Diversity Research and Policy: A Multidisciplinary Exploration

diversity research and policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 1

04-05-11 14:16:47

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 2

04-05-11 14:16:48

Diversity Research and Policy

A Multidisciplinary Exploration

Edited by Steven Knotter Rob De Lobel Lena Tsipouri Vanja Stenius

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 3

04-05-11 14:16:48

Cover design: Studio Jan de Boer, Amsterdam Layout: V3-Services, Baarn isbn 978 90 8555 044 0 e-isbn 978 90 4851 397 0 nur 740 © Steven Knotter, Rob De Lobel, Lena Tsipouri & Vanja Stenius / Pallas Publications – Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2011 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owners and the authors of the book.

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 4

04-05-11 14:16:48

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

7

1

An Introduction 9 Rob De Lobel, Vanja Stenius, Lena Tsipouri & Steven Knotter

2

Diversity and Social Anthropology Zdenek Uherek

3

Diversity and Sociology Emilio Gardini

4

Diversity and Criminology Vanja Stenius

5

Diversity and Ecology/Ecological Economics Peter Nijkamp & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes

6

Linguistic Diversity 83 Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Kathleen Heugh

7

Diversity and Architecture 99 Hisham Elkadi & Mirjana Lozanovska

8

Diversity and Urban Planning 117 John Betancur & Tüzin Baycan-Levent

9

Diversity and Economics 135 Lena Tsipouri & Tonia Damvakeraki

21

43

57

73

5

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 5

04-05-11 14:16:48

10

Diversity and Diversity Management in Business and Organisation Studies 159 Kiflemariam Hamde, Maddy Janssens, Koen Van Laer, Nils Wåhlin & Patrizia Zanoni

11

Diversity and (Organisational) Psychology Myriam Bechtoldt

12

Diversity and Law 191 Elena Dingu-Kyrklund & Linus Kyrklund

13

Diversity and Public Policy 215 Lena Tsipouri, Rob De Lobel & Steven Knotter

14

Conclusion 233 Rob De Lobel, Steven Knotter, Lena Tsipouri & Vanja Stenius About the Authors About the Reviewers

6

181

247 248

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 6

04-05-11 14:16:48

Acknowledgements

This volume was produced under auspices of the SUS.DIV (Sustainable Development in a Diverse World) collaborative Network of Excellence (NoE) funded by the European Commission and administered by FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei). We are happy to acknowledge the participation of our partners in this network and others who contributed so generously to this volume either as author or reviewer.

7

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 7

04-05-11 14:16:48

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 8

04-05-11 14:16:48

1

An Introduction Rob De Lobel, Vanja Stenius, Lena Tsipouri & Steven Knotter

“The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity.” UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Article 4

e Background

Interest in diversity that extends beyond the biological realm has seen a significant increase in multiple spheres, from the academic to the political. While concerns about diversity have their roots in ethics, the discussion has evolved rapidly to address social and economic considerations that stress not only societal duties regarding the treatment (and protection) of diversity, but also the benefits that diversity, in its multiple manifestations, brings to society. Unlike the ethical debate, in which issues are relatively clear, the diversity discourse in socio-economic research has become a source of both hope and concern, having been attributed with the capacity both to enrich life and society as well as to endanger “peaceful” coexistence. This contrast is evident in the growing debate about diversity, its meaning and its role, as efforts to date can largely be said to have been incapable of arriving at a consensus view of the term (see Van Londen & Ruijter 2010). These differences and disagreement exemplify the complexity of the term and the issues that it encompasses as well as a certain immaturity within the debate itself. The tacit agreement to disagree is emblematic of diversity itself as studied and understood by researchers, scholars, policymakers and others. This volume on diversity recognises both the significance of these differing views and the need for a greater cross- and multidisciplinary understanding of the importance and meaning attributed to diversity. It examines how to address the challenges that arise within a constantly evolving world in which diversity represents a multifaceted, dynamic and continuously changing variable. The aim is to bring together different discipline-based perspectives in order to provide scholars, policymakers and society as a whole with an under-

9

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 9

04-05-11 14:16:48

standing of the approaches and views within other disciplines. Diversity exists everywhere and hence represents a subject of primary interest both within individual disciplines and to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research. This volume seeks to contribute to the efforts by researchers and scholars in Europe and beyond to engage in collaborative and multidisciplinary research that enables them to address complex issues in a more comprehensive manner, utilising perspectives and means of analysis that are either borrowed from another discipline or created through exposure to work done in other fields. This volume departs from the assumption that multidisciplinarity, collaboration and an increased awareness of the study of diversity in all fields represent an added value to efforts to understand and study diversity in its numerous manifestations – whether social, cultural, biological or ecological. It should be noted that the volume limits itself to social and cultural diversity and does not attempt to define diversity as such, but rather provides a space for each discipline to present its use and conceptualisation of the term.

e Importance of Diversity

Some degree of diversity is essential for the survival of both ecosystems and social systems. As in ecosystems, societies require a certain equilibrium and variety in order to develop in a sustainable way. However, certain groups in eco- or social systems often attempt to dominate or even remove other groups in favour of their own position. Difficulties arise, particularly in the case of social systems, in understanding how the amount and variety of diversity influence the stability of the system and its evolution and capacity to flourish. Examples of this can be found throughout recorded history, as the dominant – and usually majority – group has generally inflicted its will upon minority groups subject to extreme control if not near eradication. The desire to contain, reduce or control diversity is indicative of what is arguably a doubleedged sword: diversity, while essential for biological and social life, can also contribute to strife and conflict. Recent work by scholars such as Putnam (2000), who argue that cultural diversity can lead to a loss of social cohesion through a reduction in bonding and bridging social capital, illustrates this at times delicate balance between diversity and social stability. Diversity, then, must be understood in the light of its capacity to not only enrich a situation or context but also destabilise it or contribute to conflict. The increasing focus on diversity in today’s world can be seen as part of the continually evolving dynamics and changes in the political, social and cultural world order, as evidenced by a shift in power throughout history, more recently

10

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 10

04-05-11 14:16:48

from Western culture to rising new world powers. In contrast to the past, technology now facilitates the movement of people, cultures, information and goods around the world and contributes to what is a process of both homogenisation and diversification. Shifts are evident in Europe, where largely “homogenous” countries are experiencing high levels of immigration, resulting in changing demographics and the increasing presence of other cultures. A significant movement of goods, representing both perfect substitutes of national production from a different/cheaper country (textiles, food and more recently machinery) and new products with an ethnic identity (Indonesian furniture, Chinese food and Japanese sushi), is evident in the West – a movement that has created both positive (enriching choice and diminishing cost) and negative (substitution of national production leading to structural unemployment) reactions. Similarly, capital flows increasingly from Western countries to developing countries, China and India in particular. Reactions to these changes are manifold, as evidenced by calls for tolerance and multiculturalism in some cases and xenophobia and discrimination in others (EUMC 2008) – issues that have become a focus of research in numerous fields. Deficits in the balance of payments and, more recently, exchange-rate fluctuations nurture further potential destabilisation. The threat that diversity presents is evident in political actions and individual attitudes throughout Europe. This can be seen in changing attitudes towards asylum seekers in countries such as the Netherlands (Maurice 2004) and the rise of right-wing political parties in countries such as France (Le Pen’s Front National), Italy (Alleanza Nazionale) and Denmark (Danish People’s Party). Former less favoured regions see themselves as net immigration hubs for people from the 12 newest member states and neighbouring countries. These political movements are indicative of the perceived threat that cultural diversity represents for a nation-state. This is not to say that these countries were completely homogenous, but rather that certain types of diversity may, at certain times, be a source of conflict and generate social responses that effectively seek to control and minimise its presence. Similarly, a quantitative aspect needs to be taken into consideration: diversity may be tolerated in low numbers, but not in larger ones.

e Moral Challenge of Diversity

Utopia – an ideal community based on Sir Thomas More’s eponymous work written in the sixteenth century – and Plato’s Republic both embody and control diversity. The dream of such an idealised society, often seen as unrealistic, became a key focal point during the Enlightenment and the birth of positiv-

An Introduction

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 11

11

04-05-11 14:16:48

ism. Conceptualisations of utopia take many forms, including religious (e.g., the Garden of Eden) and economic utopias. The prominence of utopia as an inspiration for writing and thought during the Enlightenment emerged when a desire for the rule of reason and greater concern for humanity began to supplant aristocratic and church rule, which was often authoritarian and oppressive. Positivism, promoted by Comte, replaced metaphysical speculation, as philosophers and scientists sought evidence-based knowledge acquired through the scientific method.1 Comte’s positivism – which continues to have a significant influence across academic disciplines – as well as other schools of thought that have their roots in positivism can be seen as being in a state of collapse. The shift from the metaphysical to the strictly scientific to the modern and post-modern represents a progression in the approaches used in seeking to understand the world. Notions of utopia can be seen as undergoing a similar transformation, as our notion of “progress” needs to be reconsidered in the light of new challenges and the realisation that growth, in economic and social terms, is not necessarily desirable or sustainable. “Progress”, in many respects, can be seen as something that gradually extinguishes diversity. In the quest for greater development, economic or otherwise, there is often a tendency to seek to maximise the production of goods, thus sidelining and doing away with elements that do not contribute to mass production and development. The McDonaldisation of the world represents both the spread of something that was once local and the marginalisation of the local on a global scale. Multinationals and internationally known brands represent an ideal for the business community that in fact plants the seeds for extinguishing diversity in a given place. It simultaneously introduces diversity (by bringing something external into a local environment) and reduces it (as the external becomes omnipresent and replaces the local). The creation of a new choice may in turn lead to the elimination of previously existing choices, thereby reducing individual freedom and contributing to sameness, as mass production reduces the capacity of local “goods” to compete. This has ramifications at every level of society: from consumption goods (e.g., drinking Coca Cola rather than traditional tea), means of production (e.g., the use of artificial fertilisers produced by multinational companies rather than traditional or more natural methods), cultural goods and entertainment (e.g., American music and films), clothing (e.g., the replacement of traditional dress by Western attire) to ecology (e.g., single-crop agriculture as opposed to the cultivation of local but less marketable, crops). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it demonstrates how the notion of progress that accompanied the industrial revolution and played a dominant role in the twentieth century needs to be reconsidered if we want to ensure diversity at the biological, individual and cultural level.

12

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 12

04-05-11 14:16:48

The (normative) importance of diversity can also be seen in UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2002) which, in Article 1, states that cultural diversity is “as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”. The Declaration points both to the need to accept the plurality of our own, individual identities and to respect those of others in order to support a “more open, creative and democratic world”. The apparently noble notion that one can manage diversity in order to take advantage of the associated advantages while minimising the problems that may arise can, in its extreme form, be connected with literary depictions of totalitarian (and dystopian) societies as well as actual totalitarian governments such as Nazi Germany. Fictional depictions of highly regulated societies include Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984. Huxley’s classic is of special relevance in considering diversity, as its portrayal of a world striving for sameness, de-individualisation and the division of labour represents a concerted effort to stamp out diversity. Within this framework, diversity is only valued within a highly regulated scheme and to the extent that it is essential for continued life (genetic diversity) and the computation of tasks that assure the operation of fundamental activities (division of labour), all of which are stripped of their individuality and the possibility of unique input by distinct people. Despite the extremity of Huxley’s depiction, the key elements can be seen in more moderate forms in historical and current governmental regimes and movements. As E.H. Carr noted in an observation about the rise of communism and the Soviet state, “ The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable” (1947). This is not to say that diversity is solely about individualism, but that individual differences can be seen as the foundation of diversity at other levels. Group diversity is not possible in the absence of individual diversity, which in turn depends on diversity at the biological or molecular level. This line of reasoning points to the interconnectedness of the different forms of diversity, beginning with the biological and moving up to individual characteristics followed by social and cultural elements such as language and traditions.

e Management Challenge of Diversity as an Asset

Whereas dystopian and totalitarian societies exercise extreme control over individual and group diversity, seeking to limit its existence to what is arguably the minimal level required for the functioning of a society, a greater degree of diversity is generally accepted as representing an enrichment and benefit to society. This is not to say that higher levels of diversity do not lead to conflict:

An Introduction

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 13

13

04-05-11 14:16:48

in fact, a brief review of history as well as theory in numerous disciplines clearly demonstrates the challenges that a group, community or country may face when diversity increases or changes. The “other” is ever present and may represent a real and/or perceived threat to the “in” group. In the light of the double-edged sword that is diversity, the challenge for scholars, researchers and leaders lies in understanding the nature of each form of diversity and how they interrelate and finding ways to maximise the benefits while minimising the drawbacks or potential for conflict. Cultural diversity is seen as a source of greater creativity (see the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity) or even productivity and is considered a desirable “good”. This is generally recognised across academic disciplines and within different political and social spheres and organisations. The question that arises is how can we turn it into a benefit and how can we then enhance it? How is it possible to support diversity while avoiding the “us” versus “them” conflicts? This is not to say, however, that the desire for diversity should be taken to an extreme, as this would lead to complete chaos and anarchy. While it would take us away from a totalitarian state, it would mean moving from an absence of individual freedom to complete individual freedom. The management challenge lies in finding a balance and creating an environment in which diversity leads to a net good. Living in the social world, we can never expect to achieve this equilibrium; however, it may be possible to arrive at something that approaches it. Through the combined knowledge in economics, sociology, anthropology, ecology and other disciplines, we can perhaps begin to understand the interconnectedness of different diversities at different levels. This understanding can then be used to support the development of policies and actions that consider diversity in a more holistic manner, taking into consideration diversity’s complexity and capacity to not only enrich life but also threaten it. As in the biological, ecological world around us, the challenge for scholars of cultural, social and economic diversity is to find the situation(s) within a given system in which diversity contributes positively to the operation of the system. More importantly, this management is not expected to eliminate barriers but rather create value in the form of cross-fertilisation as well as enrich images, techniques and entire cultures.

e Volume

This book stems from the conviction that in the light of the increasing flows of goods, people and capital and the growing diversity in all societies, it is crucial to support policymakers with solid research-based evidence for inter-

14

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 14

04-05-11 14:16:48

ventions rather than leave diversity management to the market. It is believed that multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary research and theory development are essential for effectively understanding and responding to the challenges and questions posed by the diverse world in which we live. Although the book is not (and cannot) be exhaustive in the number of disciplines it covers, an effort was made to look at diversity from as many disciplines and angles as possible. While the inclusion of other classical disciplines such as biology and history and newer disciplines such as gender studies would certainly have enhanced the volume, the list of possibilities is extensive. We believe that the topics treated here open the debate in a comprehensive manner. We strongly encourage further research in the area and suggest that the reflections on diversity developed here be extended to other disciplines. The chapters were designed to include: – Theoretical approaches, which relate more to the historical origins and development of diversity; – Disciplines focusing on the identification of trends and leading to the creation of a collective set of ethical values and their criticism in Western societies (in fields such as social anthropology, sociology and linguistics); – Disciplines that look at the way in which values and social life are shaped and directed (such as criminology, ecology and law); and – Very practical investigations into how diversity affects or is affected by certain disciplines (looking at diversity as a practical element feeding positively into creativity in architecture or creativity and productivity in psychology, business management and economics). The twelve contributions in this book share several characteristics that fall into different groups: – In terms of the role of diversity, we see disciplines where diversity is inherent (as in history, social anthropology and linguistics), others where diversity is a background for practical applications (urban planning and law) and still others where diversity is studied as a tool for better policy developments (psychology, business and economics). – In terms of timing – or changes in the level of awareness or focus – diversity is originally either totally unobserved in the discipline or uniformity is a preferred state. In most cases, diversity becomes an element of study only in modern society (e.g., sociology, law, architecture, urban planning). – In terms of level, diversity is studied both at the micro and macro level (e.g., micro- and macro-sociology, micro- and macroeconomics).

An Introduction

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 15

15

04-05-11 14:16:48

We now describe more specifically the disciplines included in this book, categorising them on the basis of the role of diversity in each. Two disciplines where diversity is part of the core of their analyses are: 1 Social anthropology, which studies human behaviour and knowledge including human relationships, symbols and their meanings, values, norms and related phenomena, addresses the permanent tensions between the concepts of unity and diversity (variability) of humankind as well as the concept of culture as a universal human characteristic and as a commonly shared group bond. Social anthropology is somehow the cornerstone of this book, as it holds that diversity within human society is necessary for its existence, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds that allow for their mutual cooperation. 2 In sociology, research focuses on the individual in society and the totality of meanings that describe social relations. Within this framework, “diversity” as a subject of study becomes a fundamental element, since it defines the variability in human action in society. Diversity is understood here as nonconformity. Somehow it brings the values of the system of reference into question and requires – if we view the facts from a functionalist perspective – solutions in order to manage it. In this way, the behaviour is understood as something that is not shared by the majority. Two disciplines define diversity with one parameter only; this can be used to draw analogies and enrich the theoretical thinking in our sense of diversity. In both cases it is clear that market mechanisms are not only insufficient but also endanger the preservation of diverse species and languages, justifying public intervention: 3 In the case of ecology and diversity, the authors make an analogy between nature and society. The chapter looks at how issues of biodiversity affect the economy and society. The recognition that biological diversity is of critical importance for the stability of the earth’s ecosystem offers a complementary perspective to the view that biodiversity provides a fundamental potential for human use, such as sustainable development, recreation, human health and scientific research. The chapter is an illustration of the controversy evident in the relationship between society and the economy: the social value of various biodiversity goods and service flows is insufficiently (or not at all) reflected in market prices. The authors also stress the relevance of public intervention to eliminate negative externalities. 4 Linguistics is another area that strictly defines diversity. While the application of diversity within linguistics is particular, relevant analogies exist, especially in the case of regional minority language groups. To some ex-

16

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 16

04-05-11 14:16:48

tent it is close to the ecology chapter since, as with species, the number of languages in the world is diminishing at a fast rate. The recognition of the need to preserve linguistic diversity has led to special language policies to maintain and promote the use of minority languages, especially in Europe. Based partly on the above disciplines – which provide the theoretical justification – and partly on research and evidence, seven disciplines include diversity both in their research and policy arenas. Diversity in architecture and urban planning is reflected in artefacts, creativity and routines that affect both daily life and cultural heritage. Law, criminology and economics deal with the way society protects and is protected from potential dangers of diversity as it simultaneously strives to exploit diversity for productivity growth and welfare. Finally, at the micro-level, psychology and business organisation studies investigate how to turn diversity into profitability in the workplace: 5 Architecture is determined by the prevailing social and economic conditions while the architect unconsciously acquires society’s underlying ideological assumptions. As such, architecture is an expression of the age and society in which “cultural diversity” has emerged as a leading concept. Cultural diversity is expressed in the debate about the ethnicisation of architecture versus the need to support creativity and innovation in the built environment that derives from contemporary living conditions in which diverse cultures come to share both the assets and goals directed at securing an attractive and sustainable environment for a better future. 6 At an aggregate level, diversity in urban planning describes the range of visible and non-visible differences, characteristics or attributes of cities that both challenge traditional approaches of standardisation and seek to recognise and appreciate factors that make individuals and groups unique. Diversity has permeated all subfields of planning, becoming increasingly central to the study and planning of cities – especially as they become the ultimate places of cultural encounter, changing land use, aesthetics, architecture, the ecosystem and meeting places for peoples from or of different backgrounds, races, social classes, gender, age, languages, beliefs, etc. In conformity with the other disciplines described above, the oldest and most dominant tradition of urban planning claimed that homogeneity and shared identity are conditions for manageable and prosperous cities. Diversity entered planning theory principally through post-modern/ post-structuralist critiques of modernism’s master narratives and more specifically in response to urban landscapes of segregation, urban renewal, massive housing projects or sterile environments of repetition and waste.

An Introduction

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 17

17

04-05-11 14:16:48

7

Diversity is not a consistent notion within economics. The closest systematic enquiries within this discipline are the economics of discrimination in the US, which focused on issues referring to gender and race; this began in the 1960s but has diminished over the years. Increases in migration and capital flows in recent years have led to a growing focus on diversity as an element of study in research, looking at how different forms of diversity affect productivity and economic expansion. Diverse groups are individually studied as a means to achieve the goals of stability and growth. Gender, race, skills and other dimensions have been used as interdisciplinary input by distinguished scholars. Once seen in relation to a hostile attitude towards labour substitution by migrants, diversity is now seen as either endangering social capital or as nurturing creativity through tolerance. 8 Business studies and organisational psychology, a branch of psychology, focuses on the functioning of individuals and groups in organisations. Work and organisational psychologists analyse working individuals’ and workgroups’ behaviours, attitudes and performance to identify ways to improve performance or eliminate barriers to performance. 9 Based on organisation psychology, diversity has become a popular topic in business management among Western managers, practitioners and scholars emerging in the US, where the workforce has become more diverse. Studies on diversity management in Europe often analyse how the meaning of diversity and diversity management practices change in the process of institutional translation due to the distinct contextual factors and the power local actors have in the process of “implementing” diversity. In explaining why people hold prejudices or display discriminatory behaviour, organisational research commonly draws inspiration from traditional psychological perspectives. Diversity management literature in the European context, however, is still at its beginnings and rarely attempts to identify and describe effective practices. 10 In the case of law, the general principles of equality are considered as an application of human rights. Equality before the law is an important principle in legal philosophy and juridical theory and practice, linked to the fundamental idea that all people are of equal worth – a conceptual universal equality beyond inherent differences, which embeds the concept of diversity. From a legal perspective, diversity is largely linked to principles related to the observance of specific aspects of human rights, especially with respect to equality of treatment and non-discrimination, combating discrimination on various grounds (e.g., sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation) without exclud-

18

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 18

04-05-11 14:16:48

11

ing other possible grounds. In recent decades, legislative measures have moved away from the protection of minorities and towards proactive affirmative actions as anti-discrimination provisions. In criminology, the idea of diversity is fundamental to the discipline in that individual, familial, social, political, economic and other differences provide explanations not only for why people commit crime, but also for what constitutes a crime. This latter consideration is important in that criminology is based on the occurrence of a phenomenon that is defined within a community or society. A behaviour or act (or failure to do something) does not constitute a crime until it is defined as such within the law and punishable in accordance with the law. This means that diversity in culture and social conditions may lead to markedly different laws and hence different notions of what is and is not a crime.

Taken together, these chapters represent an effort to bring together multiple conceptualisations and usages of diversity – as a term or as a concept – across disciplines. Each chapter provides: 1) an overview of the meaning and categorisation of diversity within the discipline and relevant sub-disciplines; 2) the relevance and place of diversity in theory, research and policy/practice; and 3) a consideration of the role that diversity will play within the discipline in the future. Inevitably the emphasis in each discipline lies in different sub-sections, not all of which are included here. For social anthropology and linguistics, theorising is more important than policy, whereas the opposite is true for business management. No efforts were made to further standardise or limit the degrees of freedom in each discipline. Policy implications and theoretical insights from all disciplines are discussed in two final overarching sections that provide policy conclusions and an academic synthesis that includes areas for further research. The work is intended to be of interest to diversity scholars and researchers in multiple disciplines who engage in multidisciplinary research or seek to enhance their own research by turning to knowledge and advances in other disciplines. Furthermore, it is of interest to policymakers, as it provides important input on the political implications of diversity in all its forms. It is important to recognise that diversity cuts across disciplines and that the study of diversity or a consideration of its impact on different spheres of life can greatly benefit from collaboration between experts in different fields and research that incorporates multiple, and more nuanced, understandings.

An Introduction

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 19

19

04-05-11 14:16:48

Note 

As described and promoted by thinkers such as Émile Durkheim.

References

Carr, E.H. 1947. The Soviet Impact on the Western World. New York: Macmillan. EUMC. 2008 Annual Report. http://fra.europa.eu/fra/index.php?fuseaction =content.dsp_cat_content&catid=4860badc7f081. Huxley, A. Brave New World. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maurice, A. March 2004. Foreigners are seen as danger and their invasion as out of control. Le Monde Diplomatique. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/ archives/60/126.html More, Sir Th. Utopia. Orwell, G. 1984. Plato. The Republic. New CUP translation by T. Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

20

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 20

04-05-11 14:16:49

2

Diversity and Social Anthropology1 Zdenek Uherek

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Social Anthropology

Social anthropology is a discipline situated between the social sciences and the humanities that studies human behaviour and knowledge including human relationships, symbols and their meanings, values, norms and related phenomena. These areas of the study of social anthropology are frequently incorporated into the synoptic term culture. 2 Social anthropology includes two areas of study: 1 the interactional area, which studies human behaviour in groups, concentrates on the question of how human groups are structured, the power relations and relations of responsibility and obligation that exist within them, and how the groups conduct themselves in mutual contact. 2 the ideational area, which focuses on the knowledge, symbols, values and norms that are applied in human activities, studies what objectives people want to achieve, which models they follow, what they believe in, what attitudes they adopt towards the world around them, and what significance their activities and the context have for them. This discipline has two aims: 1 To examine, describe and analyse human behaviour, knowledge symbols, values and norms and related phenomena and thus to contribute to the study of human beings as a specific form of life in its unity and diversity; 2 To comprehend how people perceive the world, how they evaluate and categorise it, and how they reflect on their own activity. Social anthropology works with two points of view that are relevant to the aims of this volume: a the etic perspective, a perspective of scientific categories, concepts and explanations (observer’s perspective);

21

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 21

04-05-11 14:16:49

b

the emic perspective, a perspective of the studied agents and their view of the world (participant’s perspective).3

Social anthropology is currently developing in many diversified milieus, which influence its priority topics. Whereas in Great Britain it largely focused on research of populations outside of Europe until the second half of the twentieth century, in the United States it concentrated on studies of the native population of the American continent and immigrants, alongside research on the Third World. In contrast, Russian anthropology devoted a great deal of attention to the study of non-Russian nations within its territory. In continental Europe, the discipline was dominated by studies of the researchers’ own nations, namely from an historical perspective. This concerns the Northern European countries, where social anthropology played an important role in the consolidation of nation-states, just like the countries of Central Europe where, in addition to national emancipation, anthropological studies allowed for the definition of minority groups. Social anthropology had a similar role in the Balkan states. Following existing models, particularly those of British and American social anthropology, social anthropological schools have also emerged in the Third World. Many of these stand in sharp disagreement with the original European models particularly in their assessment of the research results of their own territories. This illustrates how anthropology often serves to recognise the social diversity of groups within their own territory, as is the case in China, India and Indonesia, as well as for national or ethnic emancipation.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Anthropology

Social anthropology develops within a state of constant conflict between the concepts of unity and diversity. On the one hand, it works with the concept of the unity of mankind and studies its possibilities and limitations, and on the other hand it works with the variability of the manifestations and symbolic worlds of individuals and social groups. The permanent tensions between the concepts of unity and diversity (or variability) of humankind also manifest themselves in the variability of the elementary concept of culture, which is central to the study of social anthropology. On the one hand, social anthropology works with the concept of culture as a universal human characteristic. In this concept, culture is an elementary human bond arising in every human grouping. It is a specific way of how people react to the world around them as well as to each other. On the other

22

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 22

04-05-11 14:16:49

hand, social anthropology works with the concept of culture as a commonly shared group bond. In this case, cultures are referred to in the plural as specific manifestations of individual human groupings. In the sense of cultures as group bonds, it is assumed that every culturally defined group has a different culture. The concept of culture can thus be used as a tool for the study of both human unity and diversity. Both basic concepts of culture consider human diversity to be an unavoidable human characteristic, a part of human history. Without regard to the concept of culture/cultures, social anthropologists study humankind by studying human diversity. Along with the concept of culture/cultures, social anthropologists work with other concepts that make it possible to capture human diversity as well as people’s need to form groups and other organisational units. These include the following concepts: – individual – family – kinship group – age group (category) – gender group – local group (community) – ethnicity, ethnic group – nation – religious group – professional group – interest group – social strata (class) These concepts are of various levels of generality. The categories of diversity that are used by social anthropologists differ depending on the social organisation of the society. Not all the diversification categories that are employed in relation to complex societies can be used for simple societies. Whereas phenomena related to the concepts of individual, family, kinship, gender, age, or religious groups can be studied in all human societies, ethnicity, nationality, professional and class differentiations are only typical for some human groupings and developmental epochs. These basic concepts used for the study of social diversity, are simultaneously of emic and etic character.4 Although they are used as analytical terms, they are derived from a conceptualisation of the world by the agents under study. The phenomena ascribed to the concepts of individual, age group, local group, professional group and social class are perceivable even if they are

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 23

23

04-05-11 14:16:49

not conceptualised by the agents themselves. Phenomena assignable to the concepts of ethnicity, nationality, family and ancestral membership are social constructions which disappear as soon as the agents themselves do not define themselves that way. Whenever they themselves, or their social surroundings, do not use the given concept in reference to them, such delimited groups cease to exist. From this perspective, gender definition is not unambiguous, because gender differences are largely defined by the actors. However, considering the biological differences between men and women, gender remains latently present independent of the will of the actors. In our contemporary diversified world, additional categories, alongside the ones listed above, are used for grasping human diversity. These include but are not limited to: migration group, minority, social network, and socially excluded group. The contemporary categorisation of diversity reflects the fact that a large part of the contemporary world is organised in nation-states, on whose territory one or several official languages, a state-approved version of history, preferred religion and values and normative systems are codified. The power relations in individual states create the picture of the majority and minority cultures, preferred, tolerated and forbidden religions, ways of life, values and norms as well as interpersonal relations. Every continent, and Europe in particular, has many examples of stormy transformations of marginal groups into majority groups, suppressed cultures into preferred ones. The groups delimit each other in mutual contact and under the influence of power pressures. The change of social context alters also the character of diversity. The concepts used by social anthropology for the description and interpretation of diversity are normally derived from the context of Euro-American civilisation. In other contexts, they often assume different meanings or their interpretation is imprecise. This problem was already encountered by, for example, British researcher William Henry Robert Rivers, when on the expedition of Alfred Cort Haddon to Torres Straits in 1898-1899 he attempted to utilise his modification of the genealogical method in research on fertility for the first time. His seemingly objectivistic and universal method based on the application of family genealogical trees failed not only due to the difference in kinship systems and terminology, but also due to the fact that on Murray Island, where Rivers conducted the research, the population basically did not distinguish between their ‘own’ and ‘adopted’ children, or did not distinguish between consanguinity and adoption. William Rivers claimed that he knew about this fact and tried to avoid the misunderstanding, but his text demonstrates that he was not 100 certain of success in this area (Rivers 1900: 76).

24

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 24

04-05-11 14:16:49

In the field of social anthropology, the diversity of society has led to the diversification of the research instruments and of the subject of study itself. The sustainability of this diversity within the field has been widely discussed and comes into conflict with the need for a standardised scientific discourse.

e Relevance of Diversity In Theory

Social anthropology rests on the doctrine that the diversity of human society is necessary for its existence, but the existence of diversified individuals and social groupings requires social bonds, which allow for their mutual cooperation. These social bonds create social cohesion and create the impression of homogeneity in a diversified society. Since the beginnings of sociology and social anthropology, the principle of social cohesion has been seen in the mutual relations of congruity and diversity. This topic was already dealt with by Émile Durkheim in his examination of mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim [1893] 1997). Diversity in the Durkheimian concept is a desirable social trait; it is a sign of development, a basic characteristic of modern society. The idea that social cohesion is achieved by the balance of shared conceptions, aims, values and norms on the one hand and on the other hand by the diversification of capabilities, knowledge and interests, which are mutually complemented by individuals and groups, is still relevant in the field of social anthropology. The topic was similarly addressed by Robert Redfield, who also based his work on the difference between traditional and modern societies. Unlike Durkheim, however, he sees internal structure and hierarchy as core characteristic of traditional (simple) societies. Nevertheless, modern, complex societies are more diversified: mutual relations interconnect more coherent ‘traditional’ segments that were formerly closed to each other. The high level of social cohesion within simple societies and the suspicion of the world around them is suppressed in modern societies at the expense of social contacts outside the original groups. The original social bonds, such as religion and family ties, recede before formalised law, institutionalised education and the morality of urban society (Redfield 1953). The conception of modern societies as diversified, segmented and characterised by heterogeneous social contacts is relatively frequent. In sociologist Louis Wirth’s treatment of the subject, diversified urbanised society leads towards greater tolerance, rationality and secularisation of the person, although he also mentions its ‘schizoid’ character. He states that diversity and numer-

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 25

25

04-05-11 14:16:49

ous social contacts lead to superficiality and a feeling of loneliness (Wirth 1938). The knowledge that mutual contacts do not necessarily bring individuals and groups together was, however, brought to anthropology in the 1930s by Robert Redfield, Ralph Lindton and Melville Herskovits in their Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation (1935). With the increasing amount of anthropological research as well as the growing diversity of society, the number of examined variations of how individuals and groups can react to each other also increases. In his work Urbanism and Suburbanism as a Way of Life, Herbert Gans points out the schematic nature of Wirth’s portrait of an urban person and claims that the city provides space for isolated individuals as well as for building ethnic villages (Gans 1968). Whereas French and Anglo-American social anthropologists, in particular, saw a rather positive and unavoidable phenomenon in the diversification of society that accompanied the processes of modernisation and industrialisation, nationalistically oriented social sciences saw diversity as being a danger for national unity and required that scientists stimulate society to a return to its historical roots and the strengthening of the national spirit. This tendency continued up until 1945 in the German Volkskunde as well as other academic schools in Central Europe, in Italy and in the Balkans. From the extensive pleiade of researchers, we should at least name the pioneer of this concept in Germany, Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1862). In the given conception, diversity was connected with the individualism of industrial society and the destruction of pre-industrial ‘tribal’ solidarity. One of the most known concepts reflecting this view is Tönnies’s concept of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, the concept of human sociability arising from two types of will, of which the one that leads towards coherent communities (Gemeinschaft) is natural (Wesenwille), and the one that leads towards diversification and individualistic society (Gesellschaft) is arbitrary (Kürwille) (Tönnies 1887). The specific concept of the dichotomy of homogeneity and diversity in connection with traditional and modern societies, which played into nationalistic ideology and elitism, was criticised in Germany after World War II by Hermann Bausinger, who showed that the creation of borders between traditional and modern societies is artificial and teleological. His ‘third way’ lay in the abandonment of the creation of a boundary line between traditional and modern societies (Bausinger 1961). Durkheim’s tendency to ascribe a preference for uniformity and homogeneity explicitly to simple societies and the movement towards diversity and division of labour to complex societies has also been subjected to criticism. As argued for instance by Alban Bensa, strong individualities are also appreciated in simple societies and even here

26

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 26

04-05-11 14:16:49

the division of labour exists on the basis of principles similar to those on which the concept of organic solidarity is built (Bensa 2006). Whereas the division between traditional and modern societies was gradually perceived to be less significant as anthropological thought developed in the twentieth century, the difference between individual cultures appeared to be increasingly complicated, especially with the development of methods for studying language, thought, values, and norms within individual social groupings. Cultural relativity in anthropology, which was already evident in the Franz Boas’ historical particularism and his students’ configurationism, became the dominant direction of anthropological thought in the second half of the twentieth century. Inspired by Clifford Geertz, interpretative anthropology in the 1960s-1990s emphasised the complicated comparability of groups, delimited mainly in religious and ethnic terms, in the areas of values, norms, symbols and meanings (Geertz 1973). The aims of an anthropology so conceived are to read and reconstruct the symbolic worlds of individual cultures and to be the interpreter of the symbolic system of one culture to another. Other than demonstrating the incomparability of individual cultures and their poor mutual compatibility, interpretative anthropologists attempted to de-exoticise cultures, especially those of the Third World, to show their functionality, ‘normalcy’ and right to free development. The doctrine of cultural relativism formed in parallel with the concept of a global economic-political system (Wallerstein 1974) and was an effect of the decolonisation of the Third World and the emergence of a globalised society. The concepts of the singularity and unrepeatability of individual cultures led to an understanding of human diversity as a value that is possessed by humankind and must be preserved and protected. Social anthropologists began seeking parallels between attitudes towards biodiversity and human diversity. The problems of research on cultural contacts and reactions of groups to cultural contacts stood at the birth of the theory of ethnic boundaries. The concept – which makes it possible to comprehend the social organisation of ethnic otherness in a diversified environment – was formulated by Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth (Leach 1954, Barth 1969). Barth’s hypothesis that ethnicity is not a product of cultural difference but of social organisation has become an important guideline for research in diversified contexts. Researchers doing empirical research began to focus on culturally delimiting phenomena and on processes creating otherness. In terms of methodology, Leach’s and Barth’s research into the social organisation of cultural difference has been a significant scientific breakthrough. At the end of the twentieth century, the number of individuals as well as groups of people acting beyond the borders of clearly delimited cultures in-

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 27

27

04-05-11 14:16:49

creased. The conception of closed cultures in the plural is made ever more problematic by the increasing number of modern nomads, who are not tied to one place, and the increasing importance of global cultural flows and standardised products used on a global scale. At the same time, national cultures do not have to be tied to one territory: mass media and migration encourage a culturally hybrid society (Eriksen 2006). Local varieties of religion, art and food can be enjoyed by people all over the world, even if the object of their interest is far away, and everyday contacts with acquaintances and relatives thousands of kilometres away are easily maintained. Thanks to schools, media and supranational institutions, people have similar perceptions of time and space all over the world, use the same measures and weights, have the same knowledge of health and illness and similar concepts of what human rights should be. In light of new social phenomena, the view of national identities has begun to be reassessed; they have started to be perceived as constructions conditioned by time (Hobsbawm 1990, Gellner 1997). The nation and nationstates, which for more than a hundred years created the perception that the world is a mosaic of definable cultures, have begun to lose many of their functions. The concept of diversity as variability among spatially well bounded cultures diversified by different languages, values, norms and habits has been contested. With growing globalisation, the conception of how globalisation would affect mankind started to be modified at the beginning of the 1990s. The presumption that global contacts automatically unified the cultures of diversified human groups began to recede. Instead, the concept of a global asymmetrical network of centre-periphery flows, where individuals and groups themselves actively participate in the reception and modification of the contents and meanings of global cultural impetuses (Hannerz 1992, Paine 1992), and the concept of glocalisation as a new form of interpersonal and group contacts where the global system enables direct contacts between locally situated communities (Robertson 1992) started to assert themselves. The new situation found a response in anthropology of proximity and distance, when in local situations people cope with impetuses that originate in distant places and also with people who come from such distant places (Augé 1994). The perspective of local cultures also started to change. Development began to be perceived in the wider context of power relations, as well as of an individual as a social agent, whose specific behaviour and decision-making have been hidden up to now behind the ideas of shared values, norms or collective identities. With the nation gradually withering away, more attention is paid to local identities in complex societies. In this connection, human society

28

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 28

04-05-11 14:16:49

already ceases to be conceptualised as a mosaic of distinctive cultures and with this anthropologists’ research strategies have also changed. Diversity is still at the centre of interest in anthropology, but there has been a visible change in focus from diversity in spatially located groups to an action orientation and thus diversity in relation to acting individuals; from the diversity of local cultures to the diversity of spatially unbounded movements, fashions, rumours, tendencies; and from spatially limited power relations to worldwide interdependencies, stigmatised and handicapped categories of people. In Research

From its beginnings, the study of social anthropology has developed from research on human diversity by means of studies of closed individual cultures to the – sometimes comparative – study of diversified human society in its local manifestations. Research on diversified society assumes a number of forms and varies with the subject studied. The development of research tools proceeds from studying clearly defined groupings in social distance and conceptualising them either as primitives or folk (Kuper 1988), to acknowledging different forms of human variety and sociability. Anthropological research of diversified society has created new research tools and concepts that are no longer tied to one place and group, as was the case in studies of closed separated cultures or small isolated groups of individuals. The monographic method of long-term participant observation and interviews began in the 1940s and 1950s; these were complemented by situational analyses that developed into case studies. Max Gluckman (1940) and Clyde Mitchell (1956) were among those who masterfully applied this approach in diverse African settings. Max Gluckman (1955) also introduced conflict analysis at that time in his work in Africa. In the urban milieu and in socially diversified areas, the classical genealogical method in social anthropology was complemented by network analysis (Barnes 1972). In reaction to interculturalism and the multiple cultural flows influencing individuals as well as groups in post-modern society, anthropology in the 1980s and 1990s began to work with Wallerstein’s concept of a global system and centre-periphery relations. The discipline developed so-called multi-sited ethnography, which endeavours to capture wider system bonds and focuses on a group or individual who acts in a number of milieus and contexts rather than on a locality (Marcus 1998). Through research on the population of the Tonga archipelago, a part of whom live in Great Britain and Australia, George Marcus showed that not every person perceives the centre-periphery relations

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 29

29

04-05-11 14:16:49

as outlined by Immanuel Wallerstein, and that for a number of immigrant groups in Europe that have their roots in non-European regions, the centreperiphery flows act conversely (Marcus 1998, Paine 1992). Changes in the world order have also modified the subject of study. Geertz’s research results (1973) led to a deviation from seeking the exotic and cultural differences. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was shown that the fascination with exoticism, alterity, as it was presented by anthropology, rather aided the expansion of Western imperialism into the Third World (Wolf 2001). Anthropologists have therefore not focused on exotic and exclusive topics but rather on system bonds and on authentic depositions of the agents through which an anthropologist can articulate their own view of the world and life in it. Interpretive anthropologists developed interviewing techniques and joined anthropological concepts with contemporary philosophical notions. Paul Rabinow introduced the notion that the collection of data is a mutual dialogue between the researcher and the actor to social anthropology; both personalities are seen as crucial to the process of gaining anthropological knowledge. In this conception, anthropological knowledge is intersubjective (Rabinow 1977). The problem of diversity of cultures is now extended to include diversity of information, meanings, its interpretation, and individual reception. The ‘de-exotification’ of anthropology and the travelling of cultures in the global world blurred the differences between the anthropologies of distant continents and civilisations and anthropologies implemented in localities where anthropologists are the autochthonic populace. Still in the second half of the twentieth century, the localisation of research differentiated AngloAmerican anthropologists from Continental European researchers, but currently this division is irrelevant. An anthropologist commonly implements research abroad and subsequently studies similar language cultural groups as migration groups in the country of origin or studies phenomena in the country of origin similar to those that he/she studied abroad on other groups. The combination of the view on distant cultures and on one’s own culture was developed already by Claude Lévy Strauss (1961), David Schneider (1968) and Jack Goody (1976). The focus of the view on one’s own culture in the second half of the twentieth century began to be labelled as repatriated, or ‘at home’, anthropology. In connection with the reassessment within scientific anthropology of social distance and the elucidation of the role of anthropology in colonial empires, an anthropology critical of Western colonialism gradually developed along with the ‘at home anthropology’, especially in the 1970s and 1980s when graduates of Western universities who were originally from Third World countries attempted to apply the perspective of their countries of origin. De-

30

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 30

04-05-11 14:16:49

spite the problematic question of what perspective was actually applied, a whole range of interesting polemical works emerged implying the diversity of views and perspectives of a diversified world. Most likely, the best-known work of this sort is Edward Said’s Orientalism, which endeavoured to conceptualise how West Europeans create a picture of ‘the others’ (Said 1978). For example, the publications of Talal Asad (e.g., 1973) also received wide acceptance. Mondher Kilani (1994) and other authors later built on this discourse. The topics of critical reflexive anthropology have also been dealt with by, for instance, George Marcus and James Clifford, with his concept of anthropological authority (Clifford, Marcus 1986). ‘At home’ anthropology provides greater scope for the academic communities of the Second and Third Worlds to establish their own anthropological schools, to study their own cultures and to articulate their own opinion not only as Third World graduates of Western universities, but also as people who have worked in the Third World their entire lives. Sometimes, this approach is labelled from a Eurocentric perspective as indigenous anthropology. Indian anthropology, in particular, was close to that, and the problems of indigenous anthropology were widely discussed in connection with the works of Indian as well as Arab anthropologists in the 1980s (Fahim 1982). Nevertheless, the ‘at home’ perspective remained an anthropological constant that permanently changed the optics of near and far. As Mariza Peirano suggested in the case of Brazil, exoticism and the concept of ‘the others’ acquires other meanings for Third World researchers than for Western researchers (Peirano 1998). Yet the concept of home can also be understood quite diversely. For example, in 2009 the members of the authorial team coming from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe applied this perspective in an effort to offer alternative views on the transforming states that had recently acceded to the European Union (Kürti, Skalník 2009). Leach’s and Barth’s boundary research had already weakened the concept of closed cultures. The question has again arisen about the anthropological method used in specific research. The view that it is necessary to focus on the study of specific social events rather than on the study of the phenomena that could represent culture has been well received. Only from such events is it possible to deduce the social relations involved in them, or symbols used in them, or values manifested in them (Barth 2001). This methodological demand makes it possible to eliminate ‘finding’ closed cultures where they are arbitrarily projected by the researcher. The emphasis on the study of social events indicates a tendency towards empirical research. Diversity of cultures becomes unimportant; diversity in social behaviour and actions represents the main point of interest.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 31

31

04-05-11 14:16:49

The disintegration of traditional and national cultures currently leads to greater individualisation of research. Researchers have a greater tendency to consider the fact that the creators of social situations are primarily individuals, collectives only in the transferred meaning of the word. The concept of shared values, norms and meanings is thought of by some researchers as groupism, behind which it is necessary to seek a specific creator and agent (Brubaker 2004). The main question currently is how to study individual conduct in a social context. Research on the diversity of groups has shifted in some works to research on the diversity of the individual and diversified people in a social context. For Policy/Practice

Social anthropology was influenced by, and in turn influenced, specific political practice, especially that of European colonial powers towards non-European countries (Stocking 1991), as well as issues of interethnic coexistence in Europe and on the American continent, especially where they concern migrant groups and indigenous people. The issue of coexistence in diversified non-European societies was addressed in the 1950s and 1960s by the so-called Manchester School, which focused primarily on Africa, where it developed perspectives on newly formed urban ethnicities, social change, conflict situations and the adaptation of indigenous societies to urbanised culture. British anthropologists were part of the British colonial apparatus but held sceptical or directly critical attitudes on colonial practices (Werbner 1984). They drew attention to the unfavourable social trends and the failure of individual groups to coexist, although the anthropologists usually could not directly influence political practice. Max Gluckman, in particular analysed the weak social ties between the British colonial power and local chiefs in ethnically diversified African society. A strong impetus to utilising anthropological knowledge in practice was World War II with its encounters of troops as well as mentalities. First of all in the United States, anthropologists organised areal studies and tried to use their notions directly in war practice. Significant examples are provided by the works of Margaret Mead, which attracted the attention of the American public during World War II as well as during the subsequent Cold War. Examples include her analysis of the behaviour of the American soldiers in the United Kingdom during their war mission and her Soviet studies (Mead 1944, 1951). Anthropological knowledge also influenced a number of political doctrines. Classical anthropological works describe multicultural coexistence on

32

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 32

04-05-11 14:16:49

the Indian subcontinent and mention colonial practices in this part of Asia. From the research in the Asian milieu, the concept of multiculturalism was transferred to Europe (Furnival 1948), which was later applied as a political concept in the Euro-Atlantic area, although it has recently been reassessed critically. The works capturing the ways in which modern political states were established in the multi-ethnic milieu of the Third World are also significant (e.g., Geertz 1964). The anthropological works that utilised the concept of social transformation, which became the political doctrine in the last decade of the twentieth century, are interesting albeit seldom quoted. Already in the 1950s, the concept of social transformation was applied by Robert Redfield on the emergence of a diversified urbanised society (Redfield 1953) and at approximately the same time by Melville Herskovits on the topic of African societies (e.g. Bascom, Herskovits 1959; Herskovits, Harwitz 1964). In the US, works published by sociologists that used data acquired mainly by anthropological research methods had both a direct and indirect impact. Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan, who at the beginning of the 1960s began to criticise the melting pot theory as a specific American variant of assimilationist policy (Glazer, Moynihan 1963) and developed new concepts that overturned the existing theory. Anthropologists have directly contributed to the preservation of human diversity by discovering and documenting human cultures, by building museums and by increasing our knowledge of indigenous people. In this way anthropologists also enhanced the declarations penned by UNESCO, especially its 2001 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and its 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Anthropologists currently make pronouncements on the emerging European society and refer to its diversification, specificity and its being full of contradictions (Llobera 1994). They also express themselves on European integration policy (Gastelaars, Ruijter 1998; Shore 2000) and the issue of interculturalism or transculturalism (Kraidy 2005). The social anthropology community has had a significant impact on the sphere of political decision-making via UNESCO programmes, especially in the Management of Social Transformations [MOST] programme, the goal of which is to interconnect social science knowledge with political decisions. Anthropologists such as Charles Depaule, Christian Topalov, Arie de Ruijter and others have participated in research addressing the problem of diversity; this work has been directly oriented towards application in political practice. The UNESCO MOST programmes that are directly related to the issues of sustainable diversity include the ‘International Migration and Multicultural

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 33

33

04-05-11 14:16:49

Policies’ and ‘Urban Development’ programmes. These programmes focus on: the eradication of poverty, aggression, and racism; the elimination of conflicts and discrimination; and the study of new forms of migration and inequalities all over the world. Intergenerational coexistence and ageing (i.e., diversified age groups) is currently considered to be an important topic for European countries. The need to participate in the decision-making process and create a knowledge society was dramatically declared at the International Forum on the Social Science - Policy Nexus in 2006. This led to the Buenos Aires Declaration, which called for a new approach to the social science - policy nexus. Through UNESCO, anthropologists began to utilise a condensed form of professional reports and policy papers for communication, where they present research results in an abbreviated and concentrated form, which makes it possible for decision-making bodies to quickly understand the issues and implications. Applied anthropology also plays an important role. Anthropologists participate as observers within war conflicts, serve as members of missions monitoring the course of elections or the observance of human rights, as well as programmes for people suffering from serious diseases, drug addicts, and people in socially excluded communities. Anthropologists’ motto when applying anthropological knowledge is that their research and application instruments are modified for interaction with minority and marginal groups as well as groups whose behaviour requires non-standard approaches. Anthropology can, for instance, recommend methods for the treatment of serious diseases that would correspond to the specific local cultural customs and conditions and thus facilitate therapy. It can also map out the local informal economy of health as it affects treatment-seeking and health-care decisions (Wallman 1996).

e Future of Diversity in Social Anthropology

Social anthropology is based on the study of diversified society, but its subject changes when studying the unity and diversity of humankind. The original study of diversified societies distant from the country of origin of the anthropologists is now only one part of the subject of anthropological study. Anthropology provides increasingly expressive answers to the questions that directly affect life in the countries of origin of the anthropologists both because their research is done in these countries and because the way of life in these countries is approaching the lifestyle in Europe or North America. Whereas anthropologists’ original objective was to study different cultures

34

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 34

04-05-11 14:16:49

in order to acquaint themselves and others (their readers) with otherness, the attention has turned to learning about people in a world that is now perceived as shared. Social anthropology was designated a science at the time of the emergence and blossoming of nationalism and national cultures. Anthropologists measured diversity and the otherness of the studied nations and ethnic groups in comparison to the national cultures of Europe and North America. By thus becoming acquainted with otherness, Europeans gained an awareness of who they were (Said 1978). Currently, with nation-states beyond their zenith and the concept of national cultures becoming problematic, national cultures cannot be the measure of diversity and measure of research or assessment of global processes. A position paper by UNESCO prepared for the international forum of social sciences in Buenos Aires and Montevideo, which took place in September 2005, points out that an important step awaits social scientists because they will have to change their basic frame of reference from the state as the principal analytical basis to the global society. Changing the principal analytical basis not only reintroduces the question of who the main agents of social changes are, but also changes the research aims and priorities. National or state objectives and interests no longer stand in the foreground. The idea of how the world is structured is changing. From a global perspective, the division into ‘three worlds’ appears unsatisfactory today. The concept of the Third World neither corresponds to realistic economic flows, nor to the networks of world urban centres. The division of the world into the rich North and poor South is also not appropriate (Lee, Martin, Sonntag, Taylor, Wallerstein, Wieviorka 2005). In its ability to see the world in its unity and diversity, social anthropology is a step ahead of other social sciences: it has never focused exclusively on its own state and nation. While anthropologists have attempted to cope with Eurocentrism since the 1960s, it is questionable whether the discipline has ever managed to achieve a global perspective. In any case, anthropologists can view the world through the perspective of diversified objects of research. Anthropologists began the process of de-exoticising ‘others’ as early as the 1960s and are now beginning to work with hybrid groups. No one is evaluated or put into a certain category in advance; everyone is categorised solely on the basis of their behaviour and self-definition. With the decline of nation-states and nation cultures, the principal meaning of diversity as a subject of study in anthropology is changing from the diversity of nations and ethnic groups to the study of diversified interest groups, power relations, and acting individuals. Instead of focusing on the diversity of cultures, the anthropological agenda comprises the diversity of social events,

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 35

35

04-05-11 14:16:49

narratives and their interpretations. The meaning of the concept of diversity has changed. We can speak about the privatisation of diversity: instead of the diversity of big groups we have the diversity of individuals; instead of ascribed diversity that is fatally shared for one’s entire life by imagined communities, we have flexible diversity that is subject to change during individuals’ lives, chosen diversity, and negotiated diversity. Given this new situation, the topic of ethnic diversity will probably recede from the foreground of social anthropology. Despite this, ethnic diversity remains a thorny issue and ethnic reactions may still affect relations in a glocal society. On the one hand, the continued inflow of migrants ensures that the theme of ethnicity will be a key topic in Europe for a number of years. On the other hand, the number of ethnically indifferent persons and people who perceive themselves as having two or more ethnic and national identities is likely to increase. However, the fluid individual diversity does not eradicate the sharp differences in access to resources and the numerous forms of power relations and loyalties that bond individuals together in social groups that compete against each other. In this sense of the world, concepts of collective behaviour are still reasonable. Even new types of ethnicity and national awareness, which are not tied to a place, can appear. An interesting example is the Roma’s national (un) consciousness (Uherek 2007). Specific local identities will also appear that will need to be given attention. An increasing number of studies address: the diversity of social representations; power manipulations with ethnicity and nationalism in a diversified society; individual agents in a diversified social and cultural context; and the abilities of various professional groups to cooperate and coexist. New perspectives on family, kinship and gender relations – all of which are related to the study of diversified society – are also topics with noteworthy shifts forward. The ‘at home anthropology’ and the increase in the quality and ability of universities outside Europe and the US have given rise to a diversity within the discipline of anthropology in different parts of the world. Present-day anthropologists often do not speak about anthropology but about world anthropologies and about searching for a new global scenario in the diversified discipline (Ribeiro, Escobar 2006) that is not rigidly imbedded in the ‘Western ideals of progress, modernity and development that have in turn inscribed a Western cosmology of thought patterns and knowledge-production methods within the discipline’ (Kim 2005: 135). Nevertheless, besides regional disparities, the common experience of new technologies, power relations, ecological and other problems poses similar questions across continents. As Marylin Strathern noted: ‘One of the enduring methodological conundrums

36

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 36

04-05-11 14:16:49

of anthropology is how to hold in the same view what are clearly cultural and historical constructs and what are equally clearly generalities about social existence’ (Strathern 2005: vii).

Notes 

 



The discipline is denoted by different terms in accordance with the tradition of research developed in particular areas of the world. The term cultural anthropology came to be used in the US, while the term social anthropology was preferred in the UK. Both terms, along with the term ethnology, were used in continental Europe. Germany is a special case in this regard because of the division of the discipline into two branches: Volkskunde and Vőlkerkunde. For more details, see Barth, Gingrich, Parkin, Silverman . In this text, we refer to the discipline as social anthropology. For more details, see especially Borofsky ; Kuper ; Clifford . The linguist Kenneth Pike coined these terms by adapting the concepts of phonemic and phonetic, which describe linguistic behaviours, into the more neutral emic and etic, where the term etic refers to the professional description of the processes being observed and emic to the meanings that these processes have for the entities involved. These terms were introduced into anthropology by Marvin Harris (, ) and Ward Goodenough (). For more information, see Headland, Pike, Harris . The only exceptions are the concepts of social strata and class, which have also been used as analytic categories when the actors were not aware of their belonging to these categories.

References

Augé, M. 1994. Anthropologie des mondes contemporains. Paris: Aubier. Barnes, J. 1972. Social networks. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Bascom, W.R. and Herskovits, J. (eds.) 1959. Continuity and change in African cultures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Barth, F. (ed.) 1969. Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Barth, F. 2001. Rethinking the Object of Anthropology. In: Borofsky, R., Barth, F., Shweder, R., Rodset, L. and Stolzenberg, N. When: A Conversation about Culture. American Anthropolist. 103(2): 435-437. Barth, F., Gingrich, A., Parkin, R. and Silverman, S. 2005. One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 37

37

04-05-11 14:16:49

Bausinger, H. 1961. Volkskultur in der technischen Welt. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Bensa, A. 2006. La fin de l’exotisme. Toulouse: Anacharsis. Borofsky, R. 2001. Introduction. In: Borofsky, R., Barth, F., Shweder, R., Rodseth, L., Stolzenberg, N. When: A Conversation about Culture. American Anthropolist. 103(2): 432-446. Brubaker, R. 2004. Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. 1986. Writing Culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press. Durkheim, É. 1997 (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. Eriksen, T.H. 2006. Nations in Cyberspace. Short version of the 2006 Ernest Gellner lecture, delivered at the ASEN conference, London School of Economics, 27 March 2006. http://www.tamilnation.org/selfdetermination/nation/eriksen_nationscyberspace.pdf Fahim, H. (ed.) 1982. Indigenous Anthropology in Non-Western Countries. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Furnival, J.S. 1948. Colonial Policy and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gans, H. 1968. Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of Definitions. In: People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. New York: Basic Books. Gastelaars, M. and Ruijter, A. (eds.) 1998. A united Europe: The quest for a multifaceted identity. Maastricht: Shaker. Gellner, E. 1997. Nationalism. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press. Geertz, C. 1964. Agricultural Involution: The process of ecological change in Indonesia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures; Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Glazer, N. and Moynihan, P. (eds.) 1963. Beyond the melting pot; The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gluckman, M. 1940. Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand. Bantu Studies. 14: 1-30. Gluckman, M. 1955. Custom and conflict in Africa. Oxford: Blackwell. Goodenough, W. 1970. Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

38

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 38

04-05-11 14:16:49

Goodenough, W. 1970. Describing a Culture. In: Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104119. Goody, J., Thirsk, J. and Thompson, E.P. (eds.) 1976. Family and Inheritance: Rural society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hannerz, U. 1992. The Global Ecumene as a Network of Networks. In: Kuper, A. (ed.) Conceptualizing Society. New York: Routledge, 35-56. Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory; A history of theories of culture. New York: Crowell. Harris, M. 1976. History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 5: 329-350. Harris, M. 1980. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York, Random House. Headland, T.N., Pike, K.L. and Harris, M. (eds.) 1990. Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Herskovits, M.J. and Harwitz, M. (eds.) 1964. Economic transition in Africa. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Hobsbawm, E. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kilani, M. 1994. L’invention de l’autre: essais sur le discours anthropologique. Lausane: Payot. Kim, D.H. 2005. Theory and Practice in the World Anthropology Network (WAN): An analysis of its goals and future developments. Journal of the World Anthropology Network. 1(1): 135-145. Kraidy, M.M. 2005. Hybridity, or the cultural logic of globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kuper, A. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformation of an illusion. London and New York: Routledge. Kuper, A. 1999. Culture: The anthropologists’ account. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Kürti, L. and Skalník, P. (eds.) 2009. Postsocialist Europe. Anthropological Perspectives from Home. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Leach, E.R. 1954. Political systems of highland Burma; A study of Kachin social structure. With a foreward by Raymond Firth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lee, R.E., Martin, W.J., Sonntag, H.R., Taylor, P.J., Wallerstein, I. and Wieviorka, M. 2005. Social Science and Social Policy: From National Dilemmas to Global Opportunities. Paris: UNESCO. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1961. La crise moderne de l´anthropologie. Paris: UNESCO.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 39

39

04-05-11 14:16:49

Llobera, J. 1994. The God of Modernity. The Development of Nationalism in Western Europe. Oxford, England and Providence, USA: Berg Publishers. Marcus, G.E. 1998. Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Mead, M. 1944. The American Troops and the British Community. London: Hutchinson. Mead, M. 1951. Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority; an interdisciplinary approach to the problems of Soviet character. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mitchell, C. 1956. The Kalela Dance. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Paine, R. 1992. The Marabar Caves 1930-2030. In: Wallman, S. (ed.) Contemporary Futures: Perspectives from social anthropology. A.S.A. Monograph: Academic Press. Peirano, M. 1998. When Anthropology is at Home: The different contexts of a single discipline. Annual Review of Anthropology. 27: 105-128. Pike, K.L. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton. Rabinow, P. 1977. Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press. Redfield, R. 1953. The primitive world and its transformations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Redfield, R., Linton, R. and Herskovits, M.J. 1936. Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist. 38(1): 149-152. Lins, G., Ribeiro, L. and Escobar, A. (eds.) 2006. World Anthropologies: Disciplinary transformations within systems of power. Oxford and New York: Berg. Riehl, W.H. 1862. Die deutsche Arbeit. Stuttgart: Cotta. Rivers, W.H.R. 1900. A Genealogical Method of Collecting Social and Vital Statistics. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 30: 74-82. Robertson, R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage. Said, E.W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Schneider, D. 1968. American Kinship: A cultural account. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Shore, C. 2000. Building Europe: The Cultural Politics of European Integration. London and New York: Routledge. Stocking, G.W. (ed.) 1991. Colonial Situations: Essays in the contextualization of ethnographic knowledge. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Strathern, M. 2005. Kinship, Law and the Unexpected: Relatives are always a surprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 40

04-05-11 14:16:49

Tönnies, F. 1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. Leipzig: Fues. Uherek, Z. 2007. Romany Migration Activities as Factor of Social Innovation. In: Vojtová, P. (ed.) Markers of Ethnic Marginalization on Aboriginal People in Canada and on Roma in Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. České Budějovice, University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, 269-283. Wallerstein, I.M. 1974. The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press. Wallman, S. 1996. Kampala Women Getting by: wellbeing in the time of AIDS. London: James Currey; Kampala: Fountain Publishers; Athens: Ohio University Press. Werbner, R. 1984. The Manchester School in the South-Central Africa. Annual Review of Anthropology. 13: 157-185. Wirth, L. 1938. Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology. 44: 1-24. Wolf, E. 2001. Pathways of Power. Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

Diversity and Social Anthropology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 41

41

04-05-11 14:16:49

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 42

04-05-11 14:16:49

3

Diversity and Sociology

Emilio Gardini1

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Sociology

The birth of the discipline of sociology took place along with society’s efforts to respond to changes in advanced Western modernity. Following the industrial revolution and the major changes that have influenced human history, sociology presented itself as a discipline that seeks to identify the elements that allow for a reading of these major events. Sociology, then, is a response to changing societal conditions. One can affirm that the changes within advanced “modern” society and individuals’ subsequent responses to these changes represent the object of study in sociology. Sociological research today, which is based on the macro theories that we have come to know in recent history (e.g., functionalism, structuralism, conflict theory), reflects the intellectual culture of western Europe in the 1800s. Sociological research today does not make originality a prerogative, but rather influences future developments that will in turn impact sociological thinking. The technological changes that took place in England in the second half of the 1700s and the subsequent birth of major urban centres represent the elements of interest for the first sociologists and the prevailing focus of research. The positivistic studies by Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim reflect the bourgeois post-revolution French situation, while Karl Marx’s studies stem from the birth of classes within society and Max Weber’s socio-historical reading is an expression of capitalistic modernity. Sociology, then, is a response to the difficulties encountered in managing a situation that was markedly “diverse” in respect to the past and that European society found itself having to confront during a particular moment within “modern” history. The social change that followed the industrial revolution imposed a social order that led sociological thought to have to confront itself with that which is considered different from the past, mutable, in transformation.

43

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 43

04-05-11 14:16:49

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Sociology

Sociological research focuses on the individual in society and the totality of meanings that describe social relations. Within this framework, “diversity”, as a subject of study, becomes a fundamental element since it defines the variability in human action. It is from this premise that we can depart in order to focus on “sociology of diversity”. Diversity is a concept that, in and of itself, assumes multiple meanings that then become part of common usage from the moment in which they enter within the realm of “socio-economic ends” or become “useful” as assertion strategies. As such, “diversity” can mean many things; this chapter provides a sociological look at the various implications of “diversity” and how it is treated within the discipline. If, by diversity we mean (as we can derive from the etymology of the word) “that which converges elsewhere” (di-verse), whether this be a concept, a fact, a premise, or any other condition of a social phenomenon, then from the moment in which the concept “diversity” connotes some form of mutation or other divergence, we can deduct how diversity has become an object of sociological study and analysis as far as sociology is a discipline that studies social change. Within sociology, that which is “diverse” diverges from a pre-existing condition (if this exists), and hence undergoes a change in respect to the original condition. Or, vice versa, one could suppose that that which is diverse “maintains”, even from the beginning, conditions that on the basis “of their nature” differ from a presumed ideal type. It is necessary, however, to keep in mind that when one denotes social conditions as “natural”, one runs the risk of carrying the concept in question to extremes. If sustaining that something is “by nature” diverse induces one to consider diversity as an abnormal factor, then it is easy to develop prejudices that present the diversity as not being in line with the norm and consequently not in line with that which is right. The naturalisation of some concepts – and the case of diversity may be amongst these – renders the facts “ahistorical”, depriving them of possible critical operations. This occurs when the collective sense, the cultural system based on the experiences of the collective (Geertz 2001, Hannerz 1998, 2001), makes some concepts part of their cultural vocabulary and then attribute a multiplicity of meanings that often distance themselves from the object of reference. It is easy to recognise that the word diversity, from the moment in which it becomes a noun that assumes a connotative character – “the diversity of...”, for example – usually refers more to that which is abnormal, and hence beyond the norm, not in line with existing rules, than to a situation that is divergent in respect to another. The concept of diversity also denotes “a diverse condition” in which case one speaks about a condition of difference that does not

44

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 44

04-05-11 14:16:49

necessarily include an element of judgement or value in which one is better than the other. If the concept of diversity assumes a character that focuses on value, then the element in question is subject to judgement. The role of sociology – which principally focuses on collective behaviour, the behaviour of individuals within society, and the means by which individuals construct relations with others – is that of questioning arbitrary constructions and revealing their implications. Diversity, understood as non-conformity, in some manner brings the values of the system of reference into question and requires – if we view the facts from a functionalist perspective – solutions in order to manage it. In this way the behaviour is understood as something that is not shared by the majority (Santambrogio 2003). Diversity, understood in this manner, determines two changes within a social system: the first is given by the presence of components of “diversity” within the context, the second by the adjustments made to manage the diversity. The systemic (and functionalist) view, however, is not helpful in the deconstruction of the concept of diversity in a social context; within this framework, diversity is understood either as an element that leads to a rupture in socially shared values – as understood in the youth sub-cultures and the outsiders in the 1960s and 1970s – or as a functional value and not as an element that brings different meanings that in some way enter the social context.

Diversity in Sociological eory

Often that which is considered to be the objective diversity of individuals in society (e.g., cultural diversity, social diversity, different status and roles) can be translated as a universal principle that one finds in the concept of identification – a group or collective’s reason to exist. The construction of identity intended as shared values takes place within the cultural universes as an element that brings together “the different diversities”, establishing the confine that both allows the recognition and enrichment of differences and reinforces the feeling of community (Bauman 2003) that societies today increasingly require in order to remain stable. The premises of sociological thought rest on the construction of meaning that is socially significant within society, in social action and collective behaviour; individuals construct the meanings that they attribute to facts and events through social relations, in this manner constructing that which we consider to be society. From a theoretical perspective, micro-sociological currents principally focus on social relations and the means by which individuals exchange meaning,

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 45

45

04-05-11 14:16:49

while macro-sociological theories primarily focus on the study of structural dynamics and the institutions that comprise social order. It is by moving in the direction of “micro” reflections that we can identify some elements that allow us to place the concept of “diversity” within sociological theory, placing attention on individuals and their relationships with “the others”. If we consider the social practices of the construction and attribution of meaning, we see how social action becomes an element that in some way imposes change within the social structure. It is individual and collective behaviour that generates the elements that constitute society (Berger & Luckman 1966). The construction of subjects as individuals within society occurs through the phases of socialisation during which the individuals internalise the norms, values and meanings of the context of reference; this occurs in a first phase (primary socialisation) through relationships with parents and family, and in a second phase (secondary socialisation) in peer relationships, at school and at work. It is in relation to society in general, then, that individuals gain awareness of the self and of the surrounding environment as part of a continual reflection on meanings (Mead 1934). The phases of socialisation are obviously not so clear-cut, but are part of a process that lasts one’s entire life and extends across different contexts. Individual identity, then, is a construction that occurs during the individual’s entire existence by means of experiences gained and lived. The specification process may be understood as an act of recognition of the self in relation to the environment and the other, a first “distinction” between the self and that which is not the self. The process of identity construction assumes a dialogical connotation, the self and “that which is not the self ” return as elements that define a dual process of reciprocity and conflict. That which is not the self is “diverse” in the sense that it conforms by means of diverse, but not necessarily incompatible, specification processes. In this way the process of specification of the self also becomes a process for recognising the other. The first stage is described by Alfred Schutz from a phenomenological perspective: the self has an alter-ego and it is through the possibility of experiencing the alter-ego that the self manages to identify itself directly (Schutz 1974). At a later stage the recognition of the self allows one to experience the “other” and the social world. Identity and difference are in this sense considered dialogical elements that in some way encounter each other, thereby defining themselves. From an interactional perspective, the interaction with the other takes place through a process of symbolic communication within which individuals attribute a shared meaning to the symbols that interrelate within the communication. The interaction process, then, is one of awareness that places the self in relation to the differences and the diversities, initiating a process of reciprocal recognition.

46

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 46

04-05-11 14:16:49

For that which concerns the macro-sociological perspective, it is necessary to consider diversity from a point a view that pays greater attention to the institutional dimension. If we consider “diverse” behaviour in relation to the behaviour dictated by social norms, then we find that diversity is a nonconformist element and hence deviant. Diversity cannot be misunderstood as a statistic that does not conform with the norm. If a behaviour is considered “diverse” or “rare”, or is not engaged in by the majority of people, then it cannot in any case be considered deviant. Consequently, in order to identify a behaviour as being “diverse”, one cannot make a comparison with behaviour that is considered “normal”; in this case the “diverse” behaviour would be socially labelled as such. From a macro-sociological perspective, then, diversity can be considered as an element that is either functional for society or generates conflict. In both cases, diversity influences the internal social order at the macro-systemic level: for conflict sociologists, by breaking down cohesion, and from a functionalist perspective, by acting in relation to social order and its adjustment. Robert Merton’s theory of anomie (1968), for example, provides an interesting perspective by which to understand the relationship that diversity has with society. The diverse behaviour (or diversity in terms of gender) can become deviant from the moment in which a state of anomie, or rather a situation that includes a contradiction between that which is socially acceptable and the means by which it can be attained, exists. In this sense, even in the case in which “diverse” behaviour fully reflects the norm – that is, it does not violate any legal or moral order – from the moment in which it becomes stigmatised as abnormal or non-conformist, it generates that which Merton calls anomie. Anomie, which in Durkheim’s sociology is the lack of norms that regulate social behaviour, generates conflict within society. Suicidal behaviour, for Durkheim, is one of these (Durkheim 1964). It is clear, then, that from a micro-sociological perspective, the attention given to diversity in sociology largely focuses on the meaning that derives from social interaction while, from the macro-sociological perspective, it is the entire social system that reacts in function with or in conflict with the “diverse” behaviour.

Diversity in Sociological Research

In sociological research, diversity is dealt with in relation to different points in accordance with the historical-cultural context in which it takes place, and consequently in relation to the various theoretical positions.

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 47

47

04-05-11 14:16:49

In a first phase, the positivistic sociological studies from the 1800s demonstrate strong prejudices by focusing on the relationship between biological elements and social effects. Cesare Lombroso’s criminological studies of deviant behaviour (Lombroso 1884) are based on the “objective diversity” of the deviant in relation to somatic tracts, physical form and behaviour. Sociological research, then, oriented itself towards that which regards cultural aspects that influence diversity, the means by which behaviour reproduces itself through “cultural transmission”. It is in this direction that the environment and social context generate different forms of behaviour. It is important to note how these research perspectives place the primary focus on how learning can generate “diverse” behaviours, but the theories are lacking in their failure to distinguish between diversity and deviant behaviour. At the beginning of the 1900s, however, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Chicago founded by Albion Small began the so-called Chicago School of ecological research, which focused on that which at the time was defined as social problems. The major transformations taking place in American cities at the beginning of the century – migrations and differentiation within society – pushed the Chicago School sociologists to study the city and the new social forms that characterised it. Numerous studies focused on gangs, the homeless, nightlife, and the new urban community, with the intention of contributing to the resolution of social problems. The dimension of diversity in these studies can be seen in the transformation of the urban reality (Park, Burgess, McKenzie 1999, Wirth 1928, 1938) and the social forms that exist within the urban contexts that generate lifestyles considered to be diverse (Anderson 1923, Cressey 1932, Trasher 1927, Zourbaugh 1929) in respect to the past. With regard to behaviours and how these become internalised by individuals, it is important to make a reference to labelling theory. Belonging to the micro-sociological interactionist perspective and based primarily on the work of Howard Becker (1963), labelling theory is concerned with the individual’s behaviour as they have been labelled by others. The moment in which others label the diversity as deviant, this behaviour becomes internalised by the labelled individual, who subsequently considers him/herself as such. This process can spread out by means of a sort of “epidemic of representations” (Sperber 1996) and render the diversity an objective fact that cannot be questioned. A fundamental study that, however, brings into crisis the relationship between diversity and normality, and which perhaps more than others reveals the inferences in terms of identity, can be found in Erving Goffman’s Stigma (2003a). Goffman sustains that being stigmatised as diverse determines not

48

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 48

04-05-11 14:16:49

only the construction of conventional images and stereotypes, but also the loss of social status. Goffman’s concept of stigma is useful in reflecting on the issue of homosexuality, which has often been understood as “non-conformist behaviour” on the basis of judgements made about presumed “biological and natural” conditions. While stigma on the one hand brings out the desire to openly declare one’s preference, on the other hand it forces people to give voice to their desire for personal liberty as an instrument for revenge. Goffman also explains how “diversity” becomes institutionalised by what he calls total institutions, which includes prisons and psychiatric hospitals, that authorise treatment for the “diversity” (Goffman 2003b). All of Goffman’s sociology revolves around individual behaviours and the roles that people have within society. The various roles are the different personalities that the individual must inevitably assume in order to face and manage situations in which he/she is in need of “assistance”. Goffman’s individual is an individual that is always “different” in relation to him/herself, that betrays and tricks the other, carries out strategies and imposes his/her public behaviour in accordance with the situation. Among Goffman’s works, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life is probably the work that presents the strongest criticism of American mass society in the 1960s and the homologation of behaviour. Pierre Bourdieu’s studies (1998, 1970) are relevant for that which concerns diversity from a gender perspective or in relation to models of the reproduction of power. Within Bourdieu’s theory, society determines the differences and their expression via “symbolic violence”, which describes the imperceptible power present in social relations. Social relationships are in this way inscribed in the physical bodies, thus constructing diversity as an element of conquest. This also holds for Michel Foucalt’s work on madness and prisons (1976, 1998, 2006), where diversity becomes an object to be submitted that arises from the forms of knowledge expressed in the relationship between “power and knowledge” present in all institutions and dimensions of human experience. Another interesting classical sociological work, which is indicative for current migration studies, is provided by George Simmel in his work on the foreigner (1989). Simmel’s foreigner is a stranger to the community; he comes from the outside and does not identify with the community because he is not part of it. The foreigner does not have ties with the community, making him in a certain sense free. His marginality is a position, more so than a condition. He does not live with the others, but covers a borderline position that is nonetheless within the society. The marginality of Simmel’s foreigner, then, is also a new means of participation in modern social life; he lives in a diverse space in which he attributes new canons, searching for a space to live within the in-

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 49

49

04-05-11 14:16:49

terstices of society. This means of being diverse certainly disrupts the stability of the social system, influencing the low rate of social change that leads one to consider the vast majority of behaviour as being out of line (Santambrogio 2003), but in some ways it proposes an adjustment to the social system that takes place through “other” forms of existence.

e Relevance of Diversity for Policy

Individuals use the means at their disposition in order to participate in the processes of existence. This is very interesting within the sociological studies carried out in the 1970s in the United States on public behaviour (Goffman 1997, Garfinkel 1984) that reflect upon the public actor’s inclinations in regards to standard relational behaviour. Here the social actor is the unquestioned author of the behavioural strategies that bring to light his/her choice in relation to the other by means of role play. Within Erving Goffman’s dramatological perspective, the actor plays diverse roles in accordance with the situation that he/she faces, “adjusting” his/her behaviour and manipulating the situation as if he/she were on stage. This kind of sociological approach provides the basis for a sociology of micro-relations that collect the social structures that make up societal rules. Goffman’s work is useful in order to demonstrate how diversity can be used to create a process specifically aimed at awareness. For example, in some cases the fact of being “diverse” justifies political actions and claims. In these cases the origins of the diversity can be found in history and in the conditions that offer confirmations justified by tradition, by the past, by time. The historical recording of events – a typical occurrence in contemporary society ( Jameson 2003, 2007) – makes it possible to insert the events required for the confirmation of the collective identity within “history”. In this manner the invention of tradition (Hobsbawn, Ranger 1994) and the identity politics of autonomy or the nation-state as an element that confirms the collective narrative (Anderson 2004, see also Appadurai 2001 and Bhabha 1997) have become powerful means by which to reinterpret belonging and diversity. In this way one turns around the belonging/diversity dichotomy in such a way that the former is justified by the latter simply because it connotes certain elements that determine the subject’s origins. Diversity, then, makes it possible to distinguish between that to which one does not want to belong and that to which one wants to belong. It is in this manner that some secessionist movements that make claims to autonomy find confirmation in their “diversity”, which in this case is not a discriminatory element but a factor upon which the claim

50

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 50

04-05-11 14:16:49

is built. The case of the Northern League (Lega Nord) in Italy, for example, refers to a series of claims that seek a political outlet by means of narratives that hook the principles of cultural diversity – which become instruments for confirming their claims – onto a series of belongings that do not fit into the Italian context but “belong” abroad. This type of historical manipulation seeks to achieve a political autonomy that remains the objective of a confirmation strategy with purely economic interests. The diversity elements help sustain the “distinctive models” to which the collective imagination refers back to with the passage of time. The same auto-ethnicisation processes are elements of confirmation that make diversity (cultural and historical) an instrument with which one can respond to the dynamics of cultural subordination. The indigenous movements in Latin America, for example, claim their rights in the name of indigenism, which makes them owners of that history, and use their ethnicity – which can be translated as their diversity – in order to claim rights that have been denied them by colonisation. In this way, diversity becomes an element that can be manipulated in order to achieve specific goals in the name of respect for minority groups or tolerance as well as in the name of the autonomy to which they aspire – as in the case of secessionist movements – or as a motive for making claims through auto-ethnicisation policies and inclusion processes.

e Future of Diversity in Sociology

Diversity as a concept is inherent to sociological theory and research at the individual and collective level. Sociologists have and will continue to focus on issues of diversity given ongoing changes in the world in which we live on a global as well as local level. The rhetoric that at times speaks of a trans-cultural world where differences meet does not prove itself to be very useful to our discussion if it is not supported by theses that seek to understand how these processes are products of often arbitrary social constructions or moved by “cultural representations” that turn people into individuals capable of managing the meaning of their existence. While the stigmatisation of an individual as “different” is not unique to modern society, the dynamics and changes taking place call for the need to discuss the “facts” as they appear on the basis of a superficial glance and to engage in further reflection and deconstruction. The need to consider the “cultural and identity whirlwind”, which involves the contemporary world, as a process in continual transformation that privileges encounter rather than conflict is a fairly obvious fact; this conceptual proposal requires connections that sociological theory and research can of-

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 51

51

04-05-11 14:16:49

fer. The question of migrants, for example, is once again considered either a problem or a resource depending on the political climate that privileges one position or the other. Migration is rarely viewed as a condition that proposes other or different means by which to interpret the “text of existence”. Similarly, the question of rights, of minorities, and individual diversity is once again dealt with in terms of the functional politics of cohabitation; an effort is not made to consider these issues in light of another perspective that focuses on the politics of cohabitation themselves. It is in this direction that diversity not only becomes an element that connotes personal aptitudes that are considered divergent (e.g., homosexuality, limited motor skills, cultural attitudes) but also makes it possible to capture the various shades that the possibility of being in the world offers. This could be the middle road for confronting diversity without having to choose between communitarianism and universalism (Wieviorka 2003, Bauman 2003), where one reduces everything to the point of limiting autonomy and the other favours a completely relative view where, in reality, individuals cannot express that which they really define as being “their” necessary diversities. In this sense, sociological research converges towards the deconstruction of diversity to the extent that this concept is determined by judgements and values while seeking to propose readings in relation to the implications of diversity. Sociological research considers the facts studied as concepts to “bring into crisis and problematise” from which one can extract the elements that make it possible to construct a body of knowledge. It is difficult to say how the research can concretely intervene in the politics of diversity in that the focus of the research is on the relation between politics and social practice. If diversity becomes a political concept, then it would be easy for diversity to become an instrument to be manipulated and to orient the choices that are then reflected within society; rather, diversity should be considered as that which influences the transformation of society. Diversity, then, is a necessary condition for human existence that annuls the homogenous forms tied to the indistinct communitarian reality and to the reductive concept of the so-called globalised world where culture, identity – as well as that which pertains to the personal sphere – intersect. This can be translated into diversity research as a factor within a multi-faceted scenario where individual histories go beyond the collective “history” (Gardini 2008), inserting themselves within those inbetween spaces (Bhabha 2001) that also comprise humanity. In this sense it would be necessary to conduct a reading of the self that includes the multiplicity of the individual, viewing the diversity of the self as an instrument that describes personal belongings (Maalouf 1999).

52

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 52

04-05-11 14:16:49

Note 

Department of Social Sciences, University of Rome, “Sapienza”.

References

Anderson, B. 2004 (1983). Comunità immaginate. Origini e fortuna dei nazionalismi. Roma: Manifesto Libri. (Immagined communities. London and New York: Verso.) Anderson, N. 1923. The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Appadurai, A. 2001. Modernità in polvere. Roma: Meltemi. (Modernity at large.) Bauman, Z. 2003 (2001). Voglia di comunità. Roma-Bari: Laterza. Becker, S.H. 1963. Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Berger, L.P. and Luckmann T. 1997 (1966). La realtà come costruzione sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino. (The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.) Bhabha, H.K. (ed.) 1997 (1990). Nazione e narrazione. Roma: Meltemi. (Nation and narration. London and New York: Routledge.) Bhabha, H.K. 2001 (1994). I luoghi della cultura. Roma: Meltemi. (The location of culture.) Blumer, H. 1996 (1969). La metodologia dell’interazionismo simbolico. Roma: Armando. (Symbolic interactionism:perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California press.) Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. 2006 (1970). La riproduzione. Per una teoria dei sistemi di insegnamento. Firenze: Guaraldi. (La reproduction. Eléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignemen. Paris: Minuit.) Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. 1999 (1998). Il dominio maschile. Feltrinelli. (La domination masculine. Paris: Seuil.) Cressey, P. 1932. The taxi-dance hall. A Sociological Study in Commercialized Recreation and City Life. Chicago: Chigago University Press. Durkheim, E. 1964 (1897). Suicide. Glencoe. Foucault, M. 1976 (1975). Sorvegliare e punire: nascita della prigione. Torino: Einaudi. (Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison. Paris: Gallimard.) Foucault, M. 2006. Follia e psichiatria. Detti e scritti 1957-1984. Milano: Cortina. Foucault, M. 1998. Storia della follia nell’età classica. Milano: Bur-Rizzoli. Gardini, E. 2008. Storie oltre la ‘Storia’. Tra linguaggi, luoghi e testi. In: Studi Culturali. 3. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 53

53

04-05-11 14:16:49

Garfinkel, H. 1984 (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Blackwell Publishers. Geertz, C. 2001. Antropologia interpretativa. Bologna: Il Mulino. Goffman, E. 1997 (1959). La vita quotidiana come rappresentazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. (The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.) Goffman, E. 2003a (1963). Stigma. L’identità negata. Ombre Corte. (Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identità. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.) Goffman, E. 2003b (1968). Asylums. Le istituzioni totali: i meccanismi dell’esclusione e della violenza. Torino: Einaudi. (Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin.) Hannerz, U. 2001 (1996). La diversità culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino. (Transnational connections. Culture, people, places. London and New York: Routledge.) Hannerz, U. 1998. La complessità culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Hobsbawm, E.J. and Ranger, T. 1994 (1983). L’invenzione della tradizione. Torino: Einaudi. (The invention of tradition.) Lombroso, C. 1884. L’uomo delinquente. Torino: Bocca. Jameson, F. 2003 (2002). Una modernità singolare. Trebaseleghe (PD): Sansoni. (A singular modernity.) Jameson, F. 2007. Postmodernismo. Ovvero la logica culturale del tardo capitalismo. Roma: Fazi editore. (Postmodernism, or the cultral logic of late capitalism.) Maalouf, A. 1999 (1998). L’identità. Milano: Bompiani. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the standpoint of social behavior. Chicago: Chigago University Press. Merton, R. 1968. Social theory e social structure. New York: Free Press. Park, E.R., Burgess, W.E. and McKenzie, D.R. 1999. La città. Torino: Edizioni di Comunità. Schutz, A. 1974 (1932). La fenomenologia del mondo sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino. Santambrogio, A. 2003. Introduzione alla sociologia della diversità. Roma: Carocci. Simmel, G. 1989 (1908). Excursus sullo straniero in Sociologia. Milano: Edizioni di Comunità. (Soziologie Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.) Sperber, D. 1999 (1996). Il contagio delle idee. Teoria naturalistica della cultura. Milano: Feltrinelli. (Explaining Culture. A Naturalistic approach.) Trasher, F. 1927. The Gang. A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Wieviorka, M. 2004 (2001). La differenza culturale. Roma-Bari: Laterza. (La différence. Editions Balland.) Wirth, L. 1928. The Ghetto. Chicago: Chigago University Press.

54

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 54

04-05-11 14:16:49

Wirth, L. 1998 (1938). L’Urbanesimo come modo di vita. Roma: Armando editore. (Urbanism As A Way of Life.) Zorbaugh, H. 1929. The Gold Coast and the Slum. A Sociological Study of Chicago’s Near North Side. Chicago: Chigago University Press.

Diversity and Sociology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 55

55

04-05-11 14:16:49

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 56

04-05-11 14:16:49

4

Diversity and Criminology Vanja Stenius

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Criminology

Criminology is a relatively new discipline that has emerged in the past halfcentury as a multi-disciplinary outgrowth of sociology that incorporates law and psychology, as well as other disciplines. Criminology primarily concerns itself with the study of the etiology, causes, prevention, and control of crime, exploring crime both at the individual level as well as at the broader social level. As such, crime and its causes are understood both in terms of individual characteristics and the context (familial, social, political, economic) in which crime takes place. The discipline also includes criminal justice, or the study of the system and responses to crime as opposed to what may be referred to as pure criminology, which focuses on the causes. Both of these aspects are generally included when one speaks of criminology today as a discipline.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Criminology

Diversity, as a distinct concept, is not inherent to the study of criminology and rarely discussed. In fact, the use of the term “diversity” is rarely used, especially in the American context, which is responsible for the vast majority of criminological research and advances in theory in which criminology is recognised as an independent discipline. Despite this lack of specific focus, the idea of diversity is fundamental to the discipline in that individual, familial, social, political, economic, and other differences provide explanations not only for why people commit crime, but also for what constitutes a crime. This latter consideration is important in that criminology is based on the occurrence of a phenomenon that is defined within a community or society. A behaviour or act (or failure to do something) does not constitute a crime until it is defined as such within the law and punishable in accordance with the law. This means that diversity in culture and social conditions may lead to markedly different laws and hence different notions of what is and is not a crime.

57

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 57

04-05-11 14:16:49

It should be noted that diversity is often seen as a cause of crime. The notion that individual and social differences contribute to crime is not new, but can be found in the writings of Émile Durkheim (1982) who argued that deviance and deviants are essential for the healthy functioning of a society. Hence, even the most peaceful communities identify some behaviours that are deemed to be worthy of punishment and hence defined as criminal. More recently, research demonstrates (Adler 1983) that crime tends be lower in more homogenous societies and groups. Diversity in the population also presents itself as a problem in that minority and disadvantaged groups tend to have higher rates of involvement in the criminal justice system than other groups. Discrimination, bias and racism are major concerns in Western countries, where minority groups are overrepresented in crime statistics as both offenders and victims and, even more notably, as prison inmates.

Diversity in eory and Research

Diversity, or differences, in theory and research has historically been considered at two levels: the individual level and the social level (e.g., family, group, community). While the number of criminological theories is quite extensive, they can be divided into four primary groups: the classical school, the positivist school, the behaviour of law and critical criminology, and situational crime prevention. Each group includes a number of unique theories that nonetheless share common elements that also relate to how diversity is understood. Classical School

The classical school of criminological theory sees crime in terms of rational actions that can be addressed via appropriate punishment. This school of thought does not look at the causes of crime in terms of the individual or his/her social environment, but rather views crime in relation to the law. Thus, individual and social diversity are not really taken into consideration whereas the diversity of punishment is – with specific focus on disparity in punishment. In this sense, diversity can be said to be found in the crime, and not in the individual. This line of criminological thinking has its roots in the enlightenment and is an outgrowth of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of the social contract, which serves as a basis for Cesare Beccaria’s classic work Dei delitti e delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments) published in 1764. Beccaria was primarily concerned with the deterrent element of punishment and argued for proportionality and fairness in the imposition of punishment – a

58

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 58

04-05-11 14:16:49

notion that has gained new appeal in many Western countries in the past decades due to critiques of disproportionality, disparity, uncertainty, and discrimination in association with numerous sentencing practices, most notably indeterminate sentencing due to the discretion afforded to both judges and parole boards. More recently, Andrew von Hirsch (1976) laid out a modern system that has its roots in Beccaria’s work, arguing for just desserts – i.e., the punishment should fit the crime, be proportionate, not be more severe than need be, and reflect the crime committed rather than the characteristics of the offender. In von Hirsch’s work, diversity is conceived in terms of the extent to which punishments imposed and carried out reflect ordinal proportionality (a more serious crime should result in a harsher punishment) and cardinal proportionality (crimes that cause more harm are ranked as being more serious – e.g., murder is more serious than burglary) and disparities in sentencing that give rise to either systematic or unsystematic bias in the imposition of punishment. In recognition of practical difficulties in the implementation of a completely impersonal form of sentencing 1 that does not allow for any differences between offenders in sentencing decisions, not even between adults and children, the neoclassical school is somewhat more flexible than Beccaria in that some room for difference was granted to the individual, as punishment focused both on the offender and the crime. This change represented a break in the administration of justice, but not in regards to the overall view of humans as rational beings with free will who deserve to be punished. It did, however, reflect a means of thinking within the administration of justice that allows for differences at the individual level and in terms of the crime committed. Positivist School

Positivist criminology looks for the causes of crime either in the individual or in society. As such, it embodies the vast majority of criminological theory, both contemporary and classic, which seeks to understand and explain the why of crime. The positivist school assumes individual and social diversity, as these elements provide the rationale for why people engage in crime. Individual diversity can be conceptualised in numerous ways, ranging from inborn characteristics (biological and neurological factors) to more external or social factors such as the level of education and marital status (see Vold, Bernard & Snipes 1998). Cesare Lombroso – the father of the Italian positivist school of criminology – was among the first to introduce this line of thought, although his theories, which relied upon physiological features to explain criminality (1918), are

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 59

59

04-05-11 14:16:49

now considered outdated. His legacy, however, is felt quite strongly within both theory and research, as criminologists increasingly turn to the variations in people and society in their effort to explain crime and hence find potential means for reducing it. Biological theories, such as Lombroso’s theory of the natural born criminal, have evolved from their focus on visible, physical characteristics (e.g., skull size and shape, body type) to a look at heritable factors (e.g., twin studies, see Christiansen 1997) that looked at genetics and inheritable traits (e.g., aggressiveness, impulsiveness) in explaining criminality and finally to more subtle differences in hormone levels and brain functioning (see Moffitt 1993b). These aspects may be more abstract on some level, but when measurable can present an interesting insight into the functioning of the human mind and body and a potential means for addressing specific types of criminality (e.g., sex offending). More modern theories focus on development (developmental criminology) (Farrington 1991, 1996, Moffitt 1993a) and criminal careers (Blumstein et al 1986). These theories seek to understand the life course of the individual, often in terms of individual-level characteristics and the context in which s/ he lives. Explanations for crime and delinquency can be found in factors such as age, gender, education, employment, relationships, family context, assorted risk and protective factors, and major turning points in an individual’s life such as getting married. All of these variables, or diversities, are seen as key in explaining why people commit crime or engage in antisocial behaviour and why they desist from or reduce the rate of offending. Research focusing on individual characteristics has largely discarded the validity of the earlier, classical theories. A great deal of current research focuses on the above-mentioned endogenous and exogenous individual-level variables and have had some success in explaining the onset, persistence and desistance from crime (e.g., Ayres et al. 1999, Collins 2004, Maimon & Gibbs 2006, Piquero Farrington & Blumstein 2007). Community or societal theories look to the social or community context in order to explain criminal behaviour. These theories see differences in offending as stemming from societal and/or cultural differences that are external to the individual. This may be at the national level (e.g., the concept of anomie has been used to explain why some nations have higher crime rates than others, see Adler 1983) or on a local or community basis. Ecological theories dating back to the Chicago School have used the conditions of place to link offending with environmental factors (Shaw and McKay 1929, 1931, 1969). The work carried out in Chicago represents the development of researchbased theory that connects key neighbourhood characteristics (e.g., economic status) with the level of crime and delinquency in the area. The key aspect of

60

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 60

04-05-11 14:16:50

their work was the finding that the rate of offending in a given area remained essentially the same as groups of individuals moved in and out, indicating that the environment or setting (economic, social, cultural) was largely responsible for the level of criminal activity in a given area. These early studies have led to more recent work that has tried to explain and change the level of offending in high crime areas, turning to factors such as social capital that emphasise the importance of social relationships and the capacity for building relationships and capital in a given neighbourhood (Sampson 1995). Behaviour of Law and Critical Criminology

While generally not given credit or recognition for this aspect of his thinking, Beccaria also argued that laws “have always favored the few and outraged the many” (see Vold et al. 1998: 24), thus implying that laws were often unjust and presented an undue burden on the lower classes who tended to commit the most “crimes” and therefore come within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. This line of thought has since been taken up by other social thinkers and serves as the foundation of what is now called critical or radical criminology (Chambliss 1999, Groves & Newman 1986, Quinney 1973, Quinney & Wildeman 1991). While generally considered a niche area and not granted much weight within the discipline, especially in the United States, critical criminology nonetheless points to some basic realities that have been highlighted by thinkers throughout the centuries. The lack of attention given to critical criminology can be seen as stemming from its roots within the writings of Karl Marx and its focus on power relations within society. Critical criminology essentially holds that laws are written by those with power in order to maintain current power structures. The definition of an act as a crime does not necessarily reflect moral reasoning, but the desire of the elite to maintain the status quo and control the masses. The criminal justice system (including imprisonment) represents a powerful tool by which to do just that. If we want to consider diversity within this school of thought, then we need to look at the socio-economic structure of a society or other elements (e.g., race or ethnicity) that determine who has and does not have power. At a theoretical level, the sustainability of a stratified and segregated, but also diverse, society can be seen as being possible through the imposition of control by the powerful elite. Rebellion or other trouble on the part of the lower classes can be controlled through the creation of laws that primarily target this group. As such, crime is not rooted in philosophical or moral reasoning, but is simply an act so defined. This recognition of the meaning of crime, in front of the law, raises numerous moral and practical questions about existing laws, many of

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 61

61

04-05-11 14:16:50

which target specific groups of the population. Labelling theory may also be considered in this section (see Becker 1963). The theory is relevant, based on the notion that the label attached to an individual or group, rather than actual behaviour, determines how s/he is viewed and treated within the criminal justice system. As Becker indicates, adolescents generally seen as “good boys” getting into a bit of trouble may be let off the hook and hence not have a criminal record whereas juveniles viewed as troublemakers are likely to be processed by the system, which in turn increases their chances of future system involvement due to the presence of a criminal record. The diversity in this case is between those who have and have not had prior involvement in the criminal justice system and/or a criminal record. Generally speaking, the more severe the system response (regardless of the act committed), the greater the likelihood of future system involvement. Situational Crime Prevention: Designing Out Crime

An alternative response to crime can be seen in a series of criminological theories that have been developed in the past 30 years or so that see the individual as relatively unimportant in crime prevention efforts. Loosely grouped as “situational crime prevention” theories, the different approaches seek to explain how one can reduce crime by changing the physical environment rather than attempting to change people. Here, human and even social diversity are largely ignored in favour of environmental or situational diversity. The primary theories in this school include: rational choice (Clarke 1995, Clarke & Cornish 1985, Clarke & Felson 1993), broken windows (Kelling & Wilson 1982, Kelling & Coles), and routine activities (Clarke & Felson 1993, Cohen & Felson 1979, Felson 1998). Each theory is particular in its own way, but they share a common element in that they see crime as being a function of the physical environment and the available opportunities. Hence, crime reduction efforts should target largely physical and contextual features of the environment rather than focusing directly on people. This has been referred to as the designing out of crime through changes in architecture, lighting, security systems (primarily surveillance) and other physical or structural changes, the idea being that one can reduce crime by making relatively simple changes (e.g., improving the line of sight within a convenience store) that do not require indepth work with the potential offender. Changes in social routines, and hence social diversity, can have a notable impact on crime as pointed out by Cohen and Felson (1979), who ascribe the increase in daytime burglaries in the US in the 1970s to two primary factors: the increased presence of easy-to-carry and valuable goods in the home (i.e.,

62

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 62

04-05-11 14:16:50

electronics) and the lack of a human presence during the day as more and more women joined the workforce. Thus, societal changes are seen as having an influence on crime not because they inherently change the individual, but because they change the opportunities for crime and ease with which it can be committed. Using the case studied by Felson, one could argue that a more diverse situation, in which some women worked outside of the home during the day whereas others worked at home, would make it possible to both achieve a certain level of crime prevention and allow for women’s entry into the workplace. Current trends may in fact promote such a situation, as telecommuting and flex hours are changing work patterns for men and women alike and increasing the probability that someone will be home during the day. Each theory has its merits and has been applied extensively in practice with promising results in many cases. The methods, however, are highly controversial in that attempts to limit or change the environment may impinge upon individual liberties and freedoms. A walk down nearly any street in London demonstrates this, as closed circuit cameras have become ubiquitous. Put in place on the basis of rational choice theory, the cameras represent a form of surveillance intended to reduce the external motivation for the crime. Similarly, the implementation of broken windows theory in cities like New York demonstrates that lack of tolerance for relatively minor “crimes” or forms of social disorder can effectively address some pressing social issues that influence the quality of life within cities such as graffiti and the presence of “squeegee men” at stoplights who insist on being paid for washing the windows while drivers are stopped at traffic lights. It is debatable whether the cleaning up and “Disneyfication” of Times Square really had a significant impact on crime in New York City. It did, however, have a clear impact on the area itself, as porn shops and theatres have been replaced by more familyfriendly shops, restaurants and entertainment, thus encouraging tourists and locals to visit the area. In this case, efforts to reduce crime and disorder effectively forced out certain groups, or forms of diversity, while inviting in others and altering the entire landscape. Such a massive transformation of an area does not come easy and some would debate its desirability. While disorder and vice are generally eschewed by city dwellers, the relatively homogenous nature of Times Square after the intervention begs the question as to how much one should manipulate the environment of a given neighbourhood. Times Square is certainly much safer now, but also arguably less characteristic or interesting.

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 63

63

04-05-11 14:16:50

Diversity in Research

The relevance of diversity in criminological research should be considered at three different levels: the individual, the community and the system. In general, criminologists are not concerned with diversity per se, but see it as an explanatory tool in order to explain why an individual does or does not engage in crime and delinquency, why the individual is treated in a specific way within the criminal justice system, and the impact of punishment on criminal behaviour. The former line of research tends to be based in positivistic theories (whether individual or social), whereas the latter is connected with classical school and/ or concerned with the behaviour of law or the “systems approach” to criminology, which looks at how the “criminal justice system” operates through research focusing on the structure of the criminal justice system and the behaviour of the actors within it, and policies and their implementation. Individual Level

Research using individual-level data tends to assume that certain variables are essential as control variables even if they are not the direct focus of the research. This choice of variables reflects the sum of the research on the subject, which has demonstrated that factors such as race/ethnicity, gender, age, marital status, income and education are often closely linked to criminality and delinquent behaviour. Some of these variables raise major moral and ethical concerns in regards to how certain members of a community are seen by others and ultimately their role in the community. Here it is crucial to distinguish between fixed characteristics (e.g., gender or race) and variable characteristics (e.g., education or income). Attributing criminality to a fixed characteristic, as has been openly done in the past and to some extent continues today, is akin to arguing that crime is innate to the individual and that little can be done to alter his/her tendency to commit crime. Variable characteristics, however, provide a degree of optimism in efforts to reduce or prevent crime in that these variables can be altered. Criminologists today generally recognise that fixed variables are essential in studying crime, but that they may be proxies for other variables. For example, race may be a proxy for poor living conditions and a life with few opportunities. The only fixed variable that is not greatly debated is gender, although even this has been challenged by some researchers in the past few decades (e.g., Adler 1975, Chesney-Lind 1997) and is becoming a topic of greater relevance as more and more women enter the criminal justice system (largely for drug offences, although there is also concern about a rise in violent crime).

64

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 64

04-05-11 14:16:50

Issues of Race and Ethnicity

Race and/or ethnicity is generally considered a default control variable in criminological research in many countries and represents one of the most essential but also most controversial factors. How the variable is defined depends on the local and/or national context, but it remains an inextricable part of most analyses. The reason for this can be seen reflected in prisons and jails around the world, as minority groups tend to be overrepresented in these populations. This of course does not mean that some groups are inherently more inclined to commit crimes, although some scholars, beginning with Lombroso, have made this argument. The reality is complex in that research must take into consideration the conditions in which minority groups tend to live (poor, high-crime areas, low levels of social capital), the labels applied to certain groups (e.g., Chinese Americans are seen as hardworking and smart whereas African Americans are generally associated with crime), the extent of outright discrimination in the criminal justice system, inadvertent discrimination, and the impact of laws that target specific groups. In the case of the US, there is general acceptance among criminologists that African Americans commit more crimes of a specific nature, those that tend to lead to imprisonment, than other groups. This, however, cannot be associated with race per se, as differences between groups tend to disappear when one controls for socio-economic variables (see Barak Flavin & Leighton 2007, Gabbidon 2007, Gabbidon & Greene 2005). Community/Social Level

There is general recognition, at the community level, that all space is not equal – some areas of a city, whether entire neighbourhoods, apartment complexes or individual street corners, tend to have higher rates of crime than other areas. This diversity within the distribution of crime in geographical space (the same can be said to be true for time) represents a relatively fixed feature that, without external intervention, is not conducive to change irrespective of the people who live in or frequent these spaces. The first modern research to examine this idea came out of the Chicago School with Shaw and McKay’s analysis (1931, 1942) of crime and the movement of people through Chicago’s “concentric zones”. Shaw and McKay’s pioneering work provided a look into the power of place in influencing criminal behaviour, noting that as individuals moved up the socio-economic ladder and were able to move towards the outer rings, the criminality did not follow but rather remained in the inner zones as new groups arrived. More recent analysis moves deeper within such

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 65

65

04-05-11 14:16:50

troubled areas or zones towards the micro-level (i.e., street corners), looking at the presence of crime and how to address it in so-called “hot spots”. Research on crime in these areas tends to rely on mapping and geographical systems (GIS) to pinpoint where and when crimes take place. The goal is ultimately practical in nature – to enable police and others to focus resources in areas and at times when it is most likely to have an impact. This approach to the study and prevention of crime can be said to be nearly atheoretical, although it is closely tied to situational crime prevention. Moving beyond the local, and building upon theories of anomie, research trying to understand why some cultures have lower crime rates than others have found that more cohesive societies tend to have lower crime rates. These findings also reflect Durkheim’s notion of organic societies (1994 [1897]), and more recent research looking at the “creation” of diversity within society by diverse groups and the demonisation of specific groups in order to ensure ingroup solidarity. Research by sociologists such as Stanley Cohen (Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and the Rockers) and Kai Erikson (Wayward Puritans) have contributed greatly to this line of research by looking at the process by which the majority society defines and demonises specific members, thus creating an out-group that can serve as a scapegoat for perceived social problems. Diversity in this case is found in the contrasts and differences, whether real or constructed, between groups within a society. The creation or demonisation of the “other” and subsequent criminalisation of behaviours associated with this group is a relatively common occurrence across cultures. Systems Level

Systems research focuses both on individual characteristics (of the offender or the victim) and on the operation of the system itself. This line of research often tries to understand system differences focusing on disparities in sentencing or other treatment within the system itself. Most of this research concerns itself with the front end (who do police stop and/or arrest) and the outcome (what sentence is imposed and carried out). Bias and discrimination, especially for minority and other disadvantaged groups, represent major concerns although the research shows that while discrimination is an issue, it is not as outright or blatant as often presented. The literature in the US demonstrates that while certain groups are overrepresented within the criminal justice system and tend to receive more severe punishments than other groups, this is not necessarily due to outright discrimination, but the result of a mix of factors relating to law (e.g., these groups commit crimes that may have

66

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 66

04-05-11 14:16:50

disproportionately harsh sentences as in the case of some drug offenses) and the process through which a series of small, essentially non-biased decisions add up to a disparate outcome (Spohn Gruhl & Welch 1981-1982). It should be emphasised that systems-level research is highly rooted in the local and national system and practices, making it difficult to make general statements that may be possible at the individual level of research (e.g., differences in age and gender are broadly accepted as being key to explaining criminal behaviour and delinquency). One can however see a recurring concern about discrimination within the system – whether intentional or not – and disparities in the means by which certain groups are treated with a higher concentration, or overrepresentation, of minority or disadvantaged groups such as the poor.

Policy and Practice

Diversity is a key issue in criminal justice at the policy level largely due to the potential for discrimination and bias. “Driving while black” is an oft-cited “crime” in places like the UK and the US where racial profiling of suspects has been a hot political issue. Other countries face similar situations as specific minority groups find themselves subject to greater surveillance and control by the police. At a practical level, some of the theory and research that has been carried out in the effort to reduce crime, while potentially effective, also subject specific groups of individuals to greater police control, increasing the possibility of being observed committing a crime. This is especially true for more targeted policing measures that concentrate more resources with a specific geographical area. Residents may want the police to “do something” about the crime in their neighbourhood, but this means that the chances of being caught committing a violation or offence increases for everyone. Given the limited availability of resources, it also means that fewer resources tend to be allocated to other neighbourhoods where the chance of being caught committing crime effectively decreases. Thus, increasing patrols or police presence in a poor, high-crime area raises the odds that its residents will find their way into the criminal justice system without having increased their actual rate of offending. The targeting and incarceration of specific groups has potentially detrimental effects that go beyond the direct “costs” of punishment. Earnest efforts to reduce crime in high crime areas may actually increase social problems, crime included, through the overincarceration of its male population. The idea, put forth by Rose and Clear (2004), is based on the notion that the imprisonment, or removal, of a high percentage of adult males within a given

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 67

67

04-05-11 14:16:50

area leads to greater social instability and alters the perception of imprisonment (e.g., it may become a badge of honour rather than a source of shame). The legal and cultural basis of criminal justice policy differ by country. Some of these policies are less subject to the impact of public opinion, the media and politics whereas in others it is much easier, or more common, to change penal legislation in accordance with changes at the political level. In recent years this has become especially crucial as countries, some would argue following a trend started in the United States, have become increasingly punitive in responding to crime and punishing offenders. “Penal populism” (see Pratt 2007) is a movement that has raised concern amongst criminologists across Europe and elsewhere as the push to be tough on crime not only increases the severity of sentencing, but tends to do so in a disproportionate way, targeting some groups more than others and introducing more elements that could lead to bias and/or discrimination. In fact, one of the key criticisms of the American “war on drugs” is that, while it did not directly discriminate against African Americans, the impact that this set of policies would have on this group was foreseeable and hence, in Michael Tonry’s words, represents “malign neglect” (Tonry 1994).

e Future of Diversity in Criminology

Criminologists are not likely to begin to engage in discussions about “diversity” per se, but the elements of diversity at multiple levels are inherent to the discipline and will continue to play a crucial role in the development of new theories, research and policy considerations. This stems from the fact that criminologists turn to human and social diversity to understand and explain the complexity of crime and delinquency, relying upon a multitude of theories in the effort to identify ways to effectively reduce and prevent crime. At the same time, crime is a sensitive issue that evokes strong emotions that can be utilised by other parties whether it is the media trying to catch the audience’s attention or politicians seeking to curry social favour. This renders the issue of crime subject to potential manipulation within which a common tactic is that of demonising or blaming a specific group. The frequency of such actions varies across time but can nonetheless be said to be a constant. Concerns about discrimination and bias, then, are to some extent inherent and hence group difference remains a key social and political issue in respect to crime and society’s response to it.

68

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 68

04-05-11 14:16:50

Note 

See Franko Aas () for a discussion about the increasing use of impersonal forms of sentencing intended to reduce disparity in sentencing.

References

Adler, F. 1975. Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. New York: McGraw-Hill. Adler, F. 1983. Nations Not Obsessed with Crime. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman & Co. Ayres, C.D., Williams, J.H., Hawkins, J.D., Peterson, P.L., Catalano, R.F. and Abbott, R.D. 1999. Assessing Correlates of Escalation, Deescalation, and Desistance of Delinquent Behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 15: 277-306. Barak, G., Flavin, J. and Leighton, P. 2007. Class, Race, Gender, and Crime: The Social Realities of Justice in America. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Beccaria, C. 1963 (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Translated by Henri Paolucci. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril Co., Inc. Becker, H. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: The Free Press. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. and Visher, C.A. (eds.) 1986. Criminal Careers and ‘Career Criminals’. Report of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Research on Criminal Careers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Collins, R.E. 2004. Onset and Desistance in Criminal Careers: Neurobiology and the Age-Crime Relationship. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 39: 1-19. Chambliss, W.J. 1999. Power, Politics and Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chesney-Lind, M. 1997. The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Christiansen, K.O. 1977. A Review of Criminality Among Twins. In: Mednick, S.A. and Christiansen, K.O. (eds.) Biosocial Bases of Criminal Behaviour. New York: Gardner Press, 89-108. Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational crime prevention: Achievements and challenges. In: Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. (eds.) Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 69

69

04-05-11 14:16:50

Clarke, R.V. and Cornish, D. 1985. Modelling offenders’ decisions: A framework for policy and research. In: Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.) Crime and Justice. 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R.V. and Felson, M. 1993. Routine Activity and Rational Choice. Advances in Criminological Theory. 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review. 44: 588-608. Cohen, S. 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and the Rockers. Third Edition. London: Routledge. Durkheim, É. 1994 (1897). Suicide. In: Joseph E.J. (ed.) Classics of Criminology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Durkheim, É. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. London: The Free Press. Eriksen, K.T. 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Allyn and Bacon. Farrington, D.P. 1991. Antisocial Personality from Childhood to Adulthood. The Psychologist. 4: 389-394. Farrington, D.P. 1996. The Development of Offending and Antisocial Behavior from Childhood to Adulthood. In: Cordella, P. and Siegel, L. (eds.) Readings in Contemporary Criminological Theory. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Felson, M. 1998. Crime and Everyday Life. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Gabbidon, S.L. 2007. Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. New York: Routledge. Gabbidon, S.L. and Greene, H.T. 2005. Race and Crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Groves, W.B. and Newman, G. (eds.) 1986. Punishment and Privilege. New York: Harrow and Heston. Groves, W.B. and Newman, G. 1989. The Origins of Crime: The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Home Office Research Bulletin. 27: 29-32. Hirsch, A. von 1976. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments. New York: Hill and Wang. Kelling, G.L. and Coles, C.M. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Touchstone. Kelling, G.L. and Wilson, J.Q. 1982. Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety. The Atlantic Monthly. March 1982. Lombroso, C. 1918. Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

70

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 70

04-05-11 14:16:50

Maimon, D. and Gibbs, B. 2006. Social Control and Adolescents’ Desistance from Delinquency: Embracing the Life Course Perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology (ASC). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Convention Center, 1 November 2006. Moffitt, T.E. 1993a. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review. 100(4): 674701. Moffitt, T.E. 1993b. The neuropsychology of conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology. 5: 133-151. Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P. and Blumstein, A. 2007. Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Studies in Delinquent Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pratt, J. 2007. Penal Populism. London: Routledge. Quinney, R. 1973. The Problem of Crime. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company. Quinney, R. and Wildeman, J. 1991. The Problem of Crime: A Peace and Social Justice Perspective. Third Edition. London: Mayfield Publishing Co. Rose, D.R. and Clear, T.R. 2004. Who Doesn’t Know Someone in Prison or Jail: The Impact of Exposure to Prison on Attitudes Toward Formal and Informal Social Control. The Prison Journal. 82: 208-227. Sampson, R.J. 1995. The Community. In: Wilson, J. Q. and Petersilia, J. (eds.) Crime. San Francisco: ICS Press, 193-216. Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. 1931. Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J. and Welch, S. 1981-1982. The Effect of Race on Sentencing: A Re-examination of an Unsettled Question. Law & Society Review. 71-88. Tonry, M. 1994. Malign Neglect – Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vold, G.B., Bernard, T.J. and Snipes, J.B. 1998. Theoretical Criminology. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diversity and Criminology

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 71

71

04-05-11 14:16:50

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 72

04-05-11 14:16:50

5

Diversity and Ecology/ Ecological Economics1 Peter Nijkamp & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Ecology

Our world is dependent on the services provided by our ecosystems such as energy, water, food and wood, not only for our daily consumption and production, but also for our long-term survival. This has led to an increasing transformation of the earth’s surface into productive land, with a subsequent loss of species and the decay in biological variety. The mean species abundance2 – a proxy indicator for biodiversity – has shown a reduction of more than 30 in the past decades worldwide. The awareness is growing that the current development is entirely unsustainable and has to be converted into a balanced long-run development path. The recognition that biological diversity is of critical importance to the stability of the earth’s ecosystem – as a key resource for sustainable functions of natural systems – offers a complementary perspective on the view that biodiversity provides a fundamental potential for human use, such as sustainable development, recreation, human health or scientific research. Against this background, ecology proposes to study the complex patterns and interactions of living nature. It may formally be described as the scientific study of the “branch of biology dealing with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings” (Oxford Dictionary). Ecological economics is a branch of science at the interface of ecology and economics (see Van den Bergh 1996, 2002). It aims to adopt a broad perspective on relevant causes and effects in time, space and parts of economic-environmental systems. It addresses in particular environmental and policy issues in relation to sustainable development. Ecological economics is thus a rather recent discipline that emerged largely in the 1980s as a scientific challenge to analyse the new scarcity due to the loss of environmental quality, natural resources and biodiversity. Ecological economics has since developed into a major branch of research on economic aspects of our ecology. Biodiversity has become an important component of ecological economics. An important step in the analysis and valuation of biodiversity is the definition of the term ‘biodiversity’. This is certainly not an unambiguous concept.

73

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 73

04-05-11 14:16:50

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as “...the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine and the ecological complexes of which they are part...” (United Nations Environment Programme 1992, Article 2). Biodiversity encompasses four levels of analysis or observation: 1 genetic diversity corresponds to the degree of variability within species; 2 species diversity refers to the variety of species on earth, or in a given region; 3 ecosystem diversity refers to heterogeneity at the community level, i.e. at a supra-species level; 4 functional diversity addresses the variety of ecosystems functions.

e Relevance of Biodiversity

In the past decades there has been growing concern worldwide about ecological quality. In particular, biological diversity (or biodiversity) has received much attention in research and public policy (see Nunes & van den Bergh 2001) and in recent discussions about sustainable development. Biodiversity requires our attention for two reasons. First, it provides a wide range of direct and indirect benefits to mankind that occur on both local and global scales, such as stable environmental systems. Second, many human activities contribute to unprecedented rates of biodiversity loss, which threaten the stability and continuity of ecosystems as well as their provision of goods and services to mankind. Consequently, in recent years much attention has been directed towards the analysis and valuation of the loss of biodiversity and the associated loss of ecosystem services. Interest in biodiversity issues initially developed in the 1970s when the growing recognition of worldwide environmental decay and severe resource depletion, fuelled by a population explosion, received unexpected but welcome support during the oil crisis. This was complemented by the First Report to the Club of Rome called The limits of growth, which was based on a scenario analysis with a systems dynamics model of the world. Although the scientific contents of the study left much to be desired – due to conservative estimates of resource availability and insufficient incorporation of behavioural and technological feedback mechanisms in the model – it created a shock effect among social scientists. This gave rise to an intensive debate between growth optimists and pessimists (Daly & Townsend 1993, Van den Bergh & de Mooij 1999). In recent years, researchers have increasingly focused their attention on biodiversity.

74

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 74

04-05-11 14:16:50

Biodiversity is clearly a multi-faceted concept that is not easy to grasp in a few unambiguous descriptors. The study of biodiversity comprises a great variety of domains (e.g., aquatic biodiversity and terrestrial biodiversity), ecosystems (ranging from local to global scales) and interactions (e.g., between man-made environments and natural environments). This will be illustrated in the next paragraph. Biodiversity may indeed reflect a great variety of appearances depending on specific geophysical and climatological conditions. For example, the tencountry African Great Lakes region contains a wide range of habitats including deserts, savannas, and dry and humid tropical forests. In this region of six million km2, 12 of the area is protected. Biodiversity-rich tropical evergreen broadleaf forests cover approximately 1.4 million km2 of the region, but only 7 of these forests are protected, leaving the bulk of the tropical forest unprotected. The total number of species that inhabit the area is unknown, and it is believed that many species will become extinct even before they have been identified, named or described. The quality of ecosystems has, in the past decades, become a major source of concern, both globally and locally. Biodiversity in particular has been experiencing significant decay, partly as a result of population growth, partly as a consequence of modern consumption behaviour and leisure time patterns, and partly as a result of changing land-use patterns (in particular, in agriculture). Moreover, land-use fragmentation – caused by urbanisation and infrastructure – and global climate change mean additional threats to sustainable biodiversity. There is a clear need for innovative solutions to save biodiversity.

Diversity in Ecological Economics

The loss of biodiversity is a consequence of the decisions of billions of individual users of biodiversity products and service flows. This is a result of the very nature of the environment, biological resources and biodiversity, where scarcity is unpriced and property rights do not hold. Biodiversity is a public good, offering many benefits to society (e.g., a gene pool) that are not incorporated into economic transactions. This means that the social value of various biodiversity goods and service flows is insufficiently or not at all reflected in market prices. Thus, the loss of biodiversity results in externalities that are associated with external social costs to humanity’s well-being. As a result, a socially undesirable level of provision of these goods and services will lead to a non-Pareto optimal3 situation, in which it is not possible to consume the available biological resources without making somebody else worse off.

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 75

75

04-05-11 14:16:50

Next, many human activities have contributed to an unprecedented rate of biodiversity loss, which threatens the stability and continuity of ecosystems as well as their provision of goods and services to mankind (Pimm et al. 1995, Simon & Wildavsky 1995). When biodiversity generates so many benefits for humans, one can question why it has been ignored and why biodiversity loss has been allowed to occur. The answer is that many biodiversity services are public goods, available for consumption for free, which leads (or might lead) to their destruction.

Diversity and Ecology in eory

In scientific research, biodiversity has both quantitative and qualitative characteristics. It is generally accepted that biodiversity cannot exclusively be expressed in hard numbers, as it also depends on the ecological structure and processes of a whole area. Nowadays it is broadly recognised that human activities are adversely affecting the earth’s biological diversity as a result of prevailing production and consumption patterns and changes in land-use. It is estimated that 85 to 90 of our planet’s species can be protected by setting aside areas of high biodiversity before they are further degraded, without having to make an inventory of species individually. As said before, biodiversity tends to become a scarce economic good for which, however, a (proper) pricing system does not exist. In recent years, research on the economic valuation of living natural resources and also of biodiversity has progressed significantly, but there is certainly not yet an established framework for valuing biological variety. Recent methods used by ecological economists are inter alia stated preference methods such as contingent valuation techniques and conjoint analysis. Apart from the lack of a solid economic valuation mechanism for biological diversity, there is also a serious lack of reliable and up-to-date information and monitoring systems with a sufficient geographical detail on biodiversity. In order to obtain a balanced trade-off between programme costs and benefits, it is necessary to optimise the use of the information available. Fortunately, the number of studies concerning monetary biodiversity evaluation is growing rapidly. Consequently, there is the need to deploy and develop adjusted methodologies and analysis instruments that can improve our understanding of the monetary value of economic biodiversity and, concurrently, allow for a more accurate forecast of biodiversity values. Comparative analysis of many case studies is key to enhancing our understanding. In addition to an analysis of methodological complexities, there is also a need to draw policy

76

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 76

04-05-11 14:16:50

lessons and general findings from past applied research. The large number of applied economic valuation studies currently available has spurred the search for commonalities and contrasts in different empirical investigations and has also induced the current popularity of meta-analysis and value transfer. In particular, in recent years we have seen a rising number of publications on the economic aspects of biodiversity, both theoretical and empirical. This prompts the intriguing question whether (and what combination of ) ecological and economic insights can help us to better understand the available policy choices and to map out proper roads towards the future.

Diversity and Ecology in Practice

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), an international consortium of over 1300 scientists, has focused intensively on the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (see MEA 2003, 2005). Its conceptual framework of assessing the status of biodiversity and ecosystem services is based on the notion that biodiversity underpins ecosystems and ecosystem services, which in turn contribute to human well-being. Against this background, a new conceptual framework was produced in which ecosystem services (including supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services) are the cornerstone of human well-being, which in turn shall be anchored inter alia in the levels of biodiversity. When using this MEA approach, the economic valuation of biodiversity is to be characterised by a three-step approach. The first step is the modelling and assessment of the role of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. The second step is the estimation of the bio-physical impact of changes on the levels of biodiversity on the quantity, and quality, of these ecosystem services. The third and final step refers to the welfare assessment of changes in the levels of supply of the ecosystem services, portraying as much as possible these changes in monetary terms. The general acceptance of the MEA framework is a major step in explicitly linking biodiversity, ecosystems and human well-being. For this reason, nowadays this framework is often used as a basis to value biodiversity benefits, in particular when working on the policy agenda and management of biodiversity resources. A recent example is the Potsdam Initiative, which was launched at the G8+5 environment ministers meeting in Potsdam in March 2007, calling for a study on the economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity, looking at the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation (see Markandya et al. 2008, Sukhdev et al. 2008).

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 77

77

04-05-11 14:16:50

The studies on biodiversity require a multi-disciplinary approach. Examples can be found in water management, land-use policy, climate change initiatives and so forth. In fact, today the economic valuation and management of natural resources in general and biodiversity in particular are among the most pressing and challenging issues confronting today’s environmental economists and natural scientists. Economists value biodiversity, because valuation allows for a direct comparison with economic values of alternative options, a cornerstone of any cost-benefit analysis exercise. In addition, the monetary valuation of biodiversity allows economists to perform environmental accounting, natural resource damage assessment, and to carry out benefit assessments. Furthermore, valuation is also essential in the research of individual consumer behaviour: it indicates the opinion of individual consumers about certain biodiversity management objectives and identifies individual consumer preferences and/or motivations with respect to biodiversity conservation. This involves a clear need to continue with developing rigorous valuation tools in order to cope with complicated trade-offs in environmental policy analysis in the context of sustainable development initiatives and emerging policies that take explicit account of the variety in the earth’s ecosystem. The current available biodiversity conservation programmes in various countries require considerable financial expenditures for their implementation, which have to be traded off against alternative uses. Although much progress has been made worldwide in identifying and prioritising such programmes, innovative valuation strategies are still needed to generate additional information in order to support, for instance, the actions advocated in Agenda 21 of the 1992 Earth Summit (the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio, Brazil. Biodiversity conservation programme funds have, in general, a rather poor economic underpinning and are not based on solid and explicit economic choice mechanisms. The reasons for this are manifold, but in general they are due to insufficient information on a given biodiversity issue as well as on undefined property rights, high transaction costs, divergence between private and social costs, inappropriate economic instruments and bureaucratic inertia of relevant political institutions. Public authority choices concerning biodiversity preservation programmes should ideally be based on sound economic principles and information, such as fair market prices, the benefits of specific biodiversity policies and the cost opportunities of alternative decisions. Against this background, many efficiency problems and issues regarding the fair allocation of public funds have arisen. Although general information about biodiversity programmes is available through traditional policy channels, it

78

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 78

04-05-11 14:16:50

is challenging to allocate and manage biodiversity funds adequately from the perspective of the non-market value of environmental resources. We need, therefore, to embrace this challenge by endorsing specific efforts in mapping biodiversity values, on the one hand, and by ensuring that these are embedded in concrete policy action. This, in turn, requires an understanding of the potential and limitations of the different policy tools, including the payment for ecosystem services instruments, and their broad acceptance by different stakeholders. In short, this calls for the need for an innovative and effective governance approach, but the design of such a policy model goes far beyond the points discussed here.

e Future of Diversity in Ecology/Ecological Economics

The role of biodiversity and their host ecosystems has been increasingly recognised in current sustainable development strategies. In particular, at a time when human society is confronting the challenges of climate change, terrestrial and marine ecosystems are thought to play an essential role in regulating the climate and should therefore be evaluated in future climate adaption and mitigation policies (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2009). This has focused increasing attention from both the political and scientific communities in recent years on the issue of how to conserve nature to fight climate change. In the new arena of ecological economics, efforts have been made to develop and use ecosystem-based approaches to address climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation in an integrated manner and to develop strategies that achieve mutually supportive outcomes (Convention on Biological Diversity, ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 2009). As a result, a fruitful collection of scientific publications (e.g., International Union for Conservation of Nature 2009, United Nations Environment Programme 2009, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2009, Nunes et al. 2009, The Nature Conservancy 2009) has emerged in recent years addressing the wide ecosystem challenges and economic potential of using biodiversity and ecosystem services to mitigate climate change and to help societies adapt to its impacts both globally and locally. However, the economic assessment of the costs and benefits of biodiversity and ecosystems’ contribution to the climate regulation are subject to a high level of scientific uncertainty as to the impacts of climate change on biodiversity. In particular, answering questions regarding to what extent biodiversity and ecosystems’ natural capacity can be affected by continuing climate change and how to project the magnitude and sensitivity of climate change in itself

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 79

79

04-05-11 14:16:50

impacts biodiversity ecosystems in a dynamic manner. Therefore, more efforts must be dedicated to biological modelling and projections of climate-changeinduced biodiversity and ecosystem degradation. Furthermore, as ecosystem services are characterised by both market benefits (e.g., timber products, food and tourism) and non-market benefits (e.g., carbon regulation and cultural services), they call for the development of new economic approaches from both micro and macro perspectives in the literature. Different instruments are available to assess the economic value of biodiversity; the choice, however, is not always evident due to the existing non-use value of biodiversity. Therefore, alternative integrated valuation techniques must be developed (Nijkamp et al. 2008).

Notes  



This contribution relies heavily on Nunes et al. () and Nunes & Nijkamp (). In the International Biodiversity Project report published by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency in , the Mean Species Abundance (MSA) is defined as “an index which calculates the mean trend in population size of a representative cross section of the species, in line with the CBD  indicator for species abundance”. A Pareto optimal outcome is one in which no-one could be made better off without making someone else worse off. The concept of Pareto optimality is used in a number of areas in economics. If it is not possible to change the allocation of resources in an economy in such a way as to make some people better off without making others worse off, then this is referred to as Pareto optimal, often called Pareto efficient.

References

Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den 1996. Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den (ed.) 2002. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den and Mooij, R. de 1999. As Assessment of the Growth Debate. Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. CBD COP9. Towards a Strategy on Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity. Discussion paper prepared by the EU Ad Hoc Expert Working Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change.

80

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 80

04-05-11 14:16:50

Carraro, C., Bosello, F. and Nunes, P.A.L.D. (eds.) 2009. Impacts of Climate Change and Biodiversity Effects. Final Report, European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. Daly, H.E. and Townsend, K.N. (eds.) 1993. Valuing the Earth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. IUCN 2009. Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA). Policy Briefing. Markandya, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Brauer, I., Brink, P. ten, Kuik, O. and Rayment, M. 2008. Review On The Economics Of Biodiversity Loss: Economic Analysis and Synthesis. Final report for the European Commission, Venice, Italy. MEA 2003 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press,. MEA 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Nature Conservancy, The 2009. Adapting to Climate Change – Ecosystembased Approaches for People and Nature. Nijkamp, P., Vindigni, G. and Nunes, P.A.L.D. 2008. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: A Comparative Study. Ecological Economics. 67: 217231. Nunes P.A.L.D., Ding, H., Silvestri, S. and Chiabai, A. 2009. A hybrid approach to the valuation of climate change effects on ecosystem services: Evidence from the European forests. In: Carraro, C., Bosello, F. and P.A.L.D. Nunes (eds.) Impacts of Climate Change and Biodiversity Effects. Final Report to the European Investment Bank, Luxembourg. Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den 2001. Economic Valuation of Biodiversity: Sense or Nonsense. Ecological Economics. 39(2): 203-222. Nunes, P.A.L.D., Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den and Nijkamp, P. 2003. The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Nunes, P.A.L.D. and Nijkamp, P. (eds.) 2008. Special Issue on ‘Biodiversity and Policy’ of Ecological Economics. 67(2). Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L. and Brooks, T.M. 1995. The Future of Biodiversity. Science. 269: 347-350. Sukhdev, P. 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. TEEB September 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Climate Issues Update. Jointly published by UNEP, European Commission, the German Federal Environment Ministry and the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Made at the United Nations Conference

Diversity and EcologyEcological Economics

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 81

81

04-05-11 14:16:50

on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. http://www. unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163 UNEP June 2009. The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation. http://www.unep.org/pdf/BioseqRRA_scr.pdf Wildavsky, A. 1995. But Is It True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

82

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 82

04-05-11 14:16:50

6

Linguistic Diversity Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Kathleen Heugh

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Linguistics

The discipline of linguistics can be defined as the systematic study of language(s), its nature, its structure and the variation in and between languages. Language permeates, gives direction to and in many ways determines human experience. Linguistics as a discipline is closely related to sociology, anthropology and psychology. The main intellectual thrust in linguistics has shifted from historical work at the beginning of the twentieth century to currently three predominant areas of focus: 1 language systems (semantics, syntax, phonetics/phonology), 2 the processes of language acquisition, and 3 language in culture and society.1 Variation and diversity within and between languages can be studied under any of these three areas. Here we will focus on the third area: diversity in languages in culture and society. Language diversity and multilingualism are closely related concepts, sometimes used synonymously or interchangeably. However, language diversity usually refers to the number and variation of languages and multilingualism to the use of more than one language in a given society as well as the proficiency in more than one language by individuals. ‘Plurilingualism’ is a term also used for the latter, among others by the Council of Europe. Already in the 1950s, Greenberg (1971) devised different measurements of linguistic diversity. He started with a simple index relating to the chance that two random members of a community speak the same language. He then further took into account the factors of linguistic distance and of ‘polylingualism’ (speakers who command two or more languages). A linguistic diversity index must take into account several factors such as the unit of analysis or the probability of finding speakers. Factors to consider are the number of languages (richness), the distribution of languages (evenness) and the distance between languages (distance) (Van Parijs 2006). Several other indices for linguistic

83

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 83

04-05-11 14:16:50

diversity could be constructed based on economic theories, as has been shown for bio-ecological diversity (Maignan et al. 2003), where similar dimensions of diversity such as number, size and distinctiveness are considered. Language communities are unequally spread across the globe. Most of the world’s 7,000 languages are found in a broad belt around the equator. Language diversity decreases as one moves toward the poles and is low in arid environments. The highest density of languages exists in Central and West Africa, in South and Southeast Asia and in the Pacific. The unequal geographical distribution of linguistic diversity is a product of the expansion, movement and organisation of human societies through time (Nettle 1999: 1). Over half of the world’s languages are threatened with extinction (Krauss 1992). An increasing number of linguists became concerned in the 1990s with the high rate of language death in the modern world. Today, the concern has become more general. The year 2008 was proclaimed “International Year of Languages” by UNESCO. According to UNESCO, “language diversity is essential to the human heritage”. Language diversity has to be preserved because “each and every language embodies the unique cultural wisdom of a people. The loss of any language is thus a loss for all humanity. There is an imperative need for language documentation, new methods, new policy initiatives and safeguarding strategies to enhance the vitality of these languages. The cooperative efforts of language communities, language professionals, NGOs and governments will be indispensable in countering this threat.”2 Moreover, linguistic diversity is closely linked to cultural diversity, as indicated in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001) and the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (see Matsuura 2007). Given that a large number of languages are considered weak, a parallel has been drawn between linguistic diversity and biodiversity. In both cases, some of the species are at risk and need specific protection. Crystal (2000) highlights two of the arguments used to support biodiversity for their applicability to linguistic diversity: (1) the whole concept of an ecosystem is based on networks of relationships and “damage to any one of the elements in an ecosystem can result in unforeseen consequences for the system as a whole”, and (2) diversity is necessary for evolution, and the strongest ecosystems are those that are more diverse. The disappearance of a species is a great loss for the world but the death of a language is also a significant loss because languages imply a loss of inherited knowledge. Cultures are transmitted through languages, and languages also reflect the history of the people who have used them. As Krauss argues,

84

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 84

04-05-11 14:16:50

linguistic diversity is not less important than ecological diversity: “Surely just as the extinction of any animal species diminishes our world, so does the extinction of any language. Surely we linguists know, and the general public can sense, that any language is a supreme achievement of a uniquely human collective genius, as divine and endless a mystery as a living organism. Should we mourn the loss of Eyak or Ubykh any less than the loss of the panda or California condor?” (1992: 8). Similar views have been discussed by Maffi (2000), who refers to biocultural diversity as the link and interdependence between the various manifestations of the diversity of life: biodiversity, cultural diversity and linguistic diversity. Another well-known analogy between linguistic and ecological diversity is the ‘language garden analogy’ proposed by Garcia (in Baker & Prys Jones 1998: 205). According to Garcia, it would be dull and boring to travel around the world and see that all gardens have the same flower. The variety of flowers of different shapes, sizes and colours makes our visual and aesthetic experience rich and enjoyable. Linguistic diversity also makes the world more interesting and colourful but, as in the case of flowers, it makes the garden more difficult to tend. Some flowers (and some languages) spread quickly and others need extra care and protection. Language diversity requires planning and care and involves some actions such as: (1) adding flowers to the garden: learning other languages can be an enriching experience; (2) protecting rare flowers: protecting languages at risk through legislation and education; (3) nurturing flowers in danger of extinction: intervention may be necessary and may imply positive economic discrimination; (4) controlling flowers that spread quickly and naturally: spread can be allowed as long as it does not kill other languages. Languages play an important role in the construction of ‘Europe’. Languages are perceived to be one of the key features of cultural identity. “Unity in diversity” is the motto of the European Union. The motto also reflects linguistic diversity as a central feature of Europe. At the same time, however, a monolingual way of thinking still prevails in many societies around the globe today. It is expressed in the slogan ‘One state, one nation, one language’, which found its origin in Europe ( Judge 2000). Linguistic diversity is viewed as a fundamental value of the European Union and is recognised in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.3 Today the European Union considers its “linguistic and cultural diversity part and parcel of the European identity, it is at once a shared heritage, a wealth, a challenge and an asset for Europe”, 4 as expressed by the Council of Ministers in a recent resolution. However, this opinion has thus far had little political and no legal consequences.

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 85

85

04-05-11 14:16:50

Most important are the 23 official languages of the 27 member states of the European Union, which are used for all official publications and are simultaneously interpreted at meetings of the European Parliament, for example. The regional minority languages Catalan, Basque, Galician and Welsh have also been awarded special status for communicating with the European Commission. The European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1998) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1998) together form a European standard for the protection and promotion of regional minority languages. The charter functions as an international instrument for the comparison of legal measures and facilities of member states in this policy domain (Craith 2003) and is aimed at the protection and the promotion of “the historical regional or minority languages of Europe.” The concepts of “regional” and “minority” languages are not specified in the charter, but immigrant languages are explicitly excluded. States are free in their choice of which languages to include. Also, the degree of protection is not prescribed; thus a state is free to choose loose or tight policies. The result is a wide variety of provisions across EU member states (Grin 2003). The European Charter is much more elaborate on the use of language than the European Framework Convention. The charter offers the adhering states the opportunity of choice between alternatives (Woehrling 2006).

Language Diversity in Europe

To the average citizen, Europe may appear to have many languages, but in fact compared with the other continents in the world, Europe has a relatively small number of languages. Only 3.5 of all the languages in the world are spoken on the ‘old continent’. Historically, around 240 different languages were spoken in Europe. The languages in Europe vary greatly in size and strength. There are languages with millions of speakers – German has over 100 million mother-tongue speakers. There are also many small languages with just a handful of speakers that are unknown to most Europeans. An example is Livonian in Latvia, spoken by perhaps 25 elderly persons.5 Some of the most widely spread languages in the world today find their origin in Europe, such as English or French or Spanish. Due to processes of colonialism, trade, migration, diplomacy, mass-media, technology, etc., these languages have spread over vast territories and are the official state language of many countries. Today there are strong organisations to support the learning and use of these languages such as the British Council, the Alliance Française and the Instituto Cervantes.

86

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 86

04-05-11 14:16:50

The majority of European languages belong to the Indo-European family, which can be divided into branches of Baltic (Latvian and Lithuanian), Celtic (e.g., Breton or Welsh), Germanic (e.g., English, German or Frisian), Romance (e.g., French, Spanish or Catalan) and Slavonic (e.g., Russian, Polish or Slovene). Greek, Albanian and Armenian also belong to the Indo-European family, as well as some languages of North India (e.g., Hindi, Urdu or Bengali). Other European languages belong to the separate family of Uralic languages, the Finno-Ugrian group of Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and various Saami languages. Maltese is a Semitic language and Basque is an isolated language on its own with no links to other languages. Almost all European languages are written in the Roman or Latin script. Some Slavonic languages use the Cyrillic script, and Greek and Armenian both have a script of their own. The next table provides an idea of the diversity among the current 27 EU member states in terms of population sizes and related official state languages.

Table 1

Overview of EU member states with estimated populations ranked according to size and the official state languages (EU figures for 2007)

Nr

Member states

Population (in millions) Official state language(s)

1

Germany

82,5

German

2

France

60,9

French

3

United Kingdom

60,4

English

4

Italy

58,8

Italian

5

Spain

43,8

Spanish

6

Poland

38,1

Polish

7

Romania

21,6

Romanian

8

The Netherlands

16,3

Dutch

9

Greece

11,1

Greek

10

Portugal

10,6

Portuguese

11

Belgium

10,5

Dutch, French, German

12

Czech Republic

10,3

Czech

13

Hungary

10,1

Hungarian

14

Sweden

9,0

Swedish

15

Austria

8,3

German

16

Bulgaria

7,7

Bulgarian

17

Denmark

5,4

Danish

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 87

87

04-05-11 14:16:50

Table 1

Overview of EU member states with estimated populations ranked according to size and the official state languages (EU figures for 2007)

Nr

Member states

Population (in millions) Official state language(s)

18

Slovakia

5,4

Slovak

19

Finland

5,3

Finnish, Swedish

20

Ireland

4,2

Irish, English

21

Lithuania

3,4

Lithuanian

22

Latvia

2,3

Latvian

23

Slovenia

2,0

Slovenian

24

Estonia

1,3

Estonian

25

Cyprus

0,8

Greek, Turkish

26

Luxembourg

0,5

Luxemburgish, French, German

27

Malta

0,4

Maltese, English

[Adapted from Extra & Gorter 2008: 5]

The table shows the large differences in population size between different EU member states as well as the connection between the reference to the member states and the names of the official state languages. In 24 out of 27 cases, the name of the state and the name of the language are in agreement (Barbour 2000); the exceptions are Austria, Belgium and Cyprus (for different reasons). There are 23 different official languages of the EU.6 However, in actual fact, different minority languages are also in use in all EU member states. Minority languages also contribute to the rich mosaic of linguistic diversity in Europe. On the one hand, there are regional minority languages indigenous to a certain area, and on the other hand, there are immigrant minority languages whose speakers have arrived from abroad (Extra & Gorter 2001). Most official state languages are spoken on the territory of one European state only. The case of German is a clear exception, because German is a (co-) official language in four EU member states (Germany, Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium), in two non-EU states (Switzerland and Liechtenstein) and also a recognised regional minority language in two other EU states (Denmark and Italy). Several other languages are at the same time the dominant official language in one state and spoken in areas of neighbouring states, e.g., French in the Aoste valley of Italy and the western part of Switzerland, or Italian in western parts of Slovenia and some small southern parts of Switzerland. Also Hungarian and Polish are well spread beyond their state borders. Today, most of these cross-border languages (or languages with a

88

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 88

04-05-11 14:16:50

kin-state) are recognised as official minority languages; but sometimes they are not recognised at all. The geographic distribution of languages is related to state formation, administrative borders and migration. Moreover, some “modern foreign languages” have spread across Europe, mainly through (secondary) education as well as through cultural advancement in, for example, adult courses. German, French and English stand out in Europe because all three have strong institutions behind them that have a global reach (the Goethe Institut, the Alliance Française and the British Council, respectively). Although their organisational structures and budgets may differ, these bodies act like ‘cultural multinationals’, with similar aims to promote the learning of their respective languages as foreign languages and to boost the related cultures (Extra & Gorter 2008: 11-14). The geographic dispersion of regional minority language groups in the EU can only be approximated because there is so much diversity in statistical data. In some member states, figures are available because languages are included in the census; in other states, only (unreliable) estimates can be obtained. In the literature one can find different typologies for minority languages. For instance, they can be grouped together according to geographic spread (Edwards 1991, 2007) or ranked for strength on key variables (Euromosaic 1996), or by simply taking their size. Here we will distinguish five categories of regional minority languages in the EU (Ó Riagáin 2001, Gorter 1996, Grin & Moring 2002).

Table 2

Typology of minority languages in the European Union

Category

Examples

Unique minorities in one EU state

Breton, Corsican in France; North Frisian, Sater Frisian, Sorbian in Germany; Friulan, Ladin, Sardinian in Italy, Frisian in the Netherlands, Welsh and Cornish in the UK

Unique in more than one EU state

Basque in France and Spain; Catalan in Andorra, France, Italy and Spain; Saami in Finland and Sweden

Cross-border, minority/majority

German in Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland

Official state, but some similarity to minority languages

Irish, Maltese, Luxembourgish

Non-territorial

Romani, Yddish

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 89

89

04-05-11 14:16:50

This typology refers mainly to the geographic dimension related to state boundaries and partially to legal status (level of recognition). The distinctions may be gradual and some language groups may not fit in very well (e.g., Slovenian, Croatian or Czech). We present the typology here for the purpose of making the diversity of contexts across Europe visible (figures and text adapted from Extra & Gorter 2008: 24-28). In 2002, the European Council in Barcelona set as a long-term objective that all EU citizens should speak two other languages in addition to their mother tongue. This is far from the current reality. An EU-wide study found that 56 of EU citizens are able to hold a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue (Eurobarometer 2005), but only 28 fulfills the objective of being able to speak two languages besides their mother tongue (and an even lower 11 claims proficiency in at least three languages). The same study showed some further interesting results about multilingualism and language diversity in the European Union. The range of languages spoken is limited. It is predominantly English, mentioned by 38 on average as a second language. In countries such as Sweden, Malta and the Netherlands, over 85 of the population claim to be able to speak English. Four more languages are also mentioned: French (14), German (14), Spanish (6) and Russian (6). Other languages are hardly mentioned as second or third languages beside the mother tongue. These second languages are most frequently used by EU citizens on holidays abroad. In terms of attitudes, some questions were asked about the usefulness of languages, the policy to learn two languages and views on minority languages. 83 of Europeans believe that knowing foreign languages is or could be useful for them personally. Again, English (68) is mentioned by far the most as the language that is most useful to know; French and German follow (25 and 22 respectively). The policy to learn two languages besides the mother tongue is supported by about half of the citizens; the statement that everyone in the EU should be able to speak one language in addition to the mother tongue receives much more support: 84. In general, Europeans have a positive attitudes towards regional and minority languages because 63 “totally agrees” or “tends to agree” with the statement that “regional or minority languages should receive greater support”. In Europe, there are no monolingual countries. All states have groups of regional or immigrant minority languages speakers on their territory. The way the different state governments deal with their minorities varies. Over the last decades, regional and minority languages have found more recognition and respect. The outright repression or discrimination may have disappeared, but the situation of many minority languages is precarious and almost all of them are defined as endangered (Unesco Atlas 2009).

90

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 90

04-05-11 14:16:50

Linguistic Diversity in Africa

Africa is one of the most linguistically diverse regions of the world with around 2000 languages, or approximately one-third of all known languages (Grimes 2000, Heine & Nurse 2003, Ouane 2003). Endogenous (indigenous) African languages are generally regarded as falling within four phyla or major groups (as classified by Greenberg 1963, 1966): Niger-Congo (1,436 languages), AfroAsiatic (371 languages), Nilo-Saharan (196 languages) and Khoisan (35 languages) (Grimes 2000). The Afro-Asiatic languages span North Africa from Western Sahara, Morocco and Mauritania to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea). The Nilo-Saharan languages are concentrated mainly in Sudan and Chad. The largest group, Niger-Congo, occur in West, East (south of the Horn), Central and Southern Africa. The Khoisan languages are found in small groups in Namibia, Botswana and South Africa. Malagasy, in Madagascar, belongs to a fifth language group, Austronesian. The linguistic diversity of Africa is frequently presented in international literature across several disciplines as a problem and a barrier to effective communication, education and economic development. In particular, the contemporary literature even within linguistics has offered a one-dimensional view of African languages as oral and without literary traditions. There is, however, an extensive body of literature in numerous languages dating back to the Ancient Egyptians’ use of hieroglyphics, which influenced many writing systems in countries further south. The Gicandi script of the Kikuyu in Kenya, the Nsibidi pictograms of the Efik in Nigeria, the Mende script of Sierra Leone and the Loma script of Liberia, as well as the Dogon, Bambara and Bambum (Cameroon) scripts show similarities to Egyptian hieroglyphics (Battestini 1997, Ki-Zerbo 2003, Heugh 2006). In the Horn of Africa, the influence of hieroglyphics is found in scripts from the seventh century BC onwards. These early scripts gave rise to a South Semitic language, Ge’ez (ancient Ethiopic), identified by the first and second centuries AD. The spread of Christianity across this region was accompanied by a flowering of literature in Ge’ez, including the Holy Book, Kebra nagast, (e.g., Bloor & Tamarat 1996) from the fourth century AD, and peaking between the seventh and thirteenth centuries. Modern Ethiopian and Eritrean languages in both their spoken and written form (e.g., Tigrinya, Tigre and Amharic) have emerged from Ge’ez which, like Latin in the West, is no longer spoken or used except for religious purposes. A second wave of religious influence – the spread of Islam from the seventh century AD onwards – played a significant role in both the spread of Arabic and the development of written languages across North and West Af-

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 91

91

04-05-11 14:16:50

rica. Ajami, which is the use of Arabic-based orthographies for the transcription of African languages, has been used in the development of many written languages (e.g., Fulfulde, Mende, Wolof, Hausa and Yoruba). It has also been used for Kiswahili and Somali in East Africa (Abdulaziz 2003, Alidou 2004, Heugh 2006). The establishment of ‘Islamo-Sudanese’ religious and educational centres, such as the Sankore university-mosque in Timbuktu, with 25,000 students in the fifteenth century, resulted in large volumes of written texts. Over 150,000 manuscripts dating from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries have been recovered. Although mostly written in Arabic, they include several other languages (Djian 2004). From the fifteenth century onwards, European settlements along the coast of Africa introduced several exogenous languages. The partition of Africa by the European powers at the Berlin Conference of 1884-5 brought about divisions within African linguistic communities, often accompanied by renaming languages across new geopolitical borders. Several European languages have been preserved as official languages, in most cases. Twenty-six countries have French as (one of ) the official languages – these constitute a powerful Francophone bloc. Twenty-two countries have English as (one of ) the official languages, and together these constitute the second largest linguistic bloc: Anglophone Africa. Portuguese continues to occupy a prominent position in Mozambique, Angola, São Tomé and Príncipe, Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissau. Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara, as well as the Canary Islands off the West coast, use Spanish for prominent functions. Italian still has some presence in Libya and even had a short history of prominence in Eritrea and Ethiopia. A third wave of religious influence – the introduction of Christianity to Southern and Eastern Africa by missionaries – resulted in the transcription of many African languages for biblical translation and for primary education in missionary schools in British colonies. Across the continent, the former colonial languages – French, English, Portuguese or Spanish – are now regarded as desirable languages of education, usually from the first grade and certainly by the second or third grade. This has had a negative impact on the use of African languages for high status functions, while also blocking successful education for most African children (e.g., Alidou et al. 2006). From a European perspective it is interesting to be aware that it is commonplace for people to be multilingual in African countries. In addition to being able to communicate in several different languages, people use their multiple languages to negotiate meaning amongst different languages. Most African scholars dispute the notion that multilingualism poses communicative difficulties and increasingly point towards the artificial division and re-

92

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 92

04-05-11 14:16:50

naming of languages subsequent to the partition of Africa (e.g., Djité 1993, Makoni 2003). The external-to-Africa view of ‘linguistic diversity as a problem’ and the Western notion of lingua franca appear to be inadequate in African debates. The co-existence of multiple languages does not in the African context require the emergence of a single lingua franca. From within the continent, the African lingua franca is not ‘a single language ... but a multilayered and partially connected language chain that offers a choice of varieties and registers in the speaker’s immediate environment’ (Fardon & Furniss 1994: 4). This multilayered linguistic continua spills across to multilayered identity. Thus it is possible to be a Wolof speaker who uses Fulani for some functions and Hausa for others, to be simultaneously a member of the Francophone community and to have a Malian and West African identity, but sometimes to claim a Senegalese or Nigerian identity through familial associations. The study of linguistic diversity in African contexts offers rich contributions to the field of sociolinguistics as well as studies in diversity more broadly. One could say that there exists a diversity in views on diversity.

e Relevance of Language Diversity for Policy

Although several definitions of ‘language policy’ have been provided, it is clear that the promotion and protection of linguistic diversity is an urgent matter for policymakers at different levels. On a world scale, UNESCO declared 2008 to be the International Year of Languages in an attempt to attract the attention of state governments to the problems of the survival of small languages and the provision of mother-tongue education. In Europe, both the European Union and the Council of Europe have developed policy plans for linguistic diversity and multilingualism. Politicians, decision-makers, language experts and activists try to keep the issue on the policymaking agendas, but progress is slow and the implementation of solemn declarations and international agreements has been sluggish. In Africa, only a limited number of overall actions on linguistic diversity have been undertaken. It is the level of the nation-state, in Africa as well as elsewhere, that is of decisive importance when it comes to policymaking and the implementation on policies for linguistic diversity. There are substantial differences between the different states. Some state governments still deny the existence of linguistic minorities, emphasising the age-old idea of ‘one nation, one state, one language’. On the other side of the spectrum are states that have given full legal recognition to the languages on their territory, which is followed by extensive economic and financial support for the revival and survival of the languages. However,

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 93

93

04-05-11 14:16:50

in most states the issue of linguistic diversity is a relative minor policy issue, even though ‘language’ has great symbolic, ideological and political impact. In many cases it is the levels below the central state – the regional and the local levels – that are of the utmost importance for the development of policies. A rich mosaic of different policy measures exists at this level. Adaptation to the local situation is often a fruitful and relevant way of making policy.

e Future of Diversity in Linguistics

The number of languages in the world is diminishing at a fast rate. When the percentage of endangered languages is compared to the percentages of species at risk, Harrison estimates that more than 40 of the world’s languages are at risk as compared with 18 of mammals, 11 of birds, 8 of plants and 5 of fish (2007: 7). These estimations are extremely difficult to make and there may be some problems of accuracy, but it is a fact that linguistic diversity is on the decline. The loss of languages in the world is occurring extremely fast: “At the current pace, we stand to lose a language every 10 days for the foreseeable future” (ibid.: 5). Some countries and regions, particularly in Europe, have special language policies to maintain and promote the use of minority languages. These policies include the teaching of languages at school and the legal recognition of these languages, but these efforts do not apply to most languages that are at risk. Indeed, the current trend indicates that in the future there will be fewer languages spoken in the world. The vitality of languages is related to the complex interaction of different factors. Among these factors, economic variables play an important role as can be seen by the spread of English to different parts of the world. Nowadays, urbanisation is also a very strong trend. Speakers of minority and endangered languages coming from more remote rural areas often switch to majority languages when moving to cities. Another factor that can influence the future of diversity is demography. Immigration and differential birth rates do influence language groups in different ways. An additional factor that can have an impact on the future of linguistic diversity is the use of new technologies. It is still difficult to determine whether this will have a positive or negative effect on linguistic diversity, but Graddol (2006) reports that less English is used on the internet nowadays than a few years ago because more speakers of other languages use internet, and more kinds of computer software is available for different scripts. He also argues that monolingualism is declining in many parts of the world. Focusing on Europe, it is a fact that multilingualism is in-

94

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 94

04-05-11 14:16:50

creasing because of a combination of different factors including the arrival of immigrants who speak other languages, the promotion of minority languages and the spread of English. It is difficult to foresee the future but the trend seems to be going in different directions. On the one hand, there is a decrease in the total number of languages in the world, particularly in the more multilingual areas of the world, but on the other hand there is an increase of multilingualism in many countries that were traditionally more homogeneous.

Notes      

See further: http://oldwww.ru.ac.za/academic/departments/linguistics/resources/ define.html Source: http://www.indigenous-language.org/YOL/index.html http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/ev.php?URL_ID=&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&U http://ec.europa.eu/culture/portal/action/linguistic/lingui_en.htm COUNCIL RESOLUTION of  November  on a European strategy for multilingualism (/C /), p . Redbook/wikipedia:  speakers; Ethnologue: - speakers, nearly extinct. This is because the Turkish speaking part of Cyprus did not enter the EU in .

References

Abdulaziz, M.H. 2003. The history of language policy in Africa with reference to language choice in education. In: Ouane, A. (ed.) Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 181-199. Alidou, H. 2004. Medium of instruction in post-colonial Africa. In: Tollefson, J.W. and Tsui, A.B. (eds.) Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda? Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 195-214. Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y.S., Heugh, K. and Wolff, H.E. 2006. Optimizing Learning and Education in Africa – the Language Factor. A Stock-taking Research on Mother Tongue and Bilingual Education in SubSaharan Africa. Paris: Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA). Baker, C. and Prys Jones, S. 1998. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Battestini, S. 1997. Écriture et Texte: Contribution Africaine. Québec and Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université Laval; Paris: Présence Africaine.

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 95

95

04-05-11 14:16:50

Bloor, T. and Tamrat, W. 1996. Issues in Ethiopian Language Policy and Education. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 17(5): 321338. Craith, M. 2003. Facilitating or generating linguistic diversity. The European charter for regional or minority languages. In: Hogan-Brun, G. and Wolff, S. (eds.) Minority Languages in Europe. Frameworks, Status, Prospects. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 56-72. Crystal, D. 2000. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Djian, J.-M. 2004. Mali: the fabulous past of Africa. Translated by Cragg, G. In: Le Monde diplomatique, August: 10-11. Djité, P.G. 1993. Language and development in Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 100/101:149-166. Edwards, J. 1991. Socio-educational issues concerning indigenous minority languages: Terminology, geography and status. In: Sikma, J. and Gorter, D. (eds.) European Lesser Used Languages in Primary Education. Leeuwarden: Mercator Education/ Fryske Akademy, 207-226. Edwards, J. 2007. Societal multilingualism: Reality, recognition and response. In: Auer, P. and Wei, L. (eds.) Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 447-467. Eurobarometer 2006. Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer Wave 64.3: 243. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc631_en.pdf [accessed 6 March 2009] Extra, G. and Gorter, D. 2001. Comparative perspectives on regional and immigrant minority languages in multicultural Europe. In: Extra, G. and Gorter, D. (eds.) The Other Languages of Europe (Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-41. Extra, G. and Gorter, D. 2008. The constellation of languages in Europe: An inclusive approach. In: Extra, G. and Gorter, D. (eds.) Multilingual Europe: Facts and Policies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 3-61. Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. 1994. Introduction: frontiers and boundaries – African languages as political environment. In: Fardon, R. and Furniss, G. (eds.) African languages, development and the state. London and New York: Routledge, 1-29. Gorter, D. 1996. Het Fries als kleine Europese taal. (Frisian as a small European language). Ljouwert/Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. Graddol, D. 2006. English next. Why Global English may mean the end of English as a Foreign language. London: British Council. Grimes, B.F. (ed.) 2000. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

96

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 96

04-05-11 14:16:50

Greenberg, J.H. 1956. The Measurement of Linguistic Diversity. Language. 32(1): 109-115. Greenberg, J.H. 1963. The Languages of Africa. International Journal of American Linguistics. 29(1): part 2. Greenberg, J.H. 1966. The Languages of Africa. Second edition with additions and corrections. Bloomington: Indiana University. Grin, F. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Grin, F. and Moring, T. 2002. SMiLE – Final report: Support for minority languages in Europe. Brussels: European Commission. http://europa. eu.int/comm/-education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/files/support.pdf [accessed 6 March 2009] Harrison, D. 2007. When languages Die: The extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B. and Nurse, D. (eds.) 2003. African Languages: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heugh, K. 2006. Language Education Policies in Africa. In: Brown, K. (editor-in-chief ) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. Second edition. 6. Oxford: Elsevier, 414-422. Judge, A. 2000. France: ‘One state, one nation, one language?’ In: Barbour, S. and Carmichael, C. (eds.) Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44-82. Ki-Zerbo, J. (ed.) 2003. General History of Africa Vol 1 (Abridged): Methodology and African Prehistory. Cape Town: NEA & UNESCO. Krauss, M. 1992. The World’s Languages in Crisis. Language. 68(1): 4-10. Maffi, L. 2000. Language Preservation vs. Language Maintenance and Revitalization: Assessing concepts, approaches, and implications for language sciences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 142: 175-190. Maignan, C., Ottaviano, G., Pinelli, D. and Rullani, F. 2003. Bio-Ecological Diversity vs. Socio-Economic Diversity: A Comparison of Existing Measures, NOTA DI LAVORO 13.2003. http://www.feem.it/NR/rdonlyres/CD0D91F5-12B9-4E20-B905-00E25D73187A/691/1303.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Makoni, S. 2003. From misinvention to disinvention of language: Multilingualism and the South African Constitution. In: Makoni, S., Smitherman, G., Ball, A. and Spears, A. (eds.) Black Linguistics. Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas. London and New York: Routledge, 132-151. Matsuura, K. 2007. Message from Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO, on the celebration of 2008, International Year of Languages.

Linguistic Diversity

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 97

97

04-05-11 14:16:50

http://portal.unesco.org/-culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=35559&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed 7 March 2009] Nelde, P., Strubell, M. and Williams, G. 1996. Euromosaic: The production and reproduction of the minority language groups of the EU. Luxembourg: Publications offices. Nettle, D. 1999. Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ouane, A. 2003. Introduction: the view from inside the linguistic jail. In: Ouane, A. (ed.) Towards a multilingual culture of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, 1-22. Parijs, Ph. van 2006. Linguistic diversity: What is it? And does it matter? Proceedings Challenges of Multilingual Cities, Brussels, 9-10 June. www.ecare.ulb.ac.be-/ecare/ws/lingual/papers/vanparijs.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Traill, A. 2002. The Khoesan Languages. In: Mesthrie, R. (ed). Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-49. UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger 2009. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00206 [accessed 7 March 2009] UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity 2001. http://unesdoc-.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001429/142919e.pdf [accessed 7 March 2009] Woehrling, J.-M. 2006. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. A critical Commentary. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

98

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 98

04-05-11 14:16:51

7

Diversity and Architecture Hisham Elkadi & Mirjana Lozanovska

A Brief Description of the Discipline of Architecture

Architecture can be defined as the art and tectonics of place making. The discipline of architecture involves a broad set of practices including design of the built environment, development of architectural projects either communitybased or oriented towards a (private) client, and advisory work for governments. Architecture also involves a wide spectrum of knowledge including urban design and urban planning, and a variety of architectural ideas, theories and movements. Various dominant ideologies have manifested themselves in built form, whereas other, marginal cultural parameters have emerged in the vernacular or traditional architecture. Architecture is considered the medium through which society is organised and materialised. It resonates with symbolic meaning as well as pragmatic order through built places.

e Meaning and Categorisation of Diversity in Architecture

Architecture is perceived as a cultural product, but the architectural community and discipline have been slow to engage with diversity as a cultural parameter in architecture. Diversity in architecture, particularly the debate of inclusion and exclusion, is not a part of the mainstream discourse. Mainstream architecture is largely dominated by the publicity and discussion of the work of internationally established architects, something that has become more dominant through globalised information technologies. The notion of the ‘starchitect’ has been a rising phenomenon in the architectural world to the extent that nations that are rising in the global economy of late capitalism seek the ‘starchitect’ for the design of significant and large projects. Agents engaged in nation-building have added the dimension of cultural capital to its contemporary agenda of economic strength. One example of this is the ‘Bilbao effect’, named after Frank Gehry’s design for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which engendered a dramatic increase in international tourism to Bilbao.

99

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 99

04-05-11 14:16:51

Another example is the major facilities developed for the Olympics in Beijing (China), many of which were commissioned to, and consequently built by the world’s most renowned architectural firms. As stated, cultural diversity is largely marginal in architectural discourse and not often considered an influencing factor in architectural practices. There is not much evidence of currency of terms related to cultural diversity such as identity, ethnicity, culture, multiculturalism, cultural difference. In 2007, Carey Lyon, former president of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA), argued that architects have not participated or contributed to the debates about culture and identity (Lyon 2007). This is despite the usage of the term diversity or related themes in other cultural disciplines for more than four decades. Art disciplines such as literature, cinema, music and the visual arts have no trouble engaging with issues of value, colonisation, multiculturalism, ownership and authorship, also in the form of internal critique. Although not centred in the mainstream of the discipline, these themes do seem to have their place at the fringes of architectural practices and research. Some ideas regarding diversity appear to have entered the thinking about architecture at the end of the 1960s. Key practices and texts such as the works of Hassan Fathy and Christopher Alexander induced the architectural profession to look at diversity within sustainable design and argued that this was a creative potential in architecture. A surge in work on women and architecture emerged at this time, putting gender and sexual identity on the radar of architectural discussion. Paul Oliver’s research on vernacular architecture has documented diversity as a form of an architectural culture that emerged from the way people organised their spatial world. He argues that such vernacular architecture is eroding and much of it is already extinct due to the effects of globalisation on ways of living as well as on materials and construction techniques. At the community level, architects in the 1970s attempted to develop design processes that entailed user participation, especially if they involved underprivileged communities, in order to produce a more relevant and dignified architecture. Interest in the vernacular and the local prompted research on ‘regionalist architecture’ and ‘critical regionalism’ aiming to understand and categorise the work of architects that attempted to work with local traditions. Some architects have had success within this paradigm of ‘critical regionalism’, developing languages of architecture that mediate the (Western) modern and (local) tradition. Through his work in Rural Studio, Samuel Mockbee has built aesthetically attractive and inexpensive structures for needy people and communities located in one of the world’s most advanced economies. Some of these practices of diversity in architecture were only significant in their particular period or era, while others continue to be relevant, sometimes

100

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 100

04-05-11 14:16:51

in different guises. Work around architectural and urban heritage, relevant to international organisations such as UNESCO and to local policy organisations that produce town planning codes and laws, have emerged from a revaluing of and research in architectural history and architectural tradition. To some extent, their efforts aim to prevent the erasure of symbolic structures and/or local traditions in the wake of urban growth and building development. The development of heritage value in the built environment is a movement largely driven by an elite community protecting their cultural and economic capital. While significant heritage value may have been assigned to a place and structure in India, the Indian community in a city like Melbourne, Australia built on immigration has not established a dynamic forum for the discussion of heritage value to the Indian community in Australia. This brings us to the issues of diversity in architecture that are underrepresented and relevant to our contemporary society. As outlined in the introduction, the conditions of diversity, largely produced through migrations and resettlement of people, present challenges to a discipline like architecture. The following section expands on these areas.

eoretical Discourse on Diversity in Architecture

The general debates around inclusion and exclusion through architecture revolve around conceptual frameworks of cultural diversity, cultural difference and multiculturalism. These terms are sometimes used interchangeably and yet theorists elaborate on some of the distinctions. A literature review of diversity in architecture can be organised under four main categories: 1 concepts of multiculturalism in architectural production; 2 ethnicisation of architecture; 3 the role of tradition and vernacular architecture; 4 ownership and authorship of architecture. Multiculturalism in Architecture

Gunew’s study of Australian multiculturalism in relation to the cultural industry is informative for a global context. Gunew (1993: 2) distinguishes between two types of multiculturalism: “a system of government policies designed to manage cultural diversity, and multiculturalism in so far as it arises from the desires of various communities and individuals who feel excluded by the discourses and practices surrounding (Australian) nationalism”. In the policy definition, multiculturalism is advocated as “cultural diversity”, and it

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 101

101

04-05-11 14:16:51

serves to challenge both unequal power relations and a fully homogeneous national culture. Elaborating on this earlier work, Gunew again addresses the concept of multiculturalism as a concept by nations with the agenda to “represent themselves as transcendently homogeneous in spite of their heterogeneity”, and in its service towards minorities assumes itself always in relation to a majority (2006: 16). Architectural theorists have drawn from cultural and postcolonial theories to formulate a discourse of cultural diversity in architecture. Lozanovska (1997) has argued that signs of cultural difference are produced even in the most normal and assimilatory processes of home ownership and homemaking. Because houses are public artifacts, at least their facades produce appearances of an aesthetic perceived to be different from the context. Baydar (2004) promoted the need to shift from cultural diversity to cultural difference in architectural thinking. Homi Bhabha (1994) portrayed cultural diversity as a category of comparative ethics and aesthetics that emphasises liberal notions of multiculturalism and cultural exchange. Cultural difference, on the other hand, “focuses on the problem of the ambivalence of cultural authority: the attempt to dominate in the name of a cultural supremacy which is itself produced only in the moment of differentiation” (Bhabha 1994: 34). One of the main causes that brings about conflicts is the difference between the systems of values treasured by different groups or ethno cultures. Friction may emanate from ideology and find its way into the minds of the common population, encouraging it to perceive this friction as a confrontation of cultural values and symbols. Architecture and artifacts of the cultural-built heritage are usually perceived as strong historical evidence for the grievances of certain groups. Preservation or in many cases destruction and demolition of such symbols are attempts to delete such physical evidence. There are many global incidents of violence deliberately targeting not only the people but also their cultural built heritage(s), for example in Iraq or Bosnia. Riedlmayer (2002) explained how the military violence in Bosnia aimed to deconstruct a heterogeneous and plural culture in order to destroy all records of co-existence. Ethnicisation of Architecture

The ethnicisation of architecture has a long tradition and is made evident in the canonical publications disseminated within the Anglo-Saxon world. Gülsüm Baydar Nalbantoglu’s essay (1998) analyses the so-called non-historical styles of Banister Fletcher’s well-known book and the illustration of the ‘Tree of Architecture’ in the sixteenth edition (Fletcher 1954). The front inside cover of the

102

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 102

04-05-11 14:16:51

sixteenth edition shows an illustration of the Tree of Architecture comprising mainly European styles branching out into various cultural and geographical locations. The architecture of the ‘others’ are not given the place of architectural histories in their own right.1 The twentieth edition (1996) demonstrates the geopolitical scope of the field of ‘architecture’ (Lozanovska 2004b) with what was once described as ‘grotesque’ now embraced as ‘non-West’. The anthology of essays in ‘Postcolonial Space(s)’ (Nalbantoglu et al. 1997) addresses questions of ethnic identity, tradition and culture through paradigms framed by postcolonial theory (Lozanovska 2004b). The text is an exploration of the disciplinary boundaries of architecture. Investigating issues of representation, interpretation and identity, it challenges regionalist positions that often critique studies on intercultural architectural encounters and hardly question their own mechanisms of legitimacy (Nalbantoglu & Thai 1997: 7). Many of the architectural writers in this publication draw on the work of postcolonial theorists such as Said (1978) who argued that the relationship between the occident and the orient is a relationship of power and domination. Spivak (1990: 1) argued that ‘the imperialist project [which] had to assume that the earth it territorialised was in fact previously uninscribed’. Postcolonialism, combined with the creation of the profession ‘architect’ itself in postcolonial environments (McGarry & Elkadi 2008), have influenced the design practice of architecture. First, the interplay between power and society that emerged after colonialism influenced both the aesthetics and procurement of the built environments. Second, it stimulated the visionary capacity and fantasy of architects, who turn the imagined unreal into visual projections of the manifest and physical. Two outcomes become evident. One is discussed by Çelik (1997) as the visual fantasy at play in the projection of new colonial cities. The other is the often expressive and novel structures of worship erected by ethnic communities in the diaspora. Beynon (2005, 2002) has investigated various temples, mosques and churches in the culturally diverse outer suburbs of Melbourne, calling them ‘ Third-World Looking Buildings’ after anthropologist Ghassan Hage (1998). These buildings have altered the physical and social fabric of the city and yet there is little representation of such buildings in architectural discourse. Tradition and Diversity in Architecture Sociology is rarely more akin to social psychoanalysis than when it confronts an object like taste, one of the most vital stakes in the struggles fought in the field of the dominant class and the field of cultural production. bourdieu 1984: 11

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 103

103

04-05-11 14:16:51

Lozanovska (2008) has examined how Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of taste produces categories of diversity in architecture. In his seminal book Distinction (1984), Bourdieu explains the ways in which aesthetic taste gives appearance to a division of classes, and is an instrument to reproduce that class division. The production, publication, dissemination and policymaking is what Bourdieu terms ‘cultural capital’. A national architecture invariably reflects and defines a dominant aesthetic taste evident in many fields: lifestyle, biography, history, production of goods, access to the products, collections of objects, etc. Bourdieu highlights the significance of social origin as a defining mechanism of taste and class. A crucial component of Bourdieu’s theory is the capacity of ‘social actors’ to impose their particular aesthetic and symbolic systems and actively reproduce these social structures of domination. The effect is what Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic violence’. Through the mechanisms outlined above, the dominant aesthetic taste renders other architectural traditions undesirable and denies their architectural history and value. Recent studies illustrate how symbolic violence manifests itself for example in the Australian multicultural society. Ghassan Hage (1997) argues that there are two types of multiculturalism. Cosmo-multiculturalism is the classy, sophisticated, cosmopolitan multiculturalism evident in official displays and manifested in people’s choice of restaurant or food. This also applies where architecture conservation of certain styles in towns and cities is associated with a privileged globalisation without their indigenous population. The other, inhabited multiculturalism is a lower-class lived tradition, mostly experienced by migrants. Hage argues that in satisfying their own search for diversity, the cosmo-multiculturalist group tends to emphasise the otherness in the traditions of those who inhabit multiculturalism. Good taste in architecture is of interest to any community that values a range of aesthetics from popular and kitsch to high architecture (including heritage, retro and the new super luxurious). For most nations a spectrum of literature exists on reflections of national identity in architecture. For example, in Australia numerous books propose and establish the idea of the ‘Australian house’. Very rarely are houses that belong to migrants or identified as migrant houses included in this literature. The idea of bad taste in architecture reappears in discussions with terms like ‘grotesque’ (Parker & Phillips 2007: 3-7). However, more problematic is how the ‘other’ has become associated with the ‘grotesque’ in architectural discourse without sufficient resonance to its cultural discursive meanings. In this way, the engagement of architecture with diverse cultural fields is minimised, even while the cultural discussion has become more explicit.

104

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 104

04-05-11 14:16:51

Baydar Naltantoglu illustrates Fletcher’s simultaneous fascination and disdain for non-Western architectures through the terms ‘excessive’ and ‘grotesque’ (1954 and other editions) that frequently appear in Fletcher’s analysis to indicate undesirable exaggeration. Baydar Nalbantoglu (1998) argues that, from this perspective, other architectures that are excessive in ornament were defined as not having or lacking a history. Ghandour (1998) argues that authentic local identity is a condition of postcolonial societies. Consequently, he deems the architect’s role in the production of buildings in such societies to be minor, as he observes a tendency towards stylistic imitation of local traditions, which he regards as a pastiche of a developer’s palette towards a certain consumer audience. Ownership and Authorship of Architecture

The issue of identity is entangled with local and global movements and forces but is invariably assessed against a meta-history embedded in Eurocentric narratives. However, as Colquhoun elaborates in The concept of regionalism (1997), an essay that revises earlier theories on ‘regionalism in architecture’, this is not a straightforward divide. He argues that modernism and modernity is already infiltrated through other cultures and otherness, pointing to the travels of Le Corbusier to the East (Balkans and North Africa) that had a significant impact on his thinking about separate vernacular traditions. The historical reference to the eighteenth century is key, as for the first time, Europeans are directly subjected to cultures that are not part of the ancient classical tradition. Ethnographer James Clifford has noted how these other cultures became appropriated by modernity (in art and architecture), later to be labeled ‘primitive’ (Clifford 1988). From these contexts, the notion of ‘authenticity’ in architecture emerges, but as Colquhoun points out, this only occurs as the object it describes is threatened and about to disappear. In the same publication John Biln (1997) provides a meticulous analysis of the Arab World Institute Building in Paris and how an internationally acclaimed (and Western) architectural firm under the directorship of Jean Nouvel positions such a project. Biln elaborates the architectural strategies of Nouvel that resists oppositions between Paris (Europe) and Arab (Orient), including the displacement of authenticity, appropriation and appropriation through a visual gaze. More radically, Rem Koolhaas has stated that “the ‘Western’ no longer belongs to Europe exclusively, and that decades of exchange and transformation of universal languages and local practices have resulted in various modernities, rightly owned by many”. In his work about the ‘culture of disappearance’,

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 105

105

04-05-11 14:16:51

Ackbar Abbas (2004) confronts the theories of Colqhuoun with Koolhaas’s statement, examining the architectural and cultural production of Hong Kong, which exemplifies both. Wong Chong Thai (1997) investigates the production of this hybridity in Singapore’s built environment.

Relevance of Diversity in Architectural Research Architecture can never embrace the challenges of the future without infusion of new ideas, technologies and especially diverse individuals and approaches. If we refuse, we are destining ourselves to be suspended in the past. smith & schank smith 2007

Architecture is determined by prevailing social and economic conditions. Architects will unconsciously acquire the underlying ideological assumptions of their society and these will influence design (Gelenter 1995: 9). Architecture and the built environment ultimately require material resources. As the built environment is associated with a particular culture or class, it becomes embroiled with that class or culture’s power, through either the domination of one overriding style or the wealth used to build. Anthony D. King argues that in every society, economic and political power is “probably the major factor explaining the actual form of the built environment” (King 1984: 5). The way such power is expressed varies from culture to culture, and the creation of architecture itself can be thus evidence of some sort of material power. The grander the scale and style of the architecture, the more powerful were the creators of the building. The relationship between architecture and power is not always instructed by clients or instigated by architects; it is a more complex relationship that finds its root in the very definition of culture. Markus (1993) discussed how a building can shape both the socially constructed power relations and the bonding interaction between individuals and society. McGarry and Elkadi (2009) explain that decisions concerning the built environment may result from a wish to strengthen a person’s or an institution’s social or economic place, while other incentives might include the reinforcement of community and institutional self-identity. In these cases, “fundamental decisions about buildings make links between society as a whole and the building culture itself ” (Davis 1999: 91-92). The expression of power and status in architecture traces back to the individual’s own space, the house. Citing the so-called ‘gift relation’ as a motive for building new one-off contemporary homes, Keohane and Kuhling argue that

106

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 106

04-05-11 14:16:51

the statuses of the house owners and their community are interlinked. The houses, they say, are seen to be beautiful objects: ... in the mind of those who own them, they retain the quality of a gift to one’s family and community. These houses are [...] given to others for the edification of the community. Their owners seek recognition, reciprocity, honour and self-esteem: status, [...] in the eyes of the community, thus raising the standard of the community overall. The next person to build in the community (according to the obligatory nature of the gift relation) must build to an even higher standard. (Keohane & Kuhling 2004: 113)

The elementary representation of power in the house is therefore related to the environment and community in which they occur. Such complex visual interpretation of power in a community can only be read by the insiders and leads to exclusion of the other. Chris Abel (2000: 86) states, “architecture can only be understood from within according to the terms of its own criteria as established by the history of architecture”. The built environment can therefore not only be associated with a certain culture and identity but also with power; the power of the ruling authority that created or used architecture, the dominant culture or even race associated with a particular vernacular style. Architects are thus positioned in any society as agents of power, but what about the question of the diversity of the architect? Prakash (1997) points out that the issue of identity is usually only raised when an architect from the non-West is involved. The idea that an Asian architect, for example, will naturally do Asian flavour buildings, is more a reflection of the categorical ways that identity is perceived than a contribution to the debate about how identity might intersect with architectural design and building practices. This cultural debate, it is argued, needs to address the ‘routes we take’ rather than the ‘roots that have become frozen in time.’ However, the architect functions in an environment in which the ‘starchitect’, produced by a network of politics and publicity, holds a transcendental position to which budding architects aspire. Émigré architects, especially those from the Bauhaus, produced the momentum of postwar architecture in the US, but many recent migrant architects have not been well documented. At one end of this spectrum of architect diversity is someone like Zaha Hadid (and other internationally acclaimed female architects, Itsuko Hasegawa and Kazuyo Sejima). At the other end is the National Organization of Minority Architects (NOMA) in the US formed in Detroit in 1971 by twelve architects who left the American Institute of Architects (AIA). Somewhere in the middle might be internationally acclaimed Indian architect Charles Correa. Questions emerge about the impact

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 107

107

04-05-11 14:16:51

of international figures, whether these bring different cultural references to the centre stage of architecture and about the effect of a separate organisation for and by self-acclaimed minorities. Further research on architects in relation to cultural diversity is needed to unravel these fields.

Migration and Diversity in Architecture Research

In many places, the particular matrix of existing architectural and urban fabric encounters the impact of migration that engenders the nuanced parameters of diversity in architecture. Cultural diversity and cultural hybridity in architecture is often shaped by a history of colonised space and territory. The issue of migration and architecture has not had much discussion or presence in the architectural community, even though migration is generally perceived as integral to the recent development of migrant-receiving nations like Germany, UK, Sweden, Canada and Australia. Scholars in other disciplines have generated many studies of migration and perceive it as a central issue in these national societies. Architectural and urban history is entangled with the story of migration (Lozanovska 2002). Castles and Miller (2003) explain how present ideas about cultural diversity are an outcome of the impact of transnational migration, which escalated in the period after World War II, leading to both the immense growth and cultural diversification of cities as places of immigration and the erosion of traditional villages and towns as places of emigration. Numerous publications elaborate on the impact of migration on aspects of the built environment such as place, home and city. Jane Jacobs and Ruth Finchers’ Cities of Difference (1998) and Leonie Sandercock’s Towards Cosmopolis (1998) address the topic from geo-cultural perspectives, introducing questions about multicultural cities and associated analyses of belonging, agency and production. In addition, Dovey (1999) and Woodcock (2005) have produced significant urban studies that look into the relationship between migration and the production of place, through field research of particular ‘ethnicised’ streets. The concept of ‘other architectural cultures’ emerging from Postcolonial Space(s) is further elaborated by studies of ‘other places’ and ‘other architectures within the same place’. Datta (2006) has researched the construction and meaning of home and city of Polish construction workers in London. The next generation of scholars including Winkler and Levine elaborate on the changes to the urbanism of many inner city streets, the stock of ‘migrant houses’ (and heritage and densification policies), as well as the redevelopment of diminishing manufacturing sites. Winkler (2008) elaborated the idea of ‘white space’ in her examination of people movements against de-

108

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 108

04-05-11 14:16:51

velopments, specifically examining a group called Save Our Suburbs (SOS) that emerged from the affluent leafy suburbs in Melbourne in protest against medium density development. Using the idea of neighbourhood character, their protest was effective enough to change policy. All these theorists demonstrate that policies in planning and heritage are not always congenial to cultural diversity, even if cultural diversity is noted in policy. Less studied are the transformations to the places of origin, that of emigration and departure. Lozanovska (2004) developed analytical methodologies for the study of villages to bring the quintessential places of emigration into the migration equation. Datta and Young (2007) have examined new migratory patterns involving global and transnational settlements in sites that were historically departure sites. Specifically, they discuss the rise of communities on the Izmir-Cesme expressway in Turkey, made possible by new planning and building laws that enable ‘villafication’ to replace low density farmhouses on agricultural land. In addition to Turkish residents escaping the congested urbanism of Izmir, there is the immigration of American and European military personnel and their families due to the opening of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) base in Izmir. In addition to the authors noted so far, the International Association of Settlement and Traditional Environments (IASTE) group, under the director Nasser Alssayed, has examined transformations of places in relation to all the above forces of migration, globalisation and modernisation. Their ongoing work produces new methods and approaches to research in these fields. The journal Space and Culture regularly publishes and explores cross-disciplinary fields between built environments and cultural studies, and thereby provides a fertile forum for many dimensions of diversity in architecture. More recently, the Dutch-based journal OASE with a broader readership interested in mainstream architectural discourse has published a special issue titled ‘Homelands’ that includes discussions on the impact of migration on the built environment.

Diversity in Architecture Policy

The concept of cultural diversity is increasingly present in art and architecture policies, backed by action plans and national and international declarations. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which was adopted unanimously in November 2001 in Paris, sets out the agenda for future research and policies with its statement: “ The cultural wealth of the world is its diversity in dialogue.” Cultural diversity is defined as a ‘living

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 109

109

04-05-11 14:16:51

and thus renewable treasure’ and as a capacity for expression, creation and innovation. The Universal Declaration makes clear that cultural plurality and dialogue sustain each other in a mutually reinforcing manner. A number of people have expressed their reservations on the UNESCO declaration. Elkadi (2009) highlighted the shortfalls of the UNESCO approach in architecture, with its lack of acknowledgment of the role of place and local references. Rapaport (1984) explained that architecture stresses social identity and indicates status. Status is still one of the features of a building to strike a viewer, after function, scale, etc. McGarry (2008) argued that the design of built environments responds to the prevailing bureaucratic order of a society. Similarly, Rapoport (1984) focuses on the relation between architecture and power, as architecture provides settings for certain activities that signify power status or privilege. It expresses and supports cosmological beliefs, communicates information, helps establish individual or group identity, encodes a value system and separates domains. Literature reviewing the interrelationships between policies of procurement and diversity in the built environment tend to emphasise either the products or the producers, the diversity of architecture within a particular context, or the impact of the diversity of architects on a global setting.

e Future of Diversity in Architecture

The long tradition of the relationship between architecture and power led to various efforts to promote inclusiveness and participation in the production of architecture. Architecture is an expression of the age and society in which it was made. Sumita Sinha-Jordan (2009) conjectured that the fact that our built environment is difficult to navigate not just for the person in a wheelchair but also for a mother with a pram must surely be seen as terrible design, not just political (in)correctness. She argues that women and ethnic minorities should be able to express themselves openly with a refreshing new view of diverse architecture. Emphasis in recent literature remains, however, on the role played by cultural and visual dialogue in shaping the articulation and management of architectural diversity in society. There are mainly two distinct perspectives on diversity in cultural dialogue: the first perspective maintains the line of the ‘ethnicisation of architecture’, calling for the continued assertion of beliefs and practices grounded in a ‘homeland culture’, irrespective of how distant or even imaginary such a culture may have become. The second perspective follows the integration and multicultural approach in a Western context. It supports the need for creativ-

110

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 110

04-05-11 14:16:51

ity and innovations in the built environment that are born out of contemporary living conditions, through which diverse cultures come to share the assets and goals directed at securing a pleasing and sustainable environment(s) for a better future. While generalising what in fact are highly nuanced inclinations, these two perspectives influence many of the decisions that regulate funding in the arts, from music and artistic performances, to the production of public places and which, in turn, influence their articulation across the media. Keuschler and Elkadi (2010) argue that both perspectives on diversity in cultural dialogue subscribe to a concept of culture that takes ethnic criteria to be a given and an unproblematic factor in the fashioning of identity, and which ignores the possibility that contemporary societies have complex networks of interests among different constituencies that are notoriously difficult to map. Lozanovska (2008) argues that the relation between ethnicity and architecture is a problematic myth and that houses assumed to have an ‘ethnic appearance’ are hardly different from houses that are assumed to fit a cultural norm. Architectural references to immigrant houses cannot readily be found in countries of origin. The ethnic aesthetics rather appears to be an outcome of diaspora contexts and not mimicry or direct imitation of other ethnic architectural traditions. The idea of cultural diversity in the architecture of the house in large cities of migration is a subtle and nuanced field. The Metapolis Dictionary (Gausa 2003) describes a newly erupted urban phenomenon between the rural, urban and suburban contexts, calling it ‘rurban’. It especially refers to housing developments and the inhabitants: “information workers no longer need to live in cities to live an urban life...A big house in the country, a small, jointly owned apartment in the city. The entire territory is now inhabitable...New dwellings...can be located on farm land that continues to be productive. Superposition of uses. Multiplicity of lives.” (Gausa 2003: 530). The textual definitions are accompanied by graphic montage-style architectural projects combining actual landscape with nature selected from a graphic palette, producing a contrasting visual and creative perspective. However, this version of ‘multiplicity’ manifests itself as a classdivided development where the marketed lifestyle of one group absorbs, transforms and eclipses the lives of the others. The persons that do the rural ‘production’ (farmers) are not named or identified, nor are their lives inscribed in this ‘multiplicity’; rather such physical production is subsumed by the representation of multiplicity as belonging within the lifestyle of the information workers and technicians. The story about the land as agricultural land, and about the peasants who inhabit it and are the cultivators of that land, disappears. Such disappearance of histories, elaborated eloquently by Ackbar Abbas (2004: 129-141) reveals the ways in which an optimistic ar-

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 111

111

04-05-11 14:16:51

chitectural promotion approach to the countryside is founded on a narrow illusional view. It is positioned as informed, privileged and mobile as if this existed independently of other productions, and also as if an abstract and virtual version of a mobile lifestyle does not depend on actual roads, physical infrastructure and cars. Saskia Sassen (1993: 5-35) argues that a narrow narrative of globalisation often omits the actual physicality of place that accompanies ‘global centres’, and the actual multiplicity of lives that contradict the multiplicity of a favoured global lifestyle.

Note 

Gulsum Baydar is also known by the name Gulsum Baydar Nalbantoglu.

References

Abbas, A. 2004. Building Hong Kong: From Migrancy to Disappearance. In: Cairns, S. (ed.) Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy. London: Routledge, 129-141. Abel, C. 2000. Architecture and Identity: Responses to Cultural Change. Second edition. Oxford. AIA-NAC May 2004. Diversity in the Architecture Profession. Berger, J. and Mohr, J. 1975. A Seventh Man: The Story of Migrant Worker in Europe. Cambridge: Granta Books. Beynon, D. 2002. Cannibal Tastes: The Architecture of Non-European Migrants in Australia. De-Placing Difference Architecture, Culture and Imaginative Geography. University of Adelaide, Australia: Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture, 217-228. Beynon, D. 2005. Melbourne’s Third-World-looking Architecture. In: Long, C., Shaw, K. and Merlo, C. (eds.) Suburban Fantasies: Melbourne Unmasked. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly Publishing. Bhabha, H. 1994. The Commitment to Theory. In: The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 34. Biln, J. 1997. (De)forming self and other: Toward and ethics of distance. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated bij Nice, R. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 11.

112

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 112

04-05-11 14:16:51

Castles, S. 2003. The Age of Migration. International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: MJ Miller. Castles, S. and Kalantzis, M. 1994. Overview Report: Access to Excellence, A Review of Issues Affecting Artists and Arts from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds. Canberra: University of Wollongong, Centre for Multicultural Studies, Australian Government Publishing Services. Çelik, Z. 1997. Urban forms and colonial confrontations: Algiers under French rule. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clifford, J. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Colquhoun, J.A. 1997. The concept of regionalism. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Cros, S. (co-ordination) 2003. The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age. Barcelona: Actar. Datta, A. 2006. Home, Migration, and the City: East European Construction Workers in London. Unpublished Research Project. Sticerd: London School of Economics and Political Science. Datta, A. and Yucel Young, S. 2007. New Suburbia: The rise of ‘Sites’ in Izmir, Turkey. Global Built Environment Review. 6(1): 44-55. Davis, H. 1999. The Culture of Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91-92. Dovey, K. 1996. Architecture about Aborigines. Architecture Australia. 85(4): 98. Dovey, K. 1999. Framing places: Mediating power in built form. London and New York: Routledge. Elkadi, H. and Forsyth, K. 2009. Piazza Vittorio Emmanuelle II: Identity and Meaningful Place Making. Rome: EDUP multimedia. Fincher, R. and Jacobs, J.M. 1998. Cities of difference. New York: Guilford Press. Fletcher, B. 1954. A history of architecture on the comparative method. 16th edition. London: Batsford. Fletcher, B. and Cruickshank, D. 1996. Sir Banister Fletcher’s a history of architecture. 20th edition. Oxford and Boston: Architectural Press. Frampton, K. 1993. Towards a critical regionalism: Six points for an architecture of resistance. In: Docherty, T. (ed.) Postmodernism: A Reader. Harvester, Wheatseaf: Simon & Schuster, 268-80. Gausa, M., Guallart, V. et al. 2003. The Metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture: City, technology and society in the information age. Barcelona: Actar.

Diversity and Architecture

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 113

113

04-05-11 14:16:51

Ghandour, M. 1998. The secret is your phantasm: The traditional in architectural offices. 6th IASTE Conference, Cairo, Egypt. Gunew, S. 1994. Framing marginality: Multicultural literary studies. Carlton, Vic.: Melbourne University Press. Gunew, S. 1993. Feminism and the Politics of Irreducible Differences: Multiculturalism/ethnicity/race. In: Gunew, S. and Yeatman, A. (eds.) Feminism and the Politics of Difference. Sydney, 2. Hage, G. 1998. White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a multicultural society. Annandale NSW: Pluto Press. Hage, G. 1997. At home in the entrails of the west: Multiculturalism, ‘ethnic food’ and migrant home-building. In: Grace, H., Hage, G., Johnson, L., Langsworth, J., Symonds, M. (eds.) Home/World: Space, community an marginality in Sydney’s west. Annundale NSW: Pluto Press, 99-153. Hall, S. and Guy, P. du 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications, 4. Keuschler, S. and Elkadi, H. Diversity in Arts and Architecture, in preparation. Keohane, K. and Kuhling, C. 2004. Collision Culture Transformations in Everyday Life in Ireland. Dublin: Liffey Press, 113. King, A.D. (ed.) Buildings and Society; Essays on the Social Development of the Built Environment. 1-31. Lozanovska, M. 1997. Abjection and Architecture: The Migrant House in Multicultural Australia. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W.C. (eds.) PostColonial Spaces. New York: Princeton University Press, 101-129. Lozanovska, M. 1999. In and Out of Place: A Study of the Village Zavoj, Macedonia. In: Self, Place and Imagination: Cross-Cultural Thinking in Architecture, selected articles from the 2nd International Symposium, Adelaide, 21-24 January, 1999. University of Adelaide: CAMEA (Centre for Asian and Middle Eastern Architecture), 107-120. Lozanovska, M. et al. 2008. The ‘Body as Subject’ in (Architectural) Discourse. Interstices: Journal of Architecture and Related Arts. Gen-ius/Genealogy. 7: 66-75. Auckland, New Zealand: Enigma. Lozanovska, M. (guest editor) 2002. New Australian Architecture. Architect. Journal of the RAIA, April, Victorian Chapter. Lozanovska, M. 2004a. Emigration/Immigration: Maps Myths Origins. In: Cairns, S. (ed.) Drifting: Architecture and Migrancy. London: Routledge, 184-202. Lozanovska, M. 2004b. Contemporary Architecture After 1968, CD-Rom, Deakin University. Lyon, C. 2007. Foreword: Culture wars – missing in action? Architecture Australia. 96(1): 7.

114

Diversity Research and Policy

Diversity Research and Policy.indd 114

04-05-11 14:16:51

Markus, T. 1993. Buildings & Power. London: Routledge. McGarry, M. and Elkadi, H. 2008. Norman Architecture: Perception of Origin and Power in Irish Cultural Heritage. Oxford, UK: IASTE 09: Interrogating Tradition, December. Nalbantoglu, G. and Thai, W. (eds.) 1997. Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 7. Nalbantoglu, G. 1998. Toward postcolonial openings: Rereading Sir Banister Fletcher’s History of Architecture Assemblage. 35: 6-17. Parker and Phillips, C. 2007. Oppressed by the figures of beauty: Melbourne Architecture and the Grotesque. Architect Victoria. Winter 2007: 3-7. Prakash, V. 1997. Identity Production in Postcolonial Indian Architecture: ReCovering What We Never Had. In: Nalbantoglu, G. and Th ai, W. (eds.) Postcolonial Space(s). New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 39-52. Rapport