Diversity in Everyday Discourse: The Cultural Ambiguities and Consequences of �Happy Talk�
Presented by Joyce Bell and Doug Hartmann
Few words in contemporary American public life and political culture are as ubiquitous and ostensibly uplifting as diversity. Despite its prominence and positivity (or perhaps precisely because of it), actual meanings and uses of the term can be difficult to pinpoint. In this paper we use in-depth interviews conducted in four major metropolitan areas as part of the American Mosaic Project to explore conceptions of diversity in everyday American discourse. While most Americans respond optimistically to initial questions about �diversity,� our interviews reveal underlying ambiguities and tensions in the discourse. These include the contradiction between idealized visions of cultural diversity and actual experiences with social difference as well as the challenge of balancing the recognition of group-based differences against traditional commitments to individual freedom and choice. We also find that although our respondents define diversity in general, apparently universal terms, most of their actual references and experiences tend to involve interactions with racial others. Finally, we find that it is very difficult for our respondents�even those who are otherwise articulate about diversity or have clear political commitments to equality�to talk coherently about issues of social inequality in the context of a conversation focused on diversity. These findings will be illustrated and expanded, and their significance discussed.
Comments
What a great start to the workshop series (you rock, Joyce!). Although the survey work is closer to most of my research, I think this is an especially exciting aspect of the mosaic project. You probably answer everything I raise in the paper, but I'll throw out a few naive questions just to get the blog rolling:
(1) Maybe it is just me, but your question on diversity and inequality seemed a little complicated (esp. with that bit about "in the US context" tacked on at the end). Do you think people would have struggled as much if you had simply asked, "To what extent should efforts to improve diversity also attempt to reduce inequality?" If they could have answered this question but not the one you posed, can you still fault their failure "to talk coherently about issues of social inequality in the context of a conversation focused on diversity"? I guess I would have preferred it if you had said "we couldn't get them to talk coherently about it and we tried a lot of different approaches," just to acknowledge that coherency is a two-way street. I don't know the area, but I could imagine reviewers taking the perspective of your interviewees and wanting to "defend" them (and, I guess the culture more generally) against charges of incoherence.
(2) Do you think the experts you interviewed were more wary or cynical than average people? More generally, don't all experts see popular terms as buzzwords or "happy talk" (police officers on "community policing," prisoners on "restorative justice," grocers on "organic food," doctors on "wellness"...)? Showing how diversity discourse is unique or extreme would be a nice contribution.
(3) I was surprised not to hear much about differences by gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. Does race trump everything else in your data? Did the women approach diversity issues differently than men? That is, is it a white male core or just a white core? Would they have a generation ago? What about others who are members of groups considered protected classes?
(4) I was really intrigued by Doug's comment (you rock too, Doug) that diversity couldn't be pared back to straight class-based inequality. Are some of your interviewees capitalizing on the social acceptability of "diversity" language? How do (or could) they use it as a resource in furthering their equality-related goals? If you could show some concrete strategies for doing so, it seems as though it would offer a nice retort or alternative to Gitlin and others.
In any case, I learned a lot from the talk and I'm looking forward to seeing the paper!
Posted by: chris | September 15, 2005 12:13 PM
I was in Boston doing the AMP interviews, so I wanted to comment briefly on the first question because it prompted me to look back over the interview guide we used. Here were the specific questions for this section as written in the guide:
1. "What types of inequalities [and/or injustices] are the most prominent today [if any]?"
2. "Often diversity comes up in discussions of inequalities and injustices. What do you think about this? Is it important to address these issues?"
3. "What are the duties and responsibilities in terms of how these inequalities or injustices should (or should not) be addressed?"
In my experience at least (and I haven't read all the sites' transcripts like Joyce!), the first and third problems made sense to people (and they gave interesting responses - people of all groups really do seem to worry about inequality), but the second question completely confused people, and I doubt any of us actually stuck with the wording above beyond the first few interviews. The first few interviews when I said the "Often diversity comes up in discussions of inequalities and injustices," people replied like "Really? What do you mean? I don't understand." Exactly what Joyce described the other day. I think we all experimented with various ways of rewording it, but had a really hard time making any progress. So in other words, it's fair to claim, as Chris suggests, that "we couldn't get them to talk coherently about it and we tried a lot of different approaches."
Actually now that I re-read that 2nd question above, I realize that what we state as fact ("Often diversity comes up in discussions of inequalities and injustices"), is actually what Joyce & Doug are now arguing is not true at all. Perhaps their hesitance to reply is simply them thinking, ahead of us, "No, diversity doesn't come up often in discussions of inequality! What world do these sociologists live in where it does?"
Posted by: Jon | September 15, 2005 12:15 PM