built heritage(s), for example in Iraq or Bosnia. Riedlmayer (2002) explained how the military violence in Bosnia aimed to deconstruct a heterogeneous and plural culture in order to destroy all records of co-existence. Ethnicisation of Architecture

The ethnicisation of architecture has a long tradition and is made evident in the canonical publications disseminated within the Anglo-Saxon world. Gülsüm Baydar Nalbantoglu’s essay (1998) analyses the so-called non-historical styles of Banister Fletcher’s well-known book and the illustration of the ‘Tree of Architecture’ in the sixteenth edition (Fletcher 1954). The front inside cover of the

102

Diversity Research and Policy

sixteenth edition shows an illustration of the Tree of Architecture comprising mainly European styles branching out into various cultural and geographical locations. The architecture of the ‘others’ are not given the place of architectural histories in their own right.1 The twentieth edition (1996) demonstrates the geopolitical scope of the field of ‘architecture’ (Lozanovska 2004b) with what was once described as ‘grotesque’ now embraced as ‘non-West’. The anthology of essays in ‘Postcolonial Space(s)’ (Nalbantoglu et al. 1997) addresses questions of ethnic identity, tradition and culture through paradigms framed by postcolonial theory (Lozanovska 2004b). The text is an exploration of the disciplinary boundaries of architecture. Investigating issues of representation, interpretation and identity, it challenges regionalist positions that often critique studies on intercultural architectural encounters and hardly question their own mechanisms of legitimacy (Nalbantoglu & Thai 1997: 7). Many of the architectural writers in this publication draw on the work of postcolonial theorists such as Said (1978) who argued that the relationship between the occident and the orient is a relationship of power and domination. Spivak (1990: 1) argued that ‘the imperialist project [which] had to assume that the earth it territorialised was in fact previously uninscribed’. Postcolonialism, combined with the creation of the profession ‘architect’ itself in postcolonial environments (McGarry & Elkadi 2008), have influenced the design practice of architecture. First, the interplay between power and society that emerged after colonialism influenced both the aesthetics and procurement of the built environments. Second, it stimulated the visionary capacity and fantasy of architects, who turn the imagined unreal into visual projections of the manifest and physical. Two outcomes become evident. One is discussed by Çelik (1997) as the visual fantasy at play in the projection of new colonial cities. The other is the often expressive and novel structures of worship erected by ethnic communities in the diaspora. Beynon (2005, 2002) has investigated various temples, mosques and churches in the culturally diverse outer suburbs of Melbourne, calling them ‘ Third-World Looking Buildings’ after anthropologist Ghassan Hage (1998). These buildings have altered the physical and social fabric of the city and yet there is little representation of such buildings in architectural discourse. Tradition and Diversity in Architecture Sociology is rarely more akin to social psychoanalysis than when it confronts an object like taste, one of the most vital stakes in the struggles fought in the field of the dominant class and the field of cultural production. bourdieu 1984: 11

Diversity and Architecture

103

Lozanovska (2008) has examined how Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of taste produces categories of diversity in architecture. In his seminal book Distinction (1984), Bourdieu explains the ways in which aesthetic taste gives appearance to a division of classes, and is an instrument to reproduce that class division. The production, publication, dissemination and policymaking is what Bourdieu terms ‘cultural capital’. A national architecture invariably reflects and defines a dominant aesthetic taste evident in many fields: lifestyle, biography, history, production of goods, access to the products, collections of objects, etc. Bourdieu highlights the significance of social origin as a defining mechanism of taste and class. A crucial component of Bourdieu’s theory is the capacity of ‘social actors’ to impose their particular aesthetic and symbolic systems and actively reproduce these social structures of domination. The effect is what Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic violence’. Through the mechanisms outlined above, the dominant aesthetic taste renders other architectural traditions undesirable and denies their architectural history and value. Recent studies illustrate how symbolic violence manifests itself for example in the Australian multicultural society. Ghassan Hage (1997) argues that there are two types of multiculturalism. Cosmo-multiculturalism is the classy, sophisticated, cosmopolitan multiculturalism evident in official displays and manifested in people’s choice of restaurant or food. This also applies where architecture conservation of certain styles in towns and cities is associated with a privileged globalisation without their indigenous population. The other, inhabited multiculturalism is a lower-class lived tradition, mostly experienced by migrants. Hage argues that in satisfying their own search for diversity, the cosmo-multiculturalist group tends to emphasise the otherness in the traditions of those who inhabit multiculturalism. Good taste in architecture is of interest to any community that values a range of aesthetics from popular and kitsch to high architecture (including heritage, retro and the new super luxurious). For most nations a spectrum of literature exists on reflections of national identity in architecture. For example, in Australia numerous books propose and establish the idea of the ‘Australian house’. Very rarely are houses that belong to migrants or identified as migrant houses included in this literature. The idea of bad taste in architecture reappears in discussions with terms like ‘grotesque’ (Parker & Phillips 2007: 3-7). However, more problematic is how the ‘other’ has become associated with the ‘grotesque’ in architectural discourse without sufficient resonance to its cultural discursive meanings. In this way, the engagement of architecture with diverse cultural fields is minimised, even while the cultural discussion has become more explicit.

104

Diversity Research and Policy

Baydar Naltantoglu illustrates Fletcher’s simultaneous fascination and disdain for non-Western architectures through the terms ‘excessive’ and ‘grotesque’ (1954 and other editions) that frequently appear in Fletcher’s analysis to indicate undesirable exaggeration. Baydar Nalbantoglu (1998) argues that, from this perspective, other architectures that are excessive in ornament were defined as not having or lacking a history. Ghandour (1998) argues that authentic local identity is a condition of postcolonial societies. Consequently, he deems the architect’s role in the production of buildings in such societies to be minor, as he observes a tendency towards stylistic imitation of local traditions, which he regards as a pastiche of a developer’s palette towards a certain consumer audience. Ownership and Authorship of Architecture

The issue of identity is entangled with local and global movements and forces but is invariably assessed against a meta-history embedded in Eurocentric narratives. However, as Colquhoun elaborates in The concept of regionalism (1997), an essay that revises earlier theories on ‘regionalism in architecture’, this is not a straightforward divide. He argues that modernism and modernity is already infiltrated through other cultures and otherness, pointing to the travels of Le Corbusier to the East (Balkans and North Africa) that had a significant impact on his thinking about separate vernacular traditions. The historical reference to the eighteenth century is key, as for the first time, Europeans are directly subjected to cultures that are not part of the ancient classical tradition. Ethnographer James Clifford has noted how these other cultures became appropriated by modernity (in art and architecture), later to be labeled ‘primitive’ (Clifford 1988). From these contexts, the notion of ‘authenticity’ in architecture emerges, but as Colquhoun points out, this only occurs as the object it describes is threatened and about to disappear. In the same publication John Biln (1997) provides a meticulous analysis of the Arab World Institute Building in Paris and how an internationally acclaimed (and Western) architectural firm under the directorship of Jean Nouvel positions such a project. Biln elaborates the architectural strategies of Nouvel that resists oppositions between Paris (Europe) and Arab (Orient), including the displacement of authenticity, appropriation and appropriation through a visual gaze. More radically, Rem Koolhaas has stated that “the ‘Western’ no longer belongs to Europe exclusively, and that decades of exchange and transformation of universal languages and local practices have resulted in various modernities, rightly owned by many”. In his work about the ‘culture of disappearance’,

Diversity and Architecture

105

Ackbar Abbas (2004) confronts the theories of Colqhuoun with Koolhaas’s statement, examining the architectural and cultural production of Hong Kong, which exemplifies both. Wong Chong Thai (1997) investigates the production of this hybridity in Singapore’s built environment.

Relevance of Diversity in Architectural Research Architecture can never embrace the challenges of the future without infusion of new ideas, technologies and especially diverse individuals and approaches. If we refuse, we are destining ourselves to be suspended in the past. smith & schank smith 2007

Architecture is determined by prevailing social and economic conditions. Architects will unconsciously acquire the underlying ideological assumptions of their society and these will influence design (Gelenter 1995: 9). Architecture and the built environment ultimately require material resources. As the built environment is associated with a particular culture or class, it becomes embroiled with that class or culture’s power, through either the domination of one overriding style or the wealth used to build. Anthony D. King argues that in every society, economic and political power is “probably the major factor explaining the actual form of the built environment” (King 1984: 5). The way such power is expressed varies from culture to culture, and the creation of architecture itself can be thus evidence of some sort of material power. The grander the scale and style of the architecture, the more powerful were the creators of the building. The relationship between architecture and power is not always instructed by clients or instigated by architects; it is a more complex relationship that finds its root in the very definition of culture. Markus (1993) discussed how a building can shape both the socially constructed power relations and the bonding interaction between individuals and society. McGarry and Elkadi (2009) explain that decisions concerning the built environment may result from a wish to strengthen a person’s or an institution’s social or economic place, while other incentives might include the reinforcement of community and institutional self-identity. In these cases, “fundamental decisions about buildings make links between society as a whole and the building culture itself ” (Davis 1999: 91-92). The expression of power and status in architecture traces back to the individual’s own space, the house. Citing the so-called ‘gift relation’ as a motive for building new one-off contemporary homes, Keohane and Kuhling argue that

106

Diversity Research and Policy

the statuses of the house owners and their community are interlinked. The houses, they say, are seen to be beautiful objects: ... in the mind of those who own them, they retain the quality of a gift to one’s family and community. These houses are [...] given to others for the edification of the community. Their owners seek recognition, reciprocity, honour and self-esteem: status, [...] in the eyes of the community, thus raising the standard of the community overall. The next person to build in the community (according to the obligatory nature of the gift relation) must build to an even higher standard. (Keohane & Kuhling 2004: 113)

The elementary representation of power in the house is therefore related to the environment and community in which they occur. Such complex visual interpretation of power in a community can only be read by the insiders and leads to exclusion of the other. Chris Abel (2000: 86) states, “architecture can only be understood from within according to the terms of its own criteria as established by the history of architecture”. The built environment can therefore not only be associated with a certain culture and identity but also with power; the power of the ruling authority that created or used architecture, the dominant culture or even race associated with a particular vernacular style. Architects are thus positioned in any society as agents of power, but what about the question of the diversity of the architect? Prakash (1997) points out that the issue of identity is usually only raised when an architect from the non-West is involved. The idea that an Asian architect, for example, will naturally do Asian flavour buildings, is more a reflection of the categorical ways that identity is perceived than a contribution to the debate about how identity might intersect with architectural design and building practices. This cultural debate, it is argued, needs to address the ‘routes we take’ rather than the ‘roots that have become frozen in time.’ However, the architect functions in an environment in which the ‘starchitect’, produced by a network of politics and publicity, holds a transcendental position to which budding architects aspire. Émigré architects, especially those from the Bauhaus, produced the momentum of postwar architecture in the US, but many recent migrant architects have not been well documented. At one end of this spectrum of architect diversity is someone like Zaha Hadid (and other internationally acclaimed female architects, Itsuko Hasegawa and Kazuyo Sejima). At the other end is the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA) in the US formed in Detroit in 1971 by twelve architects who left the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Somewhere in the middle might be internationally acclaimed Indian architect Charles Correa. Questions emerge about the impact

Diversity and Architecture

107

of international figures, whether these bring different cultural references to the centre stage of architecture and about the effect of a separate organisation for and by self-acclaimed minorities. Further research on architects in relation to cultural diversity is needed to unravel these fields.

Migration and Diversity in Architecture Research

In many places, the particular matrix of existing architectural and urban fabric encounters the impact of migration that engenders the nuanced parameters of diversity in architecture. Cultural diversity and cultural hybridity in architecture is often shaped by a history of colonised space and territory. The issue of migration and architecture has not had much discussion or presence in the architectural community, even though migration is generally perceived as integral to the recent development of migrant-receiving nations like Germany, UK, Sweden, Canada and Australia. Scholars in other disciplines have generated many studies of migration and perceive it as a central issue in these national societies. Architectural and urban history is entangled with the story of migration (Lozanovska 2002). Castles and Miller (2003) explain how present ideas about cultural diversity are an outcome of the impact of transnational migration, which escalated in the period after World War II, leading to both the immense growth and cultural diversification of cities as places of immigration and the erosion of traditional villages and towns as places of emigration. Numerous publications elaborate on the impact of migration on aspects of the built environment such as place, home and city. Jane Jacobs and Ruth Finchers’ Cities of Difference (1998) and Leonie Sandercock’s Towards Cosmopolis (1998) address the topic from geo-cultural perspectives, introducing questions about multicultural cities and associated analyses of belonging, agency and production. In addition, Dovey (1999) and Woodcock (2005) have produced significant urban studies that look into the relationship between migration and the production of place, through field research of particular ‘ethnicised’ streets. The concept of ‘other architectural cultures’ emerging from Postcolonial Space(s) is further elaborated by studies of ‘other places’ and ‘other architectures within the same place’. Datta (2006) has researched the construction and meaning of home and city of Polish construction workers in London. The next generation of scholars including Winkler and Levine elaborate on the changes to the urbanism of many inner city streets, the stock of ‘migrant houses’ (and heritage and densification policies), as well as the redevelopment of diminishing manufacturing sites. Winkler (2008) elaborated the idea of ‘white space’ in her examination of people movements against de-

108

Diversity Research and Policy

velopments, specifically examining a group called Save Our Suburbs (SOS) that emerged from the affluent leafy suburbs in Melbourne in protest against medium density development. Using the idea of neighbourhood character, their protest was effective enough to change policy. All these theorists demonstrate that policies in planning and heritage are not always congenial to cultural diversity, even if cultural diversity is noted in policy. Less studied are the transformations to the places of origin, that of emigration and departure. Lozanovska (2004) developed analytical methodologies for the study of villages to bring the quintessential places of emigration into the migration equation. Datta and Young (2007) have examined new migratory patterns involving global and transnational settlements in sites that were historically departure sites. Specifically, they discuss the rise of communities on the Izmir-Cesme expressway in Turkey, made possible by new planning and building laws that enable ‘villafication’ to replace low density farmhouses on agricultural land. In addition to Turkish residents escaping the congested urbanism of Izmir, there is the immigration of American and European military personnel and their families due to the opening of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) base in Izmir. In addition to the authors noted so far, the International Association of Settlement and Traditional Environments (IASTE) group, under the director Nasser Alssayed, has examined transformations of places in relation to all the above forces of migration, globalisation and modernisation. Their ongoing work produces new methods and approaches to research in these fields. The journal Space and Culture regularly publishes and explores cross-disciplinary fields between built environments and cultural studies, and thereby provides a fertile forum for many dimensions of diversity in architecture. More recently, the Dutch-based journal OASE with a broader readership interested in mainstream architectural discourse has published a special issue titled ‘Homelands’ that includes discussions on the impact of migration on the built environment.

Diversity in Architecture Policy

The concept of cultural diversity is increasingly present in art and architecture policies, backed by action plans and national and international declarations. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which was adopted unanimously in November 2001 in Paris, sets out the agenda for future research and policies with its statement: “ The cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue.” Cultural diversity is defined as a ‘living

Diversity and Architecture

109

and thus renewable treasure’ and as a capacity for expression, creation and innovation. The Universal Declaration makes clear that cultural plurality and dialogue sustain each other in a mutually reinforcing manner. A number of people have expressed their reservations on the UNESCO declaration. Elkadi (2009) highlighted the shortfalls of the UNESCO approach in architecture, with its lack of acknowledgment of the role of place and local references. Rapaport (1984) explained that architecture stresses social identity and indicates status. Status is still one of the features of a building to strike a viewer, after function, scale, etc. McGarry (2008) argued that the design of built environments responds to the prevailing bureaucratic order of a society. Similarly, Rapoport (1984) focuses on the relation between architecture and power, as architecture provides settings for certain activities that signify power status or privilege. It expresses and supports cosmological beliefs, communicates information, helps establish individual or group identity, encodes a value system and separates domains. Literature reviewing the interrelationships between policies of procurement and diversity in the built environment tend to emphasise either the products or the producers, the diversity of architecture within a particular context, or the impact of the diversity of architects on a global setting.

e Future of Diversity in Architecture

The long tradition of the relationship between architecture and power led to various efforts to promote inclusiveness and participation in the production of architecture. Architecture is an expression of the age and society in which it was made. Sumita Sinha-Jordan (2009) conjectured that the fact that our built environment is difficult to navigate not just for the person in a wheelchair but also for a mother with a pram must surely be seen as terrible design, not just political (in)correctness. She argues that women and ethnic minorities should be able to express themselves openly with a refreshing new view of diverse architecture. Emphasis in recent literature remains, however, on the role played by cultural and visual dialogue in shaping the articulation and management of architectural diversity in society. There are mainly two distinct perspectives on diversity in cultural dialogue: the first perspective maintains the line of the ‘ethnicisation of architecture’, calling for the continued assertion of beliefs and practices grounded in a ‘homeland culture’, irrespective of how distant or even imaginary such a culture may have become. The second perspective follows the integration and multicultural approach in a Western context. It supports the need for creativ-

110

Diversity Research and Policy

ity and innovations in the built environment that are born out of contemporary living conditions, through which diverse cultures come to share the assets and goals directed at securing a pleasing and sustainable environment(s) for a better future. While generalising what in fact are highly nuanced inclinations, these two perspectives influence many of the decisions that regulate funding in the arts, from music and artistic performances, to the production of public places and which, in turn, influence their articulation across the media. Keuschler and Elkadi (2010) argue that both perspectives on diversity in cultural dialogue subscribe to a concept of culture that takes ethnic criteria to be a given and an unproblematic factor in the fashioning of identity, and which ignores the possibility that contemporary societies have complex networks of interests among different constituencies that are notoriously difficult to map. Lozanovska (2008) argues that the relation between ethnicity and architecture is a problematic myth and that houses assumed to have an ‘ethnic appearance’ are hardly different from houses that are assumed to fit a cultural norm. Architectural references to immigrant houses cannot readily be found in countries of origin. The ethnic aesthetics rather appears to be an outcome of diaspora contexts and not mimicry or direct imitation of other ethnic architectural traditions. The idea of cultural diversity in the architecture of the house in large cities of migration is a subtle and nuanced field. The Metapolis Dictionary (Gausa 2003) describes a newly erupted urban phenomenon between the rural, urban and suburban contexts, calling it ‘rurban’. It especially refers to housing developments and the inhabitants: “information workers no longer need to live in cities to live an urban life...A big house in the country, a small, jointly owned apartment in the city. The entire territory is now inhabitable...New dwellings...can be located on farm land that continues to be productive. Superposition of uses. Multiplicity of lives.” (Gausa 2003: 530). The textual definitions are accompanied by graphic montage-style architectural projects combining actual landscape with nature selected from a graphic palette, producing a contrasting visual and creative perspective. However, this version of ‘multiplicity’ manifests itself as a classdivided development where the marketed lifestyle of one group absorbs, transforms and eclipses the lives of the others. The persons that do the rural ‘production’ (farmers) are not named or identified, nor are their lives inscribed in this ‘multiplicity’; rather such physical production is subsumed by the representation of multiplicity as belonging within the lifestyle of the information workers and technicians. The story about the land as agricultural land, and about the peasants who inhabit it and are the cultivators of that land, disappears. Such disappearance of histories, elaborated eloquently by Ackbar Abbas (2004: 129-141) reveals the ways in which an optimistic ar-

Diversity and Architecture

111

chitectural promotion approach to the countryside is founded on a narrow illusional view. It is positioned as informed, privileged and mobile as if this existed independently of other productions, and also as if an abstract and virtual version of a mobile lifestyle does not depend on actual roads, physical infrastructure and cars. Saskia Sassen (1993: 5-35) argues that a narrow narrative of globalisation often omits the actual physicality of place that accompanies ‘global centres’, and the actual multiplicity of lives that contradict the multiplicity of a favoured global lifestyle.

Note 

Gulsum Baydar is also known by the name Gulsum Baydar Nalbantoglu.

References

Abbas, A. 2004. Building Hong Kong: From Migrancy to Disappearance. In: Cairns, S. (ed.) Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy. London: Routledge, 129-141. Abel, C. 2000. Architecture and Identity: Responses to Cultural Change. Second edition. Oxford. AIA-NAC May 2004. Diversity in the Architecture Profession. Berger, J. and Mohr, J. 1975. A Seventh Man: The Story of Migrant Worker in Europe. Cambridge: Granta Books. Beynon, D. 2002. Cannibal Tastes: The Architecture of Non-European Migrants in Australia. De-Placing Difference Architecture, Culture and Imaginative Geography. University of Adelaide, Australia: Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture, 217-228. Beynon, D. 2005. Melbourne’s Third-World-looking Architecture. In: Long, C., Shaw, K. and Merlo, C. (eds.) Suburban Fantasies: Melbourne Unmasked. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing. Bhabha, H. 1994. The Commitment to Theory. In: The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 34. Biln, J. 1997. (De)forming self and other: Toward and ethics of distance. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated bij Nice, R. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 11.

112

Diversity Research and Policy

Castles, S. 2003. The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: MJ Miller. Castles, S. and Kalantzis, M. 1994. Overview Report: Access to Excellence, A Review of Issues Affecting Artists and Arts from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds. Canberra: University of Wollongong, Centre for Multicultural Studies, Australian Government Publishing Services. Çelik, Z. 1997. Urban forms and colonial confrontations: Algiers under French rule. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Colquhoun, J.A. 1997. The concept of regionalism. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Cros, S. (co-ordination) 2003. The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age. Barcelona: Actar. Datta, A. 2006. Home, Migration, and the City: East European Construction Workers in London. Unpublished Research Project. Sticerd: London School of Economics and Political Science. Datta, A. and Yucel Young, S. 2007. New Suburbia: The rise of ‘Sites’ in Izmir, Turkey. Global Built Environment Review. 6(1): 44-55. Davis, H. 1999. The Culture of Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-92. Dovey, K. 1996. Architecture about Aborigines. Architecture Australia. 85(4): 98. Dovey, K. 1999. Framing places: Mediating power in built form. London and New York: Routledge. Elkadi, H. and Forsyth, K. 2009. Piazza Vittorio Emmanuelle II: Identity and Meaningful Place Making. Rome: EDUP multimedia. Fincher, R. and Jacobs, J.M. 1998. Cities of difference. New York: Guilford Press. Fletcher, B. 1954. A history of architecture on the comparative method. 16th edition. London: Batsford. Fletcher, B. and Cruickshank, D. 1996. Sir Banister Fletcher’s a history of architecture. 20th edition. Oxford and Boston: Architectural Press. Frampton, K. 1993. Towards a critical regionalism: Six points for an architecture of resistance. In: Docherty, T. (ed.) Postmodernism: A Reader. Harvester, Wheatseaf: Simon & Schuster, 268-80. Gausa, M., Guallart, V. et al. 2003. The Metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture: City, technology and society in the information age. Barcelona: Actar.

Diversity and Architecture

113

Ghandour, M. 1998. The secret is your phantasm: The traditional in architectural offices. 6th IASTE Conference, Cairo, Egypt. Gunew, S. 1994. Framing marginality: Multicultural literary studies. Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press. Gunew, S. 1993. Feminism and the Politics of Irreducible Differences: Multiculturalism/ethnicity/race. In: Gunew, S. and Yeatman, A. (eds.) Feminism and the Politics of Difference. Sydney, 2. Hage, G. 1998. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale NSW: Pluto Press. Hage, G. 1997. At home in the entrails of the west: Multiculturalism, ‘ethnic food’ and migrant home-building. In: Grace, H., Hage, G., Johnson, L., Langsworth, J., Symonds, M. (eds.) Home/World: Space, community an marginality in Sydney’s west. Annundale NSW: Pluto Press, 99-153. Hall, S. and Guy, P. du 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications, 4. Keuschler, S. and Elkadi, H. Diversity in Arts and Architecture, in preparation. Keohane, K. and Kuhling, C. 2004. Collision Culture Transformations in Everyday Life in Ireland. Dublin: Liffey Press, 113. King, A.D. (ed.) Buildings and Society; Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment. 1-31. Lozanovska, M. 1997. Abjection and Architecture: The Migrant House in Multicultural Australia. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W.C. (eds.) PostColonial Spaces. New York: Princeton University Press, 101-129. Lozanovska, M. 1999. In and Out of Place: A Study of the Village Zavoj, Macedonia. In: Self, Place and Imagination: Cross-Cultural Thinking in Architecture, selected articles from the 2nd International Symposium, Adelaide, 21-24 January, 1999. University of Adelaide: CAMEA (Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture), 107-120. Lozanovska, M. et al. 2008. The ‘Body as Subject’ in (Architectural) Discourse. Interstices: Journal of Architecture and Related Arts. Gen-ius/Genealogy. 7: 66-75. Auckland, New Zealand: Enigma. Lozanovska, M. (guest editor) 2002. New Australian Architecture. Architect. Journal of the RAIA, April, Victorian Chapter. Lozanovska, M. 2004a. Emigration/Immigration: Maps Myths Origins. In: Cairns, S. (ed.) Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy. London: Routledge, 184-202. Lozanovska, M. 2004b. Contemporary Architecture After 1968, CD-Rom, Deakin University. Lyon, C. 2007. Foreword: Culture wars – missing in action? Architecture Australia. 96(1): 7.

114

Diversity Research and Policy

Markus, T. 1993. Buildings & Power. London: Routledge. McGarry, M. and Elkadi, H. 2008. Norman Architecture: Perception of Origin and Power in Irish Cultural Heritage. Oxford, UK: IASTE 09: Interrogating Tradition, December. Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) 1997. Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 7. Nalbantoglu, G. 1998. Toward postcolonial openings: Rereading Sir Banister Fletcher’s History of Architecture Assemblage. 35: 6-17. Parker and Phillips, C. 2007. Oppressed by the figures of beauty: Melbourne Architecture and the Grotesque. Architect Victoria. Winter 2007: 3-7. Prakash, V. 1997. Identity Production in Postcolonial Indian Architecture: ReCovering What We Never Had. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Th ai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 39-52. Rapport, A. 1984. Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Determinants of Form. In: King, A.D. (ed.) Buildings and Society: Essays on the social development of the built environment. London, 283-306. Rapport, A. 2004. Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Determinants of Form. In: Baydar, G. The Cultural Burden of Architecture Journal of Architectural Education. 19-27. Riedlmayer, A.J. 2002. Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-1996: A Post-war Survey of Selected Municipalities. Massachusetts. Said, E. 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London: Penguin Books. Said, E.W. 1993. Culture & Imperialism, London: Chatto & Windus, 15. Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards cosmopolis : Planning for multicultural cities. Chichester, England and New York: John Wiley. Sassen, S. 1993. Analytic Borderlands: Economy and Culture in the Global City. Columbia Documents of Architecture and Theory. 3. Sinha-Jordan, S. 2009. Global Built Environment Review (GBER). 2(1): 15-18. Smith, C. PhD and Schank Smith, K. PhD 2000. 20 on 20/20 Vision: Perspectives on Diversity and Design. AIA. Spivak, G.C. 1990. The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. Edited by Harasym, S. New York: Routledge, 1. Thai, W.C. 1997. Cacophany: Gratification or Innovation. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W.C. (eds.) Post-Colonial Spaces. New York: Princeton University Press. Tzonis, A. and Lefaivre, L. 1990. Why critical regionalism today? Architecture and Urbanism. 236: 22-33. Winkler, S. 2008. Cultural and Place Identity: A study in Melbourne’s western suburbs. Unpublished Master Thesis, Deakin University.

Diversity and Architecture

115

Woodcock, I. 2005. Multicultural Melbourne: four fantasies of whitespace. Suburban fantasies: Melbourne unmasked. Long, C., Shaw, K., et al. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Pub.

116

Diversity Research and Policy

8

Diversity and Urban Planning John Betancur & Tüzin Baycan-Levent

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Urban Planning

Although urban planning as an art and practice is as old as cities, it only became an organised discipline when it engaged scientific theories and methods to study the relationship between space and human behaviour and to apply this knowledge to the production of an ordered urban environment. It did this by incorporating knowledge from sciences such as engineering, architecture, political and social sciences, health and biology. Initially focused on the rational ordering of space (i.e., land use, aesthetics and physical layout principally), it added new foci, methodologies and theories, over time eventually organising into distinct subfields such as land use and physical/ economic development; transportation, infrastructure, housing, social, community development and environmental planning. Urban planning also works closely with sister disciplines such as public health, education, disability studies, architecture and the arts. Altogether, urban planning is the integration of different disciplines to explore and address a wide range of aspects of the built and social environments of cities. Typical products include plans and policies targeting urban matters of special importance to stakeholders. Traditionally, plans regulated urban form, design and land use, as well as transportation. Over time, other plans and policies focusing for instance on economic development, natural resources and quality of life or in particular sub-areas of cities have been developed within the different subfields of planning. Planning also concerns itself with growth management, the development of open land and the revitalisation of already built environments. It includes activities as diverse as goal setting, data collection and analysis, forecasting, design, strategic thinking, area studies/profiles, policy and public consultation. Although the original proposal of scientific rationality (à la exact sciences) is still at its root, today the field encompasses a variety of paradigmatic approaches, many of them highly critical of this approach. Practically all sciences address the urban in one way or the other; what is most specific to planning is the production, regulation and ongoing reorganisation of space, place and community.

117

Diversity in the Discipline of Urban Planning

Although the term diversity was largely coined in Europe and often stands for multiculturalism, different versions have circulated in the conversations and practices of different societies. Under the circumstances, we use it loosely to refer to the range of visible and non-visible differences, characteristics or attributes of cities both challenging traditional approaches of standardisation and seeking to recognise and appreciate factors that make individuals and groups unique while increasing interest and enriching urban living. Examples of these characteristics are: age, cognitive style, culture, disability (mental, learning, physical), economic background, education, ethnicity, gender, identity, geographic background, language, marital/partnered status, physical appearance, political affiliation, race, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. Hence, diversity can have multiple meanings in planning and may refer to a range of activities and goals: a varied physical design, mixed uses, an inclusive public realm, multiple social groupings exercising their ‘right to the city’, and diverse ecologies and species sharing the same space with human beings. Urban diversity showcases the growing interdependence, interrelatedness and changing nature of societies and environments. Along these lines, planning has been concerned recently with the incorporation of diversity in its thinking and actions while seeking ways to turn diversity into an asset and to address adverse reactions and the new challenges it poses.

e Significance of Diversity for the Field Today

Because the world has become primarily urban and cities the homes of diversity, planning has had to deal with diversity by choice, necessity or default. The recent increase of cultural diversity resulting from an acceleration in international migration and residents’ resistance to share their places with newcomers have caught planners largely unprepared, as they had been trained in models of homogeneity. Attention to diversity started with an awareness of differences on the part of residents and authorities, and demands to deliver equal rights to all dwellers – coming especially from newcomers and their advocates. One major challenge has been a limited knowledge of whether or how the existing built environment may restrict the development of difference, in particular, the ways in which diversity may enrich or challenge cities in order to address obstacles adequately and to incorporate diversity creatively into plans, policies, management and theory. Peoples from all continents, backgrounds, races, social classes, genders, age, languages and beliefs converge in cities as technolo-

118

Diversity Research and Policy

gies, commodity flows and networks transform cities continuously. Cities have become the ultimate places of encounter, changing land uses, varied aesthetics, architecture and ecosystems, Urban planners have been challenged to develop flexible and inclusive approaches that fit these new realities. These dynamics are becoming crucial as “open cities” try to embrace diversity in an effort to increase their attractiveness and economic dynamism (by producing innovative designs, environments and strategies to welcome diversity), improve their relations with the world, and promote the kind of tolerance and integration required for productive and rich environments (Turner 1997, Quigley 1998, Zukin 1998, Florida 2002). Meanwhile, the long-term sustainability of human life in cities has come to depend on a successful balance between diverse human and natural environments (Sinclair 2006). Cities are built environments and, as such, must confront the challenges of artificial settings: to integrate nature and human beings; to provide the services, infrastructure and resources necessary to maintain the lives of millions of people and other beings concentrated in small geographies; and to produce quality of life for all. The earliest expressions of diversity in urban planning may have come from the separation and hierarchisation of urban spaces, classes and uses and from a gendered division of labour in which males led the way in physical, rational planning and females in social planning, community development and housing. But in truth, early approaches legitimised an order of segregation in which different groups clustered apart from each other and natural environments were domesticated to “serve” them. Following on the universalistic perspectives of Western thought, initial European encounters with diversity were viewed with a mix of curiosity, fear, “othering” and colonial domination. At home, the immigration of peasants into the cities and the critical challenges of the industrial revolution inspired planners to engage in the ordering of disorderly environments and the control of “uncultured” immigrants. Confronted with the mass immigration of European ethnicities, planners in the US focused on approaches that inspired their orderly incorporation while instilling in them the values of the gentry. Since the 1960s, however, diversity entered the field in the form of criticisms of top-down homogenising rational planning and of the allegedly monotonous, repetitive and sometimes oppressive environments it produced. But, ultimately, considerations of diversity, sustainability and inclusiveness responded to the pressure of social reformers and disadvantaged groups. Rather than emerging from theory, diversity came from the ground in the form of demands for inclusion, opportunity and the right to be different. In the US, diversity research and practice responded to the struggles of women and ethnic or racial groups asking for equal rights and access to op-

Diversity and Urban Planning

119

portunities monopolised by the majority white population. Joining or leading them were activists such as Martin Luther King, Oscar Chavez or Jane Jacobs praising urban diversity and opposing programmes and policies like urban renewal, housing segregation, market segmentation and highway development with devastating selective impacts on “minorities”1 and the poor. Urban movements in the 1960s worldwide played a major role in presenting diversity as a legitimate claim by challenging elitist and hierarchical orders and authoritarian approaches to the organisation of society and government. Their calls for citizen participation and inclusiveness had major repercussion throughout the discipline of planning, thereby advancing the cause of democratisation and spawning new planning approaches and theories. Postmodernism and critical disciplines such as gender studies/feminism, ethnic and race studies, and queer theory provided tools for the introduction of diversity analyses and approaches to urban planning. Lastly, the explosion of South-to-North migrations in the last half century stirred up the debate between a dominant traditional paradigm of assimilation and hierarchy and calls for horizontal diversity, rights and accommodation. Context has been particularly important in the direction that diversity has followed in urban planning. For instance, whereas in Europe diversity was articulated at least initially in cultural terms, in the US it has included a multiplicity of causes including differentiated identities and struggles of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, immigrant status, etc. Similarly, the term diversity in Europe has been articulated mostly around constructs such as pluralism and multiculturalism in contrast with the US where it has emphasised inequality and the plight of underrepresented “minorities”. In the rest of the world, diversity came principally from calls for recognition of different ethnicities, for inclusion of indigenous populations, or the rights of traditionally excluded groups such as women and children, indigenism, the right to self-define, to practice submerged or forbidden beliefs, and so forth. Although the main focus was on human groups, many other causes joined in, including ecological diversity, sustainability and the defense of patrimonial lands (Haughton & Hunter 1994). Diversity, meanwhile, has raised new questions and has become the source of new conflicts, as it often unleashes groups’ insecurities or threatens group monopolies. Global migration has been a particularly explosive issue, as traditionally homogeneous cities resented the “invasion” of other cultures and peoples. In many cities, residents’ reactions to immigrants have produced clashes and calls for stern controls and limited rights for newcomers, while often reinforcing segregation, discrimination and separation. Traditionally, urban regimes assured class and ethnic separation through a combination of

120

Diversity Research and Policy

physical barriers, policies of containment and exclusion, and management or selective neglect. But diversity is also related to technological change, resource depletion, sustainability and new social demands. Urban planners have found diversity particularly trying when accompanied by an uneven distribution of resources and opportunities by culture, nationality, religion, phenotype and so forth. Whereas those at a disadvantage call for equal opportunity and redistribution, those in advantageous positions work to maintain the status quo. Many cities have realised the need (even if for social control purposes) to accept differences; whereas progressive regimes have promoted coexistence (convivencia), conservatives have engaged in measures of control and others have advanced tolerance. The practice of diversity planning has taken different forms, including the pluralist rewriting of local legends, memories and histories; the creation of languages and spaces of inclusivity; new political arrangements embracing diversity; social and cultural mixing, development of multi-cultural plazas and programming and the provision of protected spaces (physical, discursive or virtual) where residents share diversity while developing trust and respect for each others’ uniqueness. Failure to engage in diversity may perpetuate and entrench exclusionary cultures and discourses, thereby marginalising groups while producing environments of separation and perpetual conflict. Whether guided by practicality, convenience or values, societies (and urban planning) have to confront their diversity sooner rather than later, and with an embrace rather than with punishment.

e Relevance of Diversity for Urban Planning eory

The oldest and still dominant tradition of urban planning claimed that homogeneity and a shared identity were necessary preconditions for manageable and prosperous cities. This approach advocated “universal” values and Western civilisation, planning engaged in practices of separation of social and economic groups (e.g., by reinforcing race/ethnicity and class) and land uses, based on the view that only people of the same culture and beliefs could live together peacefully. It claimed that all humans should ultimately meet around the same homogenous culture and that non-Westerners should be trained to assimilate into Western lifestyles. Theories with a major influence on the discipline such as the School of Chicago (Park 1925) described the city as composed of natural areas to which people of the same values gravitated, while authors such as Bartholomew promoted the planning of homogenous neighborhoods as ideal urban settings (Silver 1985). Similarly, land use and

Diversity and Urban Planning

121

physical proposals often operated on some form of environmental determinism, assuming that ‘such space such behaviour’ and using space as a mechanism of social control and homogenisation (Fairfield 1993). Along these lines, traditional planning viewed diversity as a source of tension and disorder. The School of Chicago explained ethnic and racial differences as hierarchical standings on a path to universal assimilation – at which point ethnicity and race would merge into a single, universal human (Steinberg 2007). These approaches made – and continue to make – constructive conversations on diversity impossible. Diversity entered planning theory principally through postmodern/poststructuralist critiques of modernism’s master narratives and more specifically in response to urban landscapes of segregation, urban renewal/removal, massive housing projects separating immigrants or races, or sterile environments of repetition and waste. Initially viewed as a problem, it has evolved into a matter of tolerance (Brown 2006) or, more positively, an asset. According to Fainstein (2005), embracing a diversity of views or establishing the link between social diversity and economic innovation are essential to equitable and broadly satisfying public environments. Recent research suggests that diversity has positive effects in the form of increased creativity and tolerance, a greater appeal of cities, and a source of economic productivity and sustainability. In this view, physical, economic and social diversity are closely linked, with causality working in all directions. Acknowledging that diversity differs from city to city, the new research argues that, rather than threats, differences can be supplementary and generate unique and lively mosaics ( Jacobs 1961). Since the 1960s, writers from different backgrounds have made eloquent pleas for strategies of urban redevelopment that stimulate heterogeneity. Particularly influential was urban activist Jane Jacob’s call for a cityscape based on multiple uses, which she argued would promote economic and social diversity and excitement. She envisioned a “ubiquitous principle” recognising and guiding planning towards an “intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially” ( Jacobs 1961: 14). As a result of contending positions and like most other disciplines, urban planning has broken into competitive paradigms and practices, in this case ranging between the extremes of full support of and opposition to diversity. Major advances have come from the subfields of community development and environmental planning, which have gained significant standing in the discipline. Inspired by formulations of inclusiveness and sustainability, the field of community development is advancing citizen participation, fairness and diversity. Moving away from prescriptions of assimilation and commu-

122

Diversity Research and Policy

nitarianism, it is seeking approaches that are inclusive of multiple identities and cultures while focusing on the elimination or alleviation of inequality and an end to monopolies or hierarchies of gender, sexual identity, race/ethnicity, age, disability or beliefs. Along the way, this field has sought to even the socioeconomic field and to promote cooperation, redistribution, self-empowerment and democracy. Critical of urban planning’s past, these authors are leaving behind assumptions of homogeneity and valuing the right to be different, the inevitability of conflict and the search for approaches of negotiation and accommodation (e.g., Krumholz & Forester 1990, Fairfield 1993, Mier 1993, Touraine 2000, Roussopoulos & Benello 2005, Trifonas 2005, Diaz-Polanco 2007, Hambleton & Simone Gross 2007, Putnam 2007). Environmental planning has become one of the main additions to urban planning in the last decades. Most important in terms of diversity has been its leadership in the advocacy of biodiversity – considered today a critical element of humanity’s survival. Its most recent focus is “greening” – especially ecological sustainability, the education of urban dwellers, and quality of life for all species and ecological systems – as urban landscapes include a great diversity of species, some of them rare and threatened. Environmental planners have presented cities as rich and bio-diverse environments with major impacts on the way we use space – e.g., movement, visual/thermal/aural comfort (Steemers & Steane 2004, Register 2006, Newman & Jennings 2008). As much as urban planners have started paying attention to this issue, much remains to be done in the way of understanding the transformation of animal and vegetal life and the interactions between them and human beings (Shepherd 1994). As cities grow in size, diversity and complexity, preservation, restoration, management and enhancement of biodiversity become critical and yield important insights for understanding and managing natural ecosystems everywhere. Sustainability is a relatively new conversation spreading from an initial environmental focus to economic systems and, most recently, diversity. These insights have challenged urban planning through their studies of differentiations resulting from diversity. Diversity still has many enemies within the discipline. Arguing that it threatens the root values of Western society and that the conditions of ethnic, racial, gender and other groups are self-inflicted or are related to their “inferior” cultures, conservative forces insist on homogeneity and assimilation as well as approaches in which experts – rather than ordinary citizens – do the planning. Debates on diversity have stirred the field, with advocates often leaning on explanations of political economy to argue that rational planning represents the interests of the status quo (e.g., Barrera 1979, Winant 1994) and opponents sticking to traditional statements of Western Manifest Destiny.

Diversity and Urban Planning

123

The term diversity itself has been introduced only recently to urban planning. Although increasingly used in Europe, it is more controversial in the Anglo-Saxon world, where critics of inequality (e.g., race, gender, class and sexual identity) fear that unqualified use of the term may obscure the question of unevenness and indeed become a new universalism dictating which differences are admissible and which are not, which features “other” cultures can keep and which they should shake off, and so forth (Diaz-Polanco 2006). Altogether, diversity has affected the field of urban planning to the point that no planner can turn its back on it today. Terms such as biodiversity or cultural diversity are seemingly less controversial than are class and race, for instance. Meanwhile, activist continue to focus on poverty and inequality based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability , as the inferior and shared condition of people in these categories and the identities created around them push them to continue advancing their causes separately. After all, not all inequalities are equal and certainly diversity needs to be diverse. Although race, caste and ethnicity are major tenets in many societies and the basis of many paradigms and struggles, they often contend with other sources of inequity such as class. In the US, conservative forces have dismantled welfare systems and social services, claiming that groups in lower positions use class or race as excuses and that such systems cause them to become complacent and engage in cultures of poverty that they consider are the true causes of poverty and difference. In turn, critical authors and movements warn about the naiveté involved in the assumption that the mere embracing of diversity will produce a culture of acceptance and coexistence (convivencia). Radical critics, in fact, claim that only the removal of systemic inequality by ethnicity, immigrant status, race, and alike is a condition that speaks of true, horizontal diversity. Such disagreements reflect the pains associated with the challenges to the long and dominant tradition of universalism (and the group privileges it represents) as well as the difficulties of developing paradigms of diversity. Ultimately, they are associated with criticisms or the defense of traditional scientific models and the types of theories and planning practices they have sponsored.

e Presence of Diversity in Urban Planning Research

Despite the theoretical difficulties and tensions mentioned above, research on diversity (under this version or in the form of group-based identities and struggles) has increased in urban planning after 1960. Early studies of populations by factors such as income, occupation, age, gender, uses or assets were

124

Diversity Research and Policy

followed by the study of impacts of planning interventions on the distribution of resources (e.g., Pareto optimum as the criteria for policy construction and evaluation) and by best practice research on the possibilities of turning diversity into a planning goal and asset. Selected differences had been routinely recorded in demographic studies, geographic profiles and community descriptions. But these differences have been often viewed as factors of deficit and surplus or natural dichotomies rather than as factors of legitimate diversity and opportunity. Feminists accused planning of being male-centred (e.g., Mazey & Lee 1983, Garber & Turner 1992, Spain 1992). Eventually, with the advancement of feminism and the establishment of gender studies, gender became a major issue in planning. In turn, race and ethnicity have been so predominant in the US that these dimensions may have acquired from the beginning more importance and visibility than class (Martinot 2003). Class and poverty, however, have been always at the core of planning in Europe, as has been culture. Ethnicity has been a common feature of urban studies especially in the US, as reflected in descriptions of the School of Chicago and in mappings and monographs of cities. Although a dominant identifier and source of advantage or disadvantage in the US, race has been a rather controversial issue and has been an ongoing source of tension, with some authors actually placing it at the core of urban policy (Krumholz 1990, Mier 1992) and others dismissing it under schemes of Manifest Destiny (early supporters of the rational planning paradigm). Yet others claim that race is no longer a legitimate consideration (Webster 1992). Especially controversial have been studies blaming the decomposition of the black family for black problems (e.g., Moynihan 1963) or the poverty values and ghetto cultures of Latinos (Lewis 1961, 1967) and other “minorities”. As mentioned above, the civil rights movement was the major spark that advanced the study of underrepresented groups in US cities, especially on issues of segregation and discrimination. Parallel mobilisations worldwide in the 1960s had a tremendous influence on research on immigrants from the Third World and disenfranchised groups. Although far from exhaustive, research on diversity – especially but not exclusively in the form of inequality – has increased the exposure of the conditions of underrepresented groups by examining the causes of those conditions and suggesting solutions. But studies of diversity per se are new in urban planning and are perhaps more popular in Europe under the cultural diversity/multiculturalism terminology and focus than elsewhere. Although increasing in popularity in the US, the term and discussion of diversity as inequality has met with resistance, as many argue that it diverts attention away from the plight of traditional “minorities” while opening up a Pandora’s box with new groups claiming a piece of the

Diversity and Urban Planning

125

pie. In the end, progressive regimes throughout the world have advanced new approaches to planning seeking to extend opportunities to all, to include and celebrate diversity or to refocus planning around redistribution and the positive incorporation of difference.

e Relevance of Diversity for Urban Planning in Practice

Diversity has had a much larger and more established presence in urban planning practice – but again under other terminologies and differently defined causes. Starting with the progressive movements of the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century around the urban problems brought about by the industrial revolution, new approaches were tried such as settlement houses for immigrants and the poor, and housing and urban code initiatives to improve the conditions of the downtrodden. Also important were urban initiatives to alleviate poverty, promote general welfare and build public works and public housing in the 1930s. But the most impressive set of diversity interventions came after the civil rights movements and generalised/global urban mobilisations of the 1960s when local governments had to make adjustments to accommodate or at least co-opt the demands of urban “minorities”. Progressive administrations have prioritised the needs of these groups, sometimes under the leadership of one of their members. Along with them, environmentalists introduced initiatives aimed at reducing pollution and encouraging recycling, pedestrian-friendly infrastructures and greening. Such interventions, however, as mentioned earlier, were not carried out under the banner of diversity but as part of the struggle for equal opportunity, access, social integration, decent and affordable housing, employment and training, “minority” business participation in government purchases and contracts, better quality of life, etc. To the extent that urban planning is a predominantly applied discipline, social demands rather than theory quite often drive it. After all, the purpose of urban planning is to adapt the development of programmes and policies to address the problems of the city. But demands for change usually come from below. A major, continuing challenge for urban planning lies in the gap between theory and practice related to various factors. First, planning only pursued the form of a “scientific” discipline in the late nineteenth century (Choay 1969, Fairfield 1993). Second, despite the fact that any intervention in the city has economic, social and physical impacts calling for interdisciplinary, comprehensive and coordinated actions, the division of labour by subfield actually created separate compartments and planning practices neglecting the search for and development of integrative approaches (Abukhater 2009). Third, although plan-

126

Diversity Research and Policy

ning is by nature a normative discipline, planners preferred to focus on the seemingly neutral and objective aspect of process (how), neglecting the why and what (Steinø 2003). Finally, people without urban planning backgrounds who assume planning functions in cities are often unaware of knowledge accumulated over the years and are therefore likely to be unconcerned about the relationship of what they do to anything else. While the introduction of planning as an academic degree has helped to address the gap, planning still lacks approaches that include normativity and that integrate the various subfields as well as interactive theory-practice models. As Flyvbjerg (1998) suggests, planning has to operate with concepts of rationality that include power as its context. Given that dominant forces always resist the end of their privileges, they will cling to the status quo. There is a definite need for the integration of the why and the how of planning and for more fluid theoretical and practical approaches that turn it into an ongoing activity rather than one that is fixed in time and space. Critiques, adjustments and alternatives to classical rationality are clearing the way for this to happen – especially the incorporation of normativity and valuation of linkages, and the importance of practice in theory and vice versa. Returning to diversity, it is important to add that different groups and/ or individuals demand different things from their environment; there is no ‘one size fits all’ in the way that homogenising planning has espoused. The challenge, therefore, is to operate in ways that do not prioritise one lifestyle and/or culture over another, to the detriment of the latter. Diversity is, in this sense, integral to good planning (ODPM 2005, Reeves 2005, Monno 2007). Horizontal diversity planning is already partly present in proposals of mixed-use developments, social mixing, multiple architectural forms and the incorporation of symbols and forms from other cultures. “If development is not diverse, then homogeneity of built forms often produces unattractive, monotonous urban landscapes, a lack of housing for all income groups, class and racial segregation, and job-housing imbalances that lead to increased driving, congestion, and air pollution” ( Jabareen 2006). Much, however, remains to be learned and incorporated. We are still in an experimental learning phase. Practicality has provided important openings. In order to please or respond to the electorate – after all, politics is largely about results – governments want planning that is relevant to constituents’ lives and to the makeup of society. Unfortunately, a politics of electoral majorities often disregards the interests and realities of minorities. Especially important for urban governments is the need to maintain social peace through the development of convivial public spaces and environments that will encourage diverse social interaction and inclusion. The effectiveness of urban planning is assessed by

Diversity and Urban Planning

127

its responsiveness to citizens’ needs and its ability to accommodate all citizens (the ultimate “clients” of planning). Along these lines, planners are starting to engage in producing livable cities and spaces that create opportunities for high levels of interaction among persons of different social background (Saez 2001, Fainstein, 2005). Such initiatives identify a series of exciting and exacting roles for urban planners in seeking to create cities and spaces of diversity, tolerance, interaction and mutual respect (ODPM 2005, Reeves 2005). Many questions loom in the horizon: how can or should urban policies address cultural differences? How should ethnic or non-ethnic “minorities” from immigrant backgrounds be represented/symbolised in the public space? Does urban multi-culturality and inter-culturality feed artistic and cultural innovation? How can cultural diversity promote urban development (or can it)? What do we mean by urban development in a context of diversity? Can cities improve understanding among people through urban design? How does diversity impact quality of life? How can we move from reaction to action? Responses to these and many other questions impact design, location, process, definitions of “the good city”, and social justice. Experience has shown the difficulty of design for cultural diversity or of residential mixing. These issues are only two of many issues relating to diversity. Culturally sensitive planning is in its early phases. It has thus far been in the form of exceptions and deviations from planning policies and standards on a case-by-case basis. The assumptions and standards used by urban planners are being called into question from a cultural perspective, as well as from perspectives such as gender and affordability. Mixing cannot be forced but enticed. Multicultural planning is not a doctrine but rather a process of challenging traditional beliefs and focusing on citizen-centred planning outcomes. It involves active engagement in community development, education, communication and integration. Urban development can lead to the cultural and social inclusion of inhabitants in urban space, to better social cohesion, even to fruitful encounters between different communities. Planners have limited experience in developing environments of real intercultural exchanges, promoting the dynamic circulation of inhabitants throughout different parts of town, or advancing incremental improvements in relations across cultures, race, religions, political beliefs, etc. To some extent, we need to inch forward towards cooperation and equal opportunity and away from an exclusive focus on competition and inequality. A contentious issue in the practice of planning is competition for limited resources among competing interests and groups. Whereas some planners still advocate redistributive priorities, the neoliberalist approach calls for bottom-line planning that prioritises competitiveness and business promotion.

128

Diversity Research and Policy

For the former, planning policies and processes need to determine who gains and who loses from different types of planning policies, practices and procedures. The latter approach assumes there will be trickle-down effects from investment in productivity and competitiveness, so the focus should be on economic growth. Many local administrations try to juggle alternatives and find arguments and ways to turn diversity into an opportunity. These matters are far more political, as they deal with matters of power, than theoretical or technological. So-called “pragmatists” often see diversity as “yet another issue” to balance. Practitioners are concerned that the system is becoming too complex, as it is being asked to add variable after variable at the same time that resources are shrinking and streamlining becomes the order of the day. In some ways, these approaches bring homogeneity through the back door on grounds of simplicity and practicality (e.g., Garvin 1996). Similarly, as unfunded mandates such as requirements to accommodate people with disabilities are added, planners have to focus first on what is mandated sometimes at the expense of ongoing causes and ancestral inequalities.

e Future of Diversity in Urban Planning

From the beginning, urban planning has been caught in the division between proposals and utopias of change and reform, and the realities of accumulation. Ultimately, cities are driven today by profit. As Fairfield (1993) argues, city building has been more the product of the private than the public sector. Furthermore, the former has had more influence in the shaping of public regulations than all other forces combined. Only to the extent that room is made for civil society and specifically for the voice of the disadvantaged – to the extent that crises and tragedies move governments to act – will the planning agenda be expanded and approaches other than those of the market incorporated. Alternatively, the case has to be made that diversity contributes particularly to development and profit. From the beginning, planning traditions and utopia have advocated balanced development. Rational planning’s original intent was the development of a discipline above and beyond speculation and a political system in which science rather than profit and politics drove the construction of cities. From this perspective, planning theory has been primarily progressive. Although dominated by profit, practice has included experimentation and contestation (often guided by critical analyses or social movements) – the main source of diversity advances in planning. Theory construction is based on the analysis of existing reality either seeking explanations or challenges of

Diversity and Urban Planning

129

the status quo, or actually seeking to improve on it. Forces on the ground may take inspiration from such efforts or may ignore them altogether and follow the priorities of profit. The relationship between theory and practice can also be dialectical. Theory studies, proposes, criticizes and challenges. Practice can put theory to the test or ignore it (but it always needs rationalisations/justifications for its work). A major challenge comes from the limited capacity of social theory to predict the future. It considers the past, raises questions about the past and the present, carries the present into the future, informs the future and develops new proposals from experience, practical imagination or utopian ideas. But unlike the exact sciences which deal with mechanical universes, it cannot predict the future with much certainty. This is not necessarily a shortcoming but rather the result of human freedom and innovation as well as of a system of contradictions and constant change. Lefebvre (2004) argues that the production of space is based on existing social relations and ultimately gives materiality to them. He points to forms of insurrection such as squatting but recognises that they become co-opted and absorbed into the logic of the existing order. On this basis, he proposes the “right to the city” as the foundations of new practices and experimentations based on use rather than on exchange value relations, on the ongoing production and exercise of citizenship rather than on passive consumerism. The challenges of diversity in urban planning may have to come from efforts in this direction. Ultimately, the democratisation of planning may hold the most promise, as it brings stakeholders to the table and turns horizontal negotiation and empowerment into a trademark. Starting with the ghettos created to separate “infidels” from Christians in medieval cities (Sennett 1996), cities have been the preeminent sites of unequal difference. Inequalities and diversities are most visible there. By the same token they become major sources of contention. At the same time, however, they have provided scenarios of contestation, have been the main sites of modern movements, and have become places of convergence of differences. Operating in contexts of inequality and profit, cities’ main priority has been to facilitate the smooth operation and reproduction of that order. Redistribution and diversity then are asked to prove that they can contribute to that end. This is particularly true today when cities have become commodities themselves and competition for investment has turned planning primarily into an effort to create conditions for wealth attraction and accumulation. The contradictions and debates of the past and the present around homogeneity and diversity will likely carry into the future. Negative perceptions live side by side with drives to promote diversity. Often, diversity efforts consist of strategies to contain and manage rather than embrace diversity (particularly

130

Diversity Research and Policy

if the latter results from wealth creation). Cities are still clustered/segregated by class, race/ethnicity and even religious belief. They feature separation, hierarchy and ghettoes along with gentrification and hostility towards particular groups (e.g., the homeless). Born in a context of homogenisation, Manifest Destiny and assimilation, planning still houses such beliefs and practices. But as new paradigms of inclusion, compassion and change continue challenging the discipline, difference can become an increasingly central assumption and goal in planning. The challenges of the vulnerable and underrepresented populations will be there as long as inequality is not a random outcome but a point of departure. They will continue to push urban planners to respond. In the end, willingly or unwillingly, urban planning will incorporate them incrementally or in leaps and bounds, depending on the urgency of the situation or the strength of demands. We are certainly moving from contention and suppression to (reluctant) inclusion and acceptance of difference as a way of life. From a different perspective, as more arguments are developed that promote a positive diversity and as advances build confidence in society, planning can be enticed to embrace diversity in the same way it embraced homogeneity turning itself upside down. We need to move from NIMBYism (not in my backyard) to YIMBYism (yes, in my backyard). We will lose our fear of “the other” when we stop “othering”. Traditional assumptions and claims of neutrality still permeate the practice of urban planning, with little sign of a paradigm shift. Challenges push and pull the discipline in many directions. For diversity to be universally accepted and incorporated into the discipline, further theoretical and practical initiatives from both the inside (planners) and the outside (citizens) are required. Most importantly, it will require a levelling of the playing field. Contending approaches will continue to compete for domination of the discipline. As different orientations compare notes and as cities diversify further, diversity will assume even more forms which in turn will call for more refined paradigms that make room for the diversity of diversity. Theory and approaches are still underdeveloped, with some of them envisioning controlled diversification, others accepting diversity as a temporary result that will eventually subside, many opting for paradigms such as the one queer theory represents, still others barely accepting it as a necessary evil, and the rest perhaps assuming a wait-and-see attitude. The main challenge to the discipline is to develop frameworks in which diversity rather than universalism are the norm. But can we even talk about a new model or approach without falling back into some form of universalism? These challenges should not discourage urban planners; rather, they speak to the immense work ahead. What is clear is that we need to engage in a

Diversity and Urban Planning

131

deeply critical and analytical effort to avoid unsuitable shortcuts and to face the issues head on. The discipline is already confronting the challenge. The future is extremely exciting as it offers urban planners vast opportunities to adjust the imperfections of the current realitity.

Note 

We use this term because it is easily recognized. However, the term itself has unfortunate connotation of dependency (as in minor and not ready to take care of self ) and inferiority.

References

Abukhater, A. 2009. Rethinking Planning Theory and Practice: A Glimmer of Light for Prospects of Integrated Planning to Combat Complex Urban Realities. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management. 2(1): 64-79. Barrera, M. 1979. Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of Racial Inequality. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Brown, W. 2006. Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Choay, F. 1969. The Modern City: Planning in the 19th Century. New York: George Braziller. Diaz-Polanco, H. 2006. Elogio de la Diversidad, Globalización, Multiculturalismo y Etnofagia. México City: Siglo XXI Editores. Fainstein, S.S. 2005. Cities and Diversity. Should We Want It? Can We Plan For It? Urban Affairs Review. 41(1): 3-19. Fairfield, J.D. 1993. The Mysteries of the Great City: The Politics of Urban Design 1877-1937. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Garber, J.A. and Turner, R. (eds.) 1993. Gender in Urban Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Garvin, A. 1996. The American City: What Works, What Doesn’t Work. New York: McGraw-Hill. Glazer, N. and Moynihan, D.P. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negros, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish in New York. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

132

Diversity Research and Policy

Hambleton, R. and Gross, J.S. (eds.) 2007. Governing Cities in the Global Era. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Haughton, G. and Hunter, C. 1994. Sustainable Cities. London: J. Kingsley Publishers. Jabareen, Y.R. 2006. Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models, and Concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26(1): 38-52. Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage. Krumholz, N. and Forester, J. 1990. Making Equity Planning Work. With a Foreword by A.A. Altshuler. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lewis, O. 1961. The Children of Sanchez. New York: Random House. Lewis, O. 1967. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poderte. San Juan and New York: Secker and Warberg. Martinot, S. 2003. The Rule of Racialization: Class, Identity and Governance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Mazzey, M.E. and Lee, D.R. 1983. Her Space, Her Place: Geography of Women. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers. Mier, R. 1993. Social justice and local development policy. In: Mier, R., Giloth, R.P. et al. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Monno, V. 2007. Urban Planning as Architecturing Urban Diversity. EURA Conference –The Vital City. 12-14 September 2007, Glasgow. Newman, P. and Jennings, I. 2008. Cities as Sustainable Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) 2005. Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University, School of the Built Environment. Park, R.E. 1926. Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Putnam, R.D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies. 30(2): 137-174. Quigley, J.M. 1998. Urban Diversity and Economic Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12(2): 127-138. Reeves, D. 2005. Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference. New York and London: Routledge. Register, R. 2006. EcoCities: Rebuilding Cities with Nature. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Roussopoulos, D. and Benello, C.G. (eds.) 2005. Participatory Democracy, Prospects for Democratizing Democracy. Montreal, New York and London: Black Rose Books. Saez, J.P. 2001. Cultural diversity and urban development in European towns: Essay on problematization. The Observatory. Grenoble: Cultural Policies Observatory.

Diversity and Urban Planning

133

Silver, C. 1985. Neighborhood Planning in Historical Perspective. American Planning Association Journal. (Spring): 161-174. Sinclair, B.R. 2006. City Planning & Urban Development: Diversity, Sustainability & The Pursuit of Extraordinary Environmental Design. In: Tsenkova, S. (ed.) Places and People: Planning New Communities. Cities, Policy & Planning Research Series. Canada: University of Calgary, 1-4. Spain, D. 1992. Gendered Spaces. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Steemers, K. and Steane, M.A. (eds.) 2004. Environmental Diversity in Architecture. New York and London: Routledge. Steinberg, S. 2007. Race Relations, A Critique. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Steinø, N. 2003. Urban Design Between Theory and Practice. The Welfare City Project. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University School of Architecture and Design. Touraine, A. 2000. Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference. Translated to English by David Macey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Turner, M.A. 1997. Achieving a New Urban Diversity: What Have We Learned? Housing Policy Debate. 8(2): 295-305. Trifonas, P.P. (ed.) 2005. Communities of Difference. New York: Palgrave. Winant, H. 1994. Racial Conditions: Politics, Theory, Comparisons. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Zukin, S. 1998. Urban Lifestyles: Diversity and Standardization in Spaces of Consumption. Urban Studies. 35(5-6): 825-839.

134

Diversity Research and Policy



Diversity and Economics Lena Tsipouri & Tonia Damvakeraki

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Economics

Economics is the discipline that studies the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Within the discipline, however, there has been disagreement since the days of Adam Smith on fundamental issues and on the strict definition of the term economics. What is economics? What should economics be? Is economics a true “science”? (Shiffman 2004). In his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Lionel Robbins defines economics as: “the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” (1932). Scarcity is a situation in which available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs, requiring alternative uses to be assessed aiming at optimising utility. Alternative uses, combinations of production factors, and the utility of goods and services can be mathematically portrayed, and thus economics can take the form of exact science. This definition of economics was adopted by Paul Samuelson and was popularised via his best-selling textbook (Shiffman 2004: 1086). But it has been strongly criticised by non-neoclassics. He defined economics as a deductive science, which derives all of its conclusions from the axioms of rational choice. He held these conclusions to be valid in all times and circumstances. Effectively, Robbins managed to exclude the entire corpus of institutionalist and historicist work from the field. Alternative approaches to the neoclassical model have emerged precisely from the need to better combine economics with social sciences. In a more modern approach, Gregory Mankiw considers that “Economics combines the virtues of politics and science. It is, truly, a social science. Its subject matter is society – how people choose to lead their lives and how they interact with one another. But it approaches the subject with the dispassion of a science” (2007). No matter what school of thought, diversity is not systematically addressed within the study of economics; it is, however, increasingly used as an explanatory variable for many economic relationships. In neoclassical economics, the current orthodoxy of the profession and the underlying principles of rational-

135

ity and market organisation leave little, if any, room for identifying – let alone studying – diversity. But economics does examine the influence of income, skills, gender, nationality, religion, place of birth and choices of lifestyle on growth and employment. Alternative approaches to the neoclassical model have emerged, derived from the need to better combine economics with social sciences, restricting the role of mathematic modelling, and enriching the discipline with historical, political and social dimensions. Institutional and evolutionary economics are the most systematic strands of thought adopting a more interdisciplinary approach. They recognise diversity (the notion of variety is fundamental in evolutionary economics) as an element of study and occasionally give it a prominent position in their analysis. Evolutionary economics does not take the characteristics of either the objects of choice or the decision-maker as fixed. Rather the focus is on the non-equilibrium processes that transform the economy from within and their implications for firms, institutions, industries, employment, production, trade and growth. The processes in turn emerge from the actions of diverse agents with bounded rationality who may learn from experience and interactions and whose differences contribute to change. The subject draws on the evolutionary methodology of Charles Darwin and the non-equilibrium economics principle of circular and cumulative causation. It seems that, independently of each other, the different schools of thought are increasingly studying selected types of diversity, but as yet no comprehensive approach to economics of diversity has emerged.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Economics

Diversity is not a consistent notion within economics. On the web, “diversity economics” brings up about 36,000 references, most of which refer to diversity in the media, the economic impact of biodiversity, and diversity in the business sector/workplace (the latter is treated elsewhere in this volume). Looking up “economics of diversity” generates some 1,600 references,2 most of which refer again to the business sector or immigration.3 Economics of Diversity appears to have been offered as a course at Fordham University in New York in the past, but nowhere at the moment. The closest systematic enquiries into diversity in economics are the economics of discrimination in the US, which mainly looks at issues referring to gender and race. This area of study was popular in the 1960s but has diminished over the years. Garry Becker’s PhD thesis and subsequent book, Economics of Discrimination (Becker 1971), is seen as the cornerstone of this

136

Diversity Research and Policy

subfield. He starts by looking at price discrimination in the traditional microeconomic sense – i.e., studying market positions – but then extends to discrimination by employers, trade unions, consumers and the government. Becker uses an analytical framework whereby taste for discrimination is reflected in “the willingness to pay something either directly or in the form of reduced income, to be associated with some persons instead of others” (Becker 1971: 14). His main findings include: – the conclusion that investments in human capital are negatively correlated with discrimination, and most importantly that interaction between groups (working with members of the other group rather than just within the group itself ) leads to gains for both groups, but proportionately more for minorities; and – the view that majorities discriminate in order to raise their income emerged in the literature after Becker’s initial work, who reports it in the second edition of his book. Following the long social and academic debates in the US affirmative action measures were introduced, as the more appropriate anti-discrimination policy. Evaluations of these measures followed suggesting that the evidence was inconclusive (Coate & Loury 1993). Interest in all OECD countries has since shifted mainly to diversity in the sense of migration. As there is no unified approach, we aim to integrate what we consider more important in the discipline at the moment from a European point of view.4 Diverse groups are individually studied for their role in economic growth and development. Research is mainly addressed to the role of diverse groups as a means to achieve the goals of stability and growth (Kort 1979, 1991; and Siegel et al. 1993a, 1994, and 1995a). Gender, race, skills and other dimensions have been used as an interdisciplinary input by distinguished scholars, including Nobel laureates, to shed light on differences in economic development (see Myrdal et al. 1934, Myrdal 1944, Hirschmann 1994, Schultz 1981, 1993). As there is no systematic taxonomy of diversity, nor agreement on the role of diversity within the discipline, we have adopted an empirical approach in this paper. By looking at the literature, we capture the main dimensions of diversity in economics publications. We argue that diversity is treated in economic theory and policy through both endogenous and exogenous variables to the system: – Endogenous variables are treated as such because they are both determined by the system and at the same time determine the system due to their contribution to economic growth and development. They include

Diversity and Economics

137

–

diversity in income (income inequality) and differences in skills/qualifications, which translates into different means to contribute to growth, depending mainly on one’s productivity, access to financial capital and propensity to save. Exogenous variables are determined by external factors but their treatment significantly affects the economy. Age, race, gender and physical abilities/disabilities cannot be changed through policy, but intervention is needed to position them in society. They may be externally determined but they become part of the economic system through regulation. Age is one such variable that has grown important in the last decades due to changing balances in the social security system and the undeniable ability of professionals exiting the labour market (as allowed/imposed by regulators) to still contribute to wealth creation. Ethnic and racial diversity, when an exogenously generated parameter (e.g., one’s place of birth), may often determine the role of individuals in the economic process, regardless of their skills and abilities. Gender equality and disabled people are similar aspects in the economic process: while there is no genetic evidence of differences in skills between women and men, and although disabled people may often possess certain invaluable skills, their incorporation into the labour market differs and may generate significant differences in their economic output.

These dimensions are not treated with equal frequency in all economic subdisciplines. An overview of the relevance per topic in each sub-discipline is presented in the appendix at the end of this chapter. We focus here on macroeconomics and the various topics related to them, since microeconomics does not directly deal with diversity (to the extent that it does, this is presented in chapters 10 and 11, which address “business and diversity” and “psychology”). Macroeconomics deals with issues of growth, income distribution and the level of employment. Diversity aspects within this sub-discipline of economics include income inequalities (income distribution and its effect on aggregate demand) derived from differences in labour costs and how these affect industry profits, employment and labour income overall. In general, societal inequalities lead to marginalisation. Marginalisation is often linked with factors such as immigration, ethnic minorities, poverty, long-term unemployment, low status, mental health and substance abuse problems or, more generally, with unconventional lifestyles or life paths. It is clearly a form of social exclusion of specific groups or individuals. The cost of seclusion of these groups can be very high both for the society and the economy: the isolation of young, talented people who have the potential to contribute to the labour market

138

Diversity Research and Policy

and society; the increase in the unemployment rate among these groups; low schooling opportunities for people growing up within marginalised groups; increased social discrimination; the rise in irregular or non-acceptable behaviour; the growth of ghettos, etc. Basic economic models associate income inequality with a higher propensity to save. But in empirical research, scholars find little overall relation between income inequality and the rate of growth (Barro 2000). Perotti (1996) reports an overall tendency for inequality to generate lower economic growth in cross-country regressions. However, some researchers such as Li and Zou (1998) and Forbes (2000) have reported relationships with the opposite sign. Theoretical research addressing these empirical findings has flourished since the beginning of this century. The purely neoclassical models involving inequality and growth, due to their positive nature, have little to say about policy issues, while the more grounded models being introduced in the political economy literature hold more promise in delivering normative outcomes. Persson and Tabellini (1994) have concluded that the outcome of having a more unequal society is a more redistributive policy, so that incentives are distorted and growth is reduced. This conclusion does not imply a trade-off between short-term equity and long-run efficiency that are instead in place in theories based on the Keynesian view of saving rates that increase with income. In this case, redistribution would lead to a static gain in terms of efficiency but would depress the dynamic efficiency of the policy. In public economics, an analysis of equity is performed employing social welfare functions as well as inequality measures. Inequality of income or of other economic assets means that some households have higher resources than others, which translates into inequity in welfare. The measurement of inequality and poverty, although traditionally a statistical problem, entered the public economics discipline since the seminal works in the modern theory of inequality measurement by Serge Kolm, Tony Atkinson and Amartya Sen. Economists within this field analyse the consequences of government actions, assessing both individual and social welfare, including income redistribution policies, health and education policies (Damvakeraki, Fiorio, unpublished). Diversity in public economics is related in particular to equity. It involves different taxation patterns for individuals having different income levels, different redistribution policies for people with different needs (differentiation of tax and benefit policies to reduce poverty and inequality, providing public goods such as education, public welfare, social security, etc), and different policy interventions intended to support and integrate different groups such as migrants, female, the disabled and the elderly (e.g., paid maternity leave, unemployment benefits).

Diversity and Economics

139

Macroeconomists have increasingly begun to study the effects of an ageing population on economies, as state pension systems in developed countries are expected to collapse, cripple national health services and place unacceptable burdens on the state in terms of social benefits. Especially with regard to the changes/reforms to social security and pension systems that have been implemented in the last few years throughout the world, there is a need for macroeconomists to estimate the actual costs for the economy in incorporating the aged population in the wealth creation process. Educational and labour economics in particular deals with diverse groups. Educational attainment and professional skills play a very important role in the labour market. The more qualifications and skills one has, the more opportunities one has to find employment or start one’s own business. Thus, competition in the labour market can also be traced back to the diversity of skills within a society, which in turn depends on the diverse opportunities provided or allowed in terms of educational attainment. The more skills and qualifications one owns, the better chances one has to receive increased wages/salaries (De Lobel, unpublished). Research mostly investigates how additional schooling and attainment of further qualifications and skills enhances the abilities of the labour force, thereby leading to national competitiveness and growth capacity. Still, this creates a “crowding out” effect for the unskilled (or lower-skilled), according to which the unskilled workers’ probability of getting a job decreases at a given number of jobs per job seeker. This is particularly true for migrants who are more often than not judged to be minorities with low skills offering low-cost work. Large migration flows towards specific countries affect GDP, inflation, the unemployment rate, productivity, the account balance and economic inequality, as immigrants tend to alter the labour market characteristics of the host country. Still, the macroeconomic effects of migration highly depend on the structure of both the sending and receiving economies, as well as the skills composition and the nature of migration (temporary or permanent). Race and ethnic differences in the labour market have been persistent over time, although the nature and magnitude of these differences have changed significantly. The most important remain wage gaps among different groups, unemployment rates, schooling/training options and welfare/social security payments. Nonetheless, we see that migrants (or other minority groups) tend to overcome these obstacles over time and slowly become integrated into the labour market, utilising their specialised knowledge and skills (whenever possible) and even becoming self-employed entrepreneurs, by promoting either their own national products or specialised skills. There is evidence that the naturalisation and integration of migrants in the

140

Diversity Research and Policy

host society and economy has had significant positive effects in Germany and the US (Steinhardt 2008). Female integration into the labour force is also discussed as being part of the discourse of vital labour inputs to the public and private sectors of the economy. According to the 2009 Global Gender Gap report, the most important determinant of a country’s competitiveness is its human talent – the skills, education and productivity of its workforce. Women account for one-half of the potential talent base throughout the world. Over time, therefore, a nation’s competitiveness depends significantly on whether and how it educates and utilises its female talent. To maximise its competitiveness and development potential, each country should strive for gender equality, giving women the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities as men. The latest trends show that it has increased significantly over the years – especially since the 1980s – but when studied along with other labour market indicators (e.g., female unemployment rates, female youth unemployment rates, employmentto-population ratios, status of employment, employment by sector and wages), it is not clear whether the gap between the sexes in terms of labour force participation rates has actually decreased significantly. In a similar way of thinking, diversity in age is also being addressed by labour economics recently, indicating that experience and improving health conditions call for increasing participation of the ageing population in the labour force. Although it is part of the EU’s social objectives, the full participation of disabled individuals in the workforce is still seen as unrealistic. This is partly due to the fact that employers tend to have negative attitudes about the skills and qualifications of the people in this group and partly because they are not ready to do what is required to integrate them into the workforce. Overall, the general labour market situation for disabled people is not considered good – there is low participation in the labour force and the unemployment rate is quite high. International economics is concerned with the effects upon economic activity of international differences in productive resources and consumer preferences and the institutions that affect them; it also takes interest in international migration as the move from developing countries to more advanced ones.Certain scholars claim that international migration results in a net gain in economic welfare. Wage differences between developed and developing countries have been found to be mainly due to productivity differences which may be assumed to arise mostly from differences in the availability of physical, social and human capital (differences in skills). From the standpoint of a developing country, the emigration of skilled workers represents a loss of human capital (brain circulation or brain drain), leaving the remaining workforce without the

Diversity and Economics

141

benefit of their support. That effect upon the welfare of the parent country is to some extent offset by the remittances that are sent home by the emigrants, and by the enhanced technical know-how with which some of them return (Borjas 1994a, 1994b). However, the global context of failed development, poverty and precarious jobs should not be ignored. Although migration can deliver economic gains, we also need to consider the local workforce facing the fear that they could lose their jobs or that their wages will be cut. Capital movements are also addressed by international economics. Recent studies conclude that global financial assimilation may have had little or no value in advancing economic growth, especially in poor countries. Capital is often found to flow “uphill” from poor to rich countries; when it does flow into the less developed economies, it is negatively associated with growth, questioning the desirability of foreign capital. As global financial integration is a “process for achieving equilibrium”, its effects should mainly be reflected in income convergence rather than in a rise in the steady-state level of growth. Aghion, Howitt, and Mayer-Foulkes (2005) conclude theoretically and demonstrate empirically that domestic financial development works through its effects on income convergence. Henry (2006) emphasises that capital account liberalisation similarly influences income convergence rather than a discrete shift in the growth rate. Development economics covers all countries independent of their current level of development, as any economy needs progress in terms of standards of living. Equality is really at the heart of development economics. A whole set of development indicators refer to equality. Countries are developed when minorities have equal opportunities with majority populations. This applies to income equality, gender equality, religious minorities, or social and ethnic minorities which may be permanent or temporary. It also applies to opportunities provided to these groups to acquire skills and qualifications, and the chances of them becoming integrated into the labour market and society. Furthermore, the role of older people and their incorporation into the economy is also an important diversity factor. The contribution of a number of factors to economic development (labour, capital, technology) is measured sometimes with reference to their impact on the various types of equality. In this context, human capital has thus become a new, very pertinent dimension of growth and development, as technological change – which was an exogenous variable in the past – becomes a crucial component of both growth and development (Tsipouri 2009). Regional economic stability has been a topic discussed in literature dealing with regional economics and development for at least sixty years. Economic stability is important to regional policymakers because it promotes economic

142

Diversity Research and Policy

growth, stable incomes and low unemployment levels (Akpadock 1996, Malizia & Kee 1993, Conroy 1974). According to Akpadock (1996), the more a region’s economy becomes diversified (in terms of industries, human capital, qualifications and skills, employment patterns, etc.), the more stability in the region is promoted and goals such as economic growth and low unemployment are broadly achieved. On the other hand, diversity in terms of a region’s topology and wealth plays a very significant role in the overall convergence or divergence of the region from the national level. Wealthy regions (centrally located, industrialised, with universities and research centres, strong economy, etc.) are normally regions with high-income groups, as they are highly attractive for the industrial and entrepreneurial sectors. On the contrary, poor regions (rural or mountainous) with little development dynamics tend to be deserted, as they have high unemployment and low attractiveness for the younger residents who want higher income levels, improved employment prospects and a better quality of life. These differences among regions may cause divergences in income (and employment) from the national level. Specialisation, high skills and qualifications matching needs at the regional level can also be an issue of diversity. Industrialised regions (e.g., clusters) or regions with high growth potential (universities, research centres, etc.) base their success on their human capital and their skills and qualifications. Through schooling and education, individuals may attain better jobs and salaries and become highly competitive at the regional level and thus decide to stay rather than abandon the region. On the contrary, in regions where there is little specialisation and opportunities for education, it is difficult for the local population to upgrade their skills, find opportunities for employment or decide to stay. Furthermore, at the regional level there may be geographic concentrations of specific ethnic and racial groups – commonly called ghettos – tending to function culturally, intellectually and economically apart from the regional and urban centres, thus segregating the population of the ghettos from the rest of the regional population. The consequences of segregation vary, as it works to concentrate poverty and the social problems associated with it: poor job opportunities, low school achievements, oppositional culture and isolation from social networks. In terms of economic consequences, segregation causes high unemployment (seclusion of the specific groups), low-income jobs, seclusion from the social security system, etc. The notion of discrimination is presented also in the work of the Nobel laureate Gary Becker, who often includes a variable of taste for discrimination in explaining patterns of behaviour. He believes that people often mentally

Diversity and Economics

143

increase the cost of a transaction if it is with a minority they discriminate against. His theory held that competition decreases discrimination. If firms were able to specialise in employing mainly minorities and offer a better product or service, such a firm could bypass discrepancies in wages, for example, between equally productive employees regardless of their race, ethnicity, sex, religion, etc. Finally, an emerging issue in regional economics is diversity and tolerance of diversity as an indication of creativity and increasing competitiveness. Empirical work in the US (Florida & Gates 2001) indicates that it is people unwilling to comply with “politically correct” lifestyles who are the most productive and are the new creative class. Societies that tolerate migrants, artists and homosexuals are open to change, adapt to innovation and thus prosper relative to more conservative ones. But against the creativity argumentation, evidence from work by Robert Putnam suggests that homogeneous populations (people of the same age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) tend to interact more and better than heterogeneous populations. “ This leads to more trust among neighbors in the more homogeneous community. And the effects on the neighborhood encompass relations among everyone. It seems that just being in a heterogeneous neighborhood reduces trust overall so we even trust people very similar to us less when we live among a diverse group. This difference in trust has broader implications. Trust leads to greater social capital, which increases the overall success and welfare of the community: lower crime levels, higher income growth, and overall community success. And when you look in detail at the research that shows that diverse teams make better decisions, it turns out that demographics, is one of least effective kinds of diversity. Differences in experience, personality, approaches, and thinking styles are all more important. So taken together, demographically homogeneous groups will be more successful in the long run.” (Resnick 2009). Within language economics, the economic activity brings together a heterogeneous range of contributions, which focus on standard economic processes of production, consumption and market exchange, and investigate in what ways and to what extent these processes look different when linguistic diversity is explicitly taken into account. The issues addressed span a continuum ranging from more microeconomic to more macroeconomic questions: how do employers adjust their hiring of staff with different linguistic attributes in response to various exogenous shocks? Issues such as the conditions for minority language survival (in the employment market for example) and the causes for the growing role of languages and wider communications are investigated under this aspect.

144

Diversity Research and Policy

Language and earnings investigate the effect on labour income of differences in agents’ linguistic attributes, comprising their mother tongue, which is closely associated with their identity, and their skills in other languages, which can be seen as elements of human capital: research consistently shows significant effects, suggesting the presence of language-based discrimination or underlying the relevance of investing in the acquisition of a second language skills (most probably the host country language) (Francois Grin, unpublished). Reversing the analysis and looking at diversity dimensions instead of disciplines, we can conclude this theoretical approach with some aggregated remarks: – Income inequality, considering the poor and marginalised as a diverse community, is addressed in terms of labour costs, global convergence or divergence of income, and redistribution policies within a country’s growth and employment models. Public economics, development economics and regional economics are increasingly investigating this topic. – Skills inequality, considering the low skilled as a diverse community, is studied by labour economics and educational economics with an economic growth perspective. Costs and returns of investment in schooling are the main elements; public economics are engaged in the topic because of the cost of health and education. – Under ethnic and racial diversity, the same reasoning as for skills inequality is applied as migrants tend to be under skilled. In addition, low-cost immigrant work, brain circulation/brain-gain, self-employment and entrepreneurship are studied in development and regional economics. The role of public economics in terms of undertaking the proper policy measures for supporting immigrants’ integration into the economy is also visible here. Furthermore, aspects regarding ethnic and racial diversity are met both at the national (sub-national) and global level. – The issue of the ageing population and the cost of integrating it into the wealth creation process are studied by macroeconomics, public economics and labour economics. In conclusion, it is economic growth and employment where research is undertaken as a major input of the production function, economic development being related to but distinct from growth, as it involves and promotes social values. Public economics and the influence on territorial distribution of all the above, be it at the national (regional differences) or international (global convergence of divergence) level is a corrective intervention to market failures. To make things more complicated, our four building blocks, which will be the basis of the presentation for both theory and practice, are treated differ-

Diversity and Economics

145

ently by different strands of thought, as already indicated in the introduction. Hence, Table 2 of Section 3 gives an overview of the main postulates by the different schools of economic thought.

Diversity in Policy and Practice

In economics, probably more than in other disciplines, there is controversy as to the role of diversity. This ranges from considering ethnic and racial minorities as well as other disadvantaged groups (e.g., females, aged, disabled) as an economic burden crowding out mainstream employment and wealth, to opportunities for increasing contribution to the labour pool, creativity, productivity and hence economic growth. Despite controversies within economic theory, policymakers tend to recognise the relevance of diversity. This is inevitably more the case in developed countries, where socio-political considerations favour this type of thinking and state finances permit it. In middleincome and developing countries, policymakers may in theory agree with this maxim, but public economics cannot afford to implement such policies. Despite some generic, humanistic agreement, what is still being debated is the type and magnitude of regulation and support measures that increasingly tend to support minorities adapt to national labour market conditions and thus contribute to growth without marginalising them. Mobilising public funds to address diversity may also put governing bodies in confrontation with other public choices. Hence, the implementation of such policies suggests changes that consist of institutional arrangements (formal and informal rules and their enforcement characteristics). To induce change will consequently take a long time because it will require adjustments in both the formal rules (which can be altered relatively rapidly) but also in the informal norms, which will change only gradually. This assertion is true both on a micro level and a macro level. Traditionally, the main policy addressing diversity, even if not named as such, is fiscal. One of the main roles of governments is to redistribute resources within a population, enabling all citizens to play an active and participatory role in social decisions. Equity and equality is a significant issue in public economics. Policy is determined by the share of the public budget earmarked for redistribution. Education and labour market policies have appropriated the theoretical corroboration of increased schooling contributing to prosperity and are increasingly improving access to education and skills. Again pioneered by developed countries, education is not restricted to formal schooling but is in-

146

Diversity Research and Policy

creasingly linked to life-long learning and adult education. Open universities, local societies and NGOs are supportive of this. But not only skills need to be increased. In order to increase its employment rates and stay competitive in a global market, a country must include all its potential labour force into its market, without making any distinction for gender, race, age, sexual orientation or religion. To reach this objective, not only labour market policies are required, but also policies that improve integration and access to education and skills attainment. Non-discrimination rules, social inclusion, equal opportunities, protection of minorities are well embedded in the acquis communautaire. Support measures at the regional, national and European levels are introduced to assure that these formal rules will also be reflected in the market. The very aim of economic development policy is the reduction of income disparities, the equal rights of racial, ethnic and gender (in terms of remuneration and career developments) being integral components of the development ethics of the Western World. Regulatory interventions (including affirmative action) assure equal opportunities for males and females regardless of their race or origin. However, the effectiveness of affirmative action is not universally accepted, and a review of the practice in the US (being the country with the most experience in affirmative action) tends to point to ambivalent outcomes. It is also recognised that there is a need to integrate macroeconomic management and social policies. Market-based aspects of a policy plan are dominant but social criteria are increasingly being incorporated and often act as drivers for new macroeconomic axioms. As an example, the Human Development Global Forum (1999) suggests an alternative approach to considering social policies as an afterthought to macroeconomic policies. It starts with the premise that all macroeconomic policies entail a set of social outcomes such as distributive justice, equity, provisioning of needs for all, freedom from poverty and discrimination, social inclusion, development of human capabilities, etc. These need to become ultimate goals of all policy including macroeconomic policy. Policies related to diversity in international economics are almost exclusively interested in migration. One form this takes is the restriction of migration flows (especially when there is no economic rationale). Such restrictions have had diversionary effects, channelling the great majority of migration flows into illegal migration and “false” asylum-seeking. Since such migrants work for lower wages and often incur no social insurance costs, the gain from labour migration flows is actually higher than the minimal gains calculated for legal flows. However, the accompanying side effects include

Diversity and Economics

147

political damage to the idea of immigration, lower unskilled wages for the host population, and increased policing costs alongside lower tax receipts. At the same time, migration flows of highly skilled scientists and engineers from developing countries are being encouraged. Special scientific visas are granted, and measures are taken to attract scientists in the scientifically most advanced countries. At the regional level, diversity policies aim to fight the segregation and marginalisation of specific minority or other groups. Determinants of internal migration patterns and land-use change (especially regarding rural regions with aged populations that tend to be deserted) and regional specialisation and exchange, ensure that region-specific skills and qualifications are not lost. Language economics have to do with the fact that human societies are confronted with linguistic diversity. The centrality of diversity applies to theoretical work as well as empirical research in this field. It follows that linguistic diversity is also crucial in policy applications for the management of diversity, particularly in language policy and in the linguistic components of integration policy, when they are backed up by analyses from language economics. Language economics is increasingly being used in the selection, design, implementation and evaluation of policies addressing: (i) the protection and promotion of minority languages and, more generally, the position of various ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities; (ii) the linguistic and cultural aspects of integration policies targeting immigrant groups; (iii) the choice of official and working languages in multilingual entities, such as linguistically diverse nation-states or international or supranational organisations; and (iv) regional development policies, as well as strategies for balanced development in Third World countries, to the extent that linguistic diversity is seen to impact the conditions of economic development. As presented above, policy interventions are more diversified in the case of migrants and in particular illegal migrants. Geographical components, cultural lock-ins and administrative capability for the policy mix exist in every country. A general trend issuing special visas for qualified researchers is a topic that is gaining momentum in all major OECD countries. Immigration restrictions are introduced practically everywhere. The additional labour force creates opportunities for the increase of output but creates suspicion in the host countries concerning a possible crowding out of national labour and downward pressure on the level of wages. Trade-offs exist between, on the one hand, productivity increases and migrants paying taxes, and the increase in demand for public services and welfare state costs on the other. The balance depends on structural elements, which vary from one country to the other.

148

Diversity Research and Policy

In the EU, there is a variety of direct (and indirect) support measures used in many countries aimed at supporting minorities. The policy followed concerning other marginalised groups such as the aged, disabled and women is not so structured. Despite the acquis communautaire and the declarations of social inclusion, labour market equity and the fight against discrimination, there is still much that needs to be done in order to ensure that there is cohesion and integration of all people in the globalised and diversified world we live in. Female integration into the labour force is mainly enhanced through public policies supporting work-life balance for working mothers (e.g., the provision of maternity leaves and benefits) and the provision of additional education and life-long learning opportunities to improve employment opportunities for women. The same applies for groups of disabled people, who also receive support (social benefits, additional training and life-long-learning courses) to become more easily integrated into the labour market. For the aged, public policy at the EU level is constantly adjusting in order to fit the new needs of the aged and to reduce their unemployment rates. Public policy measures to this end include vocational guidance and training to improve the employability of older workers, and improving working conditions, social protection systems and incentives for the participation of older workers. Although the analyses show that the cultural, economic and political framework can create a positive environment for employment in general, women- and/or disabled-friendly public policies are important and necessary for achieving labour market integration of female and disabled groups. The latest discussions at the EU level tend to promote labour market structures and economic policies together with social protection systems that offer incentives for the participation of older workers, so that workers are not encouraged to take up early retirement but also do not become penalised for remaining in the labour market as long as they wish. Pension systems and working arrangements also need to be adjusted to facilitate the option of gradual retirement. The aim is to promote a smooth and gradual transition from one type of life to another for those who opt to retire. A final comment on policy issues is that respect for diversity is crucial for the economy, even though there is no clear indication of how much diversity in resources is acceptable or even beneficial to the economy. But in any case, not exploiting the available labour force and the risk of social tensions and unrest are detrimental. In that sense, it is not clear where economic policy stops and social policy starts. Their interaction is so close that they often become indistinguishable.

Diversity and Economics

149

e Future of Diversity in Economics

Economic diversity has often been investigated as a means to achieve the economic goal of stability. Few empirical studies were able to relate higher levels of diversity to either economic stability or overall levels of economic activity, and even they have occasionally controversial results due to different framework conditions in the contexts studied. Diversity measures in economics tend to be narrowly defined, usually emphasising the distribution of employment across industries. Emerging and recommended research questions for the future of diversity are outlined below. The essential research question that needs to be treated more generally is the role of the different diverse groups in income creation, income determinants, distribution policies and growth patterns. As there are already some initial contributions, what must not be done is to identify the circumstances under which there is a positive/negative correlation and ideally its magnitude. All research needs to take the dimensions of space and time into consideration, namely how these issues affect the distribution and relative growth of income between regions and/or between countries and how to measure the short-term and long-term effects and adjustments. Aspects of inequality and unfair treatment are relevant for macroeconomics as much as they are for politics and social peace. At present, inequality analysis in public economics is mainly a descriptive tool, unable to answer counterfactual ‘what if ’ questions. An increasing share of inequality analysis within the field of public economics deals with the causes of inequality and in particular on the ways to constraint the amount of inequality within a society. Stylising facts and using econometrics to identify the cost and benefits of different situations will lead us closer to a solid body of knowledge on the topic. In development economics, income equality is studied as the main driver for growth in developing countries. Aspects currently discussed include the optimal level of qualifications of the immigrants living in developed countries, the role of diversity in creativity and growth (as discussed by Boschma and Florida), and the role of female participation in economic efficiency. The present and future of the theoretical study of income inequality in the field of economic growth goes in the direction of analysing inequality issues using “augmented” neoclassical models, where “augmented” refers to the inclusion of political economy building blocks (such as voting systems, lobbying activities, etc.), by means of which normative statements can be added on top of clear and well established positive statements. The practical issues currently (and especially in the future) at stake are many:

150

Diversity Research and Policy

–

–

Inequality across different generations – introduced by large swings in real incomes that arose after World War II in developed countries or after episodes of regime changes, especially in less developed countries – poses problems of incumbency advantages in the political arena. Older insiders tend to avoid competition with possible younger outsiders, leading to dynamic inefficiencies. Inequality across countries – especially when countries are large and democracy is not fully established – poses problems on whether and how to coordinate policies (related to trade, exchange rates, public expenditures, environment) and how to measure their impact on individual countries and the world as a whole in terms of social and economic development.

Some of the most important research topics for the future of diversity in regional economics include, of course, issues of economic stability (economic growth, stable incomes, low unemployment levels, etc.) and aspects regarding the segregation and marginalisation of specific groups (immigrants, the disabled, the aged, females, ethnic or racial groups, religious minorities, etc.) leading to seclusion and the creation of ghettos, or developing new creative areas and industries. Other diversity aspects for future discussion include the isolation of specific regional areas due to a lack of dynamics (no industry, no universities, no specialisation, etc.) or due to topology specifics (poor mountainous or rural areas) that do not attract investments and lead people to abandon the region to seek employment and a better quality of life elsewhere. The ageing population is also a significant aspect of diversity at the regional level, as especially in decentralised non-urban areas, the qualifications and skills of older people tend to be redundant and thus are not considered appropriate for becoming integrated into the regional labour market. The European labour market and all its elements of diversity should be integrated into the EU’s aim of becoming “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment by 2010” (Lisbon Agenda, May 2004). Consequently, the governance of labour market diversity will become increasingly complex and challenging for governmental and administrative bodies at all levels. This applies to all strands of equal opportunities and to both the demand and supply side of the labour market. The expansion of the EU, with the associated increase in migration and mobility within the EU, as well as immigration from non-EU countries, are transforming cities and towns across Europe, many of which find themselves in need of developing models

Diversity and Economics

151

of governance and policies capable of meeting the challenges presented by this newfound diversity and at the same time taking advantage of the opportunities presented. The governance of this increasing heterogeneity of culture, language, religion and other forms of diversity needs to be considered both in terms of the political – at local, national and EU levels – as well institutional or economic/ business-oriented challenges. It must be recognised that the institutional culture, as well as the broader culture, plays a central role in determining the effectiveness of policies related to the governance of diversity in the labour market. The European Commission is well aware of the challenges that diversity poses for governmental bodies at the EU, national and local levels and has engaged in various initiatives5 focusing on governance and sustainability in an increasingly global and diverse era. Some of these issues can and should be addressed at the EU level whereas others are unique to the national and/or local context and need to be dealt with accordingly. The diversity between member states in regard to their histories and experiences with migration and other forms of diversity provides a myriad of experiences upon which to draw both in reformulating existing policy and creating new policy. It is crucial, however, to recognise that models of governance cannot be directly transferred without consideration of the culture and context in which they are to be applied. This approach recognises the cultural richness of EU member states while examining and considering how common goals and principles can be achieved at the EU level.6 The issue will be to find the right balance between facts, needs and problems (cfr. research findings), the policy priorities and the translation into policy programmes and legislation. Although the economics of language remains a relatively marginal specialty in economics, and there are only a few economists who write regularly in this field (mainly in parallel with research in a more established field such as labour economics or public economics), there is no lack of stimulating theoretical and empirical questions waiting to be investigated in language economics, with major social, cultural and political importance. While it would not be possible to list all priority areas for future research, promising orientations include the identification and measurement of the effects (both the benefits and the costs) of alternative language policy scenarios, drawing on the experience gathered in other fields of economics, particularly in environmental economics. Findings should flow into a consistent theory of diversity management addressing the efficiency and fairness dimensions of alternative policy scenarios.

152

Diversity Research and Policy

Notes 

 

 



This chapter has, with the permission of the authors, used material produced in the context of the SUSDIV network, which is unpublished. Individual references to this material is explicit in three cases. http://www.google.be/search?q=Economics+of+Diversity&btnG=Search &hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozillaAelAofficial&channel=s&sa=. In the “ The Economics of Diversity, Migration, and Culture’ Conference,  of the papers were on migration http://www.economia.unimore.it/Bertocchi_Graziella/ bologna/papers.htm. Diversity in the form of the “untouchables” or political minorities used extensively in developing countries are not reviewed here. Some examples include: EC Workshop “Global Trade and Globalising Societies: Challenges to Governance and Sustainability – the role of the EU” (Brussels,  Dec ); ENGIME (FP- Project), which dealt with governance as a key issue; the SUS.DIV Network of Excellence (FP- Project), which focuses on governance in cities; and the EURO.DIV Conference Series (Marie Curie Training Grant). As highlighted in the Commission White Paper on European Governance, an EUlevel response is not always appropriate.

References

Abiad, A., Leigh, D. and Mody, A. 2007. IMF working paper, International Finance and Income Convergence: Europe is different. Agrawal, A., Kapur, D. and McHale, J. 2008. Brain Drain or Brain Bank? The Impact of Skilled Emigration on Poor-Country Innovation. NBER Working Paper 14592. Anderson, J.E. 2008. International trade theory. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second edition. Becker, G. 1971. The Economics of Discrimination. Second edition. Chigago: University of Chicago Press. Borjas, G.J. 1994a. The Economic Benefits from Immigration. NBER Working Paper 4955. Borjas, G.J. 1994b. The Economics of Immigration. Journal of Economic Literature. December. Chevalier, A. 2007. Education, Occupation and Career Expectations: Determinants of the Gender Pay Gap for UK Graduates. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 69(6): 819-842.

Diversity and Economics

153

Coate, S. and Loury, G. 1993. Will Affirmative-Action Policies Eliminate Negative Stereotypes? The American Economic Review. 83(5): 1220-1240. Colub, S. 1999. Labour Costs and International Trade. American Enterprise Institute. Damvakeraki, T. 2009. Diversity and Macroeconomics. Unpublished. Decreuse, B. 2008. Search Externalities with crowding out effects. Greqam University of Aix-Marseilles. De Lobel, R. 2009. Educational and Labour Economics and Diversity. Unpublished. Dustman, C. and Preston, I. 2005. Is Immigration Good or Bad for the Economy? Analysis of Attitudinal Responses, CReAM Discussion Paper, 06(04): 1-39. Fiorio, C. and Damvakeraki, T. 2009. Public Economics and Diversity. Unpublished. Florida, R. and Gates, G. 2001. Technology and Tolerance: The Importance of Diversity to High-Tech Growth. Brookings Institution, Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Freeman R.B. 2006. People Flows in Globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 20(2): 145-170. Golub, S. 1999. Labor Costs and International Trade. American Enterprise Institute. Grin, F. 2009. Language Economics and Diversity. Unpublished. Hausman, R., Tyson, L.D. and Zahidi, S. 2009. The Global Gender Gap Report 2009. World Economic Forum. Kort 1979 and 1991 and Siegel et al. 1993a, 1994, and 1995a. Mankiw, G. 2008. Principles of Microeconomics, Paperback, 4, Book, Economics. Barnes & Noble.com. Myrdal, A. and Myrdal, G. 1934. Crisis in the Population Question (Kris i befolkningsfrågan); Myrdal, G. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy; Hirschmann, A.O. 1994. Social Conflicts as Pillars of Democratic Market Society. Political Theory. 22(2) 203-218. Ottaviano G.I.P. and Peri, G. 2006. The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity: Evidence from US Cities. Journal of Economic Geography. 6: 9-44. Perotti, R. 1996. Growth, Income Distribution, and Democracy: What the Data Say. Journal of Economic Growth. 1: 149-187. Persson, T. and Tabellini, G. 1994. Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? American Economic Review. 84: 600-621. Razin, A. 2002. FDI contribution to capital Flows and Investment in Capacity. NBER Working Paper, 9204, 1-33.

154

Diversity Research and Policy

Robbins, L. 1935 (1932). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan. Resnick, M. 2009. The Tradeoffs Between Homogeneity and Diversity in Issues. August 22. Schultz, T. 1981. Investing in People. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Schultz, T. 1993. The Economics of Being Poor. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Solow, R. 1956. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 70(1): 65-94. Steinhardt, M.F. 2008. Does citizenship matter? The economic impact of naturalizations in Germany. HWWI Research Paper, 3-13. Tsipouri, L. 2009. Development Economics and Diversity. Unpublished. Witt, U. 2008. Evolutionary economics. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second edition, 3: 67-68.

Diversity and Economics

155

156

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity does not play a significant role

Diversity does not play a significant role

Some diversity aspects studied under the public policy sub-discipline

Low-cost labour inputs; the cost of marginalisation

Global convergence or divergence

Diversity does not play a significant role

Income equality/ redistribution policies; health and education

In the case of educational economics race and gender are sometimes treated as independent variables; in the case of welfare race and age play a role. For our purposes these aspects of diversity are treated under development economics and public economics, respectively.

History of economic thought, methodology and heterodox approaches

Mathematical and quantitative methods

Microeconomics

Macroeconomics and monetary economics covering consumption, saving, production, employment and investment (E2)

International economics covering trade (F1), macroeconomic aspects of international trade and finance (F4), international relations and international political economy (F5)

Financial economics

Public economics covering structure and scope of government (H1) and taxation, subsidies, revenues (H2)

Health, education and welfare

Using taxation for public education

Economic migrants; brain circulation; the role of migrants in trade flows

Social benefits for migrants

Differences in skills as determinants of international competitive positions

Low-cost immigrants

Ethnic and racial diversity

Contribution of additional schooling to growth; potential crowding out

Diversity does not play a significant role

General economics and teaching

Skills inequality

Income inequality

Diversity Aspects Studied by the Different Sub-Disciplines Within Economics

JEL classification

Table 1

Appendix: e Treatment of Diversity Topics in Economics Research

Female integration into the labour force; maternity; social benefits for the disabled

The contribution of the female labour force to the position of a country in the global economy

Integrating the female population into the labour force

Gender equality/ disabilities

Social security bottlenecks

The cost of an ageing society for wealth creation

Age

Diversity and Economics

157

Language skills/ employers’ preferences

Income equality

Other special topics Covering i.e. Language Economics under Cultural Economics, economic sociology, economics and anthropology (Z19)*

* Language economics could also be considered as part of the following JEL sub-disciplines: A12, D61, H89, J15, J19, J24.

Upgrading and keeping regional labour qualifications

Improvement of education and skills as a measure of economic development

Topology of rich/poor regions in the same country; convergence or divergence at the national level

Income equality, as a measure of economic development

Economic Development, technological change and growth

Urban, rural and regional economics (Covering Regional economic activity (R11), and General equilibrium and welfare economic analysis of regional economies (R13)

Diversity often plays a role in Economic History but this cannot be generalised as it depends on the methodology used, the period and the location studied

Economic History

Diversity does not play a significant role

Diversity is important; the relevant issues are treated under the business and organisational psychology chapter in this book

Business administration and business economics, marketing, accounting

Diversity does not play a significant role

Diversity is important; the relevant issues are treated under the business and organisational psychology chapter in this book

Industrial organisation

Economic systems

Diversity does not play a significant role

Law and economics

The role of skills for employment/selfemployment

Agricultural and natural resources economics ; environmental and ecological economics

Income inequality (by gender, race, ethnicity, religion, disability)

Labour and demographics economics Covering Demographic economics (J1), Mobility, unemployment and vacancies (J6) and Labour discrimination (J7)

Language dynamics Language and economic activity

Ghettos in cities; the economic consequences of segregation

Treatment of ethnic minorities

The role of race for employment/selfemployment

The role of women and the role of the disabled in the labour market

Role/provisions for integrating female and disabled in the labour force

Regions with ageing population (deserted)

Incorporating older people into society

Mandatory pension rules; gradual exit from the labour market

10

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business and Organisation Studies Kiflemariam Hamde, Maddy Janssens, Koen Van Laer, Nils Wåhlin & Patrizia Zanoni A Brief Description of the Discipline of Business and Organisation Studies

Organisation studies deal with organisations, organising, and people who are subject to being organised. The discipline focuses on organisations as an object of study; this includes their specific structures, the ways in which they are managed and the actors within them (Hodge, Anthony & Gales 2003). As a field, organisation studies have their roots in the second half of the nineteenth century, when large-scale organisational entities started to spread in Western societies. The early writings tended to celebrate organisations as the instruments that would once and for all ensure material progress, reconciling collective and individual needs (March & Simon 1958). Today organisation studies is characterised by a wide array of voices, perspectives and disciplines (e.g., sociology, business, management, psychology, and philosophy) debating the nature of organisations and the assumptions underlying their study (Burrell & Morgan 1979, Deetz 1996, Fleetwood 2005, Reed 2006). Management studies is a sub-discipline of organisation studies dealing specifically with the way organisations are (or should be) managed in order to achieve their goals. The term ‘management’ has its roots in the Italian word ‘maneggiare’, which means “to handle a horse”. This etymology reveals its action- and goal-oriented connotation, involving taking responsibility for, and control of, someone or something else (Alvesson & Willmott 1996).

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Organisation and Management Studies

Despite its relatively recent introduction in organisation studies, diversity has become a popular topic among Western managers, practitioners and scholars over the last fifteen years (Maxwell, Blair & McDougall 2001, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad & Mills 1997). The term generally refers to differences in people’s identities “based on membership in social and

159

demographic groups” (Nkomo & Cox 1996: 339) such as ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation and physical ability. However, diversity can also be understood more broadly, including dimensions such as lifestyle, educational background, work experience, cognitive style, and even personality (Nkomo & Cox 1996, Prasad, Pringle & Konrad 2006, Zanoni & Janssens 2004, see also Bechtoldt in this volume). Diversity management and managing diversity refer to programmes and actions that organisations set up to recruit, retain and manage diverse employees and to create a context in which everybody can perform and contribute to the organisation (Litvin 2002, Mavin & Girling 2000, Prasad & Mills 1997).

e Historical Origins of Diversity

Interest in the topics of diversity and diversity management emerged in the late 1980s in the US, when the Workforce 2000 Report of the Ministry of Labor ( Johnston & Packer 1987) warned that the US workforce was becoming more diverse, and that the relative amount of white men in the labour market would decrease (Billing & Sundin 2006, Kelly & Dobbin 1998, Konrad 2003, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Maxwell et al. 2001, Prasad & Mills 1997). Following these predictions, companies became more interested in the changing demographics of the workforce and in learning how to manage it in suitable ways. Only a decade later, around the turn of the century, did diversity start to spread to the rest of the Western world and to be reinterpreted in contextspecific ways ( Jones, Pringle & Sheperd 2000, Klarsfeld forthcoming, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad et. al. 2006, Zanoni & Janssens 2008). US companies’ attention for the socio-demographic profile of their workforce dates, however, back to two decades earlier. The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Affirmative Action (AA) legislation that was passed in the 1960s and 1970s banned discrimination in employment based on race, origin and gender, encouraged active programmes targeting people from disadvantaged groups, and gave individuals legal grounds to sue organisations for unequal treatment (Kelly & Dobbin 1998, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Nkomo & Cox 1996). To comply with the law and eliminate (direct and indirect) discrimination in the workplace, organisations created EEO/AA offices and grievance systems, screened their hiring and promotion practices, and started EEO training and AA plans with specific employment goals (Kelly & Dobbin 1998, Kirton & Greene 2006). During the conservative Reagan administration, EEO/AA legislation fell into disgrace (Kelly & Dobbin 1998). Judges started to interpret and apply

160

Diversity Research and Policy

the law in more limited ways (Edelman, Fuller & Mara-Drita 2001), while criticism was increasingly raised regarding the law’s ‘reverse discrimination’ towards individuals belonging to the white male majority, the so-called (white male) ‘backlash’. This changed political context provided fertile terrain for the affirmation of diversity, which shifted attention away from a legal, social justice rationale to a business rationale (Benschop 2001, Cassell & Biswas 2000, Kelly & Dobbin 1998, Litvin 2002, Maxwell et al. 2001). The business rationale broadened the scope of the previous EEO/AA programmes beyond protected groups such as women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities and shifted the focus from socio-demographic groups to individuals. This is more in line with human resource management philosophy and de-emphasises potential conflicts of interests between the majority and the minorities (Cassell & Biswas 2000, Kirton & Greene 2006, Liff 1997, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Litvin 2002, Maxwell et al. 2001). Furthermore, diversity programmes portrayed differences in a more positive way than EEO/AA initiatives, as differences were reframed as sources of value rather than problems if the workforce was appropriately managed (Cassell & Biswas 2000, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Maxwell et al. 2001). The Workforce 2000 Report, combined with a changing, more diverse consumer market and globalisation, created a sense of urgency and purpose for diversity programmes and formed the basis for the “business case for diversity” (Kelly & Dobbin 1998, Konrad 2003). This business case is usually grounded on three economic arguments. First, because of the changing composition of the labour market, companies that want to attract the best qualified candidates have to take measures to recruit people from all demographic backgrounds. Second, companies should diversify their workforce because diverse groups outperform homogeneous ones in solving complex problems and in creative tasks. This argument is based on the idea that heterogeneous groups bring together a wider variety of information, perspectives and skills. And third, companies should have a more diverse workforce to be able to better connect to and understand the preferences and consumption habits of their diversified customer base (Konrad 2003, Prasad & Mills 1997). Although support for the business case remains mixed and contradictory, these rationales continue to be used by diversity practitioners and managers (Benschop 2001, Cavanaugh 1997, Ely & Thomas 2001, Konrad 2003, Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Litvin 2002, Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Prasad & Mills 1997). While the US can be considered the birthplace of the diversity discourse, the movement also spread to other countries around the world (Klarsfeld forthcoming, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad et al. 2006). This dissemination

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

161

often takes place through global policies emanating from the US headquarters of multinationals and the adoption of US best practices (Ferner, Almond & Colling 2005, Kossek, Lobel & Brown 2006, Süß & Kleiner 2008, Zanoni & Janssens 2008). Recently, scholars have raised the question of whether the US model of diversity can simply be superimposed onto new contexts with different social, political and historical backgrounds (Cassell & Biswas 2000, Kossek et al. 2006, Jones et al. 2000, Nyambegera 2002). A first concern is the difference in minorities at the heart of diversity debates. As Pettigrew (1998) already noted, the position of African-Americans cannot be considered as reflecting the situation of minorities in other parts of the world. So, it can be questioned whether insights from studies focusing on minorities in the US can be transposed to the “new” minorities in Europe (such as former colonial subjects or recently arrived “guest workers”) or to indigenous peoples such as the Sami in Sweden (Hamde 2008, Westin 2003). A second issue is the different legal context. The US is also atypical in the fact that it has such a strong legislative tradition in the field of Equal Employment Opportunity. In contrast, the EU has only recently developed a more extensive legislative framework to ensure equal opportunities and combat discrimination in employment, which still mainly consists of “voluntary pressures” (Klarsfeld forthcoming, Wrench 2002). Finally, a third difference derives from the institutional context. For example, because of the generally more important role of trade unions in European countries, the possibility to implement diversity management practices is more likely to be conditional upon trade unions’ consensus in the framework of broader negotiations on employment terms (Farnham & Hyman 1996). Given these questions, studies on diversity management in Europe often analyse how the meaning of diversity and the way it is managed change in the process of institutional translation due to the distinct contextual factors and the power that local actors have in the process of diversity implementation. For instance, Boxenbaum (2006) shows how the novel managerial practice of diversity management is translated in Denmark through a process revolving around institutional actors’ individual preference, their strategic reframing, and local grounding. Ferner and colleagues (2005) show how different subsidiaries of the same multinational responded to the perceived ‘parochialism’ of global diversity policies through resistance, avoidance and accommodation strategies. Other studies focused on the question of how the diversity discourse can be integrated in the context of extensive welfare states as found in Europe (Dahlström 2006). For example, researchers in the Swedish context wondered if it is at all possible to combine the Swedish folk-home tradition of the welfare state with the American rhetoric of valuing differences (Esse-

162

Diversity Research and Policy

myr 2001, Fägerlind & Ekelöf 2001, Rönnqvist 2008) given that the term for diversity in Swedish – mångfald – does not reflect the wider concept as used in the US discourse (Fägerlind & Ekelöf 2001).

Diversity in Organisation eory and Research

Socio-demographic identities have long remained underexplored in organisation studies, which conceptualised employees as “void of race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexuality and other social identities” (Nkomo & Stewart 2006: 521). However, following the emergence of EEO laws and the subsequent attention given to diversity in organisations, organisation studies also started to explore the position of women and racioethnic minorities in work contexts (Benschop 2006, Cox & Nkomo 1990, Nkomo 2008, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop & Nkomo 2010). In line with the concerns of the new legislation, much of this research was aimed at finding evidence of differential treatment and discrimination based on race in hiring, evaluation and promotion. As a whole, such studies point to the persistence of racial discrimination (Dipboye 1985, Greenhaus, Parasuraman & Wormley 1990, Nkomo 2008, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Stewart & Perlow 2001). Similarly, research on gender explored the continued presence of occupational segregation, the glass ceiling and wage discrimination (Benschop 2006, Greenhaus et al. 1990, Nkomo 2008). Compared to race and gender, other bases for discrimination such as age, disability, religion or sexual orientation have, to date, only drawn limited attention among organisational scholars (Nkomo 2008, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad et al. 2006). In explaining why people hold prejudices or display discriminatory behaviour, organisational research commonly draws inspiration from traditional psychological perspectives (Nkomo 2008). Classic examples include work by Adorno and his coworkers (1950) on the link between certain personality traits (authoritarian personalities) and prejudice, and Allport’s approach (1954) emphasising cognitive factors, categorisation and erroneous generalisations (Katz 1991, Nkomo 1992, Pettigrew 1979). Other psychological theories that have become popular in research on workplace diversity are social identity or social categorisation theory (Tajfel 1969, 1982, Tajfel & Turner 1986, also see Bechtoldt in this volume). Such perspectives argue that, based on salient characteristics, people categorise themselves and others in social categories. As they value their own category positively with reference to other groups, this leads to a tendency to favour in-group members over out-group members (Henriques 1984, Kulik & Bainbridge 2006, Nkomo 1992, Proudford & Nkomo 2006, Riordan, Schaf-

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

163

fer & Stewart 2005, van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007). Another important perspective is the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne 1971), which draws on the idea of homophily, or the tendency people have to prefer interacting with people they perceive to be similar to themselves (Ibarra 1992: Mollica, Gray, & Treviño 2003, Riordan et al. 2005). Still another influential perspective, especially in gender research, is Kanter’s theory of tokenism (1977), which holds that people who are in the numerical minority in groups suffer specific negative consequences, such as performance pressures because of their high visibility, isolation and exclusion based on an exaggeration of their differences and pressures to conform to the norms and stereotypes of the majority members (Goldman, Gutek, Stein & Lewis 2006, Riordan et al. 2005). Next to discrimination, diversity and difference have also been linked to more traditional organisational behaviour topics. Some studies have tried to find out whether there are differences between groups in, for example, job attitudes, motivation or leadership styles (Nkomo & Cox 1996). However, the results of such research are largely inconsistent and offer little evidence either to assume that racial differences exist in work-related attitudes, or to make clear statements about gender differences in leadership styles (Nkomo & Cox 1996, Nkomo & Stewart 2006). Nevertheless, there is evidence that sociodemographic diversity in workgroups has negative affective consequences and can lead to lower commitment, cohesion and satisfaction as well as higher turnover and conflict, although these negative effects tend to diminish over time (Milliken & Martins 1996, van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan 2004, also see Bechtoldt in this volume). As the popularity of EEO/AA approaches declined and the business case rhetoric emerged, more research on the potential positive effects of diversity on the bottom line and the functioning of work groups emerged. In line with the business case argument, such research starts from the idea that diversity might be linked to a wider variety of knowledge, information and perspectives (van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007, also see Bechtoldt in this volume). Therefore, diversity could have positive cognitive effects and improve a group’s creativity and ability to solve complex problems, interpret stimuli and make high-quality decisions (Ely & Thomas 2001, Milliken & Martins 1996, van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007). Despite the sustained popularity of this argument, empirical support for it remains limited and mixed (Bowers, Pharmer & Salas 2000, Ely & Thomas 2001, Kersten 2000, McLeod, Lobel & Cox 1996, van Knippenberg et al. 2004). The inconsistency of these findings has pointed to the complexity of the link between diversity and performance, drawing attention to possible moderating variables. For example, Bowers and colleagues (2000) found that diversity results in better performance when it

164

Diversity Research and Policy

comes to difficult tasks, but that the opposite was true for less difficult ones. Watson and colleagues (1993) found that the effect of diversity changed over time and that culturally homogenous teams performed better than heterogeneous teams at first, but that after some time, this difference disappeared or was even overturned. Finally, Ely and Thomas (2001) found that diversity’s impact on group performance was influenced by the group’s diversity perspective, or the role of beliefs and expectations about diversity in the group. They conclude that organisations that see minority employees’ identities as valuable resources that can be used to improve and redefine the way the organisation works reap the benefits of diversity, while organisations who only use minorities for specific tasks or who ignore and suppress all forms of difference fail to do so. Empirical research on companies’ actual use of diversity is only just beginning. In an early piece based on qualitative case studies in Austria and Curacao, Koot (1997) investigated inter-ethnic rivalry within firms, concluding with a provocative proposal that firms should take advantage of such rivalry rather than suppress it. A more recent study by Ortlieb and Sieben (2008) based on German data showed that companies’ diversity strategies were related to their competitive strategies, and that this relationship varies in accordance with company size and industrial sector. On the whole, it can be said that workplace diversity “appears to be a double-edged sword” (Milliken & Martins 1996: 403), which can potentially have positive cognitive effects under specific circumstances, but which can also have considerable negative affective outcomes.

Emerging Critical Approaches to Diversity Research

In recent years, some scholars have started to express dissatisfaction with the traditional research on diversity (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000). Nkomo and Cox, for example, noted in 1996 that despite its popularity, the concept of diversity “lacks rigor, theoretical development, and historical specificity” and is “underdeveloped as a scientific construct” (1996: 338). In line with their observations and recommendations, some diversity scholars took a ‘critical turn’ and started exploring and questioning some of diversity management’s practices, assumptions and objectives (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad et al. 2006). Underlying a large number of these critical accounts is the concern that diversity management – despite its commitment to hire and value ‘diverse people’ and its appearance of concern with issues such as fairness and equality – will not lead to real, fundamental change (Ahmed 2007, Jones & Stablein 2006, Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Nkomo & Stewart 2006). Rather, di-

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

165

versity management aims to use people seen as ‘diverse’ and their ‘diversity’ in an economic way, and welcomes diversity as long as it serves its instrumental goals and enriches the (dominant centre of the) organisation. In doing so, it reproduces the status quo and sidesteps fundamental (but unpleasant) issues such as discrimination, structural inequalities and power imbalances (Cavanaugh 1997, Kersten 2000, Kirby & Harter 2003, Konrad 2003, Kossek et al. 2006, Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Litvin 2002, Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Prasad & Mills 1997). Starting from these assumptions, critical studies explore the dark sides of the current diversity discourse and commonly argue for a nonessentialist, contextualised understanding of diversity acknowledging power. Three issues are commonly raised in the critical diversity literature: the conceptualisation of identity, the neglect for power, and the role of the context. Concerning the first point, critical scholars have criticised the essentialist approach to identity in much of the mainstream diversity literature (Litvin 1997, Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). Underlying the essentialist approach is the idea that certain (demographic) characteristics (e.g., being a woman or being white) define the essence of a person’s identity and his or her attitudes and behaviour. Identities are seen as fixed, stable and unchanging, making it possible to categorise people based on their essential differences into discrete and homogeneous groups with clear boundaries (Litvin 1997, Lorbiecki & Jack 2000). Accordingly, diversity becomes an objective, natural and obvious fact that can be measured and managed (Litvin 1997, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). Despite this, critical authors have argued that this approach is problematic for several reasons. First, they point to the fact that identified categories are not homogeneous and that there are within-group differences and between-group similarities that should not be overlooked ( Janssens & Zanoni 2005, Jones & Stablein 2006, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Litvin 1997, Nkomo & Cox 1996). Second, by privileging certain differences or dimensions (e.g., ethnicity) as the basis for category formation and as essential contents, this perspective ignores the influence of social, political and economic forces and other possible differences (e.g., capital versus labour) that might be more relevant in a specific situation (Boje & Rosile 1994, Litvin 1997). Third, this approach discursively denies people personal complexity, full subjectivity and agency by pinning them down and describing them in a specific way, reducing them to mere representatives of a specific group (Litvin 1997, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). Fourth, it does not acknowledge how the meanings attributed to identities (e.g., difference as a lack or as an asset) are continuously constructed and vary greatly across time, place and even individuals (Litvin 1997, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). Finally, such conceptualisations are usually based on dichotomous thinking (e.g., black and

166

Diversity Research and Policy

white, male and female), which is problematic, as this commonly implies a hierarchy in which one group dominates the other and is seen as superior (Nkomo & Cox 1996, Scott 1988). In line with these critiques, some authors have started approaching diversity in a non-essentialist way, acknowledging that identities are constructed rather than innate and are multiple, complex, multifaceted, situational and changing (Lindgren & Wåhlin 2002). Such an approach allows a better understanding of the complexity of individuals’ identities, which are influenced by, yet transcend, the stereotyped identities of historically subordinated groups. Others have started conceptualising diversity as context-specific discourses of difference to which meanings are attached and through which a context-bound reality, categories and identities are constructed ( Janssens & Zanoni 2005, Jones & Stablein 2006, Kirby & Harter 2003, Litvin 1997, 2002, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). A second issue often raised by critical authors is the fact that mainstream diversity research often inadequately accounts for power and intergroup inequality (Konrad 2003, Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). First, diversity can refer to a very broad array of individual differences including background, leadership style, character traits, and education. This understanding results in seeing everyone as different but overlooks the fact that some groups (e.g., non-whites, women, homosexuals, people with disabilities) have been, and are, systematically discriminated against (Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Prasad et al. 2006). Sensitive topics such as racism, sexism or heterosexism are avoided, feeding the myth of meritocratic workplaces in which structural barriers have disappeared (Konrad 2003, Linnehan & Konrad 1999). Second, such authors are also critical of commonly used psychological approaches that only focus on individual (cognitive) processes, locating the source of racism and prejudice inside individuals while neglecting causes, such as unequal resource distribution and power differences, outside of the individual (Konrad 2003, Nkomo 1992, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Prasad et al. 2006, Proudford & Nkomo 2006, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). They argue that it is precisely these latter causes that require close attention, as it is the existing intergroup inequality that amplifies the negative effects of in-group/out-group dynamics on minorities, resulting in the stigmatisation of certain groups, who come to be seen as lazy, dangerous and inferior, leading to discrimination (Linnehan & Konrad 1999, Prasad et al. 2006). Finally, acknowledging power can also help us see how diversity management approaches are both a product of management’s power and a managerial instrument of control and compliance, functional to reproducing unequal power structures within organisations along classical class relations (Cavanaugh 1997, Lorbiekci & Jack 2000, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). The main argument is that diversity management

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

167

approaches might give the perception of pursuing change, but by instrumentally using diversity to reach organisational goals contribute to the status quo and the reproduction of power imbalances between the “managed diverse” and the “managers of diversity” (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000: S23). The third issue addressed by the critical diversity literature is the role of the context in shaping the meaning of diversity. As already mentioned, some authors question whether diversity approaches and practices, inspired by demographic evolutions and cultural assumptions from the US, can be simply transferred to other (cultural or national) contexts with different diversity issues (Cassell & Biswas 2000, Jones et al. 2000, Kossek et al. 2006, Nyambegera 2002). Consequently, they argue for an approach that studies diversity while acknowledging the wider social, political and historical context ( Jones & Stablein 2006, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Prasad et al. 2006) and how such elements affect the identities that become salient, the meanings attached to them, individuals’ positions within organisations and power differences between them ( Jones & Stablein 2006, Kersten 2000, Litvin 1997, Nkomo & Cox 1996, Prasad et al. 2006, Siebers 2009a, 2009b). At the meso level, some critical scholars have worked on embedding understandings of diversity and unequal power relations in organisation-specific productive contexts, exploring the way work processes influence an organisation’s understanding of diversity and the way it is managed ( Janssens & Zanoni 2005, Zanoni & Janssens 2004). This literature connects identities and the broader discourse of diversity to individuals’ (assumed) competences and value generation for the organisation, theoretically and empirically developing the idea that diversity is, at its essence, a business concept ( Janssens & Zanoni 2005, Zanoni 2009, Zanoni & Janssens 2004, 2007). Although these critical diversity studies often limit themselves to critique and stay largely theoretical and conceptual (Zanoni et al. 2010), their strength lies in the fact that they break through the rosy diversity metaphors such as the cultural mosaic or the patchwork quilt, expose the “dark sides” of current diversity approaches, and offer invitations and fuel for greater reflexivity in the field (Lorbiecki & Jack 2000, Nkomo & Stewart 2006, Prasad & Mills 1997).

Diversity in Policy and Practice

Even though relatively little of the first twenty years of diversity research has been spent investigating effective diversity management practices, the practitioner literature suggests a large number of practices that can be implemented by organisations such as cross-cultural training, screening of human resource

168

Diversity Research and Policy

managment systems and processes, dedicated mentoring and networking initiatives, or diversity task forces (Cox 1991, Cox & Blake 1991, Kandola & Fullerton 1998). To highlight the difference in thinking underlying such practices, a theoretical distinction is often made between so-called ‘identity-blind’ and ‘identity-conscious’ approaches to diversity management. Identity-blind approaches do not draw attention to specific group identifications in organisational decision-making. Proponents of such an approach argue that stressing differences risks reinforcing stereotypes, provoking negative reactions from majority (and minority) members, and threatening the unity and cohesion in the organisation (Konrad & Linnehan 1995, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Liff 1997, Prasad et al. 2006, Stevens, Plaut & Sanchez-Burks 2008). Accordingly, diversity should be primarily managed through “leveling the playing field”, making sure that everyone is treated the same and that human resources processes and decisions (such as selection or promotion) are objective and based on nothing else than individual accomplishments, qualifications and competences (Konrad & Linnehan 1995, Stevens et al. 2008). On the other hand, identity-conscious approaches explicitly acknowledge and recognise group differences between employees and take them into account in policies and decision-making (Konrad & Linnehan 1995, Liff & Wajcman 1996, Stevens et al. 2008). The underlying argument is that it is not possible for people to disregard ‘identities’ or to suppress all biases (Konrad & Linnehan 1995). Further, identity blindness is implicitly based on the standards of ‘white men’, who remain the unquestioned norm (Konrad & Linnehan 1995, Liff & Wajcman 1996). Therefore, such approach offers equal opportunities only to those who are able and willing to adapt to the dominant norms (Liff 1997). This is problematic, as people are forced to assimilate yet may not be able or willing to do so. Moreover, colour blindness ignores the legacy of years of oppression on both the dominant and the dominated groups, which cannot be erased by a mere promise to treat everybody the same (Prasad et al. 2006). Consequently, they argue that more is needed to ensure equality and equal representation, and that organisations have to take differences into account, and for example adopt specific mentoring and networking programmes for underrepresented groups or special recruitment efforts targeting members of specific groups (Konrad & Linnehan 1995; Stevens et al. 2008). Only a few studies have attempted to assess which diversity practices are most successful in improving the employment status of women and people of colour or the entrance of minorities in management (Kalev, Kelly & Dobbin 2006; for further elaboration on diversity-related training, see Bechtoldt in this volume). Konrad and Linnehan (1995) concluded that identity-conscious

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

169

initiatives can have some positive influence on employment status, while identity-blind practices do not. In their analysis of the effects of seven common diversity practices, Kalev and coworkers (2006) found that structures assigning responsibility for diversity through affirmative action plans, diversity committees or diversity staff positions had the best overall results in increasing managerial diversity. On the other hand, programmes to reduce managerial biases, such as diversity training or diversity evaluations, do not seem to work well and might even have negative effects for specific groups. Finally, programmes to reduce social isolation, such as networking and mentoring programmes, have some modest positive effects, although not for black men, for whom networking programmes might even have negative effects. Such research indicates that there is a continued need for evaluation of popular diversity initiatives. However, in practice, we see that organisations often pay very little attention to actually measuring the effects of their diversity efforts (Kossek et al. 2006). Focusing on the European situation, the literature on diversity management is still at its beginnings. Attempts to identify and describe effective practices have been rare. Compared with US-based studies, the studies that do exist show that diversity is managed in a variety of ways well beyond classical ad-hoc HRM initiatives such as diversity training and mentoring programmes. They stress the importance of work systems, types of service or product, and professional norms in shaping both what differences mean and how organisations manage them. Driven by the observation that diversity management has not secured the inclusion of disadvantaged groups in the workplace (Hamde and Wåhlin, forthcoming), a few studies do attempt to identify diversity management practices that effectively diminish inequality within organisations and favour inclusion. Janssens and Zanoni (2007) identified three types of practices crucial to favouring ethnic minority employees’ inclusion: 1) a work setting making minorities’ competences visible and valuable, 2) practices allowing for the expression of minority cultures such as language and religion, and 3) ethically informed care practices. Comparing best cases of diversity management in the social and semi-public sectors in Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, Zanoni and colleagues (forthcoming) identified characteristics of diversity-friendly organisations including a flat organisational structure, the development of individual employees’ competences, and management’s encouragement of employees’ participation and responsibility.

170

Diversity Research and Policy

e Future of Diversity in Business and Organisation Studies

Despite the progress that has being made in the short history of workplace diversity research, “there is still much to do about diversity” (Nkomo & Stewart 2006: 520). We present here a few directions for future research as recently identified by different diversity scholars. First, diversity research until now has mainly focused on race and gender, giving limited attention to other dimensions of diversity such as age, disability, weight, religion or sexual orientation. Recent studies have alerted us to the need to study these newer dimensions but also to consider that these dimensions become relevant in a specific national and organisational context rather than being a priori defined diversity categories. For instance, the dimensions of language and religion have been studied in European-based diversity studies (Ogbonna & Harris 2006, Siebers 2009a, Zanoni & Janssens 2007), showing how language and religion are crucial identity markers of ethnic difference (i.e., race) in the specific European context. Second, diversity studies focusing on the relationship between diversity and work-related outcomes are advised to abandon the ‘main effects approach’ (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007: 518), and shift their attention to more sophisticated models that offer a fine-grained understanding of the effects of diversity. This entails that scholars should focus more on the contingencies that elicit the processes underlying diversity or, in other words, examine the reasons why diversity sometimes ‘works’ in some situations but does not in others. Based on a recent review, Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) point to three sets of factors that should receive increased research attention: cooperative interdependence, time, and diversity mind sets. Research on these three factors has until now been limited or embryonic, yet it is important to show their relevance in terms of their role vis-à-vis social categorisation and information/decision-making, two processes that are crucial to diversity. Other scholars (Kalev et al. 2006) have noted the tendency of diversity research to focus on the causes of workplace inequality, while the question of how to reduce inequalities deserves just as much attention. Given the limited positive, and sometimes even negative, impact of existing diversity management practices on organisational inequalities, it is argued that diversity research needs to become more performative, explicitly dealing with stimulating social change (Zanoni et al. 2010). In an active search for new, emancipating forms of organising, diversity scholars may explore the relevance of other theories than those of cognitive bias or social networks. For instance, an institutional perspective pointing to practices that assign organisational responsibility for change (Kalev et al. 2006) or taking an agentic perspective emphasising

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

171

the potential strategic deployment of the term diversity (Ahmed 2007) may offer fruitful insights into ways of countering inequality in workplaces. Finally, critical diversity scholars (Zanoni et al. 2010) have delineated directions for future diversity research that direct researchers’ attention to study the power dimension of diversity. One of these directions is the need to study actors’ micro-processes of diversity because it sheds light on interstitial, everyday forms of resistance that create openings not only for alternative meanings but also for micro-emancipatory projects (Alvesson & Willmott 1992, Prasad & Prasad 2000, Zanoni & Janssens 2007). Critical diversity scholars are thus advised to take up the notion of intersectionality, which was originally developed in black feminist studies to understand the oppression of black women through the simultaneous and dynamic interaction of race and gender (Crenshaw 1995). Although the importance of intersectionality is widely recognised, as it leads to a more fine-grained analysis of processes of identity construction and the underlying power relations (Holvino 2008), relatively few studies on diversity in organisations apply an intersectional analysis in empirical work. Another point of attention is to study how diversity and its meaning are implicated in everyday social practices in work settings. To date, little research has been done in this area, yet a re-conceptualisation of diversity as ongoing dynamic social practices would shed light on how power lies precisely in everyday, mundane action. As pointed out by Pringle, Konrad and Prasad (2006), this type of diversity research implies methodological approaches that allow for complexity in data collection about diversity, going beyond the textual and preferably including the observation of practices in specific settings.

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Ahmed, S. 2007. The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 30(2): 235-256. Allport, G.W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 537. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. 1992. On the idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies. Academy of Management Review. 17: 432-464. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. 1996. Making sense of management: A critical introduction. London: Sage, 246.

172

Diversity Research and Policy

Benschop, Y. 2001. Pride, prejudice and performance: Relations between HRM, diversity and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 12(7): 1166-1181. Benschop, Y. 2006. Of small steps and the longing for giant leaps: Research on the intersection of sex and gender within work and organizations. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 273-298. Billing, Y.D. and Sundin, E. 2006. From Managing Equality to Managing Diversity. A Critical Scandinavian Perspective on Gender and Workplace Diversity. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 95-120. Boje, D. and Rosile, G.A. 1994. Diversities, differences and authors’ voices. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 7(6): 8-17. Bowers, C.A., Pharmer, J.A. and Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small group research. 31(3): 305-327. Boxenbaum, E. 2006. Lost in translation: The making of Danish diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist. 49: 939-948. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann. Byrne, D. 1971 The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 474. Cassell, C. and Biswas, R. 2000. Editorial: Managing diversity in the new millennium. Personnel Review. 29(3): 268-273. Cavanaugh, J.M. 1997. (In)corporating the Other? Managing the Politics of Workplace Difference. In: Prasad, P., Mills, A., Elmes, M. and Prasad, A. (eds.) Managing the Organizational Melting Pot, Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Sage: Thousand Oaks, 31-53. Cox, T.H. 1991. The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive. 5: 34-47. Cox, T.H. and Blake. S. 1991. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive. 5: 45-56. Cox, T. and Nkomo, S. 1990. Invisible Men and Women: A Status Report on Race as a Variable in Organization Behavior Research. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 11( 6): 419-431. Crenshaw, K. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement. New York: New Press. Dahlström, C. 2006. The Rhetoric and Practice of Institutional Reform: Modern Immigrant Policy in Sweden. Paper prepared for the presentation at the biannual meeting of the Council for European Studies, Chicago, 29 March – 2 April 2006.

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

173

Deetz, S. 1996. Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their Legacy. Organization Science. 7(2): 191-207. Dipboye, R.L. 1985. Some Neglected Variables in Research on Discrimination in Appraisals. The Academy of Management Review. 10(1): 116-127. Edelman, L.B., Riggs Fuller, S.R. and Mara-Drita, I. 2001. Diversity rhetoric and the managerialization of the law. American Journal of Sociology. 106: 1589-1641. Ely, R. and Thomas, D. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly. 46: 229-273. Essemyr, M. (ed.) 2001. Diversity in Work Organizations. Stockholm: National Institute for Working Life. Fägerlind, G. and Ekelöf, E. 2001. Diversity in working life in Sweden. Stockholm: Svenska EFS-rådet. Farnham, D. and Hyman, R. 1996. Changing Industrial Relations in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell. Ferner, A., Almond, P. and Colling, T. 2005. Institutional theory and the crossnational transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies. 26: 304-321. Fleetwood, S. 2005. Ontology in Organization and Management Studies: A Critical Realist Perspective. Organization. 12(2): 197-222. Goldman, B., Gutek, B., Stein, J. and Lewis, K. 2006. Employment discrimination in organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management. 32(6): 786-830. Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. 1990. Effects of Race on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance Evaluations, and Career Outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal. 33(1): 64-86. Hamde, K. 2008. The current debate on cultural diversity in Sweden. Journal of cultural Diversity: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 16(2): 86-92. Hamde, K. and Wåhlin, N. (forthcoming). Managing diversity conceptually: Shifting conceptualizations of diversity in the context of immigrant organizations in Sweden. In: Janssens, M., Bechtold, M., Prarolo, G. and Stenius, V. (eds.) Sustainable Diversity. Edward Elgar. Hernriques, J. 1984. Social psychology and the politics of racism. In: Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Urwin, C., Venn, C. and Walkerdine, V. (eds.) Changing the subject: psychology, social regulations and subjectivity. London: Methuen, 60-89. Hodge, B.J., Anthony, W.P. and Gales, L.M. 2003. Organization Theory, a strategic approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 418.

174

Diversity Research and Policy

Holvino, E. 2008. Intersections: The Simultaneity of Race, Gender and Class in Organization Studies. Gender, Work and Organization. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00400.x. Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly. 37(3): 422-447. Janssens, M. and Zanoni, P. 2005. Many diversities for many services: Theorizing diversity (management) in service companies. Human Relations. 58(3): 311-340. Janssens M. and Zanoni, P. 2007. What makes an organization inclusive? Work contexts and diversity management practices favoring ethnic minorities’ inclusion. Gender and Diversity Division, Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia (USA), August 3-8. Johnston, W.B. and Packer, A.H. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the twenty-first century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute. Jones, D., Pringle, J. and Shepherd, D. 2000. ‘Managing diversity’ meets Aotearoa. New Zealand Personnel Review. 29(3): 364-380. Jones, D. and Stablein, R. 2006. Diversity as Resistance and Recuperation. Critical Theory, Post-structural Perspectives and Workplace Diversity. In: Konrad, A, Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.(eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 145-166. Kalev, A., Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. 2006. Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review. 71(4): 589-617. Kandola, R.S. and Fullerton, J. 1998. Diversity in Action: Managing the Mosaic. Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development. Kanter, R. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 348. Katz, I. 1991. Gordon Allport’s ‘ The Nature of Prejudice’. Political Psychology. 12(1): 125-157. Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. 1998. How affirmative action became diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist. 41(7): 960-984. Kersten, A. 2000. Diversity management. Dialogue, dialectics and diversion. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 13(3): 235-248. Kirby, E. and Harter, L. 2003. Speaking the language of the bottom-line: The metaphor of ‘managing diversity’. The Journal of British Communication. 40(1): 28-49. Kirton, G. and Greene, A. 2006. The discourse of diversity in unionised contexts: Views from trade union equality officers. Personnel Review. 35(4): 431-448.

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

175

Klarsfeld, A. (ed.) (forthcoming). International Handbook on Diversity Management at Work: Country Perspectives on Diversity and Equal Treatment. Edward Elgar. Knippenberg, D. van, De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. 2004. Work group diversity and Group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied psychology. 89(6): 1008-1022. Knippenberg, D. van and Schippers, M.C. 2007. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology. 58: 515-541. Koot, W. 1997. Strategic utilization of ethnicity in contemporary organizations. In: Sackmann, S. (ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations: Inherent Contrasts and Contradictions. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 315-339. Konrad, A. 2003. Defining the Domain of Workplace Diversity Scholarship. Group & Organization Management. 28(1): 4-17. Konrad, A.M. and Linnehan, F. 1995. Formalized HRM Structures: Coordinating Equal Employment Opportunity or Concealing Organizational Practices? Academy of Management Journal. 38(3): 787-820. Kossek, E., Lobel, S. and Brown, J. 2006. Human resource strategies to manage work force diversity: Examining ‘the business case’. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 53-74. Kulik, C.T. and Bainbridge, H.J.T. 2006. Psychological Perspectives on Workplace Diversity. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage, 25-52. Liff, S. 1997. Two routes to managing diversity: Individual differences or social group characteristics. Employee Relations. 19(1): 11-26. Liff, S. and Wajcman, J. 1996. ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited: Which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives? Journal of Management Studies. 33(1): 79-94. Lindgren, M. and Wåhlin, N. 2002. Diversity and reflexive identity construction. In: Leijon, S., Lillhannus, R. and Widell, G. (eds.) Reflecting diversity. Viewpoints from Scandinavia. Gothenburg, Sweden: BAS Publishers. Linnehan, F. and Konrad, A. 1999. Diluting Diversity, implications for Intergroup Inequality in Organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry. 8(4): 399-414. Litvin, D. 1997. The Discourse of Diversity: From Biology to Management. Organization 4(2): 187-209. Litvin, D. 2002. The business cage for diversity and the ‘iron cage’. In: Czarniawska, B. and Höpfl, H. (eds.) Casting the Other: The Production and Maintenance of Inequalities in Work Organizations. London: Routledge, 160-184.

176

Diversity Research and Policy

Lorbiecki, A. and Jack, G. 2000. Critical Turns in the Evolution of Diversity Management. British Journal of Management. 11 (Special Issue): S17-S31. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mavin, S. and Girling, G. 2000. What is managing diversity and why does it matter? Human resource development international. 3(4): 419-433. Maxwell, G., Blair, S. and McDougall, M. 2001. Edging towards managing diversity in practice. Employee Relations. 23(5): 468-482. McLeod, P.L., Lobel, S.A. and Cox, T.H. 1996. Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small group research. 27(2): 248-264. Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. 1996. Searching for Common Treats: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management Review. 21(2): 402-433. Mollica, K., Gray, B. and Treviño, L. 2003. Racial homophily and it’s persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organizational Science. 14(2): 123-136. Nkomo, S.M. 1992. The Emperor Has No Clothes: Rewriting ‘Race in Organizations’. The Academy of Management Review. 17(3): 487-513. Nkomo, S.M. 2008. Discrimination. In: Barling, J. and Cooper, C. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Volume 1: Micro Approaches. London: Sage Publications, 657-672. Nkomo, S. and Cox, T. 1996. Diverse Identities in Organizations. In: Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, 338-356. Nkomo, S. and Stewart, M. 2006. Diverse Identities in Organizations. In: Clegg, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. and Nord, W. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Studies. London: Sage, 520-540. Nyambegera, S.M. 2002. Ethnicity and human resource management practice in sub-Saharan Africa: The relevance of the managing diversity discourse. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 13(7): 1077-1090. Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L.C. 2006. The Dynamic of Employee Relationships in an Ethnically Diverse Workforce. Human Relations. 59(3): 379-407. Ortlieb, R. and Sieben, B. 2008. Diversity strategies focused on employees with a migration background: An empirical investigation based on resource dependence theory. Management Revue. 19(1 + 2): 70-93. Pettigrew, T. 1979. The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport’s Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 5(4): 461-476. Pettigrew, T. 1998. Reactions Toward the New Minorities of Western Europe. Annual review of sociology. 24: 77-103. Prasad, P. and Mills, A. 1997. From Showcase to Shadow. Understanding the Dilemmas of Managing Workplace Diversity. In: Prasad, P., Mills, A.,

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

177

Elmes, M. and Prasad, A. (eds.) Managing the Organizational Melting Pot, Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. Sage: Thousand Oaks, 3-27. Prasad, P. and Prasad, A. 2000. Stretching the Iron Cage: The Constitution and Implications of Routine Workplace Resistance. Organization Science. 11: 387-403. Prasad, P., Pringle, J. and Konrad, A. 2006. Examining the Contours of Workplace Diversity: Concepts, Contexts and Challenges. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 1-22. Pringle, J., Konrad, A. and Prasad, P. 2006. Conclusion. Reflections and Future Directions. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 531-539. Proudford, K.L. and Nkomo, S. 2006. Race and Ethnicity in Organizations. In: Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. and Pringle, J.K. (eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity. London: Sage, 323-344. Reed, M. 2006. Organizational Theorizing: A Historically Contested Terrain. In: Nord, W., Lawrence, T., Hardy, C. and Clegg, S (eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies. Second edition. London: Sage, 19-54. Riordan, C., Schaffer, B. and Stewart, M. 2005. Relational demography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination. In: Dipboye, R. and Colella, A. (eds.) Discrimination at work, the psychology and organizational bases. 37-61. Rönnqvist, S. 2008. Från diversity management till mångfaldsplaner. Om mångfaldsidénsspridning i Sverige och Malmö stad. Dissertation. Lund: Lunds universitet. Scott, J. 1988. Deconstructing Equality-versus-Difference: Or, the Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism. Feminist Studies. 14(1): 33-50. Siebers, H.G. 2009a. Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch national tax administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 25(1): 73-84. Siebers, H.G. 2009b. Migrants-hostile discourse in media and politics and racioethnic closure in career development. International Sociology. Stevens, F.G., Plaut, V.C. and Sanchez-Burks, J. 2008. Unlocking the Benefits of Diversity. All-Inclusive Multiculturalism and Positive Organizational Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 44(1): 116-133. Stewart, L.D. and Perlow, R. 2001. Applicant Race, Job Status, and Racial Attitude as Predictors of Employment Discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology. 16(2): 259-275. Süß, S. and Kleiner, M. 2008. Dissemination of diversity management in Germany: A new institutionalist approach. European Management Journal. 26: 35-47.

178

Diversity Research and Policy

Tajfel, H. 1969. Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice. Journal of social Issues. 25(4): 79-97. Tajfel, H. 1982. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel, S. and Austin, L.W. (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 7-24. Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. 1993. Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups. Academy of Management Journal. 36(3): 590602. Westin, C. 2003. Striking a balance between diversity and social cohesion. Stockholm: Stockholm University National Europe Center. Paper 74. Wrench, J. 2002. Diversity management, discrimination and ethnic minorities in Europe: CEUS. University of Southern Denmark. Zanoni, P. 2009. Diversity in the Lean Automobile Factory: Re-doing Class Along Socio-demographic Identities. Best Papers Proceedings of the Academy of Management. Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. 2004. Deconstructing difference: The rhetorics of HR managers’ diversity discourses. Organization Studies. 25(1): 55-74. Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. 2007. Minority Employees Engaging with (Diversity) Management: An Analysis of Control, Agency, and Micro-emancipation. Journal of Management Studies. 44(8): 1371-1397. Zanoni, P. and Janssens, M. 2008. Contesting Institutions Across Borders: The Case of Diversity Management in a European Branch of a U.S. Multinational. EGOS Colloquium ‘Upsetting Organizations’, Amsterdam, July 10-12. Zanoni, P., Janssens, M., Benschop, Y. and Nkomo, S. 2010. Unpacking diversity, grasping inequality: Introducing the special issue. Organization. 17(1): 1-21. Zanoni, P., Nilsson, A., Janssens, M. and Wåhlin, N. (forthcoming). Towards sustainable diversity in organizations: Lessons from good diversity management practices. In: Janssens, M., De Dreu, C., Bechtoldt, M., Bracalenti, R. and Ottaviano, G. (eds.) Sustainable Diversity.

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business

179

11

Diversity and (Organisational) Psychology Myriam Bechtoldt

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Psychology

Work and organisational psychology is a branch of psychology focusing on the functioning of individuals and groups in organisations. In this field, psychologists analyse working individuals’ and workgroups’ behaviours, attitudes and performance. Additionally, they develop hiring practices, training programmes and feedback systems to improve people’s performance. Work and organisational psychology can be divided into two broad areas of study, as evident in its name. Work psychology focuses on jobs and individuals’ prerequisites to perform well in their jobs. Therefore, job analysis is a major topic, as well as personnel selection, performance appraisal (how to evaluate individual effectiveness in jobs), and training and development (how to train workers to perform their jobs competently). Organisational psychology is comprised of topics related to individuals within organisational contexts. It focuses on leadership (e.g., how leaders influence workers) and interactions among group or team members. Here, the study of diversity has become pivotal in the recent past. Additionally, topics such as teamwork, worker motivation and job satisfaction are core aspects of organisational psychology.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Psychology

Diversity in work and organisational psychology refers to “the distribution of differences among the members of a unit with respect to a common attribute, X, such as tenure, ethnicity, conscientiousness, task attitude, or pay” (Harrison & Klein 2007: 1200). Thus, diversity is a compositional construct that does not denote an individual’s attributes but rather the dispersion of individuals’ attributes within a certain group. Given that diversity may relate to any characteristic, every work group is diverse, as all group members differ with regard to some aspects. According to the above-mentioned definition, it is not necessary that group members are aware of these differences.

181

A more narrow definition of diversity includes this aspect, stating that from the group members’ point of view, a group is diverse if it is composed of individuals who differ on any characteristic on which they base their own social identity (O’Reilly, Williams & Barsade 1998: 186). Social identity refers to the part of an individual’s identity deriving from their membership of certain groups (e.g., being a woman, a Muslim, an artist) as opposed to those parts of their identity resulting from their unique, individual characteristics (e.g., being conscientious). Research on diversity has mainly focused on socio-demographic variables like age, sex, ethnicity, educational background and tenure (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan 2004, also see Hamde et al. in this volume). Theoretically, however, diversity can refer to an infinite number of variables and any dimension on which individuals differ. The characteristics that group members draw upon to define their social identity may be trivial or even explicitly random. For example, if participants in experimental research are explicitly assigned into groups based on their eye colour, they will likely refer to this attribute to maximise the difference between themselves (in-group) and other groups consisting of people with different eye colours (out-groups). People engage in these categorisation processes to achieve and preserve a positive self-view and high self-esteem (Tajfel 1981, Turner 1985). As their social group memberships form part of their identity as individuals, they are relevant sources of their self-esteem. Derogating out-groups serves to maximise the self-rewarding difference between people’s in- and out-groups. People’s tendency to prefer the members of their in-group to out-group members is the core cognitive process involved in ethnocentrism (Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand 1994). In the past, psychological research on diversity has predominantly dealt with diversity as a group characteristic that can be objectively measured by statistical coefficients of dispersion. Consequently, the level of analysis has been the group. Thus, diversity research focused less on individual group members’ reaction to perceived diversity but rather on group level outcomes like group processes (e.g., conflict, cohesion) and group outcomes (e.g., performance, creativity). A widespread distinction between diversity characteristics refers to social category differences or “surface level” characteristics like sex, age or ethnicity and informational/functional differences or “deep-level” characteristics including both more job-related aspects like professional background and personal values, opinions and traits (Harrison et al. 2002, Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan 2004, Williams & O’Reilly 1998). Neither surface nor deep-level diversity is consistently linked with positive or negative group effects (Webster & Donahue 2001): both types of diversity may result in posi-

182

Diversity Research and Policy

tive or negative outcomes or they may have no effect at all (Bowers, Webber & Donahue 2001). Therefore, psychological research on diversity has abandoned the “main effects model” of diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers 2006): rather than expecting statistical main effects of certain dimensions of diversity, research has started to focus more strongly on third variables qualifying the influence of certain types of diversity (e.g., group members’ attitudes towards diversity). Moreover, it aims to analyse the processes that cause either positive or negative effects (mediators). The idea behind this shift in focus is that more than specific dimensions of diversity themselves, it is group members’ interpretation of diversity that causes positive or negative effects. In line with this reasoning, Harrison and Klein (2007) consider the mere identification of diversity dimensions as insufficient. Instead they suggest a new theoretical framework considering the qualitative differences between different dimensions of diversity. In their framework, they elaborate on the extent to which different dimensions of diversity reflect categorical differences (e.g., sex), differences on a continuum ranging from low to high (e.g., degree of agreement) or differences in power (for a further elaboration on the link between diversity and power, see also Hamde et al. in this volume). Specifically, they define differences between people as indicators of variety, separation or disparity. Variety reflects categorical differences between group members: either group members are part of a certain category or they are not. For example, some members of a production team might be designers, others might be engineers. In contrast to that, separation refers to “differences in position or opinion” among group members (Harrison & Klein 2007: 1200). Team members can be thought of as located on a horizontal continuum ranging from low to high intensity, reflecting the degree to which they hold a specific opinion. Disparity denotes differences in concentration of valued social assets or resources such as pay or status among group members. Team members can be thought of as located on a vertical continuum, privileging some team members over others.

Diversity in eory

Since the late 1980s, the volume of research on diversity by work and organisational psychologists has nearly doubled every five years (Harrison & Klein 2007). Still, cumulative findings about the effects of within-group diversity are incoherent, suggesting both positive and negative effects of the very same diversity characteristics, including sex, ethnicity, tenure or pay diversity (Bowers, Pharmer & Salas 2000, Webber & Donahue 2001). In response to these

Diversity and ﹙Organisational﹚ Psychology

183

inconsistent findings, more refined theories on diversity have developed. Traditionally, the effects of diversity have been explained either by the social categorisation perspective (Tajfel 1981, Turner 1985) or the information/ decision-making perspective (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell 1992, Cox et al. 1991). The social categorisation perspective more strongly focuses on social group processes triggered by within-group diversity and explains the negative effects of diversity on group functioning: as group members feel more attracted to those who seem to be similar to themselves, they easily categorise dissimilar others as out-group members, causing negative stereotyping, increased conflicts, and lack of communication between diverse group members (see also Hamde et al. in this volume). These negative effects become more likely the more group members perceive one or several characteristics to be creating dividing lines or “fault lines” between themselves and their fellow group members, separating them into distinct subgroups (Lau & Murnighan 1998). For example, team members in a group consisting of two white men and two black women are likely to perceive a stronger fault line than a team consisting one black man, one white man, one black woman and one white woman. In the first example, the even distribution of high (white, male) and low (black, female) status characteristics more easily makes team members differentiate between themselves in terms of in- and out-group members. Thus, teams of moderate diversity, including members who are similar within subgroups but different across subgroups, will have more difficulties with intragroup communication and with leveraging their full potential for high group performance. By contrast, the information/decision-making perspective focuses more on group performance and takes a positive view on within-group diversity. This perspective stresses the benefits of deep-level diversity in terms of more knowledge, higher requisite variety, more flexibility and a wider network basis, all supposed to lead to more creativity and better decision-making (Williams & O’Reilly 1998). As meta-analytic studies failed to confirm consistently negative or positive effects of certain diversity features (Bowers et al. 2000, Webber & Donahue 2001), Harrison and Klein (2007) proposed to consider the qualitative differences between different dimensions of diversity. By means of number theory, they show that for separation, variety and disparity, different distributions of characteristics within groups create maximum within-group diversity. Regarding separation, a group is most diverse if members are polarised, with half of the group holding one opinion and half of the group disagreeing. With regard to variety, including categorical differences like professional background, a group is most diverse if each group member represents

184

Diversity Research and Policy

another category. Finally, indicators of disparity like pay or status are most divisively distributed among group members with one individual surpassing all others: one individual being on the top, while all others remain on the low bottom. According to Harrison and Klein (2007), the outcomes of maximum separation are negative, yielding reduced group cohesiveness, interpersonal conflict, distrust and decreased task performance. Similarly, the effects of maximum disparity should be negative, leading to more within-group competition, resentful deviance, reduced member input and increased withdrawal. By contrast, maximum variety may potentially result in greater creativity, innovation, higher flexibility and decision quality. A core proposition of Harrison and Klein’s approach is the flexible definition of the same characteristic as an indicator of separation, variety or disparity (2007). For example, group diversity in terms of gender may reflect separation when gender is considered to represent opposing beliefs of men and women. It may be seen as an indicator of variety when it is supposed to reflect qualitatively different knowledge and skills. Finally, it may reflect disparity if gender is treated as reflecting status differences among group members. Thus, this framework helps to explain why the same characteristic may yield opposing results. Similarly, Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) argue that both social category diversity and informational diversity may increase elaboration of task-relevant information, thereby increasing group creativity and decision quality. Whether the effects of either social category or informational diversity are positive depends on several moderators, including group members’ motivation, attitudes, their cognitive abilities and task characteristics. For example, if group members hold the opinion that gender-heterogeneous teams perform better than gender-homogeneous teams, gender diversity will be more likely to have positive effects on group performance. Vice versa, gender diversity is more likely to negatively affect group processes and outcomes when group members hold the opinion that gender-homogeneous teams perform better (Homan et al. 2006). Similarly, when task interdependence is high, a group will collaborate more closely and more likely develop a common team identity, resulting in less stereotyping (Van Knippenberg & Schippers 2006). Summarising, it is not the specific feature itself that causes positive or negative effects of diversity but the processes that are triggered by this characteristic. Depending on contextual variables (e.g., diversity beliefs, task interdependence), the very same diversity characteristic (e.g., gender diversity) may have different effects.

Diversity and ﹙Organisational﹚ Psychology

185

Diversity in Policy and Practice

Given globalised markets and the increased participation of new population groups in the labour market (women and older people), the workforce in organisations has become more and more diverse in recent decades. For organisations, dealing with diversity among their staffs has become a major challenge, influencing not only organisations’ human resource management such as personnel selection procedures and training activities but also their cultures. In 2003, organisations’ annual expenses on diversity programmes such as recruiting and training were estimated at USD 8 billion in the US alone (Anand & Winters 2008), and in a 2005 survey among 800 companies in the European Union, some 50 claimed to have introduced policies on diversity management (European Commission 2005). Still, organisations fail to reap the full potential benefits of diversity (Klein & Harrison 2007, see also Hamde et al. in this volume). To do so, minimising diversity in terms of separation and disparity and maximising variety is necessary but not sufficient. Besides, task characteristics need to be considered, as only complex tasks enable diverse groups to apply and combine their different knowledge. Furthermore, group leaders are crucial, as their leadership style needs to encourage group members to express ideas and value different points of view. In general, organisations have to pay attention to diversity characteristics but also to those organisational aspects that moderate the potential effects of these diversity features. Indeed, there is growing awareness of these issues among organisations as reflected by the proliferation of diversity trainings in organisations. Tracing the history of diversity training in organisations reveals different eras characterised by varying conceptualisations of diversity. In the first era, taking place in the US and spanning the 1960s and 1970s, diversity training predominantly centred on legislation issues and compliance. Due to a rising number of discrimination suits filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), organisations trained their employees on antidiscriminatory behaviour (for a further overview of the historical background of diversity in organisations, see Hamde et al. in this volume). Thus, organisations’ main motivation to implement training activities was rooted in their desire to avoid litigation and negative publicity (Anand & Winters 2008). In the second era, starting in the 1980s, the focus was on activities to assimilate minority groups such as women or people of colour into extant organisational cultures. The underlying assumption reflected by these activities was that underrepresentation of these groups in organisations resulted from their lack

186

Diversity Research and Policy

of managerial preparedness. Accordingly, training measures were introduced aimed at enhancing the qualifications of these group members. This focus widened when organisations became aware that their long-term success not only depended on hiring qualified people but on managing them (Thomas 1990). These insights gave way to a business-oriented understanding of diversity (Anand & Winters 2008), incorporating activities to provide upward mobility not only to white men but also to women and ethnic minorities. In the late 1980s, organisations’ view on diversity broadened again. Instead of restricting diversity training activities to a specific demographic, all employees were included to increase their sensitivity to diversity issues and improve mutual understanding. In an attempt to categorise different training approaches, Ely (1996) differentiated between three paradigms: (1) discrimination and fairness (to avoid litigation), (2) increasing intercultural sensitivity (to gain access to multicultural talent), and (3) valuing differences (to become more effective on an organisational level). The majority of organisations focused on the first two paradigms. The outcomes of these training activities were mixed. By the turn of the century, practitioners realised that for diversity trainings to be successful, they should not be conducted as separated programme activities but need to be integrated into the core strategy of organisations (Anand & Winters 2008). Besides, diversity training needs to provide more than building skills and increasing knowledge about cultural differences – it also needs to include experiential learning to achieve fundamental changes in people’s perspectives and self-awareness (Hargrove 1995).

e Future of Diversity in Psychology

Future research on diversity should go beyond the common practice of focusing on within-group diversity and within-group outcomes. To comprehensively analyse the effects of different types of diversity, it is necessary to include organisational context variables (e.g., organisational culture) and study the outcomes of diversity across teams within organisations. For example, minimal separation among team members regarding a certain management practice is very likely to result in different effects if this group’s view is not shared by any other team within the organisation. In this case, team members’ deviant opinion will be salient to themselves and other organisational members, dividing between in-group and out-group members (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Additionally, diversity research should more closely look at individual outcomes of diversity. A team member with a unique professional background that is not shared by any other team member will feel different

Diversity and ﹙Organisational﹚ Psychology

187

depending on whether all other team members have the same background or differ with regard to their background, too. For example, a single psychologist in a group of economists is likely to feel different than a psychologist in a group with one computer scientist, one physician and one political scientist. In the latter case, in spite of his/her uniqueness, the psychologist could feel like a typical team member because every team member has a different professional background. In the previous case, however, he or she would be seen as an outlier. Additionally, there is a paucity of evaluation studies on diversity training. Issues awaiting clarification also relate to redressing the absence of effective tools for measuring the success of training activities: which criteria reflect success? Usually, it is the percentage of minorities hired within a certain period of time that is drawn upon. However, retention of people hired or the satisfaction and engagement of employees might be other valuable criteria to consider. Furthermore, which teaching methods and contextual organisational variables ensure that participants not only increase knowledge but also increase self-awareness and change their personal views on diversity? The extension of analyses from the group level to both the individual and organisational level is necessary to analyse the effects of diversity more comprehensively and elucidate seemingly inconsistent findings. If this research agenda reflects organisational needs, then that is to be expected. Typically, organisations interpret diversity as differences in socio-demographic variables and thus operationalise diversity as the organisation-wide percentage of employees with different sex, age and ethnicity. The decision to set up benchmarks of diversity typically results from a business-oriented perspective and reflects the “war for talents” on the job market. Evaluating whether the attainment of these benchmarks fulfill performance-related expectations seems to be less pressing an issue. Still, if organisations want to benefit from diversity, they need to be aware of and deal with its psychological impact on group members. In summary, a series of theoretical approaches have been developed to date to explain the effects of diversity. Whereas a coherent picture of the effects of diversity within groups is still missing in diversity research, recent theories offer promising approaches to integrate what seemed to be inconsistent and contradictory results so far.

188

Diversity Research and Policy

References

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product and team performance. Organization Science. 3: 321-341. Anand, R. and Winters, M.F. 2008. A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from 1964 to the present. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 7: 356-372. Bowers, C., Pharmer, J.A. and Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research. 31: 305327. Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. 1991. Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal. 34: 827-847. European Commission 2005. The businesscase of diversity. ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/pdf/events/busicase_de.pdf [accessed 3 November 2008] Hargrove, R. 1995. Masterful coaching: Extraordinary results by impacting people and the way they think and work together. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeffer. Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review. 32: 1199-1228. Homan, A.C., Knippenberg, D.L. van, Kleef, G.A. van and De Dreu, C.K.W. 2006. Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: The effects of diversity beliefs on information elaboration and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92: 1189-1199. Klein, K.J. and Harrison, D.A. 2007. On the diversity of diversity: Tidy logic, messier realities. Academy of Management Perspectives. 21: 26-33. Knippenberg, D. van, De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89: 1008-1022. Knippenberg, D. van and Schippers, M.C. 2007. Annual Review of Psychology. 58: 515-541. Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review. 23: 325-340. O’Reilly, C.A. III, Williams, K.Y. and Barsade, W. 1998. Group demography and innovation: Does diversity help? In: Neale, M.A., Mannix, E.A. and Gruenfeld, D. (ed.) Research on Managing Groups and Teams. Volume 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press Inc., 183-207.

Diversity and ﹙Organisational﹚ Psychology

189

Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, R.R. Jr. 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review. 90: 107-117. Triandis, H.C., Kurowski, L.L. and Gelfand, M.C. 1994. Workplace diversity. In: Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M. and Hough, L.M. (eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Volume 4. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 769-827. Turner, J.C. 1985. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research. 2: 77-122. Webber, S.S. and Donahue, L.M. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management. 27: 141-162. Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior. 20: 77-140.

190

Diversity Research and Policy

12

Diversity and Law Elena Dingu-Kyrklund & Linus Kyrklund

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Law

Every society is characterised by an at least emerging set of rules and principles, established by an (accepted) authority or authoritative body, that form “a body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognised, and enforced by controlling authority” (the Free Dictionary by Farlex) forming its law, or legal system. The concept of law is complex. It occurs in multiple contexts and disciplines, and should be viewed from both a historical and a geographical point of view, in a society/country-specific perspective, in its evolution. A recurring issue throughout history has been the conceptual distinction between natural law – perceived as the embodiment of immovable moral principles of divine origin, in between divine infallibility of a religious ethical nature (Aquinas, Hobbes) and human rationality uncovering a universal good/natural goodness merging in conceptual moral righteousness of an ethical philosophical nature (Aristotle, Rousseau, Locke, Grotius) – and legal positivism (Austin, Bentham), affirming the superiority of written sources of law and derived jurisprudence, which are by definition man-made and capable of adapting to societal realities in development. A conceptual dichotomy is also made between individual and collective rights to be protected by the law, rights and duties legally defined as privilege and obligation, as well as a wide typology of law expressing specialised normative needs in a variety of human and societal contexts on different levels within the society and between societies (among states). From a juridical point of view, the concept of law refers to rules or a system of rules (written or unwritten) developed in time by a community, society or government to regulate the relationships within the respective community or society through assigned authorities and enforced through a set of specific institutions. The law is inherently normative and implies among others sociological, anthropological and philosophical aspects, along with political and other implications. Historically, even relatively undeveloped societal formations such as tribes have developed their own normative legal system

191

(ancient/tribal law) reflecting their level of development, their cultural and (if appropriate) religious individuality as well as political power structures, arguably in an emic/etic perspective.1 A subject of dispute elucidates the conditions of legal validity and explaining the normativity of the law in different societies and timeframes, i.e., the nature of law as normative social practice shaping human behaviour. This includes challenges in understanding and explaining the variation in the field, which relates in various ways to universal or other culture-specific and normative fields such as ethics/morality, religion, social conventions, etc (Marmor 2007, Ritzer 2007, Agar 2007). Thus, from a legal positivism perspective, “the conditions of legal validity are determined by social facts” while “the normativity of the law” is related to its coercive function in the form of sanctions.

Meanings and Possible Classifications in the Legal Field

There are a number of possible classifications within the comprehensive field of law, depending on a variety of criteria – technical, traditional, functional, etc. – reflecting specific societal structures and views. In the context of conceptualisations of law (in a legal-sociological perspective), references are made to conventionalists, essentialists, positivists (see classical legal thought), to representatives of legal realism, or to a more sociological perspective on law. From the point of view of content/typology, laws and legal systems are considered either substantive (when referring to legislated rights and prohibitions administered by courts) or procedural (when referring to enforcement and administration of substantive laws). From a functional division relating to societal structures and entities concerned, a distinction is traditionally made between: – public law (addressing government/power structures, relationships between individuals and the state – e.g., constitutional, administrative, taxation or penal/criminal law), and – private law (setting up rules governing relationships between individuals and related structures not involving the public sphere as such – e.g., family, contracts, torts, corporate law). With consideration to major legal traditions, reference is made to civil law, common law, chthonic* or religious law (e.g., Canonic/Christian law – Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox; Islamic – Sharia; Talmudic – Halakha/Judaism; Hindu; Buddhist). Other possible classification criteria can

192

Diversity Research and Policy

be functional, based or dependent on social control/social change or on legal/ scientific criteria. Classifications of the legal systems of the world can also be made according to other sets of criteria such as: – Sources of law: to distinguish between civil-law countries, common-law countries and countries with religious law systems; – Adopted ideology and legal technique (structural point of view): Western systems, socialist systems, Islamic/Hindu (religious) law; Chinese law (mix), or modified/reduced to three legal families – Romanistic-German family, common-law family, and socialist family (though leaving out other systems not fitting in); – Substance of the legal system (substantive/structural): French/German/ Scandinavian/English/Russian/Islamic/Hindu family, etc.; – Legal style (modal/thought – structural): Romanistic/Germanic/Nordic/common-law families; law of the Peoples Republic of China/Japanese law/Islamic law/Hindu law, etc.; – According to legal tradition: Chthonic (structural societal, based on local tradition); Talmudic; civil law; Islamic; common law; Hindu; Asian (all with pros and cons in their assessment – providing a certain, yet perfectionable basis of comparability).

Short Historical Perspective

The oldest legal code found was the Summerian Code of Ur-Nammu (ca. 2100-2050 BC).2 The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi3 is a famous and wellpreserved ancient law code (created ca. 1790 BC). The Athenian democracy’s legislative system (fifth to fourth century BC) consisting of laws (nomoi) and decrees (psephismata) beyond its limitations of “democracy on the top” was one of the earliest products of a (limited) democracy proudly presented as an expression of a “modern” civilised society.4 Roman law covers more than a millennium of jurisprudence, from the Roman Empire’s Law of the Twelve Tables,5 dating from mid-fifth century BC to Emperor Justinian’s first Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529-34) – also known as the Justinian Code, which was also successfully used in the Eastern Roman Empire (330-1453) and later served as the basis for modern European legislative systems as well as those of Ethiopia, Japan and most former colonies in Latin America. Roman law – particularly Corpus Juris Civilis, together with instances of the Middle Ages customary law (customs, or coutumes – see also consue-

Diversity and Law

193

tudinary law6) emerging from local (tradition-based) forms of administration of justice gradually recorded and codified – became a major source of modern law. Codification was indirectly instrumental in the consolidation of nation-states following the Treaty of Westphalia – the French Napoleonic Code (Code civil) of 1804 and the 1900 German civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) being among the most prominent and still relevant to this day for many modern Western states and other present legal systems. Beyond European borders, there is a variety of legal traditions, from those of India (see, for example, the Laws of Manu7) or China (the ancient Tang Code of 624 AD and Confucius’s Code of Conduct written between 551 and 478 BC), to others that are oral-based (as was largely the case in the African tradition) or more clearly under the influence of religion (as in many Middle Eastern countries) or the more complex polycentric law of Somalia (Xeer8). The three major legal systems of the world today consist of civil law, common law and religious law. Some legal systems are a mix of various elements from these three systems. Every country tends to develop variations on each system or incorporate a number of other features into its own system. Between states, there are various provisions of international law, with a multitude of specialised branches. Public international law includes specific legal fields such as treaty law, diplomatic law, the law of the sea, international criminal law and international humanitarian law. Private international law establishes precedence in cases involving conflict of national laws, etc. Supranational law regulates aspects of inter-state cooperation based on specific supranational bilateral or multilateral agreements. European Union law is a clear illustration of such a particular form of cooperation and its extended forms, and the only recognised supranational union. Other examples of this type of cooperation are a number of regional organisations promoting specific forms of cooperation between participant states such as the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Diversity in eory and Research in the Legal Field

The term diversity is used broadly to refer to a multitude of socio-economic, cultural and demographic variables. Such demographic variables may include – but not be limited to – race/phenotypic characteristics, colour, gender, ethnic/national origin, religion, age, education, geographic origin, disability, skill characteristics, sexual orientation, and status. The innermost meaning of diversity is recognising that each and every one of us is different in a variety

194

Diversity Research and Policy

of visible and non-visible ways, and celebrating that difference. It is about creating a culture and developing practices that recognise, respect and value difference as a prerequisite for common existence. The use of the concept is contextual and discipline-specific and covers a multitude of meanings and usages within various realms of thought. Within the legal realm, legal provisions may reflect the legislators’ intentions to observe and protect diversity in its multiple manifestations, most often within a specific social context – e.g., supporting observance of human rights and non-discrimination. – Natural/environmental sciences: Traditional fields of activity specifically regulated by law are: agricultural law (animal law, food and beverages law), forestry law, fishing law/fisheries law, ocean law, energy law. Kokko (2004) argues the necessity of establishing biodiversity law as a new legal branch based “on novel legal principles and mechanisms”, considering that “the objectives of the CBD – The Convention on Biological Diversity cannot be achieved by means of traditional legal solutions”. – Technology/technological sciences & engineering: various branches of technology law mainly refer to the use of technology as an instrument of (improved) access, indicating diversity-related variations, such as significant differences by race, gender, SAT score, residency and type of application (Hirt et al. 2001). This involves patent law and information technology law (IT law) regulating inter alia access and control of digital information (see for example the British 1990 Computer Misuse Act, the Indian 2000 Information Technology Law, the EU Electronic Signature Directive (1999/93/EC) or Cyber Law, Computer Forensics, and misuse of ICTUNESCO). – Economics: (Monahan & Walker 2009) normative law focuses on efficiency (allocative efficiency in particular). The following legislations regulate various aspects within economics/social science: contract law, commercial law, company law, trust law, anti-trust/competition law, administrative law, tax(ation) law, property law, banking law (including financial regulations), tort law, consumer law, consumer protection/consumer welfare law or related equity law, labour law, instances of civil and penal law, etc. Within positive law and economics, economic analysis is used to predict the effects of various legal rules (ibid.). This would, for instance, predict the effects of strict liability rules as opposed to those of a negligence rule – an exercise likely to lead to a development of legal rules. – Political science/politics: The legal response aims to encourage tolerance for people of different backgrounds, based on socio-economic and demographic classifications, through anti-discrimination law and human rights.

Diversity and Law

195

–

Sociology and anthropology: Various examples of anti-discrimination laws and protection of human rights, even including constitutional law, are reflections of the issues treated in this field.

This list of the contextual use of the concept of diversity within the legal realm is not exhaustive. A more general conclusion that could be drawn is that in a legal/socio-political context, diversity becomes linked to concepts of democracy and equality associated with pluralist societies characterised by a level of fragmentation into different racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic groups sharing traits of common identity. This refers to the idea of acceptance of multiple cultures and identities sharing the same space and their individuality – whether on the macro-level of the society or on various intermediary, local levels. Legal systems may then serve the purpose of referring to or applying a differentiation system combined, for example, with the idea of democracy, equality – equal treatment, multiculturalism, difference(s) – and understanding and recognising individual differences and contextually acknowledging unity in diversity as well as individual uniqueness. Special branches of human rights and humanitarian law as well as specific instances of constitutional law and international law reflect this approach. Considering its implicit connotations, the concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect for others – whoever those classified as “others” are and irrespective of the grounds of differentiation – when likely to lead to (some degree of ) differential treatment which in some cases may become discriminatory on an unacceptable level of arbitrariness. There are historical examples when the reaction to diversity was far from the ideal of mutual understanding. Instead, the norm in such cases became rather the opposite, characterised by discrimination, manifested in a multitude of ways – at times involving the subjection of persons and groups of persons perceived and classified as “the other” to demeaning and even violent treatment. Apartheid is in this context one of the most extreme manifestations of such a polarisation in society, where persons of colour were arbitrarily treated as second-rate members of the society, bereaved of their human rights including even basic rights, limited in multiple ways from sharing not only benefits but even physical space, and in the worst case even be subjected to violence, maltreatment, etc. Such occurrences demonstrate that it is not enough for diversity to be a normal, natural component of our common environment. In establishing and preserving a balanced relationship to diversity at the level of a society, it is necessary to establish rules and norms that ensure respect for that diversity, equal rights for all members of the society and an unbiased applica-

196

Diversity Research and Policy

tion of those rules, without undue differentiations and arbitrary differential treatment on whatever grounds. That necessity leads to the need to establish legal provisions for protecting and promoting a system of sustainable diversity in law. The main focus of this article concentrates on legal aspects as related to various aspects of diversity.

Diversity in a Legal Context Law and Diversity

From a legal perspective, diversity is largely linked to principles related to the observance of specific aspects of human rights, especially with regard to equality of treatment and non-discrimination, combating discrimination on various grounds including sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (as defined by the UN), without excluding other possible grounds or particular legal contexts (such as EU law). There are differences of approach from country to country, with different levels of importance attached to various possible grounds for discrimination that in practice are not always (as) protected, despite the fact that behind the principles applied there are principles of basic human rights that are considered universally accepted. As the development of the level(s) of protection in national legislation is usually consistent with the socio-historical level of development of that particular society, ideological particularities or development level may determine the levels of protection of certain grounds accepted as legitimate grounds of protection at a certain moment in time (at least until transformation in the societies allow ideological shifts of acceptance). For instance, one can go back in time to when various countries finally accepted the idea of equality between men and women, which consequently started being acknowledged by law, allowing women to enjoy increasing levels of protection. However, to this day, not all countries consider women and men equal, which means that women in certain countries are still subject to various levels of discrimination and differential treatment – one obvious example is countries applying Sharía law with interpretations involving the discrimination of women. How discrimination is manifested is contextual and has specific forms. It can impact one’s employment, education, inheritance rights, and even the possibility to function normally in a society such as having the legal capacity for acquiring a dwelling, opening a bank account, being granted a passport, or being considered competent as a parent to rear children with or without a

Diversity and Law

197

(male) partner or a spouse’s permission, etc. Sex discrimination may also take informal forms, for example within the healthcare system or with regard to attainable salary or pension levels. Racial and ethnic discrimination has been a problem with at times extreme consequences throughout history, including extreme abuse and extended (armed) conflict (e.g., the American Civil War). Another extreme example is the policy of apartheid in South Africa, which began in 1948 and lasted up to the beginning of the 1990s, where legislation mandating the separate development of the races discriminating black members of the community while ensuring extensive positive discrimination for the white population was passed in 1950. The Nazi legislation of racial discrimination against Jews, Roma and other ethnic non-Germans considered “inferior” is another case in point. In fact, the entire colonialist/post-colonialist era constitutes a living example of racial discrimination favouring colonialists of European origins against native local populations of colonised territories. Systematic discrimination of ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities is still a painfully relevant issue in various parts of the world, with deep socio-historical roots (see the treatment of the Roma population throughout Europe – which is still not unproblematic to a large extent, despite clear improvements in certain cases – or the caste system in India, particularly the treatment of the dalits, also known as untouchables). There are considerable differences between countries, where legislative provisions on the matter vary from non-existent to very advanced protection, even though actual enforceability may often be less effective in practice in quite a few cases. A contemporary example of extreme manifestations of ethnic discrimination, often with elements of religious discrimination against a prolonged conflictual background with political elements, is the internal conflict leading to ethnic cleansing and the dismembering of former Yugoslavia, including the situation of the Albanian population in Kosovo. The manifest differential treatment applied to immigrant groups in certain areas falls in an adjoining category, at least in some cases still qualifying as discriminatory treatment on ethnic grounds, whether or not explicitly legislated. Cases include the disfavourable treatment applied to the burakumin in Japan, Palestinians working in the Middle East or Filipino workers abroad as well as the expulsion of Asians – mostly Gujaratis of Indian origin – from Uganda in 1972. Religious antagonism – often infused with political undertones targeting power/domination and translating into oppressive legislative documents – has throughout history led to extensive conflicts, including wars. Religious discrimination applies extreme forms of discriminatory treatment to members of opposed religious groups, fuelling long-lasting conflicts that in some

198

Diversity Research and Policy

cases still pose threats that tend to spread far beyond their initial borders. Conflicts between Christians and Muslims of various orientations have gone on ever since the Medieval crusades and all the way up to the present day, with Islamite Al-Quaida claiming religious grounds as motivation for aggressive acts against designated “oppositional” targets on a considerably enlarged scale, posing a threat with possible global implications. Conflicts between the various factions of basically the same religion – Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox among the Christians, and Shia, Sunni or other factions among the Muslims – also take place. An example is the three decades of ethno-religious conflict involving the Catholic IRA-led opposition in Northern Ireland against Protestant UK. Here we should mention the high political content often built into ethno-religious conflicts as well as the frequency and probability that claims or perception of ethno-religious discrimination are used as pretext for taking action with political implications that may go far beyond what could be justified as a response to discriminatory treatment based on religious, ethnic and/ or linguistic divergence. The occurrence and recognition of discrimination on the grounds of disability, age or sexual orientation are comparatively new and are largely an embodiment of legislative progress and development. Discrimination of disabled people is specifically related to the nature of the disability targeted – as are the possible reparatory solutions, including anti-discriminatory measures and legislative norms and measures supported by the law. Age discrimination has recently come to be recognised as possible grounds for legal action. This is still in an initial phase and has not been without its problems. The issue of sexual orientation has been with us for a relatively long while. Considerations of diversity in point of sexual orientation remain controversial in some parts of the world, while others – such as Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and even Spain – have adopted an open attitude of acceptance, including legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

Equality and Diversity: From Principle to Legislative Documents

Equality before the law is an important principle in legal philosophy and juridical theory and practice and is linked to the fundamental idea of all people’s equal worth. This idea embeds the concept of diversity, as it is a conceptual universal equality beyond inherent differences. In this context and beyond, the concept of equality (i.e., the equal worth of all humans) is “a catchword [...] with almost exclusively positive connotations [... yet with] both philosophically and juridically difficult to establish [actual concrete applicable/

Diversity and Law

199

enforceable] content” (Diesen et al. 2005: 17-18). Its use is, however, not without its problems: despite the concept being practically unchallenged as a principle, its actual application and legal enforcement may be much more difficult to clarify, as are its limits in a particular context. There is a formal level of equality on the level of the individual, based on legally defined individual rights and freedoms. This goes beyond group belonging and individual differences or characteristics and thus is officially acknowledged. Informally, discrimination occurs based on a variety of possible discrimination grounds – some legally defined, others possibly not. Bias and prejudice are being used as (diffuse) grounds of discrimination or differential treatment, most often resulting in negative discrimination of individuals, sometimes due to their belonging to certain groups, other times for just being perceived or labeled as different or deviating from a “norm” – whether that is in any way defined within legal boundaries or just represents an individual’s socio-psychological perspective on the person discriminated against or on the group s/he belongs to. Such categorisations may well be based on preconceived negative ideas of other social or ethnic groups. Equality of Opportunities Regarding the Labour Market, Access to Education, Dwellings, etc.

Various countries have specific ways of approaching matters of discrimination. The approach chosen is most likely to reflect their historical development and the conditions that shaped their particular legal approach to discrimination. The accent on various forms of discrimination as well as the [intensity of the] juridical response and the way and the extent to which those respective provisions are applied reflects those differences and the importance attached to the subject. Not all discrimination grounds are considered, nor are they accorded the same importance. Occurrences of discrimination and discriminative practices on the labour market were among the earliest noted forms of discrimination. Already in 1957, Gary Becker studied this subject and published his seminal work The Economics of Discrimination. In what has become the generally accepted definition to this day, Becker explains: “Labour market discrimination may take the form of different wage rates for equally productive workers with different characteristics (such as: race, sex, age, religion, nationality, or education)”. He added that “labour market discrimination may also take the form of exclusion from jobs [in general or with regard to particular jobs], on grounds of social class, union membership, or political beliefs”. An increasing number of economists and policymakers nowadays acknowledge the importance of diversity on the

200

Diversity Research and Policy

labour market, which contextually becomes the opposite of discrimination on the labour market, even though there may be a larger range of connotations attached to the diversity concept. Promoting diversity in the workforce within a certain profession (e.g., the legal profession) or within a business structure or company became a subject of wide interest in the global village, bringing about the realisation of the intrinsic value of cultural and other types of diversity in society as well as in the corporate landscape and academia. Racial and Ethnic Discrimination

Countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (i.e., common-law countries) tend to refer to racial discrimination, while in continental Europe the term ethnic discrimination is more often used. This difference in terminology probably has its origins in their respective histories: the UK bears the traces of its colonial past, even in its legislation; the US bears deep traces of its treatment of minorities, especially of Afro-American origin but also the native Amerindians; Canada and Australia are coming to terms with their treatment of First Nations people and aboriginals respectively. Ethnic discrimination is a narrower concept, with more negative connotations. Legislative Measures and Provisions of Anti-Discrimination

Specific anti-discriminatory legislation provisions refer to the nature of the discrimination, its contextual occurrence, and reparations or countermeasures provided by the legislator. The merits of the claim and classifications are used as additional considerations of importance. Throughout the Western world, this led to the adoption of a number of specialised pieces of anti-discriminatory legislation rather similar in nature and form (e.g., the Disability Act, the Anti-Discrimination Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Equality Bill, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Prevention of Discrimination Act). In the case of Europe, these legislations were often enacted as a consequence of targeted EU legislation requirements but include systemic and technical differences due to the individual traits of the various legal systems within the EU. A distinction is made between instances of direct and indirect discrimination. An individual subjected to less favourable treatment than his/her peers that can be linked to a discrimination claim covered/accepted by existing legislation is considered to be direct discrimination. Indirect discrimination refers to measures, provisions, criteria or practices equally applied to an entire

Diversity and Law

201

group – for example, all employees – that have a disproportionately negative impact on a certain group of people within the larger group. Harassment is the occurrence of undue, unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect of either: – violating another person’s dignity; or – creating an intimidating, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment for that other person. Victimisation occurs when an individual is subjected to less favourable treatment by reason of the fact that s/he has tried to protect someone against discrimination. An example would be when a person makes a complaint about discrimination on grounds protected under the law (e.g., age or sex), or helped somebody else to do so, and are now being treated less favourably by his/her manager. Unreasonable failure to make adjustments – to a physical workplace, for example – to accommodate disabled employees is also a form of unlawful discrimination. If access to a workplace is thus hindered, and if no attempt is made to adjust or compensate for the hindrance, this puts the affected person(s) at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his/her non-disabled/nondisadvantaged peers. Detrimental treatment is the notion that one has suffered a detriment as a result of discrimination. This is a key concept to be considered when assessing the merits of a discrimination complaint/claim as an objective criterion with regard to considerations of the claim. From Anti-Discriminatory Measures to Positive Discrimination

Positive discrimination is a more extreme measure that can be taken into consideration as a means of compensating systematic discriminatory treatment resulting in exclusionary effects on a person or group protected under the law for specific (recognised) grounds – such as discrimination on grounds of sex, age, religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation – in order to re-establish a balance that does not seem to be achievable in any other way. The concept is controversial both with regard to eventual negative connotations of the reparatory function and its effectiveness in preventing discrimination, despite the fact that its basic requirement does not imply promoting less qualified individuals but only has a compensatory, re-balancing effect promoting members of disfavoured groups with equal merits for the position of employee, student, etc.

202

Diversity Research and Policy

Sustainable Diversity in Law

The concept of sustainable diversity in law refers mainly to a contrastive study of concurrent legal traditions of the world and concurrent rules of precedence and application of the law, including provisions stipulated by international law documents (e.g., conventions, agreements, treaties) that should be applied. This also encompasses studies of co-existent legal traditions within a country or common territory – for example, Canadian aboriginal law within the Canadian legal landscape. An additional example is highlighted in a recent article (Khan 2010) referring to the protection of linguistic diversity under Islamic Law, which illustrates the breadth of the issue. As a general issue, the acceptance of linguistic diversity relates to minority languages such as Yiddish or Romani in a number of European countries, or Sámi in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Extensive transnational migration at a global level, especially since the aftermath of World War II, has resulted in increased linguistic diversity in many countries of immigration which, while not entirely unproblematic, has led to an enriching linguistic and cultural diversity whose importance has become increasingly accepted as a fact. There is also a realisation that these languages need to be supported and protected. At the legislative level, language minorities enjoy a higher level of protection on both the national and international levels. Migrant communities tend to benefit from a higher level of protection of their cultural and linguistic identity than before. Legal Diversity: Human Rights and International Law in a Comparative Perspective

Universal human rights have been clearly established and recognised in international law, and the non-discrimination principle is a fundamental rule of international law, asserting and protecting the observance of minimum standards for economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its International Bill of Rights affirm the consensus on a universal standard of human rights, together with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These are further linked to the responsibility of governments in ensuring observance of the established standard through the Vienna Declaration. The protection of human rights facilitates respect for and protection of cultural diversity and integrity through the establishment of cultural rights embodied in instruments of human rights law. These include the Internation-

Diversity and Law

203

al Bill of Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the Declaration on the Principles of International Cultural Cooperation, the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, the Declaration on the Right to Development, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the ILO Convention No. 169 on the Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. In 2001, the General UNESCO Conference adopted the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stating among others that cultural diversity constitutes the common heritage of humanity (Art.1). The Declaration also establishes the link between cultural diversity, cultural pluralism, cultural rights and cultural heritage and recognises their importance for the development of human societies and mankind. At the level of the EU, Article 19 of the consolidated Treaty of the European Union (TEU) and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (former Art.13 of the Amsterdam Treaty), which entered into force in 2009, gave the Community specific powers to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. This was completed by the enactment of two directives: the Racial Equality Directive and the Employment Framework Directive. The two directives define a set of principles conferring EU citizens and residents a common minimum level of protection against discrimination, coherent with the following objectives set by the Commission in a number of documents: – to improve knowledge of discrimination; – to raise awareness among the population of their rights, but also of the benefits of diversity; – to support intermediary actors such as NGOs, social partners and equality bodies to improve their capacity to combat discrimination; – to support the development of equality policies at the national level and encourage the exchange of good practices between member states; – to push for business-oriented diversity management as part of a strategic response to a more diversified society, customer base, market structure and workforce. The Commission also developed a European Disability Action Plan for the period 2003-2010 aimed at mainstreaming disability matters in all relevant EC policies and improving accessibility to the built environment, transport and ICT.

204

Diversity Research and Policy

A particular case of extensive discrimination is that of the circa 10 million Roma in the EU, who are disproportionally affected by discrimination, violence, unemployment, poverty, bad housing and health standards, for whom the Council has called upon the Commission and member states to promote effective inclusion policies. While competence in this area lies mostly with the member states, Community instruments can be used to this end (see for example the Directive 2000/43/EC, the Structural Funds and the Open Methods of Coordination on employment and social inclusion). Considerations regarding the variety of legal traditions in the world, their co-existence and precedence of various provisions of concurrent application constitute another core area regarding sustainable diversity in law from a national, international and supranational perspective (as illustrated by EU legislation).

Diversity, Statehood and Self-Determination in International Law

Another context referring to diversity and the law is linked to issues of diversity and self-determination in a threefold perspective, relating in various ways to: 1 the (classical) nation-state as an entity to 2 internal and/or external legal entities that determine it, at least in some specific ways, and relating to 3 the legal connection that defines these related/dependent entities in their specific historical connection to the nation-state, conflictual aspects included. There may be a contradiction between the principles of state sovereignty and national self-determination in international law when they compete in a mutually exclusive (historical) framework within the same territory. This is why this issue has been a constant theme of concern in international law and diplomacy. A typical case is that of large multinational states incorporating minorities – entities with distinct socio-cultural features, occupied or colonised at some moment in history. Such entities (with a distinct socio-cultural, national identity) do not willingly surrender their autonomy but were either forced to accept the new status quo or in fact had never abandoned their hope of regaining their former right to self-determination. Historically, this has been a rather common occurrence, from the ancient Achaemenid (Persian) Empire (ca. 550-330 BC) and Roman Empire (27 BC-AD 476/1453) –

Diversity and Law

205

predecessor of the Byzantine Empire (330-1453) as [partial] successor 9 to the Umayyad Caliphate (AD 661-750), which became the largest Arab-Muslim state in history – to the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923), which ended with the foundation of modern Turkey. The European colonial empires are another example, from the explorations by Portugal and Spain in the fifteenth century to the global French, Dutch and British empires – the latter covering at its peak up to a quarter of the world’s surface and as much of its population, thus also assuming a leading role in the global economy, with consequences that still influence to an extent the global political and socio-economic development. The Russian Empire (1721-1917) is another case in point, having become one of the four major world powers by the time of its fall during World War I, and as the Soviet Union becoming the largest contiguous state in the world. In the aftermath of World War I, the map of Europe changed rather drastically; conglomerates like the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke down, making room for new complex structures like the Yugoslav federation which also in its turn fell apart in 1989 when the entire Eastern European bloc collapsed in a general regional political meltdown. Depending on the actual structural historical and political situation in the particular region or state, the problems raised from an international law perspective will differ, as will the solutions considered “acceptable”. Of course, de facto political changes may result in a different approach. State sovereignty remains the main guiding principle in interstate relationships. Self-determination as related to the emergence of new states and independence movements lead to challenges involving how to handle various aspects of diversity. These situations crop up in the aftermath of a local conflict when new state structures emerge within the region. Alternatively, (historical) cultural diversity within a particular territory may trigger demands for a certain degree of self-determination or autonomy – whether administrative, economic or political. States and other actors often try to delineate the limits of such forms of self-determination or (limited) autonomy in an attempt to prevent the entity from breaking off to form an enclave or separate state. Even divergent interpretations regarding the very existence or non-existence of a right to independence, secession, separation or (re)unification and the effects related to change on various components of the respective society can raise the question of secession or re-division of a territory, with potential problematic aspects from the point of view of international law and acceptable conduct within the mutually accepted framework of legal provisions (e.g., conventions). A particular case emerges when territorial states are formed and/or divided through decision as a consequence of a change of status – i.e.,

206

Diversity Research and Policy

gaining independence from a colonial power or recognition/establishment of a national territory (e.g., independence and recognition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and Bangladesh in 1971; designing of borders within/among African states in the aftermath of colonialism; independence and separation of Korea in 1948/1950; independence, separation and reunification of Vietnam; creation of the modern state of Israel in 1947, including the condition of dividing it to also create a modern state of Palestine). Relations between states and their minorities may involve observance of international agreements and human rights as codified and ratified at the international level, or it may be arranged via mutually accepted national legislation aimed at smoothing the relationship between the majority population and the minority population, which may demand a limited self-determination or special conditions of autonomy within the common national legal framework, leading to special structures, bodies and accommodating legislation. This has typically been the case for minorities that have historically occupied a compact territorial area and have preserved their distinctive cultural character, often even for a longer time than their mother nationstate in its present form, as have many indigenous populations in various parts of the world such as the First Nations people, the Inuit and American Indians in North America, the Sámi in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and the indigenous Australian Aborigines. International law provides special rights meant to help preserve these groups’ cultural individuality and specificity, mainly through facilitating education and communication in their mother tongue. However, so far there has been a clear separation between these “soft” rights of a (strictly) cultural nature and the possibility of physical, geographical or political delimitation within the common national territory of the state where such historical minorities exist (see for example the former Eastern and Central European countries). Intensive and increasing transnational migration brings up the issue of new emerging minorities (through immigration) and their cultural rights. To what extent should states grant cultural rights to these relative newcomers in the national cultural landscape, compared with those of historical minorities? An article published in 2002 by Karin Knop takes up this issue. Analysed in various contexts, Knop also takes up the prerogatives of interpretation of legal provisions in given circumstances. She refers among others to “bringing a fresh normative perspective – diversity – to a familiar question in international law: self-determination”.

Diversity and Law

207

Cultural/Religious Diversity and Law

Religious diversity and pluralism is prevalent in the world today. There is syncretic religiosity in Japan, where Shintō and Buddhism coexist; there are more or less limited forms of acceptance of religious pluralism in Europe, where there is generally a dominant religion along with secondary local religions (e.g., Christianity – Catholicism, various forms of Protestantism, and Orthodoxy; Islamism in its various forms – Sunni; Shi’a; Sikhism; Bahá’í; agnosticism). The conflictual nature of religious adherence is well known, particularly when looking at history. Societies today are more often than not secularised, with all that a secularised state system implies. While there is a certain tendency of associating an advanced modern society of today with a generous dose of religious freedom and tolerance, radicalist and extremist tendencies within certain groups characterised by a politisation of religion – especially after 9/11 – have the effect of fuelling the potential conflictual implications of religious faith and its societal role. The fact that belonging to a certain faith, especially Islam nowadays, is associated in certain contexts with issues of (global and local) security is a regrettable development. The possibility created by a number of states (on both the national and international level) to practically set aside human rights embedded traditionally in the concept of religious freedom and introduce so-called anti-terrorist legislation, making it possible to indefinitely suspend a person’s rights and freedoms based on nothing more than suspicions without necessarily granting any guarantees of legal protection, has already become a subject of dispute. Despite the arguments brought forward to justify this practice, this is a very problematic aspect of contemporary jurisprudence, demanding solutions that are acceptable in a democracy. The opposite case still exists in a number of countries where religion is still a matter of form of government. Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Mauritania are Islamic Republics. States like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and Brunei are also Islamic but slightly less strict towards other religions (with variations from country to country). Islam is a state religion in others countries in the Maghreb, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and East Africa. This implies that the country’s legal system is based on theological and sometimes customary ideology. The Vatican is also a religious state, but with a special status. Other states are secular; however the extent of engagement in religious issues on various levels may differ, often due to political and historical reasons.

208

Diversity Research and Policy

e Future of Diversity in Law

We live in a global village with accelerated transborder movements and increasingly frequent contacts between individuals and cultures, with everything that that implies – including conflicts of laws (on all levels). The nature of the movements as well as their consequences (for everybody involved) has also changed, which demands an extensive adaptation process, but may also constitute an unprecedented chance. Between secularism and religious contexts, symbols perceived as religious become a matter of contestation in public spaces, creating specific issues of debate (e.g., the banning of the headscarf in French schools). The various aspects of diversity depicted here, while not exhaustive, show the increasing complexity of the world we live in. Whatever the nature of the diversity aspects analysed, on some level, every single aspect of human life also involves corresponding legal aspects regulating that specific field. The increasing complexity of our existence also finds its counterpart in a further need to regulate new fields. We outline a few below. Biological Diversity

This refers to preserving our common biological diversity by ensuring proper protection of the environment via anti-pollution regulations, protection of water, maintaining air quality, regulations on how we exploit natural resources and conduct industrial activity, and the promotion of various forms of transportation. The term also relates to the ethical challenges involved in research on cloning, embryo-based research, genetic engineering and the like. Virtual Space

Computer use, the Internet, databases, new aspects of intellectual property and copyright, communication, handling, access, exchange and protection of personal data: every aspect of our life we are struggling to simplify has risks connected with it. This requires new ways of thinking and a novel, adaptive approach. Access to advanced technology brings about risks related to possible abuse, which also can be sanctioned by law. Whether we are referring to personal data, personal access to common databases, or banking/financial services, we need to think ahead. This brings about new, often diverse needs to regulate new fields, counterbalancing checks and balances at various levels with the need for personal protection, safeguarding and protecting human rights and public policy as well as eventual obligations assumed under inter-

Diversity and Law

209

national law. The concurrence of legal systems and determining precedence in the application of potentially disjunctive legal provisions is a major legal diversity issue likely to increase in importance.10 Local and national diversity now meet global diversity, in every possible meaning of the word. And in each and every case involved, there are both traditional and novel legal aspects to deal with. We also find various levels of diversity within and at the conjunction between national, regional and international law. The Accelerated Movement of People

This is one of the major sources of diversity, raising legal issues of migration, residential rights and concurrent duties. New challenges have emerged pitting the rights of states to regulate and limit access to societal services to its own citizens against the rights of individuals – from human rights and fundamental principles of law to limitations under national and/or international law. Additional challenges are posed by the activities of dominant multinational companies or bodies navigating between different national legislations and agreed (common) international law. Preserving the National Heritage

Maintaining what has become our international cultural patrimony has been a constant challenge during colonial and post-colonial times and continues to pose enormous problems in practice, particularly in the numerous conflict zones around the world. This involves protecting individuals, entities, values, etc. Imposing sanctions within and beyond national borders still requires much effort and commitment from legal systems, legislative bodies and law enforcement bodies alike, directly proportional with the increasing degree of complexity embedded in the task, and even more in an increasingly diverse (legal) environment. Legal diversity is a reflection of the diverse world we live in and its increasing complexity. We need to be aware of its challenges and continuously renew its problem-solving capacities. At some point, a degree of consensus – as a necessary instance of unity in diversity – may be required to enable further progress. How to achieve the necessary degree of consensus throughout societies, however diverse, across individuals and groups with divergent interests and various levels of power: this is the most important challenge for all actors involved. The chances of achieving such a consensus depends, among others, on our common capacity to understand and appropriate the challenges of diversity – within the legal realm, as well as beyond it.

210

Diversity Research and Policy

Notes 



    





The emic (insider) versus etic (outsider) perspectives were coined by the linguistic anthropologist Kenneth L. Pike () to express approaches based on cultural understanding in situational contexts, implicitly explaining for example the “consensus view of native informants” upon knowledge (for Pike, specifically related to language usage), providing a common perception of coherence, appropriateness and meaningful/relevant inter-communication. I would dare argue the relevance of an expansion of this conceptual construction to the juridical field, considered in a cultural context and in between cultures, as a possibility to enable better understanding of diversity in contrastive, culturally specific normative contexts considering the importance of cultural background variables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(law); http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/ showthread.php?-Code-of-Ur-Nammu-(ca---BC)-the-oldest-lawcode-ever-found. Hammurabi (ca.  BC –  BC). Dēmos Classical Athenian Democracy a Stoa Publication, Blackwell  http://www. stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=&greekEncoding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law. Rule of law based on long-standing custom – as opposed to case laws or statutes. Ancient Indian Hindu treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy which identifies its author by the names Kautilya and Vishgupta, scholar and later prime minister of the Maurya Empire, often compared with Machiavelli’s The Prince. This form of customary law on the Horn of Africa is assumed to have developed in the seventh century, however specifically separating law and religion, even though following Shari’a in matters of family and inheritance, yet conflicting with the later with Xeer taking precedence. Specific instance of customary law within a stateless society and “a fair approximation of what is thought of as natural law“ which according to several scholars “may be centuries old, [but] has the potential to serve as the legal system of a modern, well-functioning economy”; Ayittey, G.B.N. (), Indigenous African institutions. Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers; Le Sage, A. (), Stateless Justice in Somalia: Formal and Informal Rule of Law Initiatives, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue; Powell B., Ford R., Nowrasteh A., Somalia after State collapse: Chaos or Improvement?; Independent Institute Working Paper Nr., http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_/documentos/_somalia.pdf; Hirvonen, A. (ed.) (), Polycentricity. The Multiple Scenes of Law, Pluto Press. For modern states, see the  Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, effective on  November  (when the minimum required  ratifications was fulfilled).

Diversity and Law

211

 For example, EC/EU law normally takes precedence when there is a conflict with national law; in federal states, state law is likely to take precedence over conflicting federal laws (but exceptions should not be a priori excluded); in religious states, religious law (e.g., Sharía) may take precedence over concurring civil legal provisions.

References

Ali Khan 2010. Protection of Languages and Self-Expression under Islamic Law. Journal of Transnational Law and Policy. 19. Aquinas, T. De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence). Aquinas, T. De principiis naturae (On the Principles of Nature). Aquinas, T. and Bobik, J. (translator) 1988. Aquinas on Being and Essence. University of Notre Dame Press, March 31. Aristoteles. Ethika Nikomacheia (Nichomachean Ethics). Ayton-Shenker, D. 1995. The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. UN Background Note, United Nations Department of Public Information DPI/1627/HR-March 1995. http://www.un.org/rights/ dpi1627e.htm Basinger, D. 2010. Religious Diversity (Pluralism). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-pluralism Becker, G. 1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago. D’Antonio 1992. Roos and Jones, 1993. Stacey and Thorne, 1985. – ibid. (Clark 1999, on Springer link 2007). David, R. 1950. Traité elementair de droit civil compare. Modified in David, R. and Jauffret-Spinosi 1992. Les grands systems de droits contemporains. Diesen, C., Lernestedt, C., Lindholm, T. and Petterson, T. 2005. Likhet inför lagen (Equality before the law). Natur och Kultur. European Commission, the Bird (79/409/EEC) and Habitat Directives (92/43/EEC). Freer, R.D. 1998. Toward a Principled Statutory Approach to Supplemental Jurisdiction in Diversity of Citizenship Cases. Indiana Law Journal. 74 (Winter): 5-23. Glenn, P. 2007. Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 370. Gordley, J. and Taylor von Mehren, A. 2006. An Introduction to the comparative study of private law. Grotius, H. De Indis (On the Indies). Grotius, H. De Jure Predae (On the Right of Capture).

212

Diversity Research and Policy

Hanson, S.O. 2007. What is Technological Science? Department of Philosophy and the History of Technology. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). Hirt, J.B., Murray, J.H. and McBee, J.K. 2001. Technology and Diversity: An Impending Collision on the Information Superhighway? NASPA Journal. 38(1), Art. 13. http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol38/iss1/ art13 [accessed 17 December 2009] Jaakko H. 2009. Turning the Curriculum Upside Down: Comparative Law as an Educational Tool for Constructing the Pluralistic Legal Mind. Special Issue: Transnationalizing legal education, German Law Journal. 10(7). Constructing the Pluralistic Legal Mind with Comparative Law. Jacobsohn, G.J. and Dunn, S. (ed.) 1996. Diversity and Citizenship: Rediscovering American Nationhood. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Knop, K. 2002. Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law. Series: Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law (No. 20). Kokko, K. 2004. Biodiversity law. Working Papers Finnish Forest Research Institute 1, Institute of International Economic Law. http://www.metla. fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2004/mwp001.htm Locke, J. Two Treatises on Government. Marmor, A. 2007 (2001). The Nature of Law. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/1 Magurran 2004. Measuring Ecological Diversity. Monahan, J. and Walker, W.L. 2009. Social Science in Law. 7th edition. Foundation Press. Pickus, N.M.J. 1998. Immigration and Citizenship in the Twenty-First Century. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Ritzer, G. 2007. Michael Agar’s article: Emic/Etic. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/ tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433111_ss1-35 Rousseau, J.J. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men/ Discourse on Inequality). Rousseau, J.J. Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique (Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right/ The Social Contract). Smith, W. 1976. Religious Diversity. New York: Harper and Row. Southwood and Henderson 2002. Ecological Methods. Third edition. Suchocki, M. 2003. Divinity and Diversity. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Turner and Turner 1990. Halliday and Janowitz, 1992. Collins, 1986. Gans, 1990. Crane and Small, 1992. In: Clark, R. (2007 – Springer link) Diversity in sociology: Problem or solution? Research article published 1999. In: The American Sociologist, 30(3).

Diversity and Law

213

United Nations 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro 1992). United Nations Envronmental Programme 1995. The Global Biodiversity Assessment. In: The Finnish Forest Act (1093/1996) or The Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996). Wagner and Deller 1993. A Measure of Economic Diversity – An InputOutput Approach. Department of Agricultural Economics University of Wisconsin-Madison/Extension. Zhihong Z., Stapleton, S. and Cavers, J.K. 1999. Analysis of Polarization Diversity Scheme with Channel Codes. Simon Fraser University: Department of Engineering Science. Zweigert, K. and Koetz, H. 1998. Introduction to comparative law.

Legislation

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Employment Framework Directive. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000. European Disability Action Plan for the period 2003-2010. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Racial Equality Directive. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. Treaty of the European Union (TEU). The Treaty of Amsterdam amending the TEU. 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Bill of Rights. 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties.

214

Diversity Research and Policy

13

Diversity and Public Policy Lena Tsipouri, Rob De Lobel & Steven Knotter

Introduction

Public policy both implicitly and explicitly addresses diversity issues in a number of ways. Concretely, we can see public policy responses to diversity as governmental attempts – of action or inaction – to manage or deal with the issues, or sets of issues, that arise in different spheres of life. The policy itself is commonly embodied “in constitutions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions”. Some scholars define public policy as a system of “courses of action, regulatory measures, laws, and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives”. This section explores the real and potential policy measures and practical aspects of diversity in each of the scientific disciplines analysed in this volume. While respecting the definition of diversity as elucidated in this volume, some nuances need to be taken into consideration in the analysis of policies. Public policy tends to address the generic concept of diversity at an abstract level; the approach to issues such as equal opportunities and coexistence, which is the foundation of many international, national and regional policies, may be seen as being philosophical in nature. Practical problems emerge with the translation of general principles into formal, or informal, rules. These problems relate to the way in which these principles are transformed into a concrete regulatory framework with an associated budget for the implementation, regulation or adoption of measures (incentives or sanctions). The practical application of a policy is, by necessity, more limited and restrictive than the rhetoric and general principles that serve as the policy’s basis. This distinction between idea and reality highlights the importance of carefully considering both when studying public policy; both the societal and political context in which policy develops as well as the means by which it is applied are essential if we want to understand the relationship between public policy and diversity issues such as gender, migration, sexual orientation and religion. Policy is not neutral, but derives from a set of values or ideals. The principle of respecting diversity is politically correct in Europe, and embedded

215

in European culture. A quick look at the real world, however, demonstrates that issues of diversity are and continue to be contentious; independent of any rhetoric or generic values adopted by European or international bodies, individual policy interventions depend on citizens’ tolerance for diversity and the monetary/political costs of the intervention. For example, while minorities are generally respected in Europe, a push to support the residence of drug addicts in posh neighbourhoods is likely to lead to strong reactions from the majority of the residents/electorate; while support exists for the education of migrants, budget restrictions limit the willingness to dedicate public funds for this purpose (which would decrease the funding available for other priorities). The distinction here can be found in the conflict between support for the general principle and willingness to pay, as this often means transferring finances from one group to another. The “not in my backyard” syndrome is also quite common – a given policy may be supported, even desirable, as long as it is not too close to home and as long as it does not necessitate a direct personal sacrifice or imply (rightly or wrongly) increased uncertainty. These conflicts between the desire to adhere to a social conscience, cost constraints and personal sacrifice lead to an apparently schizophrenic state characterised by shifts between calls for openness and respect for diversity on the one hand and reluctance in the translation of ideas into action on the other. Two factors reinforce this schizophrenia: the theoretical divides in many disciplines (where meta-analyses do not necessarily lead to practical recommendations) and conservative attitudes amongst parts of the electorate. Policy neutrality also needs to be considered in light of the extent to which systemic discrimination is embedded in public policy. Theoretically “blind” or “neutral” policies may in fact have widely divergent implications for different groups, due to existing differences, regardless of intentions. As such, one must consider both intentional and unintentional policy impacts. Regarding diversity, one should often think whether or not it is better to target specific groups, and hence distinguish between groups, or have one policy that “fits all”. This is perhaps one of the greatest policy challenges as illustrated by affirmative action policies which, while helping some individuals belonging to targeted minority groups advance, nevertheless represent a double-edged sword and remain highly controversial. It is easier to argue that businesses should not discriminate on the basis of characteristics such as gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation than to use positive discrimination to actively promote the advancement or inclusion of minority or disadvantaged groups. Nearly all disciplines analysed share a common theoretical element in that while universalism and compliance were previously considered as a positive

216

Diversity Research and Policy

driving force in modern societies (at different points in each discipline), diversity has now not only become tolerated but even praised as an element of social and economic progress. This shift within the mainstream orthodoxy towards diversity led to a change in the dominant doctrine in the Western world and serves as the foundation for a series of regulatory changes and specific interventions. These include: – formal rules for equality of citizens (adopted in constitutions, laws and even international and transnational documents like the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights); – mandatory actions imposing respect for equality that goes beyond the traditional approach (social security for migrants, gay marriage); – generic rules encouraging the preservation of diversity (in various forms of education and awareness raising); and – specific incentives in the form of affirmative or quasi-affirmative action (measures encouraging employment or supporting the entrepreneurship of minorities by imposing minimal quotas and preferential treatment). Taken together, these measures represent the direction in which thinking about diversity is going in multiple spheres, from cultural heritage to employment to disability, along with the challenges, conflicts and disagreements that persist both at the theoretical and practical level. The next section is a summary of the policy and practice conclusions by discipline. The final section contains a synthetic final summary that addresses diversity policies in general and concrete terms for Europe and beyond.

Actual and Potential Policies by Topic Social Anthropology

Social anthropology is a discipline between the social sciences and the humanities that studies human behaviour and knowledge including human relationships, symbols and their meanings, values, norms and related phenomena. Social anthropology develops in the permanent tensions between the concepts of unity and diversity (variability) of humankind, which are manifested also in the variability of the elementary concepts of culture as a frequently mentioned central subject of the study of social anthropology. In past centuries, social anthropology was influenced by and in turn influenced specific political practice, especially of European colonial powers. The issue of coexistence in diversified non-European societies was addressed in

Diversity and Public Policy

217

the 1950s and 1960s. By now it holds the doctrine that the diversity of human society is necessary for its existence, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds, which allow their mutual cooperation. These social bonds create social cohesion and arouse the impression of homogeneity of a diversified society. Classical anthropological works describe multicultural coexistence, which was further developed into the concept of multiculturalism. This concept was later transferred to Europe (Furnival 1948) and applied as a political concept in the Euro-Atlantic area, although it has recently been reassessed critically. Anthropological works also utilised the concept of social transformation which was applied by Robert Redfield on the emergence of a diversified urbanised society. Furthermore, anthropologists stood at the birth of the new concepts overthrowing the theories of the melting pot at the beginning of the 1960s, for example by criticising the melting pot theory as a specific American variant of assimilationist policy. Anthropologists directly contributed to the preservation of human diversity by discovering and documenting diverse cultures, and by building knowledge bases of indigenous people. This has contributed significantly to the recognition of the value of cultural diversity, and to UNESCO statements and declarations. A significant penetration of the social anthropological community into the sphere of political decision-making is in UNESCO programmes, especially in the Management of Social Transformations [MOST], whose specific goal is to interconnect social science knowledge with political decisions. But social anthropology has never mingled directly with any kind of social, economic or other policy. Sociology

Within sociology, individual actors play diverse roles, constantly adjusting to changing situations. This approach provides the basis for a sociology of micro-relations that collect the social structures that make up societal rules. Diversity can thus be used to create a process specifically aimed at awareness. In some cases the fact of being “diverse” justifies political actions and claims. The invention of tradition and the identity politics of autonomy have become powerful means by which to reinterpret belonging and diversity. Diversity, then, makes it possible to distinguish between that to which one does not want to belong and that to which one wants to belong. It is in this manner that some secessionist movements that make claims to autonomy find confirmation in their “diversity” which, in this case is not a discriminatory element but a factor upon which the claim is built. Sociology in that sense

218

Diversity Research and Policy

drives thinking about diversity and a more inclusive way of dealing with it, without relating directly to individual policy measures rules or support measures. Criminology

Public policy is of major importance in the case of criminology, since certain schools of thought adhere to research that demonstrates that crime tends be lower in more homogenous societies and groups. Diversity in the population also presents itself as a problem in that minority and disadvantaged groups tend to have higher rates of involvement in the criminal justice system than other groups. Discrimination, bias and racism are major concerns in Western countries in which minority groups are overrepresented in crime statistics as both offenders and victims and, even more notably, as prison inmates. This leads to the need for higher policing in diverse neighbourhoods. However, the targeting and incarceration of specific groups has potentially detrimental effects that go beyond the direct “costs” of punishment. While potentially effective, these efforts also subject specific groups of individuals to greater police control, increasing the possibility of being observed committing a crime. Increasing patrols or police presence in a poor, high-crime area raises the odds that its residents will find their way into the criminal justice system without having increased their actual rate of offending. In this way, earnest efforts to reduce crime in high-crime areas may actually increase social problems, crime included, through the overincarceration of its male population. The imprisonment, or removal, of a high percentage of adult males within a given area leads to greater social instability and alters the perception of imprisonment (e.g., it may become a badge of honour, rather than a source of shame). Criminal justice policies have different legal and cultural bases in various countries. Some of these policies are less subject to the impact of public opinion, the media and politics whereas for others it is much easier, or more common, to change penal legislation in accordance with changes at the political level. In recent years this has become especially crucial as countries – some would argue following a trend started in the United States – have become increasingly punitive in responding to crime and punishing offenders. “Penal populism” is a movement that has raised concern amongst criminologists across Europe and elsewhere, as the push to be tough on crime not only increases the severity of sentencing but tends to do so in a disproportionate way, targeting some groups more than others and introducing more elements that could lead to bias and/or discrimination. In fact, one of the key criticisms

Diversity and Public Policy

219

of the American “war on drugs” is that, while it did not directly discriminate against African Americans, the impact that this set of policies would have on this group was foreseeable and hence represents “malign neglect”. Ecological Economics

A dominant element in recent discussions about sustainable development is the concern about the loss of biological diversity (or biodiversity), which is recognised as critically important for the stability of the earth’s ecosystem as a key resource for sustainable functions of natural systems. Ecological economics addresses environmental and policy issues in relation to sustainable development. Interventions are both at their early stage and very costly, so policies face both methodological and political challenges. Ecology affects policy directly in two ways. The first task for an effective policy cycle is to produce the necessary evidence, in this case to measure biodiversity, assess the cost of its decay, and evaluate the impact of individual initiatives. Given that scarcity is unpriced in the environment and that property rights do not hold with regard to biological resources, the social value of various biodiversity goods and service flows is insufficiently or not at all reflected in market prices. Many biodiversity services are public goods, available for consumption and usage at no market cost, which leads to their destruction. Biodiversity tends to become a scarce economic good for which, however, a (proper) pricing system does not exist. Despite progress in this area, there is still lack of a solid economic valuation mechanism for biological diversity and up-to-date information and monitoring systems with sufficient geographical detail on biodiversity. There is a clear need to continue with developing rigorous valuation tools in order to cope with complicated trade-offs in environmental policy analysis in the context of sustainable development initiatives and emerging policies which take explicit account of the variety in the earth’s ecosystem. Hence, a crucial first step for policy is supporting further research and acceptance of standards on the economic valuation and monitoring of living natural resources. The second issue is how to intervene to preserve biodiversity. It is estimated that 85 to 90 of the species can be protected by targeted policies. But the current available biodiversity conservation programmes in various countries require considerable financial expenditure, which have to be weighed against alternative uses. While valuation techniques, as suggested above, may increasingly make such programmes financially viable in the future, it is also challenging to allocate and manage biodiversity funds adequately from the perspective of the non-market value of environmental resources. Awareness-

220

Diversity Research and Policy

raising campaigns will be needed to endorse specific efforts in mapping biodiversity values and ensure that these are embedded in concrete policy action. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the potential and limitations of the different policy tools, including the payment for ecosystems services instruments, and their broad acceptance by different stakeholders. In short, this calls for the need for an innovative and effective governance approach. Because of the complexity and global interactions, biodiversity is typically a case where international intervention is needed, be it in the context of the UN or specific initiatives such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), an international consortium of over 1300 scientists trying to assess the status of ecosystems and ecosystem services to bring to light their contribution to human well-being. Another recent example refers to the Potsdam Initiative, which was launched at the G8+5 environment ministers’ meeting in Potsdam in 2007, which called for a study on the economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity, looking at the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation. Linguistics

Language diversity usually refers to the number and variation of languages and individual multilingualism in a given society as well as individuals’ proficiency in more than one language. Key issues for linguistic policy and practice include: – Languages are perceived to be one of the key features of cultural identity. Concordantly, it is one of the main instruments for nation building. “Unity in diversity” is the motto of the European Union. The motto also reflects linguistic diversity as a central feature of Europe, unlike other societies where a monolingual way of thinking still prevails. – There is growing recognition that multilingualism is a positive development for human capabilities and should thus be supported. – Over half of the world’s languages are threatened with extinction. Language diversity has to be preserved because “each and every language embodies the unique cultural wisdom of a people”. Regulatory interventions are well advanced in Europe in the form of the European Framework Convention on National Minorities (1998) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1998), which together form a European standard for the protection and promotion of regional minority languages.

Diversity and Public Policy

221

In 2002 the European Council in Barcelona set as a long-term objective that all EU citizens should speak two additional languages to their mother tongue. This is far from the current reality. On a national level, most countries still emphasise one dominant language. Some countries and regions have special language policies to maintain and promote the use of minority languages. These policies include the teaching of languages at school and the legal recognition of these languages, but they do not apply to most languages at risk. Specific countries (the UK, France, Germany and Spain) invest substantially in promoting their national languages outside their borders to maintain their dominance as a foreign language. Other countries invest a lot less in this, as they have no aspirations of influencing international relations and trade through their language. Indeed, the current trend indicates that in the future, fewer languages will be spoken in the world. In that sense, linguistics is a major influence behind a segment of educational policies. Architecture

Architecture is a reflection of power and a dominant ‘taste’ in society, and it thus co-evolves with the respect of diversity in the concerning society. In Europe, as in all democratic societies, architectural creativity is regulated and respected only in the context of town planning needs and the preservation of cultural heritage. Direct intervention (e.g., architectural contests) can play a role influencing the extent to which architectural projects explore ideas of other architectural cultures. Policy is reflected mainly in the mandatory rules of town planning, where the level of acceptance of a dominant aesthetic (symbolic violence) might leave room for novelty and diversity; certainly on a local level, policies in planning and heritage are not always congenial to cultural diversity. Similarly the design of common spaces, arts organisations, etc. may either favour diversity or lead to assimilation. Recently, cultural diversity has been increasingly recognised as a powerful strength for architecture by global agencies like UNESCO, as expressed in the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. The trend in modern policies seems to favour this diversity, going even beyond generic rules and often allowing the promotion of new landmarks and supporting migrant architects (the best known, internationally acclaimed female architects are not Western). In a sense, architecture is an art, both influenced and inspired by the need to respect different needs and cultures and reflect them in artefacts, which respond to a plurality of tastes and needs.

222

Diversity Research and Policy

Urban Planning and Diversity

Cities are often the arena where issues of diversity first emerge and have to be dealt with in practice. Urban planning initially focused on the rational ordering of space (i.e., land use, aesthetics and physical layout principally), but then added new foci, methodologies and theories over time, progressively organising into distinct subfields. Many cities increasingly realise the need (even if for social control purposes) to accept differences and to promote coexistence or tolerance. This paradigm shift has been rather difficult. Reactions to diversity have led to segregation, discrimination and separation. Urban planning has found diversity particularly challenging when accompanied by an uneven distribution of resources and opportunities by culture, nationality, religion, phenotype and so forth. Terms such as biodiversity or cultural diversity are perhaps less controversial. Diversity interventions started with the problems caused by the industrial revolution (migration and poverty, public works and public housing) and propagated since the civil rights movements, when local governments had to make adjustments to accommodate or at least co-opt the demands of urban minorities. Progressive administrations in the 1970s prioritised the needs of these groups. Along with them, environmentalists introduced initiatives aimed at reducing pollution, encouraging recycling and pedestrian-friendly infrastructures, and greening in general. Such interventions, however, were not always carried out under the banner of diversity but as part of a redistribution of resource policies and the struggle for equal rights, opportunity and access to work and services. Policies are now increasingly targeting urban spaces of diversity and moving away from oppressive programmes like urban renewal and highway development, which have had a devastating impact on minorities and the poor. Many scholars acknowledge that diversity differs from city to city and that, rather than threats, differences can be supplementary and generate unique and lively mosaics. Planners seek to produce livable cities and spaces that offer the opportunity for high levels of interaction among persons of different social background. But culturally sensitive planning is in its early phases. Diversity still has many enemies within urban planning. Arguing that claims of diversity threaten the root values of Western society and that the conditions of certain ethnic, racial, gender and other groups are self-inflicted, conservative forces insist on approaches in which experts rather than ordinary citizens do the planning. Debates against and in favour of diversity are frequent. The challenge in this is to demonstrate how planning is able to respond in ways that do not priori-

Diversity and Public Policy

223

tise one lifestyle and/or culture over another, to the detriment of others. Altogether, diversity has shaken the field of urban planning to the point that no planner can turn its back completely on it today. The main challenge facing the discipline is to develop frameworks in which diversity rather than universalism is the norm. Diversity issues are, in this sense, integral to good planning. As with architecture, urban planning is both influenced and inspired by diversity – more specifically, the need to set the scene that allows the harmonious cohabitation of diverse groups in the same space. Economics

Economics is a discipline that studies the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services, defined more formally as “the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses”. Diversity, although not systematically addressed, is increasingly used as an explanatory variable for many economic relationships. Neoclassical economics – the current orthodoxy in the profession – examines the influence of income, skills, gender, nationality, religion, place of birth and choices of lifestyle on growth and employment. Alternative approaches to the neoclassical model have emerged, derived from the need to adopt a multidisciplinary approach, diminishing the role of mathematic modelling and enriching the discipline with historical, political and social dimensions. Institutional and evolutionary economics are the most systematic strands of thought adopting a more interdisciplinary approach. They recognise diversity (the notion of variety is fundamental in evolutionary economics) as an element of study and occasionally give it a prominent position in their analysis. In an overview, we see that the main dimensions of diversity treated in economic theory and policy include both endogenous and exogenous variables. The former, namely income inequality and skills/qualifications inequality, are both determined by the system and determining it. By contrast, age, ethnic and racial diversity, gender and disabilities are exogenously determined but alternative policies trigger different economic effects associated with them. In macroeconomics, taxation and social allowances may lead to income inequalities and, via income, affect the level of employment. More concretely, diversity in public economics is related to equity and involves different taxation patterns for individuals. Orthodox economists still disagree on the causality, let alone the magnitude, of the relationship between income inequality and growth. Certain models indicate that higher inequality increases saving and by consequence investments and growth. However, for social reasons (indi-

224

Diversity Research and Policy

rectly also accepting that growth is hampered by social unease), policies tend to intervene in favour of the weaker classes or individuals to avoid societal inequalities leading to marginalisation and exclusion. Other issues of diversity addressed by educational and labour economics refer to additional schooling, attainment of further qualifications and skills enhancement. While improved capabilities contribute to growth, they also trigger a “crowding out” effect for the unskilled (or lower-skilled), according to which the unskilled workers’ probability of getting a job decreases at a given number of jobs per job seeker. This is particularly true for migrant groups who are more often than not judged to be minorities with low skills offering low-cost work. However, a large number of studies have identified immigrant labour’s direct contribution to growth under certain circumstances. Female integration into the labour force is also discussed as a production factor. Finally, the phenomenon of ageing is being studied within the macroeconomic context for its effect on economic growth via the state pensions systems. In regional economics, diversity in terms of a region’s topology and wealth plays a very significant role in the overall convergence or divergence of the region at the national level. Both positive and negative correlations are again identified in the literature. Recent analysis is taking a very proactive stance, directly linking diversity with creativity and thus competitiveness and welfare, attributing comparatively higher growth to tolerance of diversity. In international economics, diversity is approached again via human and capital development movements. Migration flows, their contribution to growth and costs are studied in the host country and the effect of potential remittances to the economics of the country of origin. From the standpoint of a developing country, the emigration of skilled workers represents also a loss of human capital (brain circulation or brain drain). International financial flows seem to have little or precarious impact in advancing economic growth, especially in poor countries, but again evidence is controversial and different empirical results exist. Development economics are a more challenging subdiscipline in the sense that equality and equal treatment are themselves indicators of development. Broadly speaking, this sub-discipline addresses again the integration of different groups into economic life. All of the above analysis indicates that in economics, probably more than in other disciplines, the role of diversity remains controversial, and there is little consensus on the appropriate policies deriving from it and for it. Pure empirical models ran into divisive conclusions, indicating that the contribution of diverse groups of population may end up in different outcomes for the economy. Ideologies, model hypotheses and real world differences in structures and circumstances lead to different results. In general, integration is

Diversity and Public Policy

225

positive when it does not stretch systems too much. Short-term tensions may be outweighed by longer-term benefits, which once again requires political decisions. Despite controversies in many sub-areas of economics, policymakers (in particular in the OECD) tend to recognise at least the need to reduce or accommodate diversity. In an interdisciplinary thinking and through indirect causalities, policies tend to direct themselves to the integration of diverse groups: the redistribution of income, intervention against marginalisation, and free access to educational and health services are the main elements of economic policy. One may argue that it is not clear where economic policy stops and social policy starts. Their interaction is so close that they often become indistinguishable. But certain economic benefits of diversity cannot be denied anymore. So, diversity is important for the discipline, even if in an indirect way, and its results affect economic policy most directly. Business and Organisation Studies

As the workforce is becoming more diverse, companies are becoming more interested in learning how to manage the changing demographics of the workforce in suitable ways. Diversity has become a popular topic among Western managers, practitioners and scholars over the last fifteen years. The term generally refers to differences in people’s identities such as ethnicity, age, gender, race, sexual orientation and physical ability, although some definitions are broader and include dimensions such as lifestyle, educational background, work experience, cognitive style and even personality. The exploitation of minorities’ talents started with public affirmative actions in the US. Subsequently, the scope of this business rationale was broadened beyond protected groups, which de-emphasises potential conflicts of interests between the majority and the minorities. The “business case for diversity” is grounded on three economic arguments: (1) companies who want to attract the best qualified candidates have to take measures to recruit people from all demographic backgrounds; (2) diverse groups outperform homogeneous ones in solving complex problems and in creative tasks; (3) a more diverse workforce connects better with and understand the preferences and consumption habits of their diversified customer base. Apart from affirmative actions, diversity management practices commonly mentioned in literature are cross-cultural training, screening of human resources management systems and processes, dedicated mentoring and networking initiatives, and diversity task forces. A common theoretical distinction in the literature is one between so-called ‘identity-blind’ and ‘iden-

226

Diversity Research and Policy

tity-conscious’ approaches to diversity management. Only a few studies have attempted to assess which of these practices are most successful in improving the employment status of minorities. Organisations also often pay very little attention to actually measuring the effects of their diversity efforts. European literature on diversity management is still in its beginning phase, and attempts to identify and describe effective practices have been rare. However, existing European studies show that diversity is managed in a variety of ways well beyond classical (US) initiatives like training and mentoring programmes. They stress the importance of work systems, service/product types, and professional norms in shaping both what differences mean and how organisations manage them. Driven by the observation that diversity management has not secured the inclusion of disadvantaged groups in the workplace, a few studies do attempt to identify diversity management practices that effectively diminish inequality within organisations. New issues like withingroup differences, intergroup inequality and the role of context are additional parameters that shape policies and need further research. Based on the original economic findings on diversity and productivity, business and organisation studies have researched and suggested the best possible ways to exploit the positive forces of diversity in the business environment. Work and Organisational Psychology

Diversity in work and organisational psychology refers to “the distribution of differences among the members of a unit with respect to a common attribute X, such as tenure, ethnicity, conscientiousness, task attitude, or pay”. Thus, diversity is a compositional construct that does not denote an individual’s attributes but the dispersion of individuals’ attributes within a certain group. Findings about the effects of within-group diversity are incoherent, suggesting both positive and negative effects of the very same diversity characteristics. Policies that relate to work and organisational psychology should mainly be seen as corporate policies. Given globalised markets and the increased participation of new population groups in the labour market (women and older people), the workforce in organisations has become more and more diverse in recent decades. For organisations, diversity among their staff has become a major challenge, influencing not only organisations’ human resource management such as personnel selection procedures and training activities but also their cultures. Empirical evidence from the US and Europe indicates significant amounts of annual expenses on diversity programmes such as recruiting and training. Still, organisations fail to reap the full potential benefits of diversity. To do so, minimising diversity in terms of separation and disparity

Diversity and Public Policy

227

and maximising variety is necessary but not sufficient. Besides, task characteristics need to be considered, as only complex tasks enable diverse groups to apply and combine their different knowledge. Furthermore, group leaders are crucial, as their leadership style needs to encourage group members to express ideas and value different points of view. Thus, organisations have to pay attention to diversity characteristics but also to those organisational aspects that moderate the potential effects of these diversity features. Public policies may be introduced to support organisations in their efforts to stimulate or mitigate the effects of diversity. On-the-job-training, life-long learning and even entrepreneurship support to diverse groups are some examples of such policies. As in the case of business diversity, this discipline offers ways to exploit the positive forces of diversity in the business environment.

Synthesising Policies for Diversity Respect for Diversity is Becoming Politically Mainstream

There is a generic shift in all disciplines towards opening up to diversity and recognising its value and potential. However, each discipline differs significantly in their thinking, timing and influence on public policy. The overview per discipline attempted in the previous section indicates that they should be viewed under different angles by policymakers. In an attempt to better understand their broader and immediate contribution, we have classified them according to two dimensions: 1 The extent to which diversity is at the heart or fringe of the discipline – a dimension measuring the relevance of diversity for the discipline; 2 The influence of the discipline on policymaking, which can be direct or indirect – a dimension of the relevance of the academic conclusions for policy. These two dimensions produce four different quadrants: a The core diversity disciplines: those where diversity plays a major role in research and their results influence policymaking directly. b The root disciplines: those where diversity was first studied and proliferated into other disciplines, shaping new thinking but not affecting policymaking directly. c The implementation disciplines: those where research does not address the issue of diversity explicitly, but includes it in a variety of related or unrelated topics and end up with very concrete directions affecting the regulatory and legal regimes in modern societies.

228

Diversity Research and Policy

d

The operational disciplines: these deal with technical matter. Based on the root and core discipline recommendations, they address the way diversity is operationalised within modern society, even though within the discipline itself there is no policy-relevant research.

The core disciplines are typically economics, linguistics, ecology and criminology. Diversity is increasingly important in these disciplines and the research results are (at least partly) operational and taken up directly in the legal and incentives system. For ecology, for instance, this institutionalisation takes place through (inter)national agreements, which aim to protect and strengthen biodiversity. These agreements can be translated into incentives or actual regulation, along with concrete ambitions and objectives. In economics, the relevance of diversity is translated into the right of migrants to social security and the role of education in human capital theories. However, other disciplines constitute the infrastructure upon which the interdisciplinary construct of diversity is built, and serve as root disciplines for new policy. These disciplines study diversity without explicitly calling it so, or indicating how this could be operationalised into concrete policy. We have seen that the disciplines of social anthropology and sociology have been the first where the orthodoxy of unity was contested starting already in the nineteenth century. Certain strands of historical research are also crucial in this process. We could call these disciplines the founding principles for a new policy direction. They provide a background for understanding diversity and how attitudes towards it have been formed and changed over time. These two disciplines do not have clear policy recommendations in the sense of formal rules and measures, as their aim is not to steer diversity policies. They rather inform society’s means of thinking about diversity at a broader level. Furthermore, they generally aim at gradually changing mindsets and mentalities to create a multicultural multilingual society built on tolerance. The implementation disciplines generally aim at managing and even institutionalising diversity. They support the introduction of rules, norms and normative systems in order to fully grasp diversity and govern it. These rules can be formal (e.g. national legislation) or informal (e.g., social norms). They do this through education, awareness-raising, museum exhibitions, new urban planning opposing uniformity, etc. Effective measures are those that increase acceptance and familiarity and offer a choice between assimilation, preservation and integration. They include equal opportunities to work, contests praising diversity and creativity, training programmes, and also specific incentives that eliminate barriers and promote the interests of minorities (such as specific hiring and grant schemes).

Diversity and Public Policy

229

Urban planners and architects do not question the need to incorporate diverse groups into spatial entities. They take this for granted from historical and sociological studies and then investigate and suggest how to do it. Similarly, business organisation and psychology experts do not question the relevance of diverse groups in the organisation, they take it for granted from human capital studies in economics and then they create rules that help them make the best of it. Finally, law is the single most important discipline for the operationalisation of diversity based on the adoption of the principles responding to the foundations of the disciplines offering the infrastructure. Schematically, these dimensions can be presented as follows:

Importance of diversity research for the discipline High Importance of research results for policymaking

Low

High

Low

Core diversity Economics Ecology Criminology Linguistics

Implementation Architecture Urban planning Business and organisation studies Organisational psychology

Root Sociology Social anthropology History

Operational Law

It goes without saying that in this scheme, specific sub-disciplines or individual attempts may cross borders or move higher/lower and left/right in their quadrants. But what remains important is that a ubiquitous policy on diversity needs to recognise its interdisciplinary character, which is necessary to guide and bring policies forward. The fact that diversity has increasingly become present in the different disciplines over time has led to a generalised rhetoric and regulatory framework in favour of respecting diversity in all Western societies. However, this shift from unity to diversity is not ubiquitous, and in selected areas, tradeoffs between unity and diversity lead to doubts on the magnitude of intervention in favour of diversity (this is particularly the case in criminology and labour markets). While the overall legal framework has been worked out (more with affirmative actions in the US and voluntarism in the EU), there is nowhere

230

Diversity Research and Policy

a horizontal, cross-cutting policy for the respect of diversity. Measures are taken at the level of cultural policy (creation of museums, support of minority languages), educational policy (schools for minorities, integration of secondgeneration migrants in the formal schooling system, access of diverse groups to continuous education or on-the-job training), special corporate policies for productivity increases, etc. The main policy tools are educational and awareness-raising, thus leading to a rather long-term change in states of mind. Costs and Benefits of Policies for Diversity

The major barrier to implement widespread policies that aim to increase acceptance of minorities is the monetary cost, opportunity cost and social cost that it induces. Regulatory interventions and measures with no (direct) additional cost have been implemented first. Indirect costs, like those for public education or other awareness-raising policies, are incorporated into cultural and educational budgets and slowly adopted. Some countries use international relations budgets for promoting their own language. Monitoring costs and new research on diversity, as well as creating valuation standards, may have a low cost but can potentially have significant political consequences and hence tend to progress at a slower pace than anticipated. Budgetary costs for social security and assimilation depend on the size and structure of minorities. Moreover, these costs are often not labelled specifically, remaining an unknown share of global budgets. The budgetary cost of preservation can vary significantly, from measures on the preservation of cultural heritage, to projects on the preservation on biodiversity. However, when considering the overall costs of preservation, it is very high, in particular when opportunity costs of economic exploitation are considered. Finally, corporate costs are the only ones for which one would assume there are direct cost-benefit calculations. However, this seems to be less often the case than corporate literature would suggest, despite significant amounts of annual expenses at the corporate level on diversity programmes such as recruiting and training initiatives. We thus believe that in order to further develop the issues related to diversity in public policy, budgetary assessments on the costs and rewards of diversity policies will help the unfinished debate in favour of diverse societies and become an instrument for good policy selection in the competition for resources among contending interests and groups.

Diversity and Public Policy

231

In conclusion, we claim that diversity has become an integral dimension of modern society. Policy schizophrenia, policy neutrality and policy progress are found to be the basic features of the current status in Europe characterising the four main types of intervention: namely formal rules, mandatory actions, generic rules and specific interventions. More analysis, comparative research and intelligent policy benchmarking may help reduce fragmentation and speed up the integration of and respect for diverse groups into society.

232

Diversity Research and Policy

14

Conclusion Rob De Lobel, Steven Knotter, Lena Tsipouri & Vanja Stenius

e Book

The original ambition of this book was to collect individual articles from as many disciplines (in social sciences and the humanities) as possible, identify their methodologies and perspectives on diversity and conclude with an interdisciplinary approach, suggesting common ways of perceiving, measuring and addressing diversity in terms of research and policy. Not all disciplines we wanted to include could finally be taken on board, and it was clear that true interdisciplinarity has not been reached yet. Still, many interesting conclusions could be drawn and some steps towards sharing were made. Common conclusions were difficult to draw in the definition of diversity. Each discipline has its own refined concepts. There was general agreement that diversity is a part of nature and society, and that policies not understanding diversity are not sustainable. However, this was accompanied by many more disagreements on how the theoretical acceptance of diversity can and should be transposed into operational concepts, on where balances can be struck, and on what the role of civil society is in diversity. In that sense, agreeing on disagreement is a conclusion that is acceptable in the details of how to study and practice diversity. Our methodological starting point referred to an effort to standardise the presentation of different chapters. The proposed structure for each chapter was to include a definition of the discipline, to focus on the meaning of diversity within the discipline, to examine diversity in policy and practice, and to conclude with a few words on the future of diversity within the discipline. Although this standardisation was helpful in certain aspects, it clearly emerged that some disciplines only contribute in the understanding and foundations of diversity (such as social anthropology and sociology), while others are much more policy oriented (economics, psychology). There are disciplines that explain diversity and relate it to social and human behaviours; for these, diversity is the dependent variable, and scholars within these disciplines try to identify how it emerges and what it means.

233

For other disciplines, diversity is more an independent variable, an explanation of how it affects other dependent variables in social sciences and the humanities. Putting these disciplines together results in the formation of a construction of multifaceted phenomenon, which needs to be explained but explains other facts itself. Research and policy may be relevant in some disciplines, but in some cases policy conclusions are indirect and need to be further refined through other lenses to become operational. Hence, although we cannot speak of interdisciplinarity, at least many aspects of diversity seem common and can be treated in a multidisciplinary rather than a uni-disciplinary approach.

Recurring Fundamental Ideas on Diversity

Given the wide spectrum of perspectives and topics this book deals with, it would be too ambitious to aim to cover its full content or summarise all chapters in this conclusion. Still, we want to try to touch upon a few elementary and bridging aspects in the book. Throughout all chapters we observed a recurring fundamental idea: that individual, familial, social, political, economic and other differences are the cause or provide explanations for individual and group behaviour, developments and outcomes. As such, thinking about and researching diversity – or differences – has often operationalised and used this diversity as explanatory variables for such behaviour and/or developments. This is usually focused on two levels: the individual and the social (e.g., family, group, community). Individual differences can be conceptualised in numerous ways, ranging from inborn characteristics that cannot be changed (e.g., biological and neurological factors) to acquired factors that co-define one’s social status and can vary over time, such as one’s level of education and marital status. Social group diversity is commonly derived from socio-historic characteristics such as nationality, ethnicity and culture. The specific combination of all these aspects determines both one’s individual identity and social category, as classified by the individual him/herself or by others. Social identity refers to specific parts of an individual’s identity deriving from his/her membership of certain groups (e.g., gender, religion, profession) as opposed to those parts of his/her identity resulting from unique, individual characteristics (e.g., being conscientious). Social or group level theory sees certain behaviour arising from specific societal and/or cultural environments and settings external to the individual, either at an (inter)national or local/community basis. It is here that the role

234

Diversity Research and Policy

of the context or system becomes evident. Research shows that certain events or processes keep occurring in a given area as groups of individuals move in and out, indicating that the economic, social and cultural setting is the cause for certain individual behaviours or group processes. Urban planners therefore stress the importance of creating open and tolerant built environments, as this will reflect on the character of human society. At least one of the levels of diversity – individual and social – appears in each discipline. Even ecology, which deals with biodiversity instead of human diversity, looks at the interaction between (bio)diversity and (eco)system. Ultimately, diversity is a social, political and cultural issue, not a scientific one. However, science can play an important role in developing evidence-based policies, trying to address the crucial question of how to bridge the gap between the often narrow perspective of diversity used by policymakers and the broader perspective more often used by researchers. The narrow perspective represents in this case the short-run rationalities of economic and political decisions, while the broader perspective takes into account the requirement for diversity to be sustainable in the long run. To answer this question in a meaningful manner, cooperation between disciplines is a necessary condition. Unfortunately, squabbles among scientists about the validity of each other’s conceptual frameworks, mismatches between rewards stressing disciplinary competence over innovation, and institutional discentives have impeded or prevented successful multidisciplinary endeavours. Nevertheless, a theoretical and methodological pluralism is unavoidable owing to the open, dynamic, multilayered, multi-actor nature of reality.

Using Lenses for Diversity Interpretation

In this section, we focus on a dual viewpoint that is central in studying and analysing diversity at an individual level – the emic and etic perspectives. Furthermore, we attempt to include some remarks about the role of the context (or the ‘system’) in which diversity occurs. This distinction and the role of context in studying diversity are the main commonalities among all disciplines and chapters, albeit in varying forms. – The etic perspective is a perspective of scientific categories, concepts and explanations. This is the so-called observer’s perspective, meaning that others’ diversity is perceived and defined by an external observer. – The emic perspective is a perspective of the studied agents and their view of the world. This is the participant’s perspective, meaning that diversity is perceived and defined by the diverse agent himself.

Conclusion

235

This definition is taken from the social anthropology chapter in this book, but similar approaches and distinctions can be identified in other chapters. In the chapters on organisational psychology and business studies, this distinction is for instance reflected in the way diversity within a limited group of people is managed, distinguishing between: – Social category differences, or surface-level diversity, referring to the existence of objectively identifiable differences among group members (age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, education level); and – Informational/functional differences, or deep-level diversity, referring to non-measurable or non–identifiable differences among group members (psychological/biological qualities and traits, knowledge and skills, personal values and opinions). This distinction and others do not entirely match the etic and emic perspective, but surface-level diversity can be linked to the etic perspective (diversity for everyone to observe and identify), and deep-level diversity would be linked to the emic perspective (only perceived by the diverse agent himself ). Both kinds of diversity are in a constant interrelation with what we call a ‘system’, which is set in a different context for each discipline (e.g., society, the community, the value system, the legal system, the ecosystem, the UNESCO declaration). Diversity is part of the system and at the same time influencing the system, and vice versa: the system has an impact on (the perception of ) diversity among the agents making up the system.

e Etic Perspective

Within the etic perspective, research has predominantly dealt with diversity as a group characteristic that can be objectively measured, focusing on surface-level diversity utilising social categorisations. Consequently, the level of analysis for this research has been the group, and its focus has been on grouplevel behaviour and outcomes and on social processes (e.g., conflict, cohesion) triggered by diversity between groups. As clearly described in the chapters on business studies and psychology, research from this perspective generally interprets diversity as human differences “based on membership in social and demographic groups”. Such research has mainly focused on objectively measurable socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, educational background, physical ability and tenure. Early sociological studies (e.g., in the chapter on criminology) focused on the relationship between biological

236

Diversity Research and Policy

elements and social effects, fully attributing certain (criminal) behaviour to objective, often in-born diverse characteristics. In the diversity discourse from this perspective, certain (demographic) characteristics (e.g., being a woman, being white) are considered to define the essence of a person’s identity and his or her attitudes and behaviour. Identities are seen as fixed, stable and unchanging, making it possible to categorise people based on their essential differences into discrete and homogeneous groups with clear boundaries (see the chapter on business and organisation studies in this book). In this respect, the chapter on sociology mentions labelling theory, which refers to an individual’s behaviour as it has been labelled by others. When others label the behaviour as deviant, this becomes internalised by the labelled individual who subsequently considers him/herself as such. This process can reproduce itself and render the diversity an objective fact that cannot be questioned. Accordingly, diversity becomes a natural and obvious fact which can be measured and managed. This approach facilitates taxonomies, benchmarking and standardisation for academic research, while at the same time allowing policymakers to adopt a broad set of measures addressing the objectively measured differences. Furthermore, different kinds of diversity can be distinguished within the etic perspective. Some concepts that capture human diversity such as family or kinship, gender or age can be studied in all human societies, while certain other concepts such as ethnicity, nationality, tribal membership, professional and class/caste differentiations purposely define societal groups serving to organise specific societies. Despite their being used as analytical terms, this latter kind of concepts differs according to the organisation of society, and phenomena and characteristics assigned to them are only typical for some human groupings and developmental epochs. They are thus social constructions that only exist if humans actually use them in reference to each other. From this perspective, gender and sexual orientation definitions are rather ambiguous, because these are human characteristics of a biological kind and exist independent of the will of the actors, but the differences associated with them are largely defined and assigned to agents by other actors. In most disciplines, human diversity is not explicitly normatively explained or interpreted. In economic studies, however, human diversity or differences are usually translated into societal inequalities, for instance in the areas of income, skills and ethnicity. These inequalities are often linked to factors such as poverty, long-term unemployment, immigration, ethnic minorities or even health issues, but also to unconventional lifestyles or life paths.

Conclusion

237

In our contemporary complex and diversified world, these aspects serve to construct numerous categories alongside the basic social concepts in order to grasp human diversity, such as migration groups, minorities, social or lifestyle groups/networks and socially excluded groups. Such categorisations and constructions that are linked to certain normative characteristics can ultimately lead to stigmatisation, marginalisation and even forms of social exclusion of specific groups or individuals (think of the Roma in France and the recent approach that the national government and the European Commission have taken). The societal and/or economic cost of seclusion of these groups can be very high, as it could lead to the isolation of talented people and an increase of irregular/illegal behaviour, sometimes in geographically limited areas (e.g., ghettos) or to social discrimination. Related to this, work on diversity within urban planning was initially focused on the (unequal) place of women, ethnic or racial groups within the urban environment, observing different kinds of spatial segregation, and resulting in policies to counter these. Apart from these undesired potential consequences, critical authors have reacted to the realisation that individual identities are regularly partly based on social constructions instead of fully correct representations of the real world, arguing that this approach is problematic for several reasons, of which the chapter on business and organisation studies provides a good overview: – First, the authors point to the fact that identified categories are not homogeneous and that there are within-group differences and betweengroup similarities that should not be overlooked. Emulation, evolution and human values increase between group similarities, while adopted behaviours over time can amplify within-group differences. This is an etic classification error. – Furthermore, such conceptualisations are usually based on dichotomous thinking (e.g., black and white, male and female), which is problematic as this commonly implies a hierarchy in which one group dominates the other and is seen as superior. Even more importantly, many variables are not binary. Skilled/unskilled or educated/uneducated are typical variables that cannot be dichotomised, and any boundary in their continuum may be considered arbitrary. This is an error related to the subjective construction of etic-based categorisation. – Third, by privileging certain differences or dimensions (e.g., ethnicity) as the basis for category formation and as essential contents, this perspective ignores the influence of social, political and economic forces and other possible differences (e.g., capital versus labour) that might be more rel-

238

Diversity Research and Policy

–

–

evant in a specific situation. This is an error related to the misinterpretation of the system. Fourth, such an approach discursively denies people personal complexity, full subjectivity and agency by pinning them down and describing them in a specific way, reducing them to mere representatives of a specific group. This is an error related to neglect of the emic diversity perspective. Finally, it does not acknowledge how the meaning or interpretation of diversity (e.g., difference as a weakness or as an asset) is continuously constructed and varies greatly across time, place and even individuals. This is an error related to the missing link between the emic and etic perspectives.

These critical authors have started approaching diversity in a non-essentialist way, acknowledging that identities are constructed rather than innate and are multiple, complex, multifaceted, situational and changing. Such an approach allows for a better understanding of the complexity of individuals’ identities, which are influenced by – yet transcend – the stereotyped identities of historically subordinated groups.

e Emic Perspective

Apart from ‘fixed’ socio-demographic human differences, diversity can also be understood more broadly, including dimensions such as lifestyle, educational background, work experience, cognitive style and even personality. These are usually covered in the emic perspective, which defines diversity as the diverse agent himself would. Among others, the chapter on psychology stresses this understanding of diversity. In this discipline, diversity refers to “the distribution of differences among the members of a group with respect to one common attribute, X”. Thus, diversity in this case is a compositional concept that does not denote an objectively identifiable attribute of an individual but the dispersion of individuals’ characteristics within a certain group. Given that diversity can refer to an infinite number of characteristics, every work group is diverse, as all group members differ with regard to some aspects. According to this definition, it is not necessary that group members are aware of these differences. A more narrow definition of diversity within the emic perspective, however, states that from a group member’s point of view, a group is only diverse if it is composed of individuals who differ on any characteristic on which they base their own social identity. The discipline of sociology for instance as-

Conclusion

239

serts that individuals always gain awareness of the self and of the surrounding environment in relation to society in general, and that individual identity is constructed during the individual’s entire existence by means of experiences gained and lived. The characteristics that group members draw upon to define their social identity may be trivial or even explicitly random. This may be understood as an act of recognition of the self in relation to the environment and the other. Such deep-level diversity is central in research that focuses on the role of informational/functional differences among individual members of a group (psychology, business management, linguistics) for the performance and behaviour of that group. What is particularly emphasised are group outcomes such as more knowledge, more capacity and more flexibility, which are all supposed to lead to better decision-making. This reasoning from a more emic perspective thus led to another way of thinking about diversity. Diversity management in businesses starts from the basic argument that heterogeneous groups bring together a wider variety of information, perspectives and skills. Organisations thus increasingly aim to use ‘diversity’ in an economic way, welcoming it as long as it serves its instrumental goals and enriches the organisation. Therefore, they set up programmes and actions to recruit, retain and manage diverse employees and to create a context in which everybody can perform and contribute to the organisation. However, studies in the field of organisation management and psychology show that no kind of ‘diversity’ is consistently linked with positive or negative group effects. All diversity may result in positive or negative outcomes, or they may have no effect at all. Therefore, rather than expecting simple statistical relations between diversity and group outcomes, research on diversity has started focusing on third variables qualifying the influence of certain types of diversity (e.g., group members’ attitudes towards diversity). Moreover, it aims to analyse the processes that cause either positive or negative effects (mediators). Recent research in urban planning also suggests that, apart from causing pressure on social cohesion, diversity in the city has positive effects on creativity and tolerance, and can be a source of economic productivity and sustainability, making cities more appealing. This had a major echo throughout the discipline of planning. The practice of diversity planning now focuses on possibilities of turning diversity into a planning goal and asset, and includes the creation of spaces of inclusivity and social and cultural mixing where residents share diversity while developing trust and respect for each other’s uniqueness.

240

Diversity Research and Policy

e System

This section describes for a number of disciplines the role of different contexts or systems that interrelate with diversity. One of the most obvious systems in interrelationship with diversity is society. Society can only exist because of and by means of human diversity, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds, which allow their mutual cooperation. These social bonds create social cohesion. The idea is that social cohesion is achieved by on the one hand the balance of shared conceptions, aims, values and norms and on the other hand by the diversification of capabilities, knowledge and interests, which are mutually complemented by individuals and groups. If this balance is not achieved, social conflict emerges. One of the main causes that bring about societal conflicts is the difference between the systems of values treasured by different groups or ethno cultures. Friction may emanate from ideology and find its way into the minds of the common population, encouraging it to perceive this friction as a confrontation of cultural values and symbols. The societal system expresses the diversity within society in various ways. One medium through which society is materialised, and therefore also (re) organised, is the built environment, reflecting deeply-rooted societal structures. Various dominant ideologies have manifested themselves in built form, whereas other marginal cultural parameters have emerged in the vernacular or traditional architecture. It resonates with symbolic meaning as well as pragmatic order through built places. This reflects the ambivalence of cultural authority: the attempt to dominate in the name of a cultural supremacy that is itself produced only in the moment of differentiation. On the other hand, urban planning also tries to account for the diversity of the population in various ways, referring to a range of activities and goals: a varied physical design, mixed uses, an inclusive public realm, multiple social groupings exercising their ‘right to the city’, and diverse ecologies and species sharing the same space with human beings. Along these lines, planning is increasingly concerned with the incorporation of diversity in its thinking and actions, while seeking ways to turn difference into an asset and to address adverse reactions and the new challenges it poses. The interaction between diverse human beings or behaviour and the ‘system’ also plays a strong role in the discipline of criminology. Crime and its causes are understood not only in terms of individual characteristics, but also explicitly through the context in which crime takes place (familial, social, political, economic). It focuses mainly on the interrelation between society and crime.

Conclusion

241

Crime tends to be higher in heterogeneous societies and groups. Minority and disadvantaged groups are often overrepresented in crime statistics as both offenders and victims and, even more notably, as prison inmates. This suggests, but also incites discrimination, bias and racism, which are major concerns in diverse Western countries. Furthermore, a behaviour or act does not constitute a crime until it is defined as such and punishable within the law. Culture and social conditions may lead to different notions of what is and is not a crime and hence to markedly different legal systems. Even the most peaceful communities identify some behaviour they deem worthy of punishment and hence define it as being criminal. On an even more basic level, ecological economics investigates the constant interaction between biodiversity and the ecosystem, similar to social studies. This discipline analyses biological scarcity due to the loss of environmental quality, natural resources and biodiversity, and the impact this has on the ecosystem. It recognises that biological diversity is of critical importance for the stability of the earth’s ecosystem as a key resource for sustainable functions of natural systems. This offers a complementary perspective on the utility view that biodiversity provides a fundamental potential for human use, for economic development, recreation, human health or scientific research. Linguistic studies focus among others on linguistic diversity, which usually refers to the number and variation of languages used in a given society. Parallels have been drawn between linguistic diversity and biodiversity. Just as for biodiversity, some of the linguistic ‘species’ are at risk and need specific protection. Two arguments are often used to support the applicability of biodiversity to linguistic diversity. First, the whole concept of an ecosystem is based on networks of relationships and “damage to any one of the elements in an ecosystem can result in unforeseen consequences for the system as a whole”. Second, diversity is necessary for evolution, and the strongest ecosystems are those that are more diverse. Throughout this volume we have learned that diversity can lead to tensions in society or the system and therefore requires an organised response by society through public policy. This can take different forms, from education and employment policy to redistribution, integration and anti-discrimination policies. Public policy both implicitly and explicitly addresses diversity issues in a number of ways. It is a governmental attempt – whether by action or inaction – to manage, control and deal with the issues, or sets of issues, that arise in different spheres of life. The policy itself is commonly embodied in constitutions, legislative acts and judicial decisions. However, also in public policy the dichotomy exists between on the one hand sanctions in the form

242

Diversity Research and Policy

of the above-described formal rules and on the other hand mandatory actions or incentives. In the first case, diversity is often looked at from an observer’s point of view, dividing society into different groups (migrants, gays, etc.). In the second case, the government directs policy at the individual (and his/her actions), encouraging the individual through preferential treatment or awareness-raising (affirmative actions). We have learned from the public policy chapter that the importance of diversity is not equal in all disciplines. In some disciplines, diversity is at the core of the research, while in others it has a secondary role. Moreover, the importance of these research results has been proven more or less relevant for policymaking. In the case of economics, for instance, we see clear links between research outputs and policy initiatives. In the case of sociology or anthropology, these links are far less present.

e Future of Diversity

In an ever more globalising world, the frameworks in which diversity research is studied are increasingly under pressure. If we take a closer look at the discipline of anthropology, for example, we note that the concepts of national cultures, diversity of nations or ethnic groups have become less relevant in recent decades. These outdated concepts no longer allow us to measure diversity in society or assess global processes. The reference frame in research is therefore moving from the nation-state as the principal analytical basis to the global society. In the discipline of architecture this is reflected in the fact that the ‘ethnicisation of architecture’ – calling for the continued assertion of beliefs and practices grounded in a ‘homeland culture’ – is slowly making way for a more multicultural approach. This new approach calls for creativity and innovation in the built environment, born out of contemporary living conditions, through which diverse cultures come to share the assets and goals of their future environment. Urban planners in turn talk about ‘refined new paradigms’ on diversity. For them, future research needs to develop frameworks in which diversity rather than universalism is the norm. This evolution of society and research will lead to a more flexible and multilayered approach towards the concept of diversity. The shift in the principal analytical basis from the nation-state towards global society raises the question of who will be the main agents of social change in this new era. The focus in answering this question is increasingly oriented towards diversified interest groups, power relations and acting individuals. Instead of the diversity of cultures, the anthropological agenda is filled up by the diversity of social events,

Conclusion

243

narratives and their interpretations. The concept of diversity is changing its meaning, in the sense that we can increasingly speak about a privatisation or individualisation of diversity. Instead of group diversity (clustered around nation-states), the diversity of individuals is becoming the central subject of analysis. Constructed, unchangeable diversity that is shared for life by imagined communities is being replaced by the flexible diversity that is changeable during the course of an individual’s life, or chosen or negotiated by the individual. This tendency is equally reflected in other disciplines such as psychology and business and organisation studies. In psychology, future research on diversity will go beyond the common practice of focusing on within-group diversity and within-group outcomes. To comprehensively analyse the effects of different types of diversity, it is necessary to include organisational context variables (e.g., organisational culture) and study the outcomes of diversity across teams within organisations. Additionally, diversity research will more closely look at individual outcomes of diversity: a new team member with a unique professional background that is not shared by any other team member will feel different depending on if all the other team members have the same background or if they also differ with regard to their background. For businesses and organisations, this implies that new dimensions of diversity need to be introduced going beyond the classical dimensions of race and gender. More sophisticated research models are needed in order to capture the underlying diversity of individuals. In other words, the reasons why diversity ‘works’ in some situations but not in others need to be examined. Recent studies have alerted us to the need to study these newer dimensions but also to consider that these dimensions become relevant in a specific organisational context or system rather than being a priori defined diversity categories. Finally, as diversity is becoming an integral dimension of modern society, it is also increasing the complexity of the society we live in. This has its consequences for the way in which we intervene in society. We observe an increased need for new policy initiatives and new instruments to allow us to deal with this growing complexity. In the ecology discipline, this is reflected in the demand for new instruments for modelling climate change and biodiversity. In economics, techniques need to be developed in order to assess the role of the different diverse groups in income creation, its determinants, distribution policies and growth patterns. Numerous other fields will need to be regulated through new policy initiatives: health aspects, virtual space, the accelerated movement of people, preserving the national heritage, etc. Whatever the nature of the diversity aspects analysed, every single aspect of human life involves corresponding legal aspects regulating the individual fields. When

244

Diversity Research and Policy

developing these policy initiatives it will be essential to devote energy to bridging the gap between the researcher’s perspective and the policymaker’s perspective towards diversity. Whereas policymakers tend to look at diversity from a narrower, often etic perspective, researchers will increasingly broaden their perspective of diversity with the aim of capturing reality, which is more complex. The challenge for the future of diversity research and policy will be to find common grounds for understanding and communicating on diversity. In this context, diversity is in a way a reflection of the diverse world we live in and its increasing complexity. However, at some point, a degree of consensus – as a necessary instance of unity in diversity – is required to enable further progress. A major challenge for all actors involved remains one of achieving the necessary degree of consensus throughout societies – among diverse, individuals and groups with divergent interests, power representatives and decisionmakers at various levels. The chances of achieving such a consensus depends, among others, on our common capacity of understanding and appropriating challenges of diversity – within the legal realm, and beyond it. This exercise has shown us that it is possible to proceed with certain, more complex taxonomies than the one we started with, as presented in the introduction. Rather than using linear criteria, we can classify disciplines in more than one dimension and group them together based on their focus on diversity, the different parameters they treat or consider, their relevance for policymaking, etc. In that sense, this first attempt can be repeated by including more disciplines in social sciences and the humanities such as history, geography, communications, political science and international relations. Biology, with new insights on differences (or in fact no differences) in the human genome, could also enrich the debate. Viewed in this way, this volume would be a success if read not only for its content but also as an inspiration to dig further into the possibility of using diversity as a common thread, across disciplines, to better understand and measure it, as well as – most importantly – to create the necessary evidence for an increasingly challenging policy in the era of globalisation.

Conclusion

245

About the Authors

Tüzin Baycan-Levent – Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Myriam Bechtoldt – J.W. Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany John Betancur – College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, USA Jasone Cenoz – University of the Basque Country, Spain Tonia Damvakeraki – University of Athens, Greece Rob De Lobel – Idea Consult, Belgium Elena Dingu-Kyrklund – Stockholm University/Discrimination Ombudsman, Sweden Hisham Elkadi – Deakin University, Australia Emilio Gardini – Department of Social Sciences, University of Rome, Italy Durk Gorter – University of the Basque Country, Spain Kiflemariam Hamde – Umeå University, Sweden Kathleen Heugh – University of South Australia Maddy Janssens – Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Steven Knotter – Idea Consult, Belgium Linus Kyrklund – Stockholm University/Discrimination Ombudsman, Sweden Mirjana Lozanovska – Deakin University, Australia Peter Nijkamp – VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands Paulo A.L.D. Nunes – Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Italy Vanja Stenius – Istituto Psicoanalitico per le Ricerche Sociali (IPRS), Italy Lena Tsipouri – University of Athens, Greece Zdenek Uherek – Institute of Ethnology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Koen Van Laer – Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Nils Wåhlin – Umeå University, Sweden Patrizia Zanoni – Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium

247

About the Reviewers

Social Anthropology: Prof. Amalia Signorelli – University of Naples, Italy Sociology: Prof. Gabriella Paolucci – University of Florence, Italy Criminology: Dr. Bonita Veysey – Rutgers University, United States of America Ecology/Ecological Economics: Dr. Sandra Rousseau – Catholic University Leuven, Belgium Linguistics: Prof. Francois Grin – University of Geneva, Switzerland Architecture: Dr. Bill Thompson – University of Ulster, United Kingdom Urban Planning: Willem De Laat – Senior expert Spatial Development Idea Consult, Belgium Economics: Dr. Henri Delanghe – Policy Analyst DG Research European Commission Business and Organisation Studies: Prof. Renate Ortlieb & Prof. Barbara Sieben – Free University Berlin, Germany Psychology: Prof. Carsten de Dreu – University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Law: Uyen Do – Legal Policy Analyst on Anti-Discrimination, Brussels, Belgium

248