The Dilemma of Diversity?

The debate around the lack of diversity in the Oscar nominations raises some complex questions not only about race, but about several other patterns of exclusion. It is possible to respond by taking an unambiguous position on the subject, for there is little doubt about what the ‘right answer’ is. Of course, there should be greater diversity when it comes to acknowledging talent and ability, and the implicit biases involving race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and disabilities should be weeded out.

But its not that simple. Mandated inclusion is not the opposite of exclusion, for it comes with its own set of issues. Conceptually, this is tantamount to arguing that people who decide awards (or take decisions about who to hire and promote in an organization, make laws, preside over court cases) are products of their own contexts (class, caste, gender and so on), and hence their decisions carry the biases that come from their own reality. As a result we need to deliberately inject more people from contexts that tend to get excluded for only then can we expect a fairer outcome. Let us get more diverse biases that provide greater balance, the argument goes. The problem this solves is that the Oscars will appear fairer, but it does not solve the underlying and much deeper problem that in the normal course of events, those outside the mainstream get excluded from having a voice.

 The argument might be framed more positively- that greater diversity of decision-makers expands the playing field by making it more representative thereby reducing the power of entrenched and close-minded advocates of the existing order. But at a granular level, what this translates into is in a belief that the ‘new’ will promote their own ilk, that black jurors will be more open to performances of black actors, and so on. Taken to its logical end, the fear is that we would live in a world of politically correct quotas, one where every decision-making body, in business and otherwise, has a ‘correct’ composition, one that is representatively proportional . Given that the axes of exclusion have multiplied, it suggests that we would forever be juggling with a complex matrix of mandated diversity.

 Does the quest to remove unfairness of one kind result in unfairness of another? Can people rise above their contexts or should we accept that they must be necessarily be defined by their background? Should we be looking for diversity of ideas in people rather than a diversity of people? Can the ideal of individuals being accepted in the terms of their own individuality be reached by treating them as collective labels?

 The reason why we need to mandate inclusion is that things are not changing quickly enough by themselves. Reality is not falling in line with today’s social constructs. Our response is to try and re-arrange reality so that it better reflects the values that we see as being appropriate today. However, the act of taking responsibility for managing this reality, takes us back deeper into the very place that we wish to escape from. The individual continues to be buried under the weight of identity labels. Also, so many expectations have been created from current reality, that we are perpetually dissatisfied with what it serves up and feel compelled to set out and manufacture it to our specifications. When we do this, we end up managing the appearance of reality, and the truth tumbles out in an uglier form. The Donald Trumps of the world are the face of this truth, that layers of political correctness have directly facilitated.

 And yet, do we accept the institutionalized injustices of the past without demur? Do we wait for society to change at a glacial pace, without raging against it? In India, we face many questions of this kind. Can we, for instance, with good conscience argue that the historical injustices suffered by Dalits do not need an urgent and asymmetrical response from us? Or ignore that without making special efforts, gender will continue to remain an axis of discrimination and violence?

 There isn’t a simple answer. In some cases, mandated inclusion is needed simply because left to itself, society would not make the requisite changes. Also, by forcing change unnaturally to begin with, it is hoped that gradually the new realities take hold and become permanent. Every forceful intervention in a social practice however, has consequences, for it creates a disequilibrium that finds a way of expressing itself. The current political discourse in India is a reaction to the kind of ideology that held sway for many decades. Hardik Patel represents a reaction to the politics of reservations that most parties have practiced productively.

 In an ideal world, it would be sufficient to point out what is wrong and let time and a collective desire for change to do the rest. This seems like a truly anaemic response to injustice, but arguably there is wisdom in it, for it comes from an understanding of the ecological nature of change. Being aware of the problem sets in motion a mechanism for addressing it, one which accounts for the many variables that play a role in determining what kind of change would be acceptable. Change of this kind is rarely perfect, but it is likely to be more enduring and real. More importantly, it contains the forces that rise up in reaction to rapid and sweeping change, forces that loom large across the world today.

 But worldview is too passive for today’s times. We are locked in a paradox where our idealism ends up reinforcing the very divisions we wish to rise above. We want to change the future directly, without acknowledging that it is a version of the past. We have lost faith in our ability to rise above ourselves, for even all-white juries to choose awardees fairly. Brute equality is definitely better than brute inequality, but it is still a victory of force over reason.