American Sociological Review ...€¦ · seems to be using the language of diversity these days....

http://asr.sagepub.com/American Sociological Review

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/000312240707200603

2007 72: 895American Sociological ReviewJoyce M. Bell and Douglas Hartmann

Diversity in Everyday Discourse: The Cultural Ambiguities and Consequences of ''Happy Talk''

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Sociological Association

can be found at:American Sociological ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2007Version of Record >>

at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on November 11, 2013asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on November 11, 2013asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Copy Written Material

Do Not Duplicate

http://asr.sagepub.com/


http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895



http://www.asanet.org

http://www.asanet.org

http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895.refs.html

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895.refs.html

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895.full.pdf

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/895.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Everyone in America—school administra-

tors and business leaders, political activists,

marketing gurus, and Supreme Court Justices—seems to be using the language of diversitythese days. It is not just that Americans are talk-ing about diversity that is extraordinary; it is howthey are talking about it: extolling the virtues ofdifference, celebrating diversity as a value initself, and describing diversity as the new cor-nerstone of American democratic idealism. Arecent nationally representative telephone sur-vey conducted in conjunction with this projectfound that nearly half of Americans believe thatdiversity is “mostly a strength” for the country.While some respondents are not quite so posi-tive (just over half characterized diversity as“both a weakness and a strength”), less thanfive percent see diversity as an unqualifiedweakness. With some relatively minor varia-tions, these findings hold across racial, reli-gious, class, and gender lines (Gerteis,Hartmann, and Edgell 2007). Indeed, the per-vasiveness of the term “diversity” is strong evi-dence for Glazer’s (1997) famous if somewhat

Diversity in Everyday Discourse: The Cultural Ambiguities andConsequences of “Happy Talk”

Joyce M. Bell Douglas HartmannUniversity of Georgia University of Minnesota

Few words in the current American lexicon are as ubiquitous and ostensibly uplifting as

diversity. The actual meanings and functions of the term, however, are difficult to

pinpoint. In this article we use in-depth interviews conducted in four major metropolitan

areas to explore popular conceptions of diversity. Although most Americans respond

positively at first, our interviews reveal that their actual understandings are undeveloped

and often contradictory. We highlight tensions between idealized conceptions and

complicated realities of difference in social life, as well as the challenge of balancing

group-based commitments against traditional individualist values. Respondents, we find,

define diversity in abstract, universal terms even though most of their concrete

references and experiences involve interactions with racial others. Even the most

articulate and politically engaged respondents find it difficult to talk about inequality in

the context of a conversation focused on diversity. Informed by critical theory, we situate

these findings in the context of unseen privileges and normative presumptions of

whiteness in mainstream U.S. culture. We use these findings and interpretations to

elaborate on theories of the intersection of racism and colorblindness in the new

millennium.

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2007, VOL. 72 (December:895–914)

Direct correspondence to Joyce M. Bell,Department of Sociology, University of Georgia,113 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602([email protected]) or Douglas Hartmann, Departmentof Sociology, University of Minnesota, 909 SocialScience Tower, Minneapolis, MN 55455([email protected]). This article is part of theAmerican Mosaic Project funded by the EdelsteinFoundation of Minneapolis, MN. Earlier versionswere presented at the Department of Sociologyresearch workshop at the University of Minnesota andthe Annual Meetings of the American SociologicalAssociation in Montreal. We also benefited greatlyfrom the comments and suggestions of Penny Edgell,Joe Gerteis, Enid Logan, Wendy Leo Moore, andRobin Stryker, as well as the four anonymous ASRreviewers. Thanks also to the Mosaic fieldwork team:Sam Ammons, Tiffany Davis, Danielle Docka, ChrisPappas, Amy Ronnkvist, Jon Smajda, Trina Smith,and Matt Wolf-Meyer.

at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on November 11, 2013asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Do Not Duplicate



cynical pronouncement that “we are all multi-culturalists now.”

Informed by critical studies of race and mul-ticulturalism, and based on a close textual analy-sis of interview transcripts, we argue in thisarticle that the tensions and contradictions sur-rounding diversity result from assumptions—held by both respondents of color and whiterespondents—about American culture, espe-cially with respect to whiteness and white priv-ilege in the United States. Particularlynoteworthy are the ways in which unspokennorms about racial difference, cultural assimi-lation, and the core values of U.S. society cre-ate cultural blind-spots to the ways in whichrace—the primary social referent for discus-sions of diversity—structures social life. Inaddition, we suggest that by appearing to rec-ognize difference, yet failing to appreciate whitenormativity and systemic inequality, currentdiversity discourse makes it difficult to con-struct a meaningful multiculturalism or gen-uinely progressive politics of race. We concludeby discussing the implications of these find-ings and analyses for theories of racism, liber-al colorblindness, and multiculturalism in thenew millennium.

DIVERSITY, CULTURE, ANDDISCOURSE

What are Americans really saying about diver-sity? How do they understand and experience it?And what exactly does this discourse and thesemeanings imply about the broader challenges ofmulticulturalism, solidarity, social conditions,and inequality in the United States? Social sci-entists, cultural critics, and political analystshave generated a great deal of commentary onthese questions while, at the same time, defin-ing diversity in multiple ways (Ollivier andPietrantonio 2006). Peterson (1992), a sociol-ogist, uses diversity to refer to audience seg-mentation; ethnic studies scholars associatediversity with normative pluralism (Juteau2003); anthropologists discuss diversity withan emphasis on hybridity (Young 1994); andpolitical theorists emphasize cosmopolitanism(Beck 2001; Hollinger 1995). All of these vari-ations are tied to the emergence and evolutionof multiculturalism as both a movement and aconcept (Melzer et al. 1998; Skrentny 2002).Indeed, Bryson (2005:43) reports that 20 per-

cent of the U.S. English professors she studiedequate multiculturalism directly with diversity.

However defined, the concept of diversityhas come under heavy scrutiny from publicintellectuals. Critics on the right have suggest-ed that the valorization of group-based rights,identities, and cultural practices under the labelof diversity undermines national unity andstands in opposition to core American ideals ofindividual freedom and equality (Miller 1998;Schlesinger 1991; Wood 2003). Critics on theleft argue that attention to cultural diversityobscures deep structural inequalities in theUnited States and undercuts the broader polit-ical unity required for more progressive socialmovements (Gitlin 1995; Glazer 1997; Michaels2006; Rorty 1989).

An even more radical challenge comes fromthose who might be called critical multicultur-alists (Andersen 2001; Duggan 2003; Fraser1997; Giroux 1992; Hamilton 1996; McLaren1997). These scholars agree with the Left aboutthe need for a theoretical frame that situatesdiversity within the context of contemporarysociety’s systemic inequalities. They also insist,though, that differences of race, ethnicity, class,gender, sexuality, and even religion cannot berelegated to secondary statuses in an analysis ofsocial structure, much less be simply set asidefor a politics of equity, economic redistribu-tion, and social restructuring. What is needed forboth analytical and political reasons, it is sug-gested, is a simultaneous recognition of thepower of difference in contemporary Americanlife as well as an understanding of how differ-ence is tied to deep and persistent inequalities(for more general sociological treatments, seeDunn 1998; Hall 1992; Weber 1998).

While a full history of the diversity termremains to be written (for a provocative ifpolemic start, see Wood [2003]), there is nodoubt that these commentaries and the debatesthey occasion are provocative and politicallyconsequential. Unfortunately, the alternativeanalyses and visions they pose are almost impos-sible to evaluate or adjudicate on social scien-tific grounds because they are based on verylittle empirical data about how ordinaryAmericans understand and experience diversi-ty. In spite of its prominence and the aura of opti-mism surrounding the public discourse ondiversity—or perhaps precisely because of thesecharacteristics—empirical answers to questions

896—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW



Do Not Duplicate



of diversity’s meaning and function are difficultto find. This study is a step toward rectifying thatproblem.1

In the analyses that follow we use in-depthinterviews conducted in four major metropoli-tan areas to explore popular conceptions ofdiversity in the United States. Our findingscomplicate the conventional thinking on thestructure and function of diversity discourse incontemporary American culture. On one hand,most interviewees responded positively to ini-tial questions about diversity. Further ques-tioning and deeper probing, on the other hand,reveal that their actual understandings and dis-cussions are undeveloped and fraught with ten-sions and contradictions. A number of thesecomplications result simply from the fact thatmany idealized conceptions simply don’t squarewith the deeply problematic realities of differ-ence as they are experienced in the concretecontexts of everyday social life. Other compli-cations stem from ambiguities in ostensiblypositive, optimistic responses. Respondentsoften blurred crucial distinctions—betweenindividual choice and group boundaries, forexample, and between the way things are ver-sus how they could or should be—in ways thatobscure the challenges of living with diversity.In addition, we find that respondents defineddiversity in abstract, universal terms even thoughmost of their concrete references and experi-ences involve interactions with racial others.Finally, even the most articulate and political-ly engaged respondents—our interview poolwas constructed so as to maximize such respon-dents—had tremendous difficulty talking coher-

ently and simultaneously about social inequal-ity and diversity.

DATA AND METHODS

Data are drawn from 166 in-depth interviewscollected as part of the American MosaicProject, a multiyear, multimethod study of race,religion, and multiculturalism in the contem-porary United States (Edgell, Gerteis, andHartmann 2006). The first phase of the projectwas a nationally representative telephone sur-vey of American attitudes and understandingsof race, religion, and diversity. The second phaseinvolved fieldwork and intensive interviewingby teams of graduate student researchers in fourmajor metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Boston, LosAngeles, and the Twin Cities of Minnesota. Thepresent analysis is primarily based on theseinterviews.

The interviews were designed to follow up,probe, and provide context for key issues thatemerged from the telephone survey. The inter-view schedule for the project was the result ofan extensive collaborative process involvingproject principle investigators and graduateresearchers in each site. The initial frameworkfor the interviews was conceived and sketchedout by the investigators who produced and field-ed the telephone survey. This preliminary out-line was then revised through interactiveworkshops, training sessions, and trial runs untilit met the research goals of the faculty and grad-uate students involved with the project. In theend, the interview schedule consisted of a set ofopen-ended questions (along with a series ofsuggested probes) in four main topic areas: (1)general opinions about diversity, (2) actual expe-riences with diversity, (3) conceptions ofAmerican identity and solidarity, and (4) reflec-tions on how the respondents’ own identities—racial, religious, and otherwise—affected theirviews on these matters and on American soci-ety more generally.

Researchers conducted an average of 36 inter-views, each lasting between one and a half andthree hours, in each metropolitan area.Interviewees were recruited from three specif-ic institutional locations in each city: neigh-borhood organizations, interfaith religiousinitiatives, and ethnic cultural festivals. Thesearenas were selected to maximize settings whereexperiences with difference would be regular

DIVERSITY IN EVERYDAY DISCOURSE—–897

1 Feminist analyses of public policy and the wel-fare state provide some important exceptions. Ferree(2007), for example, argues that diversity takes onvery different meanings and implications in socialdemocratic contexts (e.g., Germany) compared toliberal American culture. In addition, Edelman, Fuller,and Mara-Drita (2001) find that corporate diversitymanagement programs in the United States oftenwater down equity claims and naturalize racial dif-ferences. Similarly, Ahmed’s (2007) interviews with“diversity practitioners” in Australian higher educa-tion suggest that talk of diversity is used to meetorganizational ideals and build collective morale,though in the process diversity often gets detachedfrom struggles for equality and justice. See alsoAndersen (1999).



Do Not Duplicate



and diversity concerns would be prominent,and to afford organizational continuity and com-parability across the four regions. Onceresearchers gained access to a particular organ-ization, they recruited respondents by approach-ing individual members at meetings or events.Researchers interviewed both rank-and-filemembers and people in positions of leadership.In the case of festivals, they also included someattendees. About a third of our sample is drawnfrom each setting.

Two-thirds of our respondents are white, andthe sample is gender balanced, with respon-dents’ ages ranging from 20 to 75. It is impor-tant to emphasize that the interview populationwas not intended to be a random sample ofAmericans (as was the telephone survey) butrather a purposive one, targeted to respondentswho are actively and self-consciously grapplingwith issues of difference in their lives and whoare thus both well-informed and articulate aboutdiversity. Our goal is to capture the discourse ondiversity as it is best understood, enacted, andarticulated in the American civic sphere.

The use of in-depth interviews was essential.Open-ended questions and strategic probingallowed us to explore why people held certainbeliefs or how certain experiences affected them.These techniques enabled story-telling, extend-ed illustrations, and elaborated argumentsthrough which we saw ambivalences and com-plexities that are inherent in American concep-tions of diversity. In short, in-depth interviewingallowed us to delve beneath the surface of ini-tial answers to reach the deep structure and cul-tural commonsense implicit in diversitydiscourse.

Once the interviews were completed, theywere transcribed and archived by a separateteam of research assistants. After readingthrough whole transcripts of a large number ofthese interviews (including all of those quoteddirectly below), we decided to base this articleon a close reading and analysis of two mainblocks of questions in the transcripts. The firstand most important block involved initial ques-tions about diversity broadly and generally con-ceived. This section asked interviewees to definediversity, talk about what they found both pos-itive and challenging about it, and discuss theirexperiences with people who are different fromthemselves.

We analyzed this first block of questions, theempirical core of this article, in two distinctstages. First, we carefully read through the inter-view transcripts to identify central themes, pat-terns, and tensions, noting the frequency andcoherence with which respondents expressedcertain ideas. This process yielded a basic,descriptive picture of both definitions of diver-sity and attitudes about positive and problem-atic social aspects of diversity. After establishingthese basic patterns, we went back through thetranscripts and blocks of quotes to: (1) identi-fy assumptions and presuppositions built intothe discourse and (2) unpack underlying ten-sions and ambiguities. This second stage ofanalysis was guided by recent scholarly writingand critical theory on solidarity and incorpora-tion (Alexander 2001; Hartmann and Gerteis2005), colorblindness (Bonilla-Silva 2001,2003; Carr 1997; Crenshaw 1997; Eliasoph1999; Gallagher 2003), and multiculturalism(previously cited). These bodies of work high-light the tensions between individual ideals andgroup-based commitments, assumptions aboutthe social bases of unity and order, and therelationship of cultural difference to socialinequality.

The second block of questions involved viewson the relationships between diversity andinequality. We used this block of questions tosupport and develop our interpretive claimsabout the structure and consequence of thediversity discourse with respect to issues ofinequality, assimilation, and white privilege. Tosupplement these answers (which were oftenmore abbreviated than we initially anticipated),we looked at the questions that asked respon-dents to discuss their views on inequality andpolitics: What kinds of inequality did they seeas important? What should be done aboutinequality? As appropriate, we also looked atquestions that asked people to reflect on howtheir racial and religious identities shape theirviews on diversity. When necessary, we alsoused fieldwork conducted in conjunction withthese interviews to contextualize and confirmour interpretation and analysis.

THE STRUCTURE OF DIVERSITYDISCOURSE

We began our conversations about diversitywith a very simple question: “What does diver-




Do Not Duplicate



sity mean to you?” Responses to this open-ended query were surprisingly consistent andevenly divided into two types. About half ofour interviewees responded by offering basicdescriptions or very general definitions of theterm. Lucy, a 55-year-old white woman fromBoston, took this tact: “Diversity to me is beingexposed to many different people from manydifferent cultures.” After a brief pause, Lucycontinued:

And by cultures I don’t necessarily define that asethnic or racial background. I think about how aperson was raised. It includes religion, parentingstyle. It includes economics. It includes who theirfriends were, where they went to school, how theywent to school. Things like that. I really define cul-ture in a much broader way than most people do.

Like Lucy, many of the respondents who tookthis definitional approach generated lists, some-times quite extensive, of the social differencesthey believe fall under the diversity heading.“For me,” a white man in Los Angeles explained,“[diversity] includes ethnical [sic] differences,political differences, theological differences,sociological differences, and attitudinal differ-ences” as well as “categories like politics, sex,and race.” In these responses, diversity is essen-tially a descriptive term reflecting that theUnited States is a collective of many differentpeople and cultures, not a singular, homogenoussociety. “It’s like living in the Sears catalogueinstead of the Sunday circular from the news-paper,” as one white, middle-aged Midwesternerput it.

Interestingly, a large number of respondentswho offered these general definitional respons-es also said (when asked) that other Americansuse diversity mainly as a euphemism or “buzzword” for talking about race. “It’s all about racefor most folks,” or “it’s mostly black and white,”or other people use diversity to refer to “racialkind of stuff .|.|. people of color or new immi-grants.” In sum, while very few (under a dozen)of our definitional respondents restricted theirdefinitions of diversity to racial differences, anoverwhelming majority insisted that this is pre-cisely how other Americans use the term.

The other half of our sample responded tothese initial questions by describing diversity asmore of a social project or initiative, a moralimperative dictating both the recognition andacceptance of differences in the modern world.For many, diversity implies that “you need to

accept everyone for who they are regardless ofhow they might be different from you.” Otherssimply spoke of the need to “include everyone”or “embrace our differences.” Similarly, Dan, a52-year-old white Southerner, said diversitymeans being able to “accept all people for whothey are, their value, their contributions to soci-ety.” Unprompted, more than a few of theserespondents talked about seminars or trainingprograms on inclusiveness or intercultural com-munication that they had gone through at workor in civic organizations.

Many of the respondents who see diversity inthese moralistic terms rely on the social ordemographic realities of difference encapsu-lated in our more definitional responses. Inother words, they see diversity as both a descrip-tion of the social reality and a moral commit-ment. Michael, a white Californian, fell intothis category: “Diversity means a society thatrecognizes it’s made up of people of differentraces, ethnicities, religions, cultural back-grounds, ages, education levels—those cate-gories. And generally diversity—if it is framedas a goal in whatever institution or activity orprogram or benefit we’re talking about—shouldrecognize and be inclusive of all these groups.”But the relationship does not necessarily go theother way. As another white Westerner put it:“Diversity? That’s just a description of the soci-ety in general. One doesn’t need to promotediversity in Los Angeles. It’s already there. Yousee it walking down the street, on the bus, in therestaurants. It’s like promoting oxygen.”

Whether definitional or programmatic, theseinitial responses to questions about diversityall share one important characteristic: they aregenerally upbeat, even optimistic about the termitself. Most people offered responses similar toLen, a 46-year-old white Bostonian, who saidthat diversity “makes life more fun,” or Louis,a white Californian, who believes diversity“adds beauty to life.” Many respondents saidthat diversity makes life “more interesting” or“more exciting.” Others went a bit further. Joe,a white Westerner, defined diversity as “a pos-itive value for the individual and .|.|. a positivevalue for the community at large in ensuring thatone’s exposed to different experiences, differ-ent viewpoints, and different backgrounds.”Along these lines, Reverend Sharper, a whiteSouthern Baptist minister, said that “it is a verypositive word. I like diversity. It means variety.”




Do Not Duplicate



Sophie, a middle-aged African American fromLos Angeles, agreed: “It’s a big word, it’s verywide and it’s very inclusive.” Some respondentswere even more pragmatic. For example, Elaine,an older white Bostonian, argued that diversityis “good for growth,” and Jeanine, a 40-year-oldwhite Minnesotan, claimed that it “prepare[s]the next generation of Americans to be moreglobally conscious, to be more globally con-cerned.” Most respondents not only feel com-fortable with the language of diversity, they areopen and optimistic about the term, much as thefindings from our initial telephone survey sug-gested.

A closer look at more detailed responses,however, reveals that these seemingly positiveattitudes about diversity are often very thin,vague, and undeveloped. When pushed toexplain their answers, or give examples or evi-dence to support their views, many respondentsstruggled for words or offered only generic plat-itudes. For example, Jill, a white Californian,expanded on her initial optimism as follows:

I, I think it’s a wonderful thing because I think itenriches our lives. That ah, that ah, not everybodylooks the same or acts the same or thinks the sameand I think it, it’s ah, maybe for a later question butI that, that it is a very value in being aware of dif-ferences and appreciating those differences not aswrong but simply as different, and, ah, and thenalso at the same time, this warning of commonal-ity among these differences.

Such awkward responses were in stark contrastto expansive, substantive answers respondentsgave on other topics including race and religion.The only clear, concrete explanations of thebenefits of diversity we heard involved popularculture. Al, another white Californian, was typ-ical: “Well, variety is the spice of life, and I liketo be open to other kinds of music other than myparticularly narrow field of interest.” Whetherpegged to music, food, clothes, or some otheraspect of consumption, an expanded range ofchoice is not only the most concrete but also themost common benefit of diversity our respon-dents had to offer.

It is not just that our respondents had a dif-ficult time explaining what is valuable aboutdiversity. In trying to specify diversity’s bene-fits (and before they were even asked about itschallenges) a large number of intervieweesfound it necessary to qualify and condition theirresponses. Others, often unexpectedly, began

talking about the problems of diversity even asthey were trying to uplift its strengths. We cameto think of these as “yes, but .|.|. ” responses.2

For example, Max, a white Bostonian, answeredthe question about benefits by saying that diver-sity makes life “much more fun, that’s for sure.”But one sentence later, Max referenced hisracially-mixed neighborhood organization andsaid “and yet, and sometimes you get frustrat-ed by that too. You say to yourself, ‘are we evergoing to get through this and how are we goingto get through this and how are we ever goingto reach a decision or consensus on this?’” ForMax, the “fun” of diversity is difficult to spec-ify because it is undercut by the frustrations ofactually dealing with differences. Melissa, awhite Californian, elaborated:

I think it’s overall, I think it’s a good thing but it’sa kind of delicate balance because now, you know,we’re also at a place in this country where .|.|. [we]still need to keep our American identity and nation-alism.|.|.|. We as Americans, you know, as a wholeneed to respect one another’s differences and back-grounds and all of that, and be tolerant of oneanother. But by the same token, you know, there hasto be a defining thread somewhere.

Clearly, respondents like Melissa and Maxbelieve they should say something positive aboutdiversity but find it much easier to delve into itschallenges and difficulties.

The nationally representative telephone sur-vey that preceded our interviews included anopen-ended question about the “drawbacks” ofdiversity. Three main concerns appeared, withthe most typical having to do with cultural dis-unity and fragmentation. A third of the respon-dents who answered this question expressedsuch concern. Misunderstanding and intoler-ance was the second most typical worry, varia-tions of which were given by 24 percent oftelephone respondents. Another 13 percent gaveanswers that related to issues of equality, equalopportunity, and fairness. (For further treat-ment, see Gerteis and colleagues 2007). Ourinterviews help us clarify the context and com-plexity of the perceived problems revealed bythe survey.

When asked to describe the problems ofdiversity, most interviewees talked about the


2 For a related finding and analysis, see Bonilla-Silva and Forman (2000).



Do Not Duplicate



misunderstandings that often occur betweenpeople of different backgrounds and lifestyles.For instance, Phyllis, a 54-year-old whiteMinnesotan, noted the difficulty of makingdecisions in diverse groups:

A challenge [is] getting people to really hear eachother, when you’re making a community deci-sions. Um, and then on an individual level it’s, it’svery easy to be irritated and offended by an actionwithout realizing that, you know the backgroundof the person taking it is, is so different that theydon’t mean for it to be offensive, it’s just the normfor them.

Others talked quite openly about prejudice andfear. Adam, a middle-aged white Easterner,said:

A drawback is that there are usually misunder-standings or fear, that sort of thing that happens,and probably what’s unfortunate is that many peo-ple will not try to go beyond that.|.|.|. I don’t know,there are so many things that we assume, so muchof our behavior is, just even in terms of what a cer-tain gesture means or saying something that meanssomething horrible for another culture. So thosethings come up.

Mark, a white Minnesotan, concurred: “Youhave to keep challenging all of your own prej-udices everyday. I mean they are just there; youhave to learn something new.” In these respons-es, we see that misunderstandings, as well asprejudices and outright fear, are often associat-ed with diversity.

Respondents in our face-to-face interviewselaborated on the concerns about excessivediversity that were so prominent in our initialtelephone survey. The response from Claire, a58-year-old African American from Boston,was illustrative and memorable:

If you have too much diversity then you have tochange the Constitution, you have to take down theStatue of Liberty, you have to take down thosethings that set this country up as it is. This is theonly country in the world where if you’re born hereyou’re a citizen, so you have to change that. Sowe—this is our principles.

For Claire, “too much” diversity threatens thefoundational principles of American democra-cy, so much so that it places the iconic Statueof Liberty at risk. Cheryl, a 36-year-old whiteBostonian, focused on traditional ways of doingthings:

I think kind of the way I was at first afraid ofdiversity, was that a group could be eradicated, just,

well not really eradicated, but just “we’ve done ityour way so long that we’re just totally not goingto give you credit anymore” and I’ve seen that alot like with—well, I don’t know if it’s so bad—it’s painful.

These quotes show that in spite of the efforts ofmulticultural activists and theorists (who arguethat diversity need not be set in opposition tosocial solidarity), diversity is still perceived asposing a real threat to national unity. In addition,those with concerns about excessive differenti-ation do not all share the same assumptionsabout the basis or foundations of social soli-darity. Claire’s vision is fairly abstract and ide-alized, while Cheryl’s appears to be moreculturally specific. That said, our respondentsrarely acknowledged these tensions and alter-natives. Rather than being drawn into discus-sions about these tensions, they preferred tofocus on the general problems of unity andorder they believe excessive diversity presents.A fairly typical evasion came from Jeff, a whiteWesterner, who wished diversity would simply“go away,” adding (with laughter), “yeah andthen you are an American or you’re a visitor youknow.”

While inequality and fairness are among themost common problems mentioned in our ini-tial telephone surveys, our interviewees wereunlikely to talk about them even when askeddirectly. This is an important finding, and wediscuss it in further detail shortly. But first weneed to explore another problematic aspect ofdiversity that the interviews revealed: the fail-ure of Americans to live up to their own opti-mistic ideals.

In spite of what people might first say, Sara,a Korean American from Minneapolis, sawdiversity as a challenge “because people resistchange and resist things that make them uncom-fortable.” Sara gave her work as an example:

It’s a challenge institutionally in some of theschools that I’ve worked in or some of the organ-izations because there’s the lip service that peoplegive to diversity versus the true understanding ofwhat needs to happen to make it a reality in theinstitution. So people can talk about how muchdiversity’s important but you know when it comesdown to action and understanding that you have tochange yourself or change aspects of the organi-zation. People, you know, struggle against that.

Similarly, Adele, a 49-year-old AfricanAmerican from Atlanta, said: “I would think




Do Not Duplicate



[diversity] meant, you know, being willing totake a moment to get to understand other peo-ple, maybe their culture, .|.|. maybe their religion,or whatever makes them different.” Adelebelieved this conception of diversity, though, is“almost an illusion, it doesn’t seem like some-thing that’s really solid to me.” Another exam-ple came from Miles, a middle-aged AfricanAmerican from Atlanta. At the beginning of hisinterview, Miles talked about “practicing diver-sity,” by which he meant “that you wouldembrace everybody and treat them equally, treatthem fairly, and make the effort to go into otherpeople’s communities, shop in different areas,invite them, and just make a connection.” ButMiles grew cautious when asked about thedrawbacks to diversity:

If the people that are teaching it have not learnedit or, some of the drawback is people get confusedby it and they don’t know exactly what the purposeof it is. That’s when I get a little uncomfortable.When people use it for their own personal gain, orthey use it just to say we have diversity basically.

Diversity is a challenge, Miles concluded, “whenpeople don’t practice it.”

Respondents of color were somewhat morecognizant of this contradiction than whites,though this was far from universal. Dan, a 52-year-old white Southerner, for example, start-ed by defining diversity as the ability to “acceptall people for who they are, their value, theircontributions to society. Not this, you know,stereotype.” But then Dan went on to say:

Unfortunately, say in our neighborhood, walkingdown the street, I see a 35-year-old black manwalking down the street looking a little tattered,homeless, or whatever you want to call—streetperson, and you know automatically you think ofthe stereotype—I better watch this guy, he’s get-ting ready to break into my car.

While Dan’s ideal is that Americans shouldaccept individuals without regard to their socialcharacteristics, he also realizes that many peo-ple—including himself—have a great deal oftrouble actually doing this.

Social scientists often encounter tensionsbetween descriptions of how things are versusprescriptions for how things ought to be. In thecase of the diversity discourse, this kind of ten-sion is both connected with and reproduced bya deep, if often unstated, set of ambivalencesabout the concept itself and experiences withdifference in particular. We turn to some of

those more specific and consequential tensions,ambiguities, and ambivalences in the followingsection.

SPECIFIC TENSIONS ANDAMBIGUITIES

The tension, or outright contradiction, betweendescriptive and prescriptive visions of diversi-ty is threaded throughout many of our conver-sations. Further analysis of the interviewtranscripts revealed three distinct sources ofconfusion and ambiguity: (1) respondents oftenconflated group-based commitments with tra-ditional individualist values, (2) respondentstypically defined diversity in very general termsyet recounted experiences with and referencesto diversity that were far more specific andracially-inflected, and (3) respondents had avery difficult time talking about structuralinequality in the context of diversity conversa-tions.

INDIVIDUALIST IDEALS, GROUP-BASED

COMMITMENTS

Always lurking in American culture, the tensionbetween individual ideals and group-based com-mitments is pervasive and heightened in thediversity discourse. Wikipedia offers a basictwo-sentence definition of diversity that unin-tentionally illustrates the problem: in a “humancontext” diversity is “a form of individualism,unique characteristics, beliefs and values.” Sofar so good, however, the next sentence empha-sizes a very different meaning of diversity. “Ina social context,” diversity is defined as “a pres-ence in one population of a (wide) variety of cul-tures, ethnic groups, languages, physicalfeatures, .|.|. socio-economic backgrounds, opin-ions, religious beliefs, sexuality, gender identi-ty, and neurology” (Wikipedia, Diversity, 2006).The point here is not so much the long list of dif-ferences that fall under the diversity umbrella;our interviews have already highlighted those.Rather, it is the tension—so apparent to thesociological eye, yet so little recognized or prob-lematized in the culture—between the unique,individualistic qualities or values endorsed in thefirst sentence and the broader collective cate-gories appealed to in the second. For somerespondents, an appropriately diverse society isone in which all individuals are treated the same




Do Not Duplicate



regardless of their social differences. For others,it refers to a society in which group differencesthemselves are consciously valued, celebrated,and sustained. It is difficult, if not impossible,to endorse both ideals at the same time becausethey represent two fundamentally different con-ceptions of the proper role of the individualand the group in social life.

This tension is often revealed in and perpet-uated through the language interviewees used.For example, Joe said, “Diversity is a positivevalue for the individual and then I believe it isa positive value for the community at large inensuring that one is exposed to different expe-riences, different view points, and differentbackgrounds.” Emily offered that “diversity .|.|.is being exposed to many different people frommany different cultures. And by cultures I don’tnecessarily define that as an ethnic or racialbackground—I think about how a person wasraised.” In these responses we see appeals toboth individual values and community or groupcommitments, despite the fact that the two arenot always compatible. This confusion is oftendifficult to recognize because many respon-dents use plural pronouns when they are actu-ally referring to single individuals, or they talkabout “people” in ambiguous general terms.Either way, group-based social phenomenonand commitments conflate individual differen-tiation, which blurs distinctions that are oftennot easily reconciled in theory or in socialpractice. Indeed, when Dan from Atlanta saidthat diversity means “to be able to accept allpeople for who they are,” he is explaining awayas much as he is explaining.

Perhaps the clearest and most common illus-tration of this tension came when respondentsexpressed an individualistic vision of diversityas a positive achievement of personal acceptancebut would then go on to talk about the structuraland collectivist problems of social difference.This pattern was most often exhibited by peo-ple of color who talked about the structural bar-riers faced by individuals from certain groups,but white respondents sometimes displayed thispattern as well. For example, Alice, a whiteMidwesterner in her fifties, characterized diver-sity as positive because it “reflects the values,and traditions, and ethnicity, and religious back-grounds, skin color of everybody and it wel-comes them, makes them feel that they’re partof the group, that they’re welcome, that their

background is going to be reflected andaffirmed.” (Note Alice’s use of plural pronouns.)When talking about the drawbacks, however,Alice’s language switched to group level dif-ferences:

You have to constantly be thinking about if you’re,I see it mostly I think when you’re doing, like ifyou want to do the best summer reading for 2004,your instinct is to list all the top authors, andthey’re surprise, all white! And oh my goodness,we didn’t pick up any minorities, or any nonwhitepeople, we have to go back and do this and makesure we include them. And I think it’s unfortunatethat they are just right there to begin with, that wehave to target out, we have to categorize our brainsthat way.

Ideally, for Alice, a commitment to diversitywould make individuals feel welcome regard-less of their various differences. In her experi-ence, though, diversity is problematic becausegroup-level differences are not something sheusually pays attention to, even when she thinksthey might be important to notice.

Ryan, a white Californian involved in a localcommunity group, provided another example ofthis kind of talk. When asked how diversity ispositive, Ryan hailed the importance of eachindividual in creating a harmonious whole. “It’s,it’s almost like a choir having different voices.I mean, everybody has a different opinion orthey come from a different background so theyhave different ideas that like they can bring toan issue or problem.” In discussing the problemswith diversity, however, Ryan said:

Well we, we see that in [my neighborhood] withyou know like there, we have a big Armenian anda big Thai, and then Hispanic, and you know there,the communication is hard. In fact, in our neigh-borhood council, we’ve had a hard time trying toreach out to a lot of the immigrant population,and it’s been hard, they haven’t responded realwell.

Like many respondents, Ryan has positive feel-ings about diverse individuals coming togetheras a group, and yet he experiences difficultywith group-level communication in settingswhere diverse individuals actually meet.

BROAD DEFINITION VERSUS RACIAL

EXPERIENCE

In his postcolonial reflections on racism, AlbertMemmi ([1982] 2000), Frantz Fanon’s con-




Do Not Duplicate



temporary and counterpart, argued that race isthe master trope for cultural difference in themodern world. This is a powerful and persua-sive claim, one that could apply not only in theAmerican context but all over the world. Onemight think, for example, of gay and lesbiangroups in Great Britain in the 1990s whodescribed themselves explicitly as a racialminority. But this is not exactly what our inter-views reveal. In contrast to Memmi’s theory, ourinterviews suggest that in the United Statestoday, individuals tend to discuss cultural dif-ference under the rhetorical or linguistic umbrel-la of diversity. This is not to suggest that raceis absent from American conceptions of diver-sity. Race appeared frequently in our inter-views—not as the linguistic trope for difference,but in the actual experiences and cultural cate-gories that most people, regardless of race, havein mind when they talk about diversity.

An excerpt from the interview with ReverendMayler, a 68-year-old black minister fromAtlanta, reveals a broad, inclusive conception ofdiversity:

Interviewer: Today you hear a lot about diversity,what does that mean to you?

Rev. Mayler: A situation where there are mul-tiple of whatever it is.

Interviewer: Can you tell me a little bit moreabout that?

Rev. Mayler: Well, I’m using diversity in a broadsense because it can include people, ideas, and sit-uations. Most often we use it in reference to peo-ple, but I think of diversity as situations, oropinions, or attitudes.

Clearly, the Reverend is committed to a verygeneral, open-ended definition of diversity. Notonly did he refuse to restrict his definition toracial difference, he wanted to broaden it fromthe realm of human differences to include sit-uations. When asked where he personally hadexperienced diversity, however, the Reverendshifted from this general understanding of dif-ference to one based almost exclusively on race.

Well, all of my life I have been in a diverse situa-tion. I was raised in Pennsylvania in a multiethniccommunity with f irst and second generationEuropeans, with a mixture of African Americans.We had the north, south, and European connection.And that began my childhood and then for collegeI was in a diverse situation, University ofLouisville. And then in seminary and most of mylife ministry has been at the Southern BaptistConvention where I was responsible for helping

blacks and whites work together. So all of my lifehas been a diverse situation.

Jill, a white Californian, provides anotherexample of how race operates in the diversitydiscourse. After she haltingly defined diversi-ty (“Diversity is, ah, recognizing and celebrat-ing, value and making place for ah, the manydifferences within the human race”) and offereda list of differences that included virtual iden-tities, we asked Jill about the social spaceswhere she had experienced diversity.

Um, that is a good question—certainly in thisplace, to begin with, in our church and the centerwhere we serve people. The neighborhood whereI live is very diverse, well diverse, at least for me.It’s 85 percent Latino and then the remaining 15percent is very diverse. Ah, in urban areas whereI’ve served and worked, I experienced a lot ofdiversity.

Similarly, George, a Californian who describedhimself as Latino and defined diversity broad-ly as “race, creed, and religion,” offered thisjolting and explicitly racial narrative of “basi-cally my whole life”:

Growing up, I grew up in a Latin neighborhood.And I’m mixed; I’m half Greek and half PuertoRican. When I was younger, I had a big old Afroand I would see, I guess my first experience withdiversity was with the police, the way they wouldtreat us. You know they would beat us up and sub-ject us and when I was younger I was placed in afoster home in an all Caucasian area and when Iwas in my own neighborhood I wasn’t really awareof it. And I became aware of the differences andthe prejudice that people had, the fear I guess.And when I went .|.|. to college I was able to getinvolved in educating myself and learning aboutpsychology. And I understood people’s prejudiceand people’s bias and, you know, sociologyissues.|.|.|. I understood why I was, me and myfriends were treated different than other people.

And then there is Maggie, a white fifty-year-old from Boston, who defined diversity sobroadly as to encompass everyone: “[it] includesreligion, it includes parenting style, includeseconomics, it includes who their friends were,where they went to school, how they went toschool, things like that.” When asked where shepersonally experiences diversity, however,Maggie admitted it was “mostly through theHead Start Program” where she worked. Shewent on to say that she was raised in a small city“and there were [sic] very little cultural diver-




Do Not Duplicate



sity there or ethnic there.” Maggie thenexplained that “most of [her] classmates inschool were white,” that “most of the people[her] family had interaction with were whiteand French Canadian and Irish,” and that she andher classmates were “discouraged from havingany exposure outside of that group.”

In each of these quotes, and many othersthroughout the interviews, we see that respon-dents typically define diversity in broad andinclusive terms, but when asked to describepersonal experiences with difference, theirresponses are almost exclusively tied to race.Contra Memmi, it appears that race does notprovide the language through which Americanstalk about difference. Instead, race is the primaryexperiential lens through which difference in allits forms is experienced and understood.Therefore, although “diversity” may sound race-neutral or appear to transcend race altogether,the discourse of diversity is deeply racialized.Americans’ most poignant and life-shapingexperiences with and understandings of diver-sity involve race and especially racial others.Why has this happened, and what are the con-sequences of this way of talking and thinking?

Bonilla-Silva (2003) argues that post-civilrights era Americans have adopted colorblindways of talking about race because colorblind-ness fits comfortably within core liberal-indi-vidualist ideals. This allows Americans todownplay the existence of fundamental racialdifferences and persistent racial inequalities(Carr 1997; Crenshaw 1997). Similarly,Eliasoph (1999) finds that the avoidance of“race-talk” is used to maintain bonds and deco-rum in civil society (Bush 2004; McKinney2004; Myers 2005). It is not difficult to seewhy there is such deep ambivalence and con-tradiction in the diversity discourse: the con-troversial nature of race underlying andinforming American conceptions of differenceruns directly against their general and opti-mistic aspirations for diversity. Moreover, bothkinds of discourse have the ironic, if by nowfamiliar, effect of reinforcing and legitimatingthe racial status quo and its associated inequal-ities (Gallagher 2003). The way in which thediversity discourse peculiarly implicates race,both by its absence and its presence, revealsthe strong influence of colorblindness and race-talk in American society.

The reproduction of social hierarchiesthrough mystification and obfuscation is per-haps the most obvious and important functionof the diversity discourse. Before exploring thisin more depth, though, we must first clarifyhow the diversity discourse operates on its ownsemantic terms. Like colorblindness and relat-ed rhetorical strategies, the actual language ofdiversity deals with race by downplaying ordiluting it, lumping it together with a host ofsocial differences. At the same time, and in con-trast to ostensibly race-neutral approaches, thecore assumptions and understandings underly-ing diversity talk are anything but colorblind.Diversity talk is dominated by race, infusedwith racial knowledge or the lack thereof. At thediscursive level, then, diversity talk simultane-ously acknowledges racial (and other) differ-ences while downplaying and disavowing relatedsocial problems. Race is always both present andabsent in the diversity discourse. This paradoxis key to the historical distinctiveness, culturalpower, and social problems of the currentAmerican way of talking about diversity.

ABSENCE OF INEQUALITY

In his study of race, ethnicity, and class inAmerica, Steinberg (1981) insists that to theextent that genuine ethnoracial pluralism hasbeen achieved, it has invariably been at the costof tremendous social inequities. The role ofrace in diversity discourses, as uncovered inour interviews, builds on Steinberg’s classicargument. Diversity talk is the small talk thatavoids the “elephant in the room” of Americanpluralism (Zerubavel 2006). Racial inequali-ties, not to mention racism itself, are big struc-tural elephants. This creates a real, albeitseemingly comfortable, tension in the diversi-ty discourse: people have the ability to explic-itly talk about race without ever acknowledgingthe unequal realities and experiences of racialdifferences in American society—a phenome-non Andersen (1999) calls “diversity withoutoppression.”3


3 Johnson (2006) offers a related analysis about thedisjuncture between democratic ideals and persistentracial inequalities in her recent study of schools. Wenote it here because she argues that open-ended ques-



Do Not Duplicate



In the language of diversity, every American,regardless of background or social standing, isbelieved to have a place and perhaps even bewelcomed. This defining element of the diver-sity discourse separates discussions about diver-sity, difference, and multiculturalism from moreuncomfortable conversations about inequality,power, and privilege. The vast majority of ourrespondents engage in this linguistic separa-tion. They talk extensively about diversity with-out ever acknowledging or engaging the socialinequalities that so often accompany social dif-ferences. This was the case even when we askeddirectly about the connection between diversi-ty and inequality.

The relationship between diversity andinequality proved to be one of the most awkwardand uncomfortable portions of these interviews.Some respondents were simply confused by thequestion, while others became frustrated andincommunicative. For example, Bill, a whiteAtlantan, said: “I’ve never really looked at itfrom that term. Umm [pause] it’s a challengingquestion to think about.” After a few promptsand a few awkward exchanges, Bill grew anx-ious: “I don’t really, that’s a tough question if youreally want to know.” An Asian woman fromAtlanta, Rajne, said, “I think, I don’t know, I’mnot exactly sure what you’re talking about, butI think you’re maybe referring to some victim-ization processes that occur when you’re .|.|. ”In response to Rajne’s confusion, our inter-viewer tried (somewhat awkwardly) to reframeand clarify the question by pointing out thatsome inequalities may be built into culturaldiversity. This prompted Rajne to charge that thequestion itself was creating social inequalities.

An excerpt from Mario, a self-identified “43-year-old Puerto Rican from an Italian back-ground living in Minneapolis,” further revealsthe frustration that accompanied this question.

Interviewer: So often you hear diversity come upin discussions of inequality and injustice particu-larly in the U.S. context. What do you think aboutthat when people tie inequality issues to .|.|.

Mario: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that.Interviewer: You know how often diversity

comes up in discussions of inequalities and injus-tices, particularly in the U.S. context. What doyou think about that, when inequality is discussed

with diversity and is it important to kind of addressthese issues?

Mario: Well, what’s happening is that people aregetting more sophisticated in how they speak, theytalk about it, because they’re a little bit moreknowledgeable. You know, again it comes to edu-cation, depending, oh yeah, we have to get going,alright .|.|. Why don’t, how many more questionsdo you have? You’re going to write a dissertationon me.

The awkwardness in this exchange is clear.Mario obviously didn’t understand the ques-tion and our interviewer struggled to reword it.

These examples illustrate the difficulty bothinterviewers and interviewees experienced intalking about the relationship between diversi-ty and inequality. This proved to be so prob-lematic that some of our interviewers simplystopped asking the question in order to maintainrapport and keep the interview moving.Although most interviewees were asked thequestion, only a handful were willing or able toput together coherent thoughts about inequali-ty after having talked extensively about diver-sity.

One interviewee in particular helped shapeour understanding of the relationship betweendiversity and inequality. When asked what diver-sity means to him, James, a 67-year-old AfricanAmerican community organizer from Atlanta,offered a lengthy definition: “Diversity has tobe taken on global terms,” he said, explainingthat “we” operate on many myths about the pil-grims and the founding of this nation but that“in the so-called diverse world—the multicul-tural world—the least favored of all are theAfricans.” When pushed to expand on what hebelieves the general public thinks diversity is,James replied:

Well you know, it’s a word that’s in vogue, it’soverused. Most of them don’t know what they’retalking about. But other than the fact that, youknow, it conjures up ideas of the workplace or thecommunity that, where, you know, women have aplace and men have a place and ethnic minoritieshave a place and somehow that the melting pot isworking and everything’s and everybody’s happyever after. And that’s what the—that’s happy talk,yeah.

James’s definition of diversity incorporates asense of history and draws on understandings ofinequality. In general society, though, he sees avision of diversity that relies on the illusion ofa melting pot and a false sense of harmony


tions are the best methodological tool to expose andmake sense of these contradictions.



Do Not Duplicate



among the various groups in the United States—a vision of diversity that is happily blind to theproblems of race and inequality.

FURTHER ANALYSIS ANDDISCUSSION: THE NORMATIVITY OFWHITENESS

We contend that one of the primary reasonswhy our respondents are able to live with thesevarious tensions and contradictions is becausethe discourse of diversity captured in our inter-views rests on a white normative perspective.This perspective starts from the dominance ofwhite worldviews, and sees the culture, experi-ences, and indeed lives, of people of color onlyas they relate to or interact with the white world.White normativity is not simply an attitude heldby whites in which white people are the centerof the universe. Rather, white normativity is areality of the racial structure of the United Statesin which whites occupy an unquestioned andunexamined place of esteem, power, and priv-ilege. As philosopher Clevis Headly (2004:94)argues, “whiteness serves as the norm for socialacceptability or what is considered to be natu-rally human. Since whites define acceptablestandards of public behavior, normal behavioris behavior that conforms to white standards ofdecency, while abnormal behavior is behaviorthat deviates from these standards.” This reali-ty means that white people and their ideas,experiences, and ways of being in the worldare taken for granted, neutralized, and conceivedof only in relation to people of color—a rela-tionship embedded in a structure of whitesupremacy.4

McLaren (1997) and other critical multicul-turalists (Giroux 1992) have theorized that thefunction of white normativity in the diversitydiscourse—or as they call it “conservative” or“corporate” multiculturalism—is two-fold. First,it “cover(s) up the ideology of assimilation thatundergirds their position.” Second, it “reducesethnic groups to ‘addons’ to the dominant cul-ture.” In this view, “before you can be ‘addedon’ you must first adopt a consensual view ofculture and learn to accept the essentially Euro-American patriarchal norms of the host coun-try” (Estrada and McLaren 1993:30). Ourresearch provides empirical evidence that thediversity discourse relies on assimilationistassumptions and employs linguistic tools thatprivilege white cultural norms and values whilesimultaneously naturalizing “other” groups inracial terms as outside of (or “addons” to) thewhite mainstream.

ASSIMILATIONIST ASSUMPTIONS

Many white respondents who claimed that diver-sity is a positive thing conditioned their state-ments with appeals to cultural assimilation.Melissa, a white Southerner, argued that diver-sity is “good overall. We as Americans, youknow, as a whole need to respect one another’sdifferences and backgrounds, and all of that, andbe tolerant of one another.” Melissa’s assimila-tionist assumptions then emerged in her fol-lowing statements:

But by the same token, you know, there has to bea defining thread somewhere whether it be, youknow, political, whether it be a language that uni-fies us, you know. Because, you know, without,without, even if it’s just a few strongholds of thenation, it’s like that diversity is not gonna, it’s notgonna work, you know, because then it becomesthis game of well, we’re better than you [laughs],you know. And you know, then you have the peo-ple who you know, will turn around and say, youknow, then why did you come here, you know?

While her reasoning sounds practical—she fearsthat lack of a “defining thread” could lead tosupremacist attitudes or people questioning thepresence of immigrants in the United States—she is, in fact, calling into question people’sright to maintain political or linguistic deviationsfrom American mainstream culture, a socialsystem and set of practices dominated anddefined by whites.


4 These ideas are derived primarily from criticalwhiteness studies, the core works of which are nowavailable in a number of readers and collections (e.g.,Delgado and Stefanic 1997; Doane and Bonilla-Silva2003; Fine et al. 1997; Frankenberg 1997; Hill 1997;Kincheloe et al. 1998). Some of the classical socio-logical works include Frankenberg (1993), Feagin(1994), and Doane (1997). For critiques, see Andersen(2003), Arnesen (2001), Bonnett (1996), and Kolchin(2002). Theories of the normativity of whiteness par-allel, and in some cases are derived from, work on het-eronormativity and the false universalization of themale experience by feminist and queer theorists (seeConnell 2005; Ferguson 2003; Hill-Collins 2000).



Do Not Duplicate



Most respondents who expressed assimila-tionist notions were fairly vague about specificsand careful not to argue for the total eliminationof difference. Some, however, were surprising-ly concrete. Language was probably the mostcommonly mentioned arena where respondentsbelieved conformity should be required. Whenasked whether diversity is a source of division,Lawrence from Boston replied:

Yeah, I think it probably is a little bit, but I, youknow, I’m not against any group, but it seems likethe Spanish contingent are reluctant to learnEnglish, and to become American. I think if theywill, and arming yourself against them is not theway to do it, but if they could be encouraged tobecome Americans, and talking about culturaldiversity, I don’t care how many Mariachi bandsthere are on the corner, or Spanish food is all overthe place, they should hang on to that, I thinkthey’ve gotta be Americans first or they’re alwaysgoing to be—this is for their own good.

For Craig, a white Minnesotan, it is not lin-guistic but behavioral standards that need to beadopted or changed. As an example he dis-cussed the relationship between blacks andCaucasians. “I think that you know forCaucasians have a fear of blacks, and I thinkblacks play off that, I think they go out of theirway to make cases, to build that up, to looktough.” Craig complained about a black teenag-er he knew who was “not raised in the ghetto”and “had the education” and yet was “still play-ing this part” of the tough kid. “Caucasians aregoing to look at blacks as being a threat as longas blacks want them to, and blacks are going togo on blaming whites for separatism and beingracist and this just goes around in a vicious cir-cle.” The point, according to Craig, is that black“toughness” is a cultural trait that AfricanAmericans have to change to assimilate “to alarger societal good.”

Tellingly, Craig does not discuss the need forwhites to change. Indeed, he convenientlyignores, if not excuses, white racism by placingwhat he sees as black cultural deficiencies at thecenter of the problematic black-white relation-ship. Such stereotypes do not make respondentsof color less likely than whites to express assim-ilationist sentiments, but they are unlikely toadopt explicitly racialized language in articu-lating these views. In addition, they are morelikely than whites to recognize that expecta-tions for conformity and incorporation both put

greater demands on some groups than on oth-ers and are likely to be bound up with power andthe preservation of privilege. Kamau, a 61-year-old black Atlantan, said:

“I think we call ourselves—this country is a coun-try of a melting pot of people, but the majority ofthe people have a certain philosophy and theywish to impose their philosophy on those minori-ties that come into the country. They want toimpose that and not necessarily allow openness ofthese people’s culture and their ancestry.”

WHITE NORMATIVE CENTER

While the existence of an underlying desire tomaintain white cultural norms and practices isimportant to recognize, it is even more impor-tant to understand the implicit adherence to awhite center in most of the diversity discourse.The language of diversity rests on an assump-tion that few challenge: “Different from what?”This lack of definitional specificity reflects theassumed white center in most discourse ondiversity (Doane 1997; Lewis 2004). Alice, forexample, defined diversity as “welcoming peo-ple from all different countries, ethnic back-grounds, various labels and groups that weassociate with or are a part of, welcoming every-body and making a place or our institutionscomfortable for everyone.” Note, however, thatAlice left unspoken who is doing the welcom-ing and who the owners of the institutions are.This definition gives agency—the ability towelcome and create comfort in institutions—toan undefined but implied “we.”

Jill, a white Californian, made this same pointfar more explicitly:

I don’t know. I mean it’s almost like out of thissense, it’s going to sound terrible coming out .|.|.almost like a sense of because I am in this privi-leged state of having a white skin, ah, but in aregard I have privilege, a perceived privilege astherefore obligating me to make sure that other, toextend to others regardless of their skin color, thesame benefits and privileges that I have. But it puts,I mean it’s almost more like I’m in the host or host-ess position. And that’s terrible, it’s terrible tothink of people who are black and brown as youknow, having to be guests. Because basicallynobody should be, um I mean I wish it were, I wishthat the reality were that it really didn’t matter.

In seeing whites as the hosts and people of coloras guests, Jill named the generally unnamed“we” that occupies the center of diversity dis-




Do Not Duplicate



course. Indeed, in a society that rests on anunequal racial structure, empty categories likean empowered “we” or other ostensibly neutralconstructs like “core culture” or “American”are never really abstract. Rather, they are root-ed in the racial reality of the United States, inwhich whites are both privileged and seen asnormal, neutral, and regular, and everyone elseis defined against a white normative status.

Our interviews revealed other ways in whichthe diversity discourse reflects the usuallyunspoken agent-center. “Others” are welcomed,learned from, or accepted at a table, in a fabric,or in a pot that would otherwise be bland, plain,and basically colorless. For example, Howard,a white Californian, said the following about thepositive aspects of diversity:

Well, if you look at the contributions that differ-ent people from different races have made, peoplestereotypically think of rock music as a whitething, but when you look at the history of rockmusic, what would it be without Hendrix, ChuckBerry, the point being that people from differentraces influence each other’s creativity and theirwhole way of life.

Howard’s response not only recalls our earlierfinding about the benefits of diversity beingunderstood in terms of cultural consumption, italso reveals that difference often refers strictlyto nonwhites. Howard’s response may sound asthough groups of people have a reciprocal effecton one another, but what he is actually say-ing—that black people enrich the lives ofwhites—both asserts white normativity andtreats whiteness as a bland or empty category tobe filled up by people of color.

This discursive turn, which allows racial oth-ers to “add flavor” or “bring fresh ideas” to awhite center, is an important finding that high-lights how Americans tend to view diversity interms of cultural consumption. American under-standings of diversity treat whiteness as theneutral center and everyone else as outside con-tributors. Indeed, the fact that the diversity dis-course is based on an assumption of a whitecenter to which color is harmoniously addedreinforces the inability of diversity as a discur-sive project to incorporate understandings ofinequality, power, and privilege. Moreover, thediversity discourse works to exoticize, criticize,trivialize, and compartmentalize the culturalobjects of people of color as contributions to theenrichment of a presumably neutral “us.” When

we consider the power relations surroundingthe center and margins in the language of diver-sity, the picture becomes even more problem-atic. In a country where a stratified racial orderis foundational, the idea of a neutral, open, andnational “we” is impossible. “Through dominantdiscourses,” as Estrada and McLaren (1993:29)explain, “those who occupy privileged posi-tions in our society forge a universalized, san-itized and naturalized ‘we’ that prevents the‘they’ from speaking for themselves.” In short,ideas about “different” cultures, languages, andvalues simply cannot be separated from a cul-tural context that is unequivocally and norma-tively white.

The white normativity embedded in the diver-sity discourse means that most of our respon-dents, regardless of race, experience similarcontradictions and tensions surrounding its use.In fact, it was Claire, a black Bostonian, whooffered one of the deepest critiques of diversi-ty. In arguing that too much difference mightwarrant the removal of the Statue of Liberty, sherevealed a staunch acceptance of and desire topreserve a neutral set of American values.However, we also found that people of colorwere more likely than white respondents to con-ceptualize diversity as a moral or civic respon-sibility rather than a simple demographic fact.People of color were also more likely to arguethat the problem with diversity is that people donot live up to their responsibilities. This mirrorsthe pattern we found in our phone survey—when asked about the problems of diversity,white Americans were mostly concerned aboutdisunity and misunderstanding, while AfricanAmericans and Hispanics, although also worriedabout unity, placed more of an emphasis oninequality and intolerance. Recall that Miles,Adele, Kamau, and Sara, all respondents ofcolor, argued that diversity is about more thanjust the coexistence of various groups. Theysaid that true diversity requires an “openness”or an “acceptance” that goes beyond toleranceor imposed assimilation. They view diversity asa practice that requires some sort of action—action that, in their experience, is not takingplace. If it were enacted in this manner, diver-sity might result in greater equality, or at thevery least a greater sense of “we-ness” amongdifferent groups. In these respondents’ views,however, true practitioners of diversity are fewand far between.




Do Not Duplicate



CONCLUSION

In her 1999 Presidential Address to the EasternSociological Society, Margaret Andersen (2001)talked about the invisibility of racial inequali-ties in the economic restructuring that tookplace in the 1990s. She focused on the problemsof race-neutral, colorblind ideologies, whichcritical race scholars have analyzed under therubric of colorblind racism (Bonilla-Silva 2003;Carr 1997; Crenshaw 1997; DiTomaso, Parks-Yancy, and Post 2003; Gallagher 2003), andoffered a provocative formulation that goesbeyond the inability or unwillingness to seerace: “I see people wanting to acknowledgediversity, but avoiding any discussion of race andethnicity that points to continuing inequality ingroup life chances” (2001:195). This tendency,according to Andersen, is most typical and prob-lematic in discussions about multiculturalismthat are intended to address issues of inclusionand “giving voice.” Too often, these discussionsignore structural issues of power, inequity, andaccess because they are focused only on cultureand identity. She labeled this way of talkingabout race “diversity without oppression”(Andersen 1999). Like James, whose quote pro-vides the subtitle for this article, Andersen warnsagainst “happy sociology” that is content tostudy diversity, culture, and identity withoutsituating them in an appropriate structural con-text. “[L]ike most euphemisms,” Andersen(2001:197) suggests, “terms like multicultural-ism and diversity have begun to blunt the [soci-ological] imagination,” making it more difficultto understand the inequalities and injusticesassociated with race.

We believe that Andersen provided an impor-tant, if speculative, intervention, one that fore-saw the shift we have documented in the publicrhetoric by which existing racial differencesand hierarchies are reproduced and legitimated.“Racism,” Malcolm X once said, “is like aCadillac. They make a new one every year”(quoted in Lipsitz 1998). The diversity dis-course, or diversity without oppression, func-tions to shift the focus away from an explicitdisavowal of race and racial inequalities towarda rhetoric that aspires to acknowledge and evencelebrate racial differences. At the same time,the diversity discourse conflates, confuses, andobscures the deeper sociostructural roots andconsequences of diversity. In other words, ifcolorblind racism reproduces racial inequali-

ties by disavowing race, the diversity discourseallows Americans to engage race on the surfacebut disavow and disguise its deeper structuralroots and consequences. Indeed, what makesthis diversity discourse so potent and problem-atic is precisely the way in which it appears toengage and even celebrate differences, yet doesnot grasp the social inequities that accompanythem. Furthermore, as Andersen (2001:198)points out, “diversity taken this way means [cer-tain] people continue to be defined as other.”The language of diversity both constructs dif-ference as natural and disavows its negativeimpact on the lives of those who are so con-structed. Race is both everywhere and nowhere,a deep cultural self-deception that is difficult toidentify and counter.

Although Andersen only speculated aboutthe proliferation and power of this racialized dis-course, our findings offer some evidence for herarguments. Indeed, we believe that the diversi-ty discourse has found its way into Americanculture and been institutionalized in SupremeCourt decisions, college curricula, and corpo-rate training programs. As such, it may bedescribed as the first “racial project” (Omi andWinant 1994) of the new millennium. Suchspeculations about the generalizability and for-mal institutionalization of the diversity dis-course are beyond the limits of our interviewfindings. We do think, however, that our datareveal the centrality and social embeddednessof diversity as a dominant racial discourse incontemporary American culture.

Andersen concluded her address by noting thedifficulties of confronting dominant discours-es and ideologies in actual social practice. Ouranalysis reinforces her point. Respondents’inability to talk about inequality in the contextof a conversation about diversity reveals thefailure of critical multiculturalism in main-stream American culture. The tensions andambiguities that we identify appear less ascracks and fissures in the discourse than as theactual power by which the diversity discourseis paradoxically structured and reproduced. YetAndersen insists that progressive scholars mustaspire to more than mere analysis. At a mini-mum, they must try to highlight creative alter-natives and possibilities. In this vein, Andersen(2001) touts Edgell’s (Becker 1998) ethno-graphic study of two urban churches where“race is redefined, not as a problem but as a




Do Not Duplicate



strength, thereby allowing the congregation todevelop common institutional goals, withoutbecoming fragmented by racial and class divi-sions” (Anderson 2001:198). We have, asAndersen says, much to learn from Edgell’sdata and analysis.

Our data come from a larger project whosegoals include identifying more initiatives akinto those presented in Edgell’s study and explor-ing the discourses, understandings, and activi-ties that enable them. Such a project is daunting,not only in its analytic scope but in terms offinding real-world examples of forward-looking,progressive racial engagements. Even in ourinterviews, though, there is hope that this kindof research is possible.

We want to conclude by highlighting the fewcritics of the diversity discourse that emergedamong our respondents. These respondentsspoke with power, conviction, and clarity onthe paradoxical role of race in the discourse, theinequality that accompanies diversity, and theunspoken privilege of whiteness, all of whichcompose the discourse of diversity.

Maryanne, a 75-year-old white Bostonian,exemplifies this type of respondent. She defineddiversity in the following distinct fashion:

Well I think diversity is kind of an unusual termin that equality is a better way of looking at it. Nomatter how different you are you have the samerights as anybody has. And you are certainly enti-tled to whatever anybody has. I think equality isalmost better than diversity.

The basis of Maryanne’s critique of the standarddiversity discourse is clear: the discourse dealswith difference but not equality, which she clear-ly believes is the more important principle.While we would rather not be forced to choosebetween the two, Maryanne’s is an importantcorrective. Luke, a white pastor from Atlanta,had a similar critique:

Interviewer: Today you hear a lot about diversity.What does diversity mean to you?

Pastor Luke: I don’t like it because it’s a, what’sthe word I’m trying to say, it’s a get away with itword. It’s a word that avoids the real word .|.|.because so much of what we call diversity is ademographic condition. Diversity is somethingthat you write down in columns, so many of thiskind, so many of that kind, so many of this kind.But it doesn’t carry with it then, the why are thesein different columns.

Interviewer: That’s a great question, yeah.

Pastor Luke: And it’s to keep from having to sayracism.

Interviewer: Mm-hmm.Pastor Luke: Or feminism, sexism, whichever

one it may be. “Isms” kind of scratch.Interviewer: You don’t like the isms at all?Pastor Luke: No. Say that I have troubles with

diversity, but don’t say I’m racist.

These critics are not arguing that we just needto insert inequality into the current discoursearound diversity. To take inequality seriously,they insist, we need an entirely different dis-cussion, one that starts from a different set ofassumptions and aspirations. Because it masksthe more fundamental and important issues ofinequality, diversity has gone too far down the“happy talk” path for these critics.

We believe that such comments and per-spectives can help us understand the limitationsof the current diversity discourse and the lengthsto which we must go to transform it. We mustboth celebrate difference and recognize, for thepurpose of dismantling inequalities, the unequalrealities of race in the United States. AsHistorian Robin Kelley (2007) notes:“[Diversity] is not about harmony, but aboutunleashing creative dissonance, of being able tosee the world in all of its complexity, of tran-scending tribalisms and nationalisms withoutleaving our pasts behind.”

Joyce M. Bell is an Assistant Professor of Sociologyand African American Studies at the University ofGeorgia. Her research interests include Americanrace relations, social movements, and social change.Her work examines shifting racial relations duringthe late 1960s and early 70s and the role of socialworkers in contemporary urban race relations. Hermost recent project examines the relationship betweenthe Black Power movement and professional socialwork, 1966–1976.

Douglas Hartmann is an Associate Professor andAssociate Chair of Sociology at the University ofMinnesota. He is the author of Race, Culture, and theRevolt of the Black Athlete: The 1968 OlympicProtests and their Aftermath (University of Chicago2003) and coauthor of Ethnicity and Race: MakingIdentities in a Changing World (Pine Forge 2007).Other ongoing research addresses sports-based crimeprevention and collective identities in the transitionto adulthood.




Do Not Duplicate



REFERENCES

Ahmed, Sara. 2007. “The Language of Diversity.”Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(2):235–56.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2001. “Theorizing the ‘Modesof Incorporation.’” Sociological Theory19(3):371–400.

Andersen, Margaret L. 1999. “Diversity withoutOppression: Race, Ethnicity, Identity and Power.”Pp. 5–20 in Critical Ethnicity: Countering theWaves of Identity Politics, edited by M. Kenyattaand R. Tai. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

———. 2001. “Restructuring for Whom? Race,Class, Gender, and the Ideology of Invisibility.”Sociological Forum 16(2):181–201.

———. 2003. “Whitewashing Race: A CriticalPerspective on Whiteness.” Pp. 21–24 in WhiteOut: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edit-ed by A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva. NewYork: Routledge.

Arnesen, Eric. 2001. “Whiteness and the Historians’Imagination.” International Labor and Working-Class History 20(Fall):3–32.

Beck, Ulrich. 2001. “Redefining Power in the GlobalAge: Eight Theses.” Dissent 83–89.

Becker, Penny [Edgell]. 1998. “Making InclusiveCommunities: Congregations and the ‘Problem’ofRace.” Social Problems 45:451–72.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy andRacism in the Post-Civil Rights Era. Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

———. 2003. Racism without Racists: ColorblindRacism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality inthe United States. New York: Rowan andLittlefield.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo and Tyrone Forman. 2000.“‘I’m not a Racist, but .|.|.’Mapping White CollegeStudents’Racial Ideology in the U.S.A.” Discourseand Society 11(1):53–85.

Bonnett, Alastair. 1996. “White Studies: TheProblems and Projects of a New ResearchAgenda.” Theory, Culture, and Society13(2):145–55.

Bryson, Bethany. 2005. Making Multiculturalism:Boundaries and Meaning in U.S. EnglishDepartments. Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress.

Bush, Melanie. 2004. Breaking the Code of GoodIntentions: Everyday Forms of Whiteness. NewYork: Rowman and Littlefield.

Carr, Leslie G. 1997. Colorblind Racism. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Connell, Robert W. 2005. Masculinities. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press

Crenshaw, Kimberle W. 1997. “Colorblind Dreamsand Racial Nightmares: Reconfiguring Racism inthe Post-Civil Rights Era.” Pp. 97–168 in Birth ofa Nation’hood, edited by T. Morrison and C.Lacour. New York: Pantheon Books.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefanic, eds. 1997.Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

DiTomaso, Nancy, Rochelle Parks-Yancy, andCorinne Post. 2003. “White Views of Civil Rights:Color Blindness and Equal Opportunity.” Pp.189–98 in White Out: The Continuing Significanceof Racism, edited by A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.

Doane, Ashley W., Jr. 1997. “Dominant GroupIdentity in the United States: The Role of ‘Hidden’Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations.” TheSociological Quarterly 38:375–97.

Doane, Ashley W. and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. 2003.White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism.New York: Routledge.

Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? Neo-liberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack onDemocracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Dunn, Robert G. 1998. Identity Crises: A SocialCritique of Postmodernity. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Edelman, Lauren B., Sally Riggs Fuller, and IonaMara-Drita. 2001. “Diversity Rhetoric and theManagerialization of Law.” American Journal ofSociology 106(6):1589–1641.

Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and DouglasHartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: MoralBoundaries and Cultural Membership in AmericanSociety.” American Sociological Review71(2):211–34.

Eliasoph, Nina. 1999. “‘Everyday Racism’ in aCulture of Political Avoidance: Civil Society,Speech, and Taboo.” Social Problems46(4):479–99.

Estrada, Kelly and Peter McLaren. 1993. “A Dialogueon Multiculturalism and Democratic Culture.”Educational Researcher 22(3):27–33.

Feagin, Joe. 1994. White Racism. New York:Routledge.

Ferguson, Roderick. 2003. Aberrations in Black:Toward a Queer of Color Critique. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ferree, Myra Marx. Forthcoming 2007. “FramingEquality: The Politics of Race, Class, Gender in theUS, Germany, and the Expanding EuropeanUnion.” In The Gender Politics of the EuropeanUnion, edited by S. Roth. New York: BerghahnBooks.

Fine, Michelle, Lois Weis, Linda C. Powell, and L.Mun Wong, eds. 1997. Off White: Readings onRace, Power, and Society. New York: Routledge

Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, RaceMatters. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

———, ed. 1997. Displacing Whiteness. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Fraser, Nancy. 1997. “From Redistribution toRecognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-




Do Not Duplicate



Socialist’ Age.” Pp. 19–49 in TheorizingMulticulturalism: A Guide to the Current Debate,edited by C. Willett. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Gallagher, Charles A. 2003. “Color-Blind Privilege:The Social and Political Functions of Erasing theColor Line in Post Race America.” Race, Gender,and Class 10(4):22–37.

Gerteis, Joseph, Douglas Hartmann, and PennyEdgell. 2007. “The Multiple Meanings ofDiversity: How Americans Express its Possibilitiesand Problems.” Presented at the annual meetingsof the American Sociological Association, August,New York.

Giroux, Henry A. 1992. “Post-Colonial Rupturesand Democratic Possibilities: Multiculturalism asAnti-Racist Pedagogy.” Cultural Critique 21:5–39.

Gitlin, Todd. 1995. Twilight of Our Common Dreams:Why America is Wracked by Culture Wars. NewYork: Metropolitan Books.

Glazer, Nathan. 1997. We Are All MulticulturalistsNow. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hall, John R. 1992. “The Capital(s) of Cultures: ANonholistic Approach to Status Situations, Class,Gender and Ethnicity.” Pp. 257–85 in CultivatingDifferences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Makingof Inequality, edited by M. Lamont and M.Fournier. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hamilton, Cynthia. 1996. “Multiculturalism asPolitical Strategy.” Pp. 167–76 in MappingMulticulturalism, edited by A. Gordon and C.Newf ield. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

Hartmann, Douglas and Joseph Gerteis. 2005.“Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multi-culturalism in Sociological Terms.” SociologicalTheory 23(2):218–40.

Headley, Clevis. 2004. “Delegitimizing theNormativity of ‘Whiteness’: A Critical AfricanaPhilosophical Study of the Metaphoricity of‘Whiteness.’” Pp. 107–42 in What White LooksLike: African American Philosophers on theWhiteness Question, edited by G. Yancey. NewYork: Routledge.

Hill, Mike. 1997. Whiteness: A Critical Reader. NewYork: New York University Press.

Hill Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black Feminist Thought:Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics ofEmpowerment. New York: Routledge.

Hollinger, David A. 1995. Postethnic America:Beyond Multiculturalism. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, Heather Beth. 2006. The American Dreamand the Power of Wealth: Choosing Schools andInheriting Inequality in the Land of Opportunity.New York: Routledge.

Juteau, Danielle. 2003. “Canada: A PluralistPerspective.” Pp. 249–61 in The SocialConstruction of Diversity: Recasting the MasterNarrative of Industrial Nations, edited by D. Juteau

and C. Harzig with I. Schmitt. New York: BerghahnPress.

Kelley, Robin D. G. 2007. “Visualizing Race.”Keynote address to the Macalester AmericanStudies Conference, February, St. Paul, MN.

Kincheloe, Joe L., Shirley R. Steinberg, Nelson M.Rodriquez, and Ronald E. Chennault, eds. 1998.White Reign: Deploying Whiteness in America.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Kolchin, Peter. 2002. “Whiteness Studies: The NewHistory of Race in America.” The Journal ofAmerican History 89(1):154–73.

Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. “‘What Group?’ StudyingWhites and Whiteness in the Era of ‘Color-Blindness.’” Sociological Theory 22(4):623–46.

Lipsitz, George. 1998. The Possessive Investment inWhiteness: How White People Profit from IdentityPolitics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

McKinney, Karyn. 2004. Being White: Stories ofRace and Racism. New York: Routledge.

McLaren, Peter. 1997. Revolutionary Multi-culturalism: Pedagogies of Dissent for the NewMillennium. Bolder, CO: Westview Press.

Melzer, Arthur, Jerry Weinberger, and M. RichardZinman, eds. 1998. Multiculturalism and AmericanDemocracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press ofKansas.

Memmi, Albert. [1982] 2000. Racism. Translatedby S. Martinot. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Press.

Michaels, Walter Benn. 2006. The Trouble withDiversity: How We Learned to Love Identity andIgnore Inequality. New York: Metropolitan Press.

Miller, John J. 1998. The Unmaking of Americans:How Multiculturalism has Undermined theAssimilation Ethic. New York: Free Press.

Myers, Kristin. 2005. Racetalk: Racism Hiding inPlain Sight. New York: Roman and Littlefield.

Ollivier, Michele and Linda Pietrantonio. 2006. “TheRhetoric of Openness to Cultural Diversity inQuebec.” Footnotes, July/August, AmericanSociological Association Newsletter.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. RacialFormation in the United States: From the 1960’sto the 1990’s. New York: Routledge.

Peterson, Richard A. 1992. “Understanding AudienceSegmentation: From Elite and Mass to Omnivoreand Univore.” Poetics 21:243–58.

Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, andSolidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr. 1991. The Disuniting ofAmerica: Reflections on a Multicultural Society.New York: W.W. Norton.

Skrentny, John D. 2002. The Minority RightsRevolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Steinberg, Stephen. 1981. The Ethnic Myth: Race,




Do Not Duplicate



Ethnicity, and Class in America. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.

Weber, Lynn. 1998. “A Conceptual Framework forUnderstanding Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality.”Psychology of Women Quarterly 22:13–32.

Wikipedia Contributors. 2006. “Diversity.” Wikipedia,the Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 15(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/diversity).

Wood, Peter W. 2003. Diversity: The Invention of a

Concept. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books.

Young, Robert. 1994. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in

Theory, Culture, and Race. New York: Routledge.

Zerubavel, Eviatar. 2006. The Elephant in the Room:

The Social Organization of Silence and Denial.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.




Do Not Duplicate



American Sociological Review ...€¦ · seems to be using the language of diversity these days....

Documents

Transcript of American Sociological Review ...€¦ · seems to be using the language of diversity these days....