Vertovecs concept of diversity encompasses an aggregation of discourses, structures, policies and practices. He attributes them to consist of multiple converging factors with their own definitions of fleeting ever-changing subjects. While they all do possess differing goals and ambitions, their repeated use in mainstream-media has compromised them. Predictable slogans and reocurring word sequences are obscuring their intended purpose.

It started in the US in the 1960s under the name of Affirmative Action — the initial goal was to create equal opportunities in terms of employment/ education for Black Americans while fighting discrimination. The primary motivation behind it was to rectify „[…] historical harms of racist discrimination.“ (Vertovec 2012: p.289) Statistical proportionality was used to compare different groups in all fields of life. In the coming years the so called equivalence of differences further tied an analogy of minority between Blacks, Latinos, Natives, Asians, women and the disabled. The 80s saw a shift of perspectives occurring. A focus on the past was traded for a focus on the future and AA got rebranded as diversity management: growing awareness of opportunities caused by a demographic shift in society. Diversity mainstreaming promoted this newfound outlook in the public sector. This soon to be prevalent view turned into a must-have for companies because of societal pressure and the possible benefits of a diverse work place involved. Overall a trend, from ascribed group-based attributes towards self-attributed individual characteristics, was taking place.

Semantic bleaching refers to the varying definitions of diversity that contain an appealing, aspirational but diffuse and abstract quality. The majority of citizens in the USA, UK and Germany are confused about the actual meaning behind the term. Even though its meaning is unclear to a vast majority, diversity spreads out into every aspect of daily life and thereby turns into a norm for institutions/ companies to adhere to. Social expectations are built and a need for predictable phrases is constructed, regardless of the fact that the words being thrown around are devoid of substance.

Migration-driven diversification and diversity are linked. A conflict arises between the need of classification by self-identification (diversity policy) and minority rights classification (e.g. race-sensitive policies). Self-identification based on differentiation from others stands in contrast to the essentialistic approach of assigned group characteristics.

Additionally, one has to consider the aspect of intersectionality and its impact on policy-making as a whole. Governments will need to make intersectionality measurable to allow quantification of multiple disadvantages.

The social imaginary represents a set of presumptions that people have about their collective social life: „[…]a moral order, a sense of how we ought to live together.“ (p.305) Vertovec suggests that diversity is a refinement of the already existing concept of equality in its context of the social imaginary. Its interpretive elasticity allows for big coverage and a sense of natural belonging.

Diversity raises awareness of individual differences and has the potential to allow access to social complexity. It creates a basic set of rules and instructions to further expand everyday social customs upon. Continuous exposure to the same set of ideas shapes the social imaginary. Previously new introduced rules are being taken for granted without question. The increased attentiveness to presumed categories like ethnicity, gender, age etc. changes the way people perceive and interact with one another. This heightened understanding of each other leads to more openness and reveals a fraction of the complex underlying social structures. In other words: „diversity increasingly aids us in imagining ourselves“ (p.308).

The process of diversification will continue and diversity will become more and more prominent in the future. Depending on the differing methods used to tackle growing diversification and its implicit consequences, the resulting public opinion will vary immensely. Vertovec mentions different scenarios ranging from cosmopolitanization (sympathetic openness) to negative recognition (indifference and detachment) to anti-cosmopolitanization/ diversity backlash as possible outcomes.

von Fabian Geiger

Vertovec 2012. »›Diversity‹ and the social imaginary«. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, 53(3), 287–312.