| |
September of 2006 will long be remembered as a watershed event. In rather climatic form, the American population reached and surpassed the 300 million mark. Implicit in this event is the recognition that not only do we have more people living in the United States than at any other time in the country's history, but we also have a more heterogenuous population than at any other time in the country's history. Logic would suggest that diversity and mutliformity have been the logical and necessary outcomes of this heterogeneity.
As society expanded, the question was whether we as human beings would coalesce in some discernible form, or regress to a fragmented society highligted by barrios, ghettos, suburbs, and reservations. Multiculturalism surfaced as our cultural “saving grace.” But despite its utopian ideals, diversity theory was just as much a study in sheer pragmatism as much as it was a product of intellectual enlightenment. In other words, “if we have to spend 40 hours a week working with different people, we might as well tolerate them.”
Nonetheless, with the advent of the 21st century, there appears to be a grander and more bold sensibility: inclusion. The 300 million milestone was important not only for numerical and statistical reasons, but philospical reasons as well: Social leaders are demanding that the American dream finally encompass a more global reality.
The truth, however, is that we have always lived in a pluralistic society, albeit to a lesser degree than today. Yet, what has changed from the time of this country's inception to the present day is not the manifestation of heterogeneity, but the awareness and recoginition of its importance in the social fabric. While diversity is thought to be good for distinguishing the individual from the masses, it is the celebratory aspect that gave diversity and diversity theory their modern impetus. In layman's' terms, it finally became “cool to be different.” Having long abandoned the “melting pot” theory, we became a nation of different textures and flavors (the salad bowl). We learned to celebrate our commonality, but we also celebrated the fact that our commonality could be expessed in so many different ways. In truth, heterogeneity and the celebration thereof forged the essence of the diversity movement.
The question for diversity consultants is whether our didactic principals have incorporated new demographic trends. Concepts around “diversity” were born out of a more traditional demographic model. Largely a product of the social upheaval of the sixties and seventies, traditional diversity paradigms focused almost exclusively on relations between African Americans and the larger, more white majority. The focus between those two main groups was certainly needed; and as African Americans found their “voice” within the socio-political context, most diversity programs were designed to lend credence to the African American experience, and to illuminate the interplay between African Americans (and more generally people of color) and society at-large. However, as the US population has expanded and transformed, traditional models around diversity training have failed to accomodate new emerging demographic trends. Most companies, and unfortunately, most diversity experts, have failed to broaden their perspective beyond the old “black-white” paradigm. The result has been a “Diversity Gap” between the desginated or preferred diversity groups or subjects, and new groups whose diversity needs are just as critical, but whose voice is not as powerful or as popular as their multi-cultural counterparts. In essence, the “old paradigm” doesn't even acknowledge that certain groups have a “place at the table.” In the end, it creates and reinforces the very result that it was trying to avoid: cultural marginalization, alienation and exclusivity.
The “Diversity Gap” speaks to the mammoth unsophistication and glaring simplicity of the “old paradigm” in accounting for differences, not only between a myriad of emerging groups, but also the differences that will undobutedly surface within culturual groups. The “Diversity Gap” may be born of the diversity trainer's own biases and ill-conceived perceptions. Alternatively, it may be a product of society's general naivete or ignorance towards a particular group. Yet, despite its origin, the results can be disastrous for any organization that wants to position itself as “an employer of choice.” An employer which relies on the “old” diversity model and ignores the new diversity paradigm runs the risk of becoming outdated, misinformed, and irrelevant to the 300 million populace. The 300 million demographic sees diversity not only as a measure to achieve personal preservation, but as a value that is necessary to sustain our economy, maintain our national security, and bolster our status as a leader in the international community. In short, the new demographic sees diversity as inherent to our growth as a thriving nation.
As the US is a member of the global society, diversity consultants must “bridge” the “diversity gap” to make sure that no group is left behind. Said more poetically, diversity consultants must theoretically dedicate themselves to building a society that truly benefits everyone. The new paradigm is multi-faceted, dynamic, and fluid. By introducing the “New Diversity Paradigm,” I hope to achieve several objectives: 1) Re-focus academic discussions to incorporate evolving concepts regarding “diversity” and “multi-culturalism.”
2) Re-educate employers about emerging demographic trends and empower them to create more innovative, avant-garde diversity initiatives. 3) Re-tool diversity trainers to become more “even-handed” “change agents” for diversity. My goal is to help diversity consultants become effective advocates for under-represented groups, as well as more traditional diversity constituents.
(Reposted from Joel's blog)
|
Help
Sign In
RSS Feed
Permalink
Print
Email
