In talking about social diversity, it is hard to get away from its two unambitious cousins: Harmony and tolerance.
Both are good. Neither is good enough. The fact is, a diversity-rich society is one where people seek out differences and are capable of engaging in “good conflict.” The antidote to disharmony is literacy in the conduct of conflict. The antidote to intolerance is a proactive mining of diversity.
When I sought to create a centre for “constructive conflict and diversity” earlier this year, I was asked the following questions: Is diversity just a race-and-gender thing? Isn’t harmony better than diversity? Can conflict ever be constructive?
Is diversity just a race-and-gender thing?
Race, gender, and other broad-bucketing of humanity provide us with visual shorthands. The headcount of “ethnic” parliamentarians or female senior executives in a company is a numerical measure for diversity. It is a quantitative proxy – often approached through quotas – that can be tracked over time to measure “growth” in diversity.
However, proxies and shorthand should not obscure the real goal which is plurality of perspectives and abilities “at the level of the individual.” If a member of the minority has to be “homogenised” in order to enter a community, that community does not become any more diverse.
Diversity is a virtue in any ecosystem – whether a team, company, or country. Having lived most of my adult life “as a minority,” this is personal for me. Inclusion and a celebration of differences is something that I’ve taken for granted, whether in my workplace or the immediate society that I live in.
Isn’t harmony better than diversity?
Diversity is valuable in fortifying the resilience of a system only if there is true diversification of style, background, and approach. If a state of harmony is achieved through the suppression of differences and with a polite, superficial tolerance of each other, it defeats the purpose. Not only that, it potentially masks a build-up of tension that might boil over precisely when cohesion is required.
Can conflict ever be constructive?
In a world of differences and in a world with limited resources, conflict is inevitable. What is not inevitable, however, is for every conflict to degenerate into an absolute imposition of one view over another, and for differences about issues to degenerate into attacks on integrity or identity. As is evident from the comment section of internet posts, arguments become personal in two iterations or less.
If you disagree with me, I will question your motivations instead of trying to understand your reasoning. If you disagree with me on any one issue, I will make sweeping judgements about your loyalty. In fact, I will make it binary – you’re either with me or against me. If you disagree with me on one issue, I will disagree with you on another issue, just to retaliate.
Our inability to compartmentalise topics of conflict, to isolate the topic from the person or her grouping makes us susceptible to instigation. We succumb to generalised animosity towards “the other.”
The conduct of constructive conflict can be an acquired skill. It is possible to immunise ourselves from the most incendiary and viral forms of conflict. It is possible to train ourselves to seek opportunity in conflict and make ourselves more diversity-literate.
The centre for constructive conflict and diversity is intended to address the emergence of creeping intolerance in previously-tolerant communities. While actual perpetrators of violence are few and far between, it is the indifference of a silent majority that concerns me most. Our attempts at subtle justification, our choice of words, labels and generalisations – sometimes unwittingly – inflict cumulative harm.
Interventions will take the form of education, active engagement, and affirmation.
For example, the Hunger Project has launched a series of community-based, diversity-focused workshops to reach 60,000 people in 12 months across rural Bangladesh. There is an established tradition of village-based awareness sessions using “animator trainers” for a wide range of topics.
Early childhood development is another point of intervention – either through top-up curriculum in school or the kind of “dignity sessions” popularised by the Global Dignity Movement.
Then there is professional training in private and public sectors. And much more. All ideas welcome.
The writer, with Mozambique president Joaquim Chissano, on the board of The Hunger Project.