Diver city

I work for a business that has built a brand out of the white, male, aristocratic Englishness of its employees. 

It is hard, at some points, when standing back from the organisation, in all frankness, to conceptualise what else unites the disparate and often half-hearted things that the group of people that operate under its banner otherwise do. 

And yet, like a lot of the rest of the Anglophone corporate world, the organisation is now embarking on what appears to be a concerted "equality, diversity and inclusion" campaign. 

If at first it felt tokenistic, a sort of nod in the direction of a glaring reality, one imbibed with the smugness of the knowledge that one is on the safe side of the sharp side of that reality, this campaign now feels like a pronounced part of the organisation's identity. 

The narrative has folded neatly into that eternal quest by all businesses for factors that differentiate one group from another, and the eternal effort to demonstrate that that one's tribe is more modern, more liberated, more tolerant (because tolerance is strength, is the ever omnipotent calm of the side with the upper hand) than the other tribes.

The campaign also presents an interesting conundrum- does talking about diversity make the organisation more diverse? Or does it just enslave it within tighter, more reductionist ways of looking at the world (slash seeing the world as a mirror of itself)?

Many of us, myself included, feel a pining longing for more of what we categorise as "diversity" in organisations that have long held inordinate degrees of decision-making clout, and workplaces that have long stiffled a sense of belonging, fulfilment and innovation through the imposition of power structures mirrored on the inequalities that exist in the outside world. 

This is not to suggest that the yearning for diversity within the organisation one works for is necessarily alteristic. In defining "diversity", we are making normative assumptions about what is, and what should be, and what is desirable. We are also reiterating our perceptions of the status quo and describing (in some cases helping to solidify) authority that might be challenged by this so-called diversification.

I often find myself fighting against many diversity efforts on the grounds that they are inauthentic. 

How can a private school sell itself to fee paying minorities on its diversity credentials when its raison d'etre is one of exclusivity - of the boundaries that differentiate it from the "other" or the more straight forward public, comprehensive choice? 

But that too, is making an assumption about the audience of these diversity efforts. If the fee-payers are fee-payers by nature, and that is the static characteristic that cannot budge, and as such, cannot be addressed in this equation, then the diversity efforts may be genuine, and meaningful and commendable - in that they create a real opportunity for fee payers to choose something new, eye-opening and empowering.

But that leads to the second big conundrum with regard to diversity. In defining "diversity" and aspiring towards it, we are saying something very solid about what we are without that diversity - and this can create an identity to coalesce around. We are saying "we are white" or "we are posh" or "we are male". The more like a rallying call the efforts towards diversity feel, the more the people who do not identify as these things can be perceived as fodder - as tools whose full humanity, experience and divergence from the diverse "ideal" cannot be heard outside of the aspirations they have come to, organisationally speaking, represent.

So yes, this year, the inherent upper-hand of the white, the male, the economically privileged, might be under the spotlight. That upper hand might face a momentary wobble in some places as factors like recruitment and promotion seek to pick apart the most visible and obvious aspects of this advantage, but deeper factors still go unexplored. And the simplistic talk about diversity can deeper entrench all the differences.

How it really is to grow up with the fear of not finding any food on the table, or the worry that the police might call you over to their car for a "word" when you are alone at night, and find that secret thing that wasn't quite right which you were hiding, or the fear that the white male Tory-voting boss might say "women benefitted this time because of our diversity program" when you get promoted? 

This fear won't go away as a result of diversity efforts. 

Nor, of course, will the underlying economic factors that cause inequality, that the business might or might not have a small part to play in perpetuating, go away as a result of conversations about diversity.

So, what does any of this really mean? It doesn't mean diversity efforts are useless- not when they seek to explore, articulate, and address inequalities, rather than just reiterate all the old stuff that everyone already knows. It does mean that on their own, they are useless and can seek to entrench the narrow mindedness they claim to be challenging. In assuming the experiences of people from outside the hallowed inner circle, and sticking identities on them based on the anecdotes reported by ambassadors and messengers, the object of the power gets even more removed from its subject. 

The aspiration isn't useless, but if the spirit that you go into it with is defeatist, or the effort seeks to simplify, or objectify difference, it might end up pushing diversity even further out of reach.