Diversity data is fundamentally flawed because it is based on an old idea of identity that people are increasingly turning away from - and seems almost completely broken when it comes to Generation Z.
The other day I was at a conference and during a coffee break got into a conversation with a group of young students about identity. One of the students talked about their sexual identity and told me how they do not see themselves as “heterosexual” but at the same time does not think of themselves as part of the “LGBTQ+” community.
After gently interrogating this apparent contradiction, it didn’t seem like someone who was “in denial” which is how older generations might have labeled the situation. Instead it seemed as if the student basically viewed identity in two ways: Their “personal identity” and their “group identity”
Their “personal identity” was “not heterosexual” (although I can see a problem of defining yourself in the negative I will leave that for another blog post).
However they viewed their “group identity” as “heterosexual”. They said that for all intents and purposes they presented as heterosexual, for the most part lived a “heterosexual lifestyle”, and benefited from “heterosexual privilege”.
The conversation reminded me of a recent episode of the Red Table Talk, in which the singer Janelle Monáe opened up about their identity, saying they are “so much bigger” than the binary. Interestingly she went on to say; “I’m non-binary, so I just don’t see myself as a woman, solely... But I will always, always stand with women. I will always stand with Black women. But I just see everything that I am. Beyond the binary.”
In the context of my conversation with the student about her sexuality I interpreted the singer’s statement to mean their “personal identity” is “non-binary”, while their “group identity” is “Black women”.
The problem with most discussions and forms that ask you about your identity is that there is no distinction between “personal identity” and “group identity”.
The forms ask how you “personally” identify and then assume that is also the same as your “group” identity.
The irony is in trying to address issues around the lack of diversity and representation organisations are normally trying to address perceived “group identity” not “personal identity”.
The vast majority of the diversity collection forms make little distinction between “personal” and “group” identities assuming they are one and the same. There is however one important exception - the Scottish National Census when it asks about National identity.
One question on the Scottish census is around whether you feel “Scottish”, “British”, both, or another nationality altogether. Importantly your national identity has nothing to do with your nationality, passport or where you were born, the official information states; “National identity is not tied to ethnicity or country of birth. A foreign citizen living in Scotland is free to choose 'Scottish' as their national identity.”
For me this is an attempt to separate “personal identity” (the fact you might have been born in Pakistan) and your “group identity” (the fact you associate with the label of being Scottish). Interestingly in this example over 50% of people of Pakistani origin identified themselves as “Scottish”, while only 21.2% of people with African heritage identified as Scottish.
The question on the Scottish census recognises that where you were born and your passport might not be the same as your group identity. Your personal identity might be Pakistani, but your group identity is Scottish.
We see examples of how the group identity and personal identity often break down.
The other day I was talking to a senior BBC executive who I have known for over twenty years. When I first met them they identified as “working class” but in our most recent conversation they confessed to me that they now felt like "a bit of a fraud” calling themselves “working class” as their lifestyle and their community now are not working class.
On a diversity form they would still be seen as working class due to their schooling, and parental occupations, but they did not feel that this represented their present “group identity”. Just like 50% of Pakistanis in Scotland who identify as Scottish as opposed to Pakistani - the senior exec might have been born working class but they see themselves as middle class.
You can even see examples of this when it comes to race and ethnicity with people feeling they should tick the “mixed” category but may see themselves as part of a different “group identity”. Whether a person of mixed heritage (for example Black and White) sees themselves as Black, White, Black and White, or mixed (the group identity they feel best describes them) is just as important as their "personal identity" - especially when thinking about issue of culture.
I believe this one question on the Scottish census on identity might lead the way in how we should collect diversity data. It is still important to measure your personal identity; how many people from Pakistan (and other nationalities) live in Scotland, but we should also find a way to capture group identity (which group they identify with).
What Scotland has got right is thinking that simply by adding up everyone’s “personal identities” you can measure the “group identity”.
Understanding the difference between “individual identity” and “group identity” is also critical when it comes to thinking about “inclusion” - the culture of an organisation - and not just diversity - the simple headcount of people who have ticked a certain diversity box.
In a world of increasing identity complexity it is important that we measure both.
How we view identity is changing - how we record it and measure it needs to change too.
No comments:
Post a Comment