130 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
of social dif erences or non-equity Lindsay 1993. If we look at diversity in organisations, we have to deal with social dif erences of race, gender,
age, sexual orientation, class, social attitudes and much more, and try to develop structures and instruments to minister social justice. Here, the
assumption of dif erence confronts the modern standard of equality. It might be observed – as experienced in gender equality concepts – how it
works on the level of discourse and helps to develop the perception of dis- crimination. But it might also show how ambivalence is sliced into binary
distinctions of blackwhite, malefemale, seniorjunior, and homosexual heterosexual. Subjects are not to be cut into slices but are contextually
and intersectionally situated identities in organisations McCall 2005; Bruchhagen and Koall 2007. However, binary distinctions are part of
standards of justice Lenz 1992. To achieve justice one has to distinguish and dei ne a standard of excellence to which everything else can be com-
pared as i tting or not. Furthermore, this comparison to a standard of excellence is part of a dominant culture, although it must be covered by
a paradoxical construction of reality. For example, career opportunities of minority members – such as mothers and fathers – are related to hege-
monic, masculine working schedules and unlimited access to and use of reproductive resources.
In dealing with diversity issues, the challenge is to deconstruct these hegemonic norms and standards Koall 2001; Bendl 2005 which regulate
the inside and the outside as access to resources of power and well-being or, more pragmatically, to career paths. Deconstruction might show students
and professionals how reality relies on normative assumptions about implic- itly used unquestioned normalcy and power relations. Deconstructive work
in classes Koall and Bruchhagen 2002 and counselling processes Fletcher et al. 2006 shows how in organisations, discourses are constructed along
repressive hetero-normative lines Foucault 1977, and how diverse per- spectives and experiences of life and work are rejected and constructed as
either anti-social or inei cient.
3.2 The Paradox of Individual Diff erences and Group Identity in One Person
The second paradox relies on the dei nition of diversity that subjects are dei ned by their individuality as well as by their group provenance
Nkomo and Cox 1999; Lewis 2000, p. 768. Ascriptions can be re- and deconstructed in organisations with deconstructive instruments, as shown
above. Paradoxes cover this ambiguity and allow stereotyping, experi- enced in the biographical frame and stored as perception expectations
Kulik and Bainbridge 2006. Even culturally marked names or postcodes
Diverse social systems: deconstructing binary and unfolding paradoxes 131
work as group or social class markers or signii ers to devaluate or appraise an unknown person by reactivating group stereotyping Tatli and Özbilgin
2007. Ambiguity is forced in an interaction or organisational situation, if social dif erences are used to regulate complexity. On the organisational
level, homogenisation allows a focus on a certain – dominantly selected – social reality Koall 2001, pp. 175f ..
To develop the construction of social categories and to deconstruct social categories we make dif erences relative by focusing on social proc-
esses and the complex reasons for constructing and using dif erences Koall 2001; Luhmann 2006. The paradox of individuality and group
provenance can be unravelled if one asks what function social dif erences have for systems, such as following ‘objective rules’ and performing indi-
vidual rule breaking by supplementary logic and variations of discourses. It can be shown whether:
ambiguity can be expected;
●
a distinction can be made between the observer and the object of
●
observation, or in deconstructivist terms, the signii er and the signi- i ed; and
the cultural process can be rel ected in which words are used as
●
descriptions which are formed within normatively loaded cul- tural processes to shift the boundary between ‘abbreviation’ and
‘normalcy’.
3.3 Tolerance of the Intolerant?
The third paradox refers to political and ethical diversity issues: ‘Must we tolerate intolerance?’. This could involve the managing diversity discourse
which has the implicit notion of learning to be tolerant of otherness. However, this is not quite possible within the binary distinction and the
paradoxical constitution of either rejecting or accepting positions. This relates to modern constitutions of business ethics where discrimination
continues as long as there is no legal case resulting in increased costs. No ethical coordination of social processes is possible, and we need to make
this distinction in dif erent kinds of systems. Individuals can be seen in the context of their own interests and also what they of er can be observed
as a normative approach which might be constructing and legitimating motives of acting and deciding. If companies as social systems are touched
by diversity issues, they do this to avoid endangering their normalcy and so develop ethical standards to avoid getting in moral conl icts. Teams are
able to overcome homophobic tendencies and can operate within diverse cultures and actions, in case they are enabled to work on their emotional
132 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
and cognitive coni gurations and rel ect internal motivations Bacharach et al. 2005. Ethical issues are applicable only in separate subsystems, so
it might be important to determine what is the evocative issue that relates to my or their motives of action or mind construction. Why does someone
or something feel threatened or protected by certain values which are not independent of their perception of identity? We can look at the legitimat-
ing function of the other mind which or who claims the freedom of its herhis own motives.
4. CONCLUDING
NOTE
In this chapter we have examined a theoretical framing of diversity challenges by designing complex social systems as paradox-producing
and -using systems. Unfolding paradoxes support development towards system l exibility and change in addition to stimulating sociological theory
development, like the Habermas–Luhmann debate in 1971. The political sociologist Jürgen Habermas 1981 developed his theory around the idea
of whether discursive practices allow change by reverse impact of dis- criminative structures of rationalisation. He described power relations as
performative rationality in capitalistic society with overwhelming inl uence on ‘lebensweltliche’ non-capitalistic, non-repressive relations ibid., Vol. 1,
p. 461. But this vision was Luhmann’s main allegation against Habermas. Luhmann criticised Habermas’s i nal-causal social theory, beginning with
the expected end of a future realised emancipatory process like the dia- lectics of Marx, because every critique needs an exceptional vision of
the wanted future. In his turn, Habermas reproached Luhmann for being interested only in social order and observation and therefore stabilising
capitalist society. Recognising the controversies between critical theory and constructivist system theory Habermas and Luhmann 1971, might reopen
the dispute concerning the political claims and limited options of post- modern social theory. But this controversy shows only two sides of the
paradox constitution of theory. Neither Luhmann’s functional– structural observation nor Habermas’s political criticising, could avoid paradoxes.
There are always preconditions, such as time- and space-dependent obser- vation and no power-free discourse, which hinders or enables discovery of
the ‘truth’ Füllsack 1998. There are always past preconditions which are observer-dependent blind spots. There is no power-free, legitimate space
and time: even the diversity discussion is part of this – and tries to cover it with paradoxes. Unravelling paradoxes may show that there is no practical
escape from the demands of heterogeneity, even if it is a nice try to reduce complexity by campaigning for divided theories.
Diverse social systems: deconstructing binary and unfolding paradoxes 133
REFERENCES
Aulenbacher, Brigitte and Birgit Riegraf 2007, ‘Not necessary, but of endless variations – the term contingence and its worthiness for analyzing the interplay
between organization and gender’, paper presented at GWO 5th international interdisciplinary conference, Keele, UK, June.
Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter A. Bamberger, William Sonnenstuhl, William Vashdi and Dana Rachel Vashdi 2005, ‘Diversity and homophily at work: supportive
relations among White and African-American peers’, Academy of Management Journal, 48 4, 619–44.
Baecker, Dirk 2001, ‘Why systems?’, Theory, Culture and Society, 18, 59–74.
Baecker, Dirk 2007, ‘Why complex systems are also social and temporal’, Herdecke: University of Witten, homepage.mac.combaecker.
Bendl, Regine 2005, Organizational Theory: Integration and Deconstruction of Gender and Transformation of Organization Theory, Frankfurt am Main, New
York and Vienna: Peter Lang Verlag. Bruchhagen, Verena and Iris Koall 2007, ‘Losing gender-binary? Winning
gender-complexity Intersektionelle Ansätze und Managing Diversity’, Journal des Netzwerks Frauenforschung, 5 1, 9–15.
Butler, Judith 1993, Kontingente Grundlagen – Der Feminismus und die Frage der Postmoderne, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Chia, Robert 1996, Organizational Analysis as Deconstructive Practice, Berlin and New York: DeGruyter.
Clegg, Stuart R. ed. 2002, Management and Organization Paradoxes, Advances in Organization Studies, Vol. 9, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John
Benjamins. Derrida, Jacques 1974 [1991], Grammatologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Derrida, Jacques 1988, Geschlecht Heidegger – Sexuelle Dif erenz, ontologische Dif erenz – Heideggers Hand Geschlecht II, Vienna: Passagen.
Elder-Vass, Dave 2007, ‘Luhmann and emergentism. Competing paradigms for
social systems theory?’, Philosophy of Social Sciences, 37 4, 408–32.
Fletcher, Joyce K. 2003, ‘The equality imperative: reaching ef ectiveness
through the dual agenda’, CGO Insights – Simmons School of Management, 18
7, 1–4. Fletcher, Joyce K., Stacy Blake Beard and Lotte Bailyn 2006, ‘Practical pushing:
creating discursive space in organizational narratives’, paper presented at Critical Management Preconference – Stream Talk and Text: Rhetoric, Reality
and Research, Atlanta, GA, August. Foucault, Michel 1977, Sexualität und Wahrheit – der Wille zum Wissen,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Füllsack, Manfred 1998, ’Geltungsansprüche und Beobachtungen zweiter
Ordnung. Wie nahe kommen sich Diskurs- und Systemtheorie’, Soziale Systeme, Zeitschrift für soziologische Theorie, 4 1, 183–98.
Gherardi, Silvia 1995, Gender, Symbolism and Organizational Culture, London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habermas, Jürgen 1981, Theorie kommunikativen Handelns, Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Vol. 2: Zur Kritik
rationalisitischer Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Habermas, Jürgen and Niklas Luhmann 1971, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder
Sozialtechnologie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
