Beyond diversity

6.4.1 Diversity and social justice

The discussions in this chapter show that notions of difference and diversity are socially and culturally constructed, and have implications for higher education in New Zealand. When difference is constructed in relation to a preferred norm, those outside the norm are devalued. When this translates into curricula and pedagogy, the interests of dominant groups can be consolidated. Inclusion approaches seek to ensure all students are valued in the classroom, and consider that teachers and higher education institutions need to adapt to meet diverse students‟ learning needs; however such approaches generally do not consider how difference and diversity are constructed and how power relations are implicated in this process. Nor do they challenge the material bases of inequality (Ramazanoglu & Holland, 2002). Most teachers participating in this research talked about student diversity using the language of inclusion, but some also drew on critical perspectives and

119 outside of the classroom. Michael considers that gender, sexuality, ethnicity and socio- economic class are fundamental issues for social sciences. He notes that power

relationships in the classroom can make it difficult for students from marginalised groups to speak up, and so he tries to find ways to ensure that all voices are heard. Maria

considers that the way the term „diversity‟ is generally used is problematic because it focuses on minority groups and sees them, rather than dominant groups, as responsible for their situation. She argues that diversity should be

…more inclusive of all groupings including mainstream and that it‟s everybody‟s responsibility in the support and welfare of communities that are diverse or have um, have these needs that are somewhat different to mainstream groupings.

Maria challenges everyone, not just those in minority groups, to discuss diversity

otherwise if “it‟s just one grouping doing it within an institution then it‟s always going to be their responsibility, no-one else is going to take it on board.” Maria positions the need to address student diversity as central to educational institutions rather than as a marginal issue.

Although universities seek to be inclusive of all students, participants‟ discussions of diversity suggest that notions of diversity and difference are constructed in various ways, some of which act to support social hierarchies and marginalize some groups. Inclusion perspectives may avoid addressing power relations, thus limiting the inclusion they aim to achieve and perpetuating inequality. However, Michael argues that academic traditions of “freedom, tolerance and liberality” provide an environment where “all sorts of diversities can be acknowledged just as a matter of course.” Other teachers in faculties of social sciences and education investigate power within social relationships in their curricula. Teachers in business courses generally did not take a critical perspective in their

discussions but some talked about how they avoided stereotyping students and challenged assumptions about particular categories of students. Several teachers from various faculties spoke of challenging discriminatory practices in their classes, and some teachers‟ curricula included learning about anti-discrimination. Another way some teachers work towards social justice is by getting students to explore and understand their own identities. Maria values and promotes students‟ appreciation of “other people‟s cultures but also reinforcing their own identity and cultural identities.” Susan‟s students do work around identifying their own worldview and where they have come from, and Elaine gets her students to think about their own positioning in terms of gender, ethnicity, sexuality and socio-economic

120 status in order to help them work with those in similar and different circumstances to themselves. In these participants‟ discussions of diversity, caring-as-activism is suggested through their concern for, and actions towards, justice and equity.

The power to define difference is not equally available to all individuals and social groups. Johnson and Pihama (1995, p. 76) note that what counts as difference “is only significant in a system where such differences matter” and argue that dominant groups define and control what counts as difference in ways that further their interests. An illustration of this is how the able-bodied design of university spaces, resources and pedagogies positions differently-abled students as visible and „needy‟, as shown in Gwen‟s example of the big student who chose not to use the special desk she provided for him. University

policymakers and teaching staff need to be aware of the power involved in constructing notions of difference, and consider the implications of policies and practices for equity and social justice.

6.4.2 Beyond limiting notions of difference

Burbules (1997) argues that a „grammar of difference‟ that develops a range of ways to talk about difference is necessary to move beyond deficit approaches. Drawing on his writing, I propose that „difference as opposition‟ could be reconstructed as „difference in relation‟, which argues that something can only be understood in relationship with what it is not, for example, I can only know myself as a woman by knowing men. Likewise, the category „homosexual‟ only has meaning in relation to the category „heterosexual‟, and „deaf‟ only exists in relation to „hearing‟. As Burbules (1997, n. p.) notes, “A thing is also partly what it is not, what it is differentiated from.” This way of understanding difference relativizes the previously universal position of dominant groups, whereby only devalued groups were marked as different (Young, 1990) and contextualizes difference. „Difference in relation‟ makes visible the overarching commonality of characteristics, for example, women and men are all human beings, different religions all have beliefs and practices, and secular and religious people all have worldviews. Difference and commonality always exist together. Difference can therefore be understood as “the relatedness of things with more or less similarity in a multiplicity of possible respects” (Young, 1990, p. 99). What makes a social group, according to Young, is not who is included or excluded, but a social

121 process of interaction and affinity that acknowledges differences within and across groups without essentializing them. An understanding of how difference is always relational can enhance the connections between people without erasing or smoothing difference, and lessen the „barriers‟ that need to be removed or the „gaps‟ that need to be bridged. While none of the participating teachers talked explicitly about this construction of difference, a few interview transcripts hinted at „difference in relation‟, for example Bob notes that how the way he interacts with his students influences how they interact in class.

Another way of constructing difference that offers opportunities to challenge dominant perspectives is that of „difference against‟ (Burbules, 1997). A sense of difference is created when groups actively differentiate themselves from prevailing norms and beliefs and critically analyse them. This heightened sense of difference means that the

“assumptions and gaps of a dominant discourse are reflected back to it by contrast with a discourse and set of experiences quite alien to it” (Burbules, 1997, n. p.). „Difference against‟ disrupts taken-for-granted practices, raise questions about power and injustice, and inserts subjugated knowledges (Foucault, 1980) into majority spaces. Some of the teachers in my research draw on this perspective of difference, such as Maria, who believes it is important that non-Western students‟ knowledges are “really validated, and acknowledged and reaffirmed within a predominantly Western structure such as the university.” Several other teachers talked of including the perspectives of marginalized groups in their curricula, or of creating a classroom environment where students can share experiences not normally talked about, such as living in a refugee camp or living with a mental illness.

A particularly pertinent example of „difference against‟ is described by one teacher whose subject has a particular cultural focus. This teacher found that students from this cultural background relate more easily to the curriculum than other students. Students of the

majority culture find themselves as a minority in the class and they begin to understand the experiences of minority students and appreciate looking at the subject from another

perspective. Education involves change; and learning such as in this example can be transformational. Difference is necessary to this process. As teachers and students, we learn how we are different from others as well as seeing how they are different from us, and thus by “seeing the „other,‟ we are presented with alternative ways of being in the world” (Hutchinson, 2004, p. 76). University education encourages the questioning,

122 reinterpreting and creation of knowledge, and Burbules (1997) suggests that analysing systems of difference is an essential part of education itself, offering us insights about ourselves and our social worlds. By presenting issues of difference as “messy, multiple, complex, and contradictory” (Bird, 2004, p. 23), teachers can avoid essentializing difference and move away from deficit perspectives. As Jiang (2005, p. 229) notes, “the greatest „problem‟ of diversity is seeing it as „a problem to be managed‟, instead of as an asset.”

6.5 Conclusion

Analysis of teachers‟ talk about diversity has shown how notions of diversity and difference are constructed. They are not the innocent terms I initially assumed, but are powerful ways of positioning people within or outside of categories, in relation to

dominant norms, or in ways that challenge such positioning. Therefore, a critically aware approach to how diversity is talked about in higher education is needed to go beyond the unequal power relations implicit within many discussions of diversity and to open up discussion about alternative conceptualizations of difference. While power is implicated in processes of categorizing and ways of talking about difference and diversity, care is less visible. It is mainly found in participants‟ talk of inclusion and in discussions that acknowledge how inequitable social structures position some students. Relationships in educational contexts involve multiple and shifting patterns of difference and commonality, and I consider that teaching and learning will benefit by moving beyond simplistic notions of diversity categories. This chapter provides the basis for further analysis of teachers‟ transcripts. A consideration of what teachers mean by „diversity‟ and how they construct difference is necessary for analysing their narratives of experience, which begins in the next chapter.

123