Ignoring the Obvious

There's one part of the whole diversity in the arts conversation that confuses me.

It's the part where somebody (normally a well meaning person) says something like:  "How do we help a theatre, for example, understand diversity is important?"

It's damn near 2010.

I have difficultly believing that anyone in a position of leadership in the arts doesn't know that:

1.  There are a lot of different people, cultures and points of view in the world

2.  Generally, an organization that brings these points of view, cultures, etc. into their world will be better off for it.

It's not like diversity is a new concept.  There has been a truckload of research establishing "best practices" in the field for decades.

For example, it's pretty well established that any successful effort to diversify an organization must include the following:

Support for the top levels of the company.

Money to invest in effort

Time

If an arts organization is talking about a diversity effort that doesn't include significant amounts of those three things, then you don't need to take the effort seriously. 

You can assume it's a token effort, designed to make themselves feel good, or impress funders, or whatever.

But again, it's not like that's news.  People have known that for years.

------------------------------

When it comes to diversity in the arts, organizations now break down into four categories:

1.  The Sincere Effort Group - They have the support, the money and the time.  At most these groups will need help and guidance on the strategy side of the ledger.  They want to diversify, but they may not be sure how, or confident in their ability to do so.

This group deserves all the help, encouragement and guidance they can get.

2.  The Scared - These people have some sort of fear barrier stopping them from diversifying.  Fear of losing audience.  Fear of losing money.  Whatever.

This group should be supported and encouraged . . . to a point.  Some organizations spend their entire life cycle scared, that's just how it goes.

3.  The "Other Priority" Group - These organizations have decide, for whatever reasons, that other initiatives are more important then a diversity effort.

I think we, as an industry, should respect the decision this group makes.  Maybe it's a bad decision.  Hell, it is probably a bad decision.  But groups have the right to make bad decisions.

4.  The "No Desire" Group - This group has no desire to diversify.  Who really cares why they feel that way?  The only thing that matters is that they made that choice.  Again, that's a perfectly acceptable decision to make.

I think our job as a field is to look at each organization and figure out which "diversity category" they fit in.

Then we deal with them accordingly.

Our job is not to move people from one category to another.

That's a choice only they can make.

Embrace the ones that want change.  Support the ones that need help.  Wish the rest of them the best of luck and send them on their merry way.

 

Comments

[Scott Walters]

I was right with you, Adam, up until the end when you wrote: "Our job is not to move people from one category to another. That's a choice only they can make." If we had that attitude in politics, we still have separate water fountains in the south.

People and organizations respond to peer pressure. Mark Twain once wrote something to the effect "Show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you what his opinions are." In other words, people want to be valued by their peers, and will shape their opinions to fit in. Sometimes that means money -- being valued by grantmakers, for instance, can lead change; but it also means that peer pressure has an important effect. We all want to fit in, and if we give people a free pass as far as an issue ("Bless his heart, he's trying to be more diverse."), then the motivation to change behavior is lessened.

You're right that we can't FORCE people or organizations to change (well, we could -- we could follow Isaac's idea of class action lawsuits against organizations that remain un-diversified), but we can isolate such organizations and people from those of us who believe that diversification is important. And it would have the desired effect, I suspect.

[Adam]

Prof,

Good points. You're probably correct on that. Isolation is a necessary step.

[99]

Hear, hear. I also think that sometimes when someone says "how do tell a theatre that diversity is important?" what they're saying is "how do we explain to our community/subscribers/company members/stakeholders that things are going to change?" In my experience, there's actually a bit of a life cycle that happens (and sometimes happens over and over again) where organizations go from being sincere in their efforts to being scared to trying to do the right thing to facing resistance and hitting road bumps to finally deciding to focus on other priorities. I think identifying where a theatre is in this cycle and then figuring out what they need to move forward is key.

[Tony Adams]

I think that the second audiences demand changes you will see them.

Sometimes artists need to be shown the way and sometimes artists and audiences sometimes need to be shown the possibility.

I think the ultimate key to a diverse field is more people seeing the possibilities and explosive creativity that true diversity brings with it. An argument I hear a lot is that it should be about the art , not who makes it. That diversity is just a liberal guilt thing to please funders. (don't agree but a lot of people say that)

A cursory reading of the history of any art form would show that anytime there was a significant advance in that artform, it almost always happened when different styles and cultures intersect and inform each other.

Of course sometimes it feels like there's a fifth group to be added to that list: the "Already Diverse but Currently Lacking Resources" Group.