The Janus of Diversity: May the Ideology of Individual Diversity Rationalize Social Inequalities?

Abstract

Some popular ideas about diversity today emphasize the uniqueness and potential in each individual and posit that all differences across individuals count the same as long as they are “true to themselves.” These ideas saturate current antidiscrimination discourses, but their impact on what might be perceived as discrimination has hardly been tested empirically. This article argues that the direction of that impact may not be taken for granted and advances two hypotheses. First, individual diversity (ID) ideology may direct attention to the alleged psychological attributes of minority group members, rather than to social inequalities and discrimination. Secondly, ID ideology may direct attention towards discrimination only if the target is seen as “authentically unique” (the prototype of ID). Both hypotheses were tested and supported in two studies addressing Greek participants’ perceptions of immigrant children’s difficulties. Study 2 further controlled for possible mediation effects. The discussion suggests that ID ideology might paradoxically rationalize inequalities and discrimination, as well as implicitly raise elitist expectations from minority group members.

Dilemmas of sexual citizenship: A critical social psychological analysis of Civil Union law representations in Greek Cypriot newspapers

“…These debates evoke concepts of human rights (Ammaturo, 2015), privacy (Weeks, 1998) and diversity. In this sense, it reflects a dilemma that is not exclusive to Cyprus, or even to the specific topic of LGBT+ rights, but is widely found in understandings of diversity (Iatridis, 2019) and various minority rights claims (Brickell, 2001; Young, 1989). Within feminist debates, for example, the tension between equality-as-sameness and equality-as-difference creates an impossible choice for feminists, because both exposing and ignoring difference may perpetuate inequality (Scott, 1988).…”

Ideological Contestation on Twitter Over Diversity: Constructions of Diversity as Clashing Projects

“…This "system of relations" is part and parcel of a contemporary problematic of diversity which features two main patterns according to Doytcheva (2020): "the individuation and equating of differences, regardless of real group disadvantages," and "a universalization of the logic of harm and prejudice … beyond the scope of historically disenfranchised and marginalized communities" (p. 4). Both patterns point to a blind spot in the problematic of diversity regarding social inequalities and conflict (Cooper, 2004;Zanoni et al, 2010), as research on lay constructions of diversity (Bell & Hartmann, 2007) and the effects of diversity discourse on acknowledging inequality (Iatridis, 2019(Iatridis, , 2020) also concludes.…”

“…Distinct models on social heterogeneity, such as color blindness and multiculturalism, in these data were flexibly employed in the context of contestation in pursuit of different and controversial political agendas. Individualist constructions of diversity stressed individual uniqueness against the perils of uniformity, a mindset approached by recent work on "individualist diversity" ideas (Iatridis, 2019(Iatridis, , 2020, whereas majoritarianist constructions of diversity emphasizing minorities' adherence to majority norms endorsed assimilationism. In turn, universalist constructions of diversity air a color-blind view by deemphasizing group differences, whereas particularist constructions of diversity adopted a multicultural rhetoric in favor of the preservation of cultural differences.…”

Introduction: Political Psychology in an ‘Anti’-politics Era

“…Immigration control is constituted as the only effective and hence inevitable response to the pressure derived from the increasing rise of the political far-right (Krzyżanowski, Triandafyllidou, & Wodak, 2018). Therefore, supposedly contradictory goals are accounted for, through recourse to the same means (Figgou, 2016b;Iatridis, 2019). These constructions and contradictions, along with the ideological underpinnings of diverse societies in times of 'crisis', are evoked in the papers of the current issue.…”