I currently hold a Leverhulme Research Fellowship titled Diversity Recognition as a public good. The aim of this project is to investigate the moral and social value of initiatives that aim to promote diversity and inclusion (D&I).
Rights of minorities and a public good
|
First and foremost, D&I initiatives are driven by the concern to include minorities in society or in an organisation, institution or company. Societies have always been rather diverse, but are becoming increasingly more diverse, and D&I policies are hoped to increase the wellbeing of members of underrepresented groups and to respect their rights.
|
D&I initiatives promote wellbeing and increase respect for the rights of members of minorities. |
However, all over the world, this primary motivation has come under pressure, for example by radical conservative views in the USA impeding the inclusion of women and sexual minorities, anti-immigration sentiments and growing hostility towards ethnic minorities in Europe, and racist tendencies in some Eastern countries. The public debate about the rights of minorities has in many instances become polarized, rhetorical, and emotional. Moreover, the rights and interests of one group are often presented as in conflict with the rights and interests of others.
|
I propose to supplement the focus on human rights and wellbeing of members of underrepresented groups by arguing that D&I is a public good that has benefits not only for the members of minorities, but for society or an organisation as a whole.
|
Public goods are goods that benefit everyone in society. Typical examples are peace, shared knowledge, public sanitation, security, ... I propose that D&I is a public good as well. |
Epistemic diversityWhat is Epistemic Diversity?
Epistemic diversity means that there are a lot of different viewpoints and perspectives. Someone’s ideas and opinions are coloured by their own experiences and their particular point of view. For example, my skin colour is white. I can try to imagine what it is to live in the UK as person of colour, but I can’t really know this completely. Therefore, it is important for me to talk to people of colour and include them in the debate to make sure that their perspective, because otherwise valuable information and insights will be lost. An example
Let me give an example from my own discipline, philosophy. The stereotype is largely true: philosophy as a discipline has long been dominated by white, middle-aged men with beards. It is only since the 1970s, I would say, that female voices and writers from a diverse background have been gaining a bit more prominence, and even now it’s still problematic to some extent. A important, almost sacred, philosophical or ethical principle is the principle of “individual autonomy.” In medical contexts, it is the patient, and only the patient as an individual, rational and autonomous being, who should decide about their treatment. However, at some point, feminist ethicists and philosophers came along who criticised this principle, because a patient is always in a relationship with their family, their carers, their context etcetera. While the principle of individual autonomy envisages a person alone on an island, these female authors started talking about “relational autonomy”, in which we take the context and relationships of people in consideration as well. This has been quite an important step in the debate, and it was and is still led by female philosophers. Without them, we may still have been considering “individual autonomy” a sacred principle. |
An important benefit for society at large is what is known as epistemic diversity. Including differente voices and perspectives in the debate is not only necessary because everyone has an equal right to be heard, but also because it makes democratic decision-making stronger and it enriches a debate.
|
If you only have one perspective, a debate is quite poor, quite empty, it loses nuance and relevance. This happens with the so-called echo-chambers on social media. If you only talk to people who share your opinion, then your opinion does not get challenged but only confirmed. In contrast, criticism is actually healthy to improve your ideas and arguments.
Other ways in which D&I is a public good
Some other ways in which D&I is a public good are the following:
- Societal resilience: living together in a diverse society is difficult and an ongoing challenge, there is no doubt about that. However, the benefit is that if this challenge is being met, we end up with a society that is more resilient against external challenges. Compare it with biodiversity: an ecosystem that is teeming with varied plant and animal life is more resilient against bad weather, droughts and climate change. Similarly, a society which incorporates many ideas and has learned to cope with differences will be more resilient against other challenges (such as economic or environmental problems).
- Solidarity and shared sense of citizenry: society cannot be built by just one person. We need to come together to debate what kind of society we want and then to build it. Moreover, a person will only be invested in helping to maintain their society if they feel that they are a valued part of this society. Societies which pit people against each other or which excludes certain groups for arbitrary reasons (such as the colour of one's skin or one's sexuality) will be less successful in the long term.
Philosophical background for the above
The argument for why epistemic diversity is important, for why D&I is necessary for societal resilience, and for why it increases solidarity and a shared sense of citizenry is based in intersubjective ethics (especially French existentialism and recognition theory) with a layer of social psychology.
In simple terms, a vital part of how we develop ourselves as distinct human beings is the information that is "mirrored" by other people in our intersubjective relations. This is importantly so in our intimate relations with family, friends, and one's partner. In these relationships you gain love for yourself through the love you receive in those intimate relations.
But this is also the case in wider society. If the laws of a society apply differently to some people for arbitrary reasons, then people feel a fundamental injustice that will define how and what they believe about themselves. Moreover, in wider social relations (for example at work, on the bus, or even in terms of how people are treated in the media, ...), people also gain important insights about themselves and about their contribution to society (in broad terms).
So these intersubjective relations create the conditions for self-realisation, and this is the case for everyone - members of underrepresented groups and of the dominant group alike. These conditions for self-realisation are robuster if the intersubjective relations are more inclusive, because they will then depend less on arbitrary characteristics and rather relate to one's self as a whole. Thus even members of the dominant group in society depend for their self-realisation on these relations of recognition with members of underrepresented groups.
Moreover, the kind of recognition from others we need to develop our authentic selves as a free being can only be given by them if we in turn recognise them as free beings. The moral responsibility to recognise the other is thus essential to developing ourselves as free being.
In simple terms, a vital part of how we develop ourselves as distinct human beings is the information that is "mirrored" by other people in our intersubjective relations. This is importantly so in our intimate relations with family, friends, and one's partner. In these relationships you gain love for yourself through the love you receive in those intimate relations.
But this is also the case in wider society. If the laws of a society apply differently to some people for arbitrary reasons, then people feel a fundamental injustice that will define how and what they believe about themselves. Moreover, in wider social relations (for example at work, on the bus, or even in terms of how people are treated in the media, ...), people also gain important insights about themselves and about their contribution to society (in broad terms).
So these intersubjective relations create the conditions for self-realisation, and this is the case for everyone - members of underrepresented groups and of the dominant group alike. These conditions for self-realisation are robuster if the intersubjective relations are more inclusive, because they will then depend less on arbitrary characteristics and rather relate to one's self as a whole. Thus even members of the dominant group in society depend for their self-realisation on these relations of recognition with members of underrepresented groups.
Moreover, the kind of recognition from others we need to develop our authentic selves as a free being can only be given by them if we in turn recognise them as free beings. The moral responsibility to recognise the other is thus essential to developing ourselves as free being.
