Does Diversity Enrich or Jeopardize Society?: A Critical Answer to an Oversimplified Question

There is still a controversial debate about the question if diversity implies enrichment or a threat for societies. The sociological theory offers at least three different answers. Optimistic representatives of the diversity concept as well as representatives of corporations emphasize the positive aspects. In their perspective, diversity and multiculturality are seen as a societal asset that pays off both operationally and economically. In contrast, the culture conflict theory (e.g. Huntington 1998) argues similar to Parson's structural functionalism that cultural differences threaten social cohesion.

The third answer criticizes both approaches as they likewise tend to reduce human identity to a singular attribute such as gender, race or religion (see Sen 2006). Starting points are Simmel's metaphor of the "intersection of social circles" (1908) and the diagnosis that the diversity concept, similar to the concept of exclusion, distracts from economic inequalities (see Michaels 2006) and, therefore, promotes the neo-liberalization of sociological theory.

In consequence, it is argued that diversity might only lead to social cohesion if the differences are not linked with economic inequalities. In other words, diversity research should be aware of "horizontal inequalities" (Stewart 2008). Moreover, it has to recognize that criss-crossings of cultural and economic cleavages use to enhance social cohesion. 

Therefore, the diversity concept will only survive within sociological theory if it does not obscure economic inequalities and ignore economic conflicts. In short, diversity researchers should resist their instrumentalization by culturalists, politicians and managers. This argument is underpinned by empirical evidence, such as entrepreneurial mission statements, the development of economic inequalities in South Africa and the multicultural practice in the UK.