How to cope with diversity
Nico Koopman
A university that wants to expand knowledge and develop theories which serve the current pluralistic local and global societies cannot consist of a group of similar people. For the thorough and effective practise of science and knowledge expansion, a diverse combination of people is necessary.
Diversity helps us understand our world better
We live in a world with a rich diversity of languages, cultures, religions, socio-economic and political groupings, genders, sexual orientations, age groups and even levels of disability. This diversity especially concerns matters such as diverse worldviews, views of people, ideas of rationality and value systems, and it is applicable to all subject fields.
Women help to expand the dominantly androgynous, male and businesslike approach to scientific character. During the past few decades female thinkers have enriched the scientific practice with the focus on the narrative and scientific character, the affective and scientific character, participation instead of just so-called objective observation and scientific character, vision, imagination and the aesthetic and scientific character.
Exposure to poor people has made a worldwide impact on our theories, not just in the economy, but also in theology, law, engineering, computer science, information technology, et cetera. The participation of homosexual people in the scientific conversation definitely has a determining legitimate influence on our theory-building in the philosophy, ethics, and gender and legal studies.
Participation of people from non-Western cultures helps us to bring in conversation with each other among other linear and cyclic views of time, and objective and subjective rationalities.
The pertinent attention to disabled people during the past decades has helped us a lot in reviewing our theories in different sciences in the light of an anthropology or view of people of fragility and interdependence. These thoughts on fragility and tragedy don’t only take place in theology, philosophy and health sciences, but also in political and economic sciences. The latter two disciplines work within the context of political and economic globalisation respectively with big emphasis on political and economic interdependence.
Where all these forms of diversity form part of our scientific search for knowledge, we make progress on the road to better understanding of our world in order to create a better life for all.
Diversity can go wrong
In the past we didn’t always appreciate diversity or treat it well. We were under the impression that diversity and harmony were irreconcilable. Diverse and separate was often our password. Separate was also synonymous with inferior. Those who were different to us were seen as inferior.
It is so important that we learn to appreciate diversity, to not be threatened by it, to not handle it as negative, but to accept and enjoy it as a gift. We are motivated by our beautiful motto on our country’s coat of arms, in the indigenous Khoi language: !ke e: /xarra //ke – unity in difference, unity in diversity. If universities, where so many knowledgeable people are together, can’t learn to handle diversity positively, then the chances for the broader society are even smaller.
From racial diversity to racism
In our past South Africans didn’t handle diversity well. With regard to racial diversity, among others, we have a bad record. We changed racial diversity into racial separation, racial alienation, racial hostility, in short, racism. Racism has three parts. Firstly the negative idea that one race has of another. The second part is the societal structures established because of this negative idea. Lastly there is the religious justification of this idea and the supporting structures.
Racist ideas. The word “ideology” is derived from the Greek word idein, which means “to see”. The ideology of racism refers to a negative view that races have of each other. The history of the development of modern racism in Europe since the Renaissance and later the Enlightenment indicates that white European races saw other racial groups as inferior. This classification of races in terms of superiority and inferiority takes places on the grounds of criteria such as intelligence, morality, general civilisation, hygiene and physical appearance including skin colour, facial form, nose size, hair texture and build. The classical Greek man was seen as the ideal person, and the orang-utan as the other extreme on the scale of humanity, as the subhuman.
Three big racial groups are classified in terms of alleged inferiority and superiority. The Caucasians, the white races originally from Europe and North India are the closest to the ideal man. The Mongoloids, the races from Asia are second in line, and closest to the orang-utan are the Negroids, the black racial groups originating from Africa. Some anthropologists add a fourth racial group, the Australoids, the indigenous groups from Australia, which are ranked just above the Negroids. Where previously the word “race” was only used as a distinguishing and descriptive category, it has become polluted due to this acceptance of the different levels of humanness of the different racial groups.
In apartheid South Africa we find a form of the earlier version of racism. The European picture of superiority and inferiority was propagated in our country. The picture of inferiority and superiority with regard to racism was expounded in South Africa, just like previously in Europe, and repeated so much that people didn’t think about it on a conscious level anymore, but that the picture was absorbed and assimilated right down to the subconscious level. That meant that people were no longer even really aware that they had such a picture, attitude, prejudice and preconceived idea with regard to themselves and other races.
The following words that we innocently started using, demonstrate the presence of the racist picture in our subconscious. The tragedy is that it wasn’t only races who wanted to propagate the inferiority of others who assimilated this picture in their subconscious. So-called inferiority groups also live with this picture of their so-called inferiority and the alleged superiority of other groups and have accepted it subconsciously.
The following are examples of words which imply superiority and inferiority:
Non-whites: White is the norm in terms of which other groups are defined.
Disadvantaged: The impression is created that Coloured, black and Indian people to which this term often refers, are disadvantaged with regard to work ethics, intelligence and lack of other skills, while the white race, who are seen as superior in terms of work ethics and intelligence, have prospered.
Diverse students: All Indian, coloured and black students on some campuses were called “diverse students”. Here the subconscious prejudice betrays the fact that white is the norm and that everything else is judged according to that. If Indian was used as norm, the white student, seen from that angle, would also have been a “diverse student”.
The uncritical use of terms like these by black, Coloured and Indian people reflects the assimilation of the racial picture on the subconscious level. Even people from different racial groups whole-heartedly against racism, underestimate the contaminating effect of centuries-old racism when we deny these subconscious racial pictures in our own minds. Something that further contributes to the underestimating of racism is the fact that these subconscious prejudices and attitudes don’t always embody crude forms, but rather have nearly unrecognisable, subtle forms – that therefore don’t hurt as much and is less destructive.
Racist structures. On the grounds of the racist ideology, white, Indian, Coloured and black people were categorised in terms of superiority and inferiority. Societal structures have been erected according to this human dignity barometer. During the last decades of colonisation and since the beginning of apartheid, laws have been accepted which had to help give this racial picture concrete form in the broad society. Apartheid, as the political embodiment of racial images and prejudices, had been practised since 1948.
The Population Registration Act determined to which racial group you belonged. The Act not only often divided families, but also indicated what level of human dignity you had.
The country’s acts from early in the twentieth century and the Group Areas Act of the fifties determined that only white people could own property and have first choice of the best areas in South Africa, in other words the areas with mineral riches, fertile soil for agriculture, favourable weather conditions and beautiful natural scenery.
The Mixed Marriages Act and Article 16 of the Immorality Act prohibited sexual contact and marriages across racial lines. It was especially applied to relationships between white people and other groups. It was less strict with regard to the “mixing” of other groups. These three sets of acts were the pillars of the so-called macro apartheid. It determined your human dignity, indicated where you may own a home, where you may live and even who you may fall in love with.
Several other acts where formulated on the grounds of the above. These acts determined which entrance you were allowed to use at government institutions like post offices, on which trains you were allowed to travel, where you could receive health care, where you could spend your free time, at which beaches you could swim, and where you could study, in which field and up to which level you could be trained and in which political processes you could participate.
The awarding of government money, training and job opportunities to different racial groups were done in terms of this racial categorising of people. Supporters of apartheid pretended that apartheid was only about separateness. But this policy was not just about forced separation. Apartheid’s thoughts and practices were based on the separateness, irreconcilableness and especially the inequality of people from different racial groups. Racial measures like these have contributed to the socio-economic inequality that today still runs mainly along racial lines.
Racist religion. It is sad that religion is often used to legitimatise ideologies and pictures. The history of the world is rendered filthy with examples of this. The so-called apartheid theology has since the first decade of the twentieth century explained away the picture of racial prejudice described here. The message was simple: Deep down the picture of racial inferiority and superiority is not something invented by man, but comes from God. The unfair and dehumanising structures formed on the grounds of this picture are an expression of obedience to God. The existence of separate churches further supported this ideology. There is general consensus among historians that the church apartheid in especially the so-called Dutch Reformed Church family has given momentum to apartheid in society.
The threefold manner in which racial diversity led to racial separation and racial alienation helps us to explain the destructive handling of other diversities. At the same time a good understanding of where and how we went wrong shows us the way toward satisfactory and lasting solutions.
From class diversity to classism
Within the same colour groups and across colour lines subconscious pictures of different socio-economic groups are created and assimilated. As with racism social practices are developed that reflect these pictures. Consequentially the level of income determines with how much respect and deference people are treated and where people live, study, relax, are treated, go to church, die and are buried.
Naturally equivalence doesn’t mean that all people are absolutely equal and can lay claim to identical standards of living. It however also doesn’t mean that those who have less possessions, literacy, et cetera are inferior and condemned to an inferior life. It also doesn’t mean that the systems must be left unchanged in the face of a growing situation of abundance for a minority and glaring wants for a majority.
From gender diversity to sexism
In the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa there was fought against three big evils, namely racism, classism and sexism. It is however clear that sexism hadn’t generally been contested with the same dedication and passion as classism and especially racism. As in the case of racism and classism, sexism is also about ideas of superiority, in this case of men compared to women, as well as through social structures that embody these ideas. Religious legitimising of the sexist pictures and structures are even more obvious than that of racism and classism.
In nearly all ethnic and cultural groupings in South Africa the ideological picture with regard to women is one of inferiority. The argument is that women don’t comply with the modernistic characterisation of individuality, autonomy, rationality, independence, balance, healthy emotionality, efficiency, et cetera. Therefore they can only receive positions of submissiveness. These images are often not explicit, but subtle. And as is the case with racism and classism, these images usually function on a subconscious level.
It is not difficult to indicate how this picture of women’s inferiority is embodied in social structures. The representation of women in leadership positions in different sectors of society for example is still unacceptably low. Attempts are made in several sectors of society to rectify this injustice. However, the levels of gender injustice are still very high.
As is the case with racism, religious legitimising is provided for women’s position of inferiority. In the Christian tradition for example, as with several other religious traditions, a long history of prejudice against women can be found. By referring to the Bible and gender practices in the church history of two thousand years, some Christians legitimise the inferior position of women. Responsible current-day Christians however feel that these ways of thinking should be rejected and that the Bible and church tradition must urgently be revalued in this regard.
From diversity of sexual orientation to homophobia
The reality of a diversity of sexual orientations in our world has also been ideolised. This picture is assimilated on subconscious level and also has subtle embodiment. However, it probably has more crude forms of expression than those other destructive treatments of diversity. Regular testimonies are also found of discrimination against and exclusion of homosexual people in the workplace and other sectors of society.
Although we must leave room for supporters of the same religion to have different views on homosexuality, it is unacceptable to try and religiously legitimise homophobic ideas and homophobic social structures and practices.
From diversity of age to ageism
With regard to diversity of age there are also pictures of alleged inferiority and superiority. Some ageist pictures indicate that young people don’t meet the normative characterisation of expertise, wisdom, achievement, intellect, autonomy and independence. They are isolated and excluded from the structures of influence and authority. These pictures often receive sanction with a call on, among other things, religious directives of respect for elders. This form of ageism is usually found more often in the more traditional societies.
In modern societies older people are more often the victims of the pictures of ageism, in other words, discrimination on grounds of age. They allegedly don’t comply with the requirements of the modernistic characterisation of virility, creativity, energy, innovation, production, consumption, independence and achievement. As a result older people are gradually being elbowed out of positions of authority and leadership. Statistics in South African workplaces suggest a tendency where more and more younger people are appointed in senior positions at the expense of older people who allegedly don’t meet the criteria of the ideal modern-post modern person. Some people even try to find religious justification for these ageist pictures and structural practices. Among others the prominence of young people in Biblical stories is used in an unacceptable way in this regard.
From diversity of disabilities to handicapism
In a society with a dominant characterisation of independence, rationality, individuality and pressure of achievement become pictures of the inferiority of disabled people.
The inadequate admission of disabled people in leadership roles in different sectors of society demonstrate there is acted under the picture of inferiority of disabled people. The provision made to meet the special needs of disabled people in terms of aspects like friendly structures of buildings and adequate resources and training in the workplace reflects the similarly subtle view that less is expected of disabled people than so-called normal people. Special regulations to help them realise their potential is therefore redundant, because according to the subtle, subconscious reasoning they don’t really have a lot of potential.
There are even attempts to give religious legitimising to handicapism. These attempts truly occur less than in the case of racism, classism and homophobia. Still the challenging interpretations are heard in extreme cases that diseases and forms of continuous disability is due to the person self, or that of the parents or the broad society.
People who are HIV positive embody a form a disability that requires special attention. The intuitive response on the news that somebody is HIV positive too often is one of promiscuity. These pictures of a connection between promiscuity and a positive HIV status, as well as other forms of prejudice, interfere with the structural care of such patients in our communities.
From diversity of nationality to xenophobia
Besides the threefold statement for the wrong handling of different diversities, the economic factor must also be taken into account. The competition for scarce sources aggravates the existing prejudices and wrong forms of discrimination. It becomes especially clear in the conflict between black and Coloured people. Their bigger business skills and access to capital worsens the existing discrimination against people and especially against other African countries. The competition for scarce resources therefore aggravates xenophobia.
People can surely indicate how other forms of diversity can be handled negatively in this threefold way. An example of this is the human-nature diversity which leads to the destruction of the natural environment (ecocide) because people can make an appeal to religious considerations and be seen as superior to the rest of creation.
From Africa diversity to Afro-pessimism
Africa is a continent with rich diversity. However, we often handle this diversity wrongly. Some Africans even function with the prejudice that Africa is inferior; and even ask questions about Africa’s levels of moral and religious development. We often hear the accusation that Africa hasn’t contributed anything to the world’s technological and scientific development – as if people don’t know about the development of mathematics in Egypt and the scientific contributions of the African city Timbuktu with its large library. South Africans betray our subtle, subconscious prejudices towards Africa when we so often refer to other African countries as African – as if we’re not really part of this continent.
From diversity of religion to religious conflict
The growing influence of religions in international and local conflicts – among others in countries like the Netherlands that are experiencing increasing religious diversity – also indicates that diversity of religion is handled in this threefold way. Some religions are seen as superior in comparison to others; structures and regulations in society judge such religions appealing to the alleged larger sophistication of the religious and morals contents of that so-called superior religion.
Diversity can be enjoyed!
The subconscious pictures that we function with must not be underestimated. They really exist, but function on subconscious level. They subtly and spontaneously determine our conscious thoughts and actions. We mustn’t underestimate these pictures. They don’t have to paralyse us. In the same way that the diagnosis of a disease helps us to treat it and bring healing, the recognition and acknowledgement of our pictures can also help.
We must guard against both oversensitivity and insensitivity. Victims of discrimination can often see racism, sexism, et cetera where it doesn’t exist. Even worse, they can even turn their backs on the alleged racism, sexism, et cetera in order to reach certain targets. Those favoured by certain forms of discrimination must guard against insensitivity and a too comfortable accusation of victims of oversensitivity and abuse. In the situation of correction the voice of the suffering party must weigh heavier, until the contrary, namely that it concerns oversensitivity and abuse has unquestionably been proved.
Transformation is necessary in order to treat diversity differently than in our apartheid past: transformation of our incorrect pictures, prejudices and stereotypes of others; transformations of the societal structures that reflect these pictures; and transformation of religious convictions that legitimise these pictures and structures. The development of interpathy between different groups is necessary for this transformation process, for this striving to diversity and togetherness.
In his book Pastoral counselling across cultures the American theologian distinguishes between sympathy, empathy and interpathy1. It helps us in the necessary transformation and renewal of these polluted pictures, structures and religious ideas. Sympathy refers to the spontaneous, affective reaction on the circumstances of people and their emotions in these circumstances. It is about people that correspond with me on many levels, among other colour, class, gender, sexual orientation and age. It means to spontaneously feel with other people who have a lot in common with me, people who form my inner group.
Empathy has to do with the conscious, affective reaction to the circumstances of people who have a lot in common with me as well as people who differ from me in many regards. Empathy is to “penetrate into someone’s position” and in that sense climb into their skins.
Interpathy goes even further. It especially has to do with people who belong to totally different groups than I do. I am not only affective, but also consciously involved with them in a cognitive way. Interpathy refers the conscious cognitive and emotive visualising and understanding of the circumstances of people from a different race, class, gender, sexual orientation, level of disability, age group and nationality.
Interpathy means to climb into the skins of people from other cultural groups; to learn to understand their circumstances, their interpretation of reality, their version of the past, their understanding of the truth, as well as the emotions that their circumstances awaken, among others anxiety and fear, pain and anger, guilt and shame. This imagining requires personal meetings and exposure, but also relevant reading and rational reflection about the life-reality of others; about their culture, habits and customs; about the impact of social, political and economic systems on others. Reading about life in an informal settlement, or a so-called squatter camp, can help with imagining the life of the people who live there. Reading and thinking about the effect of the authoritative structures of authority of apartheid on younger and middle-aged white Afrikaans speakers can help a lot to imagine ourselves in these people’s positions. Reading and thinking about the sad stories of oppressed women and homosexual people help us on the road to interpathy as the conscious imagining of others’ positions. Imagining other people’s position is indeed interpathy. It not only helps us to understand others better, but also to understand ourselves better. It helps us to get an idea about what others think of us.
Interpathy, however, doesn’t come easily. People from different groups don’t spontaneously climb into each other’s skins. They don’t understand each other intuitively. They don’t automatically share each others’ feelings. In a society like South Africa, where people were estranged from each other for so long and were hostile and apathetic towards each other, it is even less the case.
To develop interpathy that opens the door to enjoyable living with one another, spaces must be created where people can learn to climb into one another’s skins. These spaces are places where people can listen to one another’s stories; can experience one another’s emotions of pain and anger, fear and anxiety, guilt and shame; even courageously place their stereotypes on the table.
These spaces are actually abnormal. As normal human action people should be able to live in one another’s skins, understand one another and feel with one another across numerous lines. Our history has taught us however that it doesn’t happen normally and spontaneously. Now we must use abnormal means to achieve the normal. Hopefully these conscious, structured, unspontaneous, abnormal ways of developing interpathy teaches us to live interpathically in a normal, spontaneous way.
Besides opportunities for directly talking to one another, we can also examine additional ways to develop interpathy. Visit with one another, get to know one another’s worlds; eat together, watch rugby together at Newlands and soccer in Soweto; undertake joint projects; read appropriate literature about one another, like dramas, poems and novels; get to know one another’s music, customs and habits. Spaces for interpathy indeed teach us important skills for a life of diversity and togetherness.
David Augsburger. 1986. Pastoral counselling across cultures. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press.↩︎