Diversity

Defining Diversity

Some scholars adopt definitions of diversity that focus on particular demographic differences among individuals. Specifically, differences in ethnicity, race, and gender have been the most emphasized dimensions of diversity. The focus on these particular identity elements stems from the sociopolitical history of prejudice and discrimination toward women and minorities. Furthermore, focusing on differences based in ethnicity, race, and gender draws attention to the differential distribution of power in the United States. Traditionally, women and individuals of color have not had the power allotted to men and Whites. Therefore, some scholars argue that certain elements of diversity, such as ethnicity, race, and gender, have more serious social ramifications than other elements and, as a result, should receive primary focus. Proponents of this view believe that treating all elements of diversity equivalently would mask and invalidate the history of discrimination and marginalization suffered by groups that are not near the top of the power hierarchy. More recently, others have argued that additional demographic characteristics, such as sexual orientation, age, and religion, should also be included in definitions of diversity given the emerging evidence of discrimination based on these social categories. Those who focus on power differentials and resulting discrimination tend to concentrate on demographic elements of diversity.

Other scholars contend that focusing on demographic aspects of diversity is limiting, and therefore they adopt broader definitions where other differences between people may be recognized. In addition to less-accentuated aspects of demographic diversity, such as age, sexual orientation, and religion, others contend that differences in personality, ability, work styles, and ideology are also important dimensions of diversity that have been underemphasized. Advocates of broader definitions of diversity argue that no one group benefits from diversity over others. They contend that by expanding the definition, one may be more likely to gain the support of White men and others who may feel marginalized by more narrow conceptualizations of diversity. It is argued that the emphasis should be on improving the educational and working environment for everyone, not just individuals from traditionally marginalized groups. Therefore, it is argued that a more inclusive definition of diversity benefits everyone.

The approach to diversity that one adopts has implications for counseling practice and research. For example, a therapist who adopts a narrow approach to diversity while working with an older Latina lesbian may overlook critical issues related to age, gender, or sexual orientation by focusing only on ethnic aspects of the client's experience. On the other hand, a therapist who adheres to a broad diversity perspective may fail to attend to pertinent issues in the therapeutic relationship by downplaying the importance of ethnicity or race in an African American client's experience. Sometimes the adoption of a broad perspective of diversity is symptomatic of an unacknowledged discomfort with more provocative aspects of diversity (e.g., race or sexual orientation) on the part of the therapist. For example, a White therapist who is uncomfortable with people of color may always avoid issues of race by emphasizing other broader aspects of diversity, allowing the therapist to avoid acknowledging or working through his or her prejudices. Both broad and narrow definitions of diversity offer their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. In the end, individuals should weigh the costs, benefits, and implications of adhering to either approach.

...