Você está na página 1de 20

The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

Author(s): Michael Jindra


Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 55, No. 3 (June 2014), pp. 316-334
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676457 .


Accessed: 18/10/2014 21:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity


by Michael Jindra
The tension between the values of economic equality and diversity can be found throughout the world, and yet it
rarely is recognized by scholars, partly because it deals with the sensitive area of culture and poverty. This article
will focus on where this tension comes from, how and where it is expressed both worldwide and in the United
States, and why anthropologists and sociologists neglect it. The tension expresses itself in predicaments in contexts
ranging from government policy (e.g., on indigenous groups) to the workings of local antipoverty nonprofits, often
confounding attempts to deal with the issue of inequality. The issue is neglected for a number of reasons, including
the preferred narratives of poverty scholars and their assumptions about human aspiration and fault. Instead, I
argue for better attention to the complexities of human action, culture, and agency in order to understand poverty
and inequality.

Throughout the world, an increasingly frustrating quandary


has arisen over how to address rising levels of inequality amid
increasing diversity. From the controversies over the Roma/
Gypsy in Europe and aboriginal life in Australia to the homeless populations in the United States, Native American reservations, and those in poverty in general, political bodies
and other organizations have tried different strategies and
policies, often with little success. This predicament, I argue,
is borne out of a largely unrecognized tension between the
values of diversity and (economic) equality and the connected,
stultifying debate over issues of poverty and culture.
In this article, I will discuss how diversity, as expressed by
lifestyle, is connected to economic inequality. After briefly
discussing the controversy over connecting cultural diversity
and poverty, I will then highlight what diversity is and where
we see itin the proliferating array of subcultures and lifestyle
groups. I will then detail the largely unrecognized tension
between the values of diversity and equality, including where
we see these tensions burst out into conflict and indecision
in public policies. Drawing on my own research on antipoverty nonprofits, we will see the same dilemmas operating at
the local level. I then discuss several reasons why stratification
scholars are unable to recognize this tension, with attention
to their assumptions, their discourse on fault, and their preferred narratives about people in poverty. Finally, I discuss
the few scholars who have recognized this tension and call
for a broader approach to addressing inequality.
Michael Jindra is Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of
Anthropology and Visiting Research Scholar in the Center for the
Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame (611
Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, U.S.A. [mjindra@nd
.edu]). This paper was submitted 19 XII 12, accepted 2 IX 13, and
electronically published 17 IV 14.

There are, of course, understandable reasons for the hesitance to connect cultural diversity with issues of poverty and
inequality. For one, highlighting culture as a cause of poverty
and inequality can lead people to simplistically blame the poor
for their own condition and can give excuses to policy makers
to do nothing about poverty. Other academic arguments
against connecting culture to poverty are so well worn that
there is little reason to rehearse them again (see Small, Harding, and Lamont [2010] for a review). They usually highlight
Oscar Lewiss culture of poverty, which prompted reactions
against it that continue today, mostly around the concern that
culture blames the victim of poverty (Lewis 1959). Daniel
Patrick Moynihans infamous 1967 report on the black family
similarly prompted a virulent reaction (Patterson 2010) that
basically halted any scholarly analysis of the connection between culture and poverty until scholars such as William Julius Wilson gingerly brought culture back into the discussion,
even if only as adaptation to structural forces.
Below, I will offer a more detailed critique of the current
literature on poverty, inequality, and stratification (a term
used more commonly among sociologists), but I first want
to make the argument that incorporating cultural differences
is absolutely essential to understanding and dealing with inequality, and that there are ways of handling this issue that
can adequately address the concerns of those hesitant to give
an overall view of the lives and cultures of the poor. Ignoring
the connection between culture and poverty is tantamount
to self-censorship and indicates a basic failure of scholarship.
In contrast, scholarly work on culture and poverty, if utilized
properly (which means never using it as an excuse to ignore
poverty or inequality) would help develop applied approaches
and policies that take in all the causes of poverty and would
complement, not replace, the existing focus on structural solutions to poverty.

2014 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2014/5503-0004$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/676457

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

Connecting Diversity to Economic Outcomes


In order to do this, one must begin with a proper understanding of diversity. Diversity, as I use it in this article, is
based on actual practices and beliefs or attitudes, in addition
to the more common and overlapping understanding of diversity as based on socially constructed categories of race/
ethnicity, or on categories such as class, nationality, gender,
or sexual orientation (cf. Pincus 2011; Susser and Patterson
2001). This diversity is expressed in significant contrasts in
family life, leisure, work, and consumption, from hyperachieving success-oriented groups to leisure and entertainment-oriented subcultures, and includes the myriad of groupings that marketers define us by. Diversity is thus tied more
to Webers Lebensfuhrung (life conduct) or Anthony Giddenss
use of lifestylesclusters of habits and orientations that
involve modes of acting, routines of dress, diet, and favoured
milieux for encountering others (1991:81). Murray Milner
calls it lifestyle pluralism, which he describes as a melange
of relatively unranked groups that have differing lifestyles and
discernable social boundaries, which are nevertheless often
fuzzy (Milner 2004:101). It is important to keep in mind,
however, that these groups are not just self-chosen, but power
and structure often play a role in forming them.
Economic equality is a more straightforward concept.
While it is often measured using the Gini index, as income
inequality, a better measure is wealth or asset inequality. While
income can change significantly from year to year, asset inequality is cumulative and better measures how well people
can withstand adversity. More significantly, it is affected not
only by income but also by consumption and savings habits,
which have a profound effect on overall wealth when, for
instance, savings are used to build wealth for emergencies,
college educations, or retirement. Wealth inequality is also
more extreme than income inequality, and it better captures
the effects of the contrasting histories and habits of different
groups (Elmelech 2008).
Within the United States, diversity has always existed, with
different groups having different attitudes and practices concerning subsistence, hierarchy, honor, and other notions,
some of which have contributed to inequality. There were
substantial differences among the various groups (e.g., East
Anglians, Scottish borderlands) that emigrated from the British Isles (Fischer 1991), which can still be tied today to different levels of wealth, violence, health, and other measures
in different regions such as Appalachia (Nisbett and Cohen
1996; Obermiller, Wagner, and Tucker 2000). Regional variations that go back to the nineteenth century are clear (Krueger, Bhaloo, and Rosenau 2009; Lieske 1993).
Other cultural patterns have had a strong effect on both
health (Williams 2013) and economic status, including at
higher wealth levels. Sherry Ortner (2003) has pointed out
how both cultural and noncultural factors have played a role
in the rise of Jews to the top income levels. Earlier, the wide-

317

spread promotion of literacy through reading the Torah and


commentaries played a major role in Jews entering various
professions and becoming urbanized and wealthy (Burstein
2007). The literature on immigration, which I can mention
only briefly here, reveals a wide array of cultural orientations
related to economic outcomes among different groups (Hao
2007; Waldinger and Lichter 2003), a topic often left out of
the discussion on inequality, as Jeremy Hein (2006) argues
in his extensive analysis of the role of culture among immigrants.
At lower wealth levels, the pull of alternative lifestyles
often gets short shrift in favor of structuralist explanations
for inequality, as I discuss more below. People do not always
adopt mainstream notions of work, productivity, and longterm economic planning and instead live in the present
(Day, Papataxiarchis, and Stewart 1999:1). These diverse
groups tend to reject authority, value freedom and sociality,
and thus avoid practices that include working in large organizations with regular work hours, accumulation, and home
ownership (Pardo 1996; Polsky 2006; Stewart 2001). They
recognize, either implicitly or explicitly, that there are often
significant sacrifices or trade-offs for societies oriented to the
accumulation of wealth, where sociality is sacrificed to wealth,
freedom sacrificed to work.
Long-standing subcultures on the margins include the
Roma and portions of indigenous groups (Muckle 2012) still
found in North America and Europe. Focusing on the United
States, one could include todays array of itinerants, street
sellers (Duneier 2001), hustlers (Polsky 2006), intermittent
workers (Malenfant, LaRue, and Vezina 2007), and homeless
(Gowan 2010). In poor urban neighborhoods, preservation
agents among the varied ethnic communities use various
social mechanisms (language, shunning) to maintain a way
of life they view as more important than economic gain,
which can reduce economic mobility, as Sanchez-Jankowski
reports (2008:44ff.). One should also note anticapitalist immigrant cultures, including some pockets of the working class
that have resisted dominant consumerist orientations and live
frugal lives on low incomes (Durrenberger and Doukas 2008),
or religious groups such as the Amish.
Expressiveness, romanticism, and other ideals have also
motivated a wide range of social movements and phenomena,
from early mountain men and migrants to hippies and punks,
across the social classes (Miller 1991; Soeffner 1997). Others
include various groups of agrarians, bohemians, and more
recent groups such as downshifters (Benson and OReilly
2009), new age and environmental groups (Campbell 2007),
countercultures based on contemporary leisure or popular
cultures such as grungies (Moore 2004), or subcultures
where both work and leisure are distinctive, such as bicycle
couriers (Fincham 2007). Some of these lifestyle groups offer
attractions of a very nonmainstream sort, described by some
as edgework (Kidder 2011; Lyng 2005), extreme bodily
activities that include criminality (Hayward 2004), or other
leisure lives (Abramson and Modzelewski 2011; Allen-Collin-

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

son and Hockey 2011). One can list many others here, such
as the subcultural cliques (Eckert 1989) that influence life
paths.
The more itinerant groups listed above are frequently misunderstood and often appear feckless or irresponsible to
their more mainstream neighbors (Day, Papataxiarchis, and
Stewart 1999:21). Savings and education rates tend to be
lower, and gambling rates higher, with economic activity often
taking place on the margins but often within their own social
networks and logics (Stewart 2001). As a result, some of these
groups suffer from ongoing discrimination and stigmatization, which certainly play a role in maintaining the marginalization of these groups. It is important to note that these
orientations originate from a complex interplay of forces, including the norms of a subculture, histories, and the fact of
material scarcity.

Digging into Diversity and Lifestyle


Specific research on life patterns in Western societies shows
a diversity that is not simply reducible to adaptation to circumstances and that also exists within and between social
groups. Sociologist Margaret Archer (2007), for instance, has
contrasted four different lifestyle groups, based on their reflexivity and orientations, which guide their way of life and
influence their social mobility. Communicative reflexives,
for instance, often foster social immobility because they attach supreme significance to inter personal relations. They
tend to live for today, are unlikely to plan ahead, and see a
lot of contingency while hoping something will eventually
turn up. In contrast, for autonomous reflexives, self-reliance and work are important. They practice a personal
power that fosters upward social mobility; embrace challenge,
control, and variety from work (Archer 2007); and minimize
social considerations.
Similarly, other social scientists analyze diverse lifestyles in
terms of broad general orientations (e.g., fatalists, individualists) based on factors such as differences in values, social
relations, household routines, and general ways of life (Engbersen et al. 2006; Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky 1990).
For instance, there is diversity in household cultures (Dake
and Thompson 1993), such as practices concerning eating,
cleaning, sociality, and consuming habits. Some families have
scheduled communal mealtimes, prompt cleanup, and savings
patterns, in contrast to those who are less bound by these
routines and, for instance, rely more on takeout food at irregular times. People in these groups often have different work
ethics and perceptions of time and risk (Engbersen et al.
2006). Specifically, research indicates significant diversity
among the poor themselves, such as Salcedo and Rasses
(2012) classification of five types of urban poor households
(organized, dependent, ghettoized, hopeless, and moyenized),
the multiple cultures of poverty reported by Holloway et
al. (1997), or Ulf Hannerzs four lifestyles of Soulside (2004).
All of these clearly reveal the flawed nature of analyses that

either posit only one culture of poverty or, more commonly,


deny any connection between culture and poverty at all. The
poor are often different from the mainstream, but neither are
they homogeneous, with a wide variety of contrasting orientations and practices, a continuum between mainstream
and nonmainstream patterns that shifts over time and overlaps between ethnic, class, religious, and other subcultural and
lifestyle orientations.
For a popular look at lifestyle diversity in the contemporary
United States, there is hardly a better place to turn than the
ABC television show Wife Swap (200410) and similar shows,
where the spouses of two very different families were exchanged and made, in turn, to follow each others habits and
rules for a week. Though the show illustrated a degree of
diversity that is not as radical as in international cross-cultural
contexts, one is still struck by the vivid clash of family lifestyles. The families may still share common American orientations such as individualism, but they show a radically
different view of the good life, with contrasting work, leisure, and consumption patterns, and their common individualism allows life patterns to take a myriad of different routes
that feed into a kind of diversity seldom discussed as such.
Indeed, studies have shown clear contrasts between different styles of parenting based mainly on class. Concerted
cultivation has become the standard upper middle class pattern, while natural growth is found more among lower class
families (Lareau 2011). The former is better for upward mobility, while the latter can give children more daily freedom
and stronger obedience toward parents. At stronger extremes,
a cult of childhood success (Kottak and Kozaitis 2002) has
taken over, which includes numerous planned enrichment
activities for children and an ongoing use of experts and
advice to manage the business of raising children and to
ensure their future success. Some families put intense pressure
on youth to perform well in school, with substantial lifelong
effects on educational attainment and income and wealth levels. Ethnicity also plays a role here, as Nisbett (2009) reports
with East Asians, and as popularized in the frenzied response
to a self-proclaimed tiger mother (Chua 2011).
The high achievement pattern, however, often comes at a
cost in terms of sociality, time, freedom, and increased stress
(Pope 2001), so for many the sacrifices required for upward
mobility are simply not felt to be worth it (Kabachnik 2009).
Worldwide, many recognize the advantages of freedom and
flexibility and forgo the regulated work-oriented lifestyle common only among particular groups worldwide. As cultural
studies scholars stress, one must understand the pleasures
of alternative ways of life that may be less work and income
oriented, or even deviant (Katz 1988), such as many of those
listed above. Impulsivity and the lack of delayed gratification are increasingly important in the growing hedonistic
clusters of society driven by the phenomenal rise of consumer
culture (Hayward 2004). These issues also take us into the
more biological and individual levels of analyses, where neuroscientists and social scientists are increasingly working to-

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

gether to understand how external factors such as cultural


and technological changes affect the pleasure centers of the
brain, for instance, by encouraging addictive patterns, including gambling (Lende and Downey 2012; Schull 2012).
Market researchers, who have unsurprisingly developed
some of the strongest tools for defining a diversity based
primarily on lifestyle and practice, have also confirmed increased diversity in the West (Weiss 2000). To put it simply,
people find fulfillment, identity, and enjoyment in very different ways, from occupational devotees (Stebbins 2004) to
those who pursue leisure careers (MacDonald and Shildrick
2007), often despite significant economic and social costs
(Abramson and Modzelewski 2011:143). While some have
reported two main general orientations: one individual and
acquisitive, and the other expressive, countercultural, and
more inner directed (Binkley 2007), it is certainly more complex than this. For some it may be a lifestyle based on an
expressive, neo-bohemian (Lloyd 2006), postmaterialist
(Inglehart 1997) ethic. For others it may be playing to win,
whether for their children (Davis 2009; Levey 2010) or themselves (Hewlett and Luce 2006).
Recent research points to an increase both in the size of
groups with a hedonist orientation and also in groups with
a competitive one (Thome 2008). In addition, the wealthy
and the poor are becoming more isolated from each other
due to such forces as increased assortative mating (marriage
within social groups) and residential/class segregation, which
in turn increase the transmission of inequality and decrease
social mobility (Elmelech 2008).
All of this points to a society with stronger extremes
intense, hypercompetitive overachievers at one end and widely
varying unskilled, less educated intermittent workers, or
downshifting, leisure, and social-oriented groups at the other
extreme. Some reduce this process simply to the outcome of
changes in the political economyhigher competition for
higher paying jobs, and a reduced number of good-paying
working class jobs, in addition to political policies that favor
the rich. But this is simplistic, as it totally ignores changes in
family structure, parenting practices, education, and other
significant forces that contribute to what may become a permanently divided society, according to stratification scholar
Isabel Sawhill (2012:6) and Charles Murrays controversial
Coming Apart (2012)
These patterns, though, are not just a question of individual
choice. They are culturally embedded, passed down, and
maintained through both structural forces and cultural preferences. These orientations should not be essentialized, as
some change over time, and there is also wide diversity of
practice within groups, with some leading conventional middle class lives. Structural forces such as stereotypes and prejudices against visible members of groups and their symbols,
including more subtle features such as accent, dress, or personality, work to maintain differences and symbolic boundaries between groups (Lamont and Molnar 2002). The various
cultural productions and practices of minority ethnic groups

319

are sometimes reactions to the oppression experienced from


society, as we see in music, dress, style, comportment, and
other factors (Anderson 2000; Patterson 2006; Wilson 2009).
Effects can include an oppositional street identity that works
against the humble, obedient social interaction demanded in
contemporary office or service settings (Bourgois 2002), or
accusations of acting white against high-performing students of color (Buck 2010).
The product of all this is a fragmentary, kaleidoscopic
differentiation of life styles rather than rigid and bounded
social strata (Scott 1996:15). And one consequence of this
increased lifestyle diversity, with different groups oriented to
different goals or ideals, is more inequality. In other words,
there is a tension or trade-off between these values of diversity
and equality, which are manifested in various policy dilemmas
worldwide. The next section describes this process in both
international and national contexts.

Tensions of Diversity and Inequality


International Contexts
Around the world, tensions between those with contrasting
economic practices and outcomes can be particularly acute
and occasionally erupt in violence and expulsions (Chua
2004). In Australia, the situation of aborigines may be where
the dilemma of equality and diversity has been felt and written
about most strongly, since the inequalities are among the most
extreme, and attempts to remedy them have been stymied at
every turn. Government policies, and the positions of prominent experts on aboriginal affairs (including aboriginals) have
shifted back and forth between autonomy on the one hand
and integration/assimilation on the other (Tonkinson 2007),
somewhat like Native American policy in North America.
After attempts at assimilation earlier in the twentieth century,
self-management policies in the 1970s gave some autonomy
to aboriginals, hoping this would help them thrive. More
recently, however, those policies have been retracted after
shocking reports of high levels of child and spouse abuse,
alcoholism, and squalid conditions in aboriginal communities. Heavily influencing these differential outcomes are cultural differences on a number of levels, where attitudes and
practices of white Australians and aboriginals toward work
and sociality dramatically differ (Tonkinson 2007).
In addition, this dilemma over equality and diversity is well
illustrated by the experiences of Australian white antiracists,
sympathetic to aboriginal populations, who head to aboriginal
areas to improve aboriginal life. Many of them, often from
more educated and wealthier backgrounds, become frustrated
by the lack of progress and perceived lack of cooperation
from aboriginals (Kowal 2008). These activists are pulled by
a desire both to see aboriginal life improve (in the common
terms of Westerners) and to give aboriginals self-determination, a policy which has allowed increased social dysfunction and abuse within aboriginal communities. One anthro-

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

pologist with a long relationship with aboriginals, Peter Sutton


(2009), controversially wrote of how he realized that postimperial guilt politics has often limited realistic responses to
the enduring crisis state of indigenous peoples in Australia.
Different individuals and groups resolve this tension by
either choosing one at the expense of the other or awkwardly
attempting to balance them. One anthropologist advocates
very remote locations or aboriginal outposts where there
would be no outside influence, to allow the opportunity for
Indigenous people to choose to live fundamentally differently
from the mainstream (Altman 2006:11), but whether many
aboriginals would desire this themselves is unclear. Others,
such as Sutton, argue for more assimilationist intervention
in order to close gaps in health, income, and other social
indicators.
In general, Australian policy has shifted back and forth
between diversity and equality, never finding a satisfactory
outcome. On the one hand, diversity and one of its possible
applications, autonomy, has meant increased inequality on a
number of indicators, setting off alarms with sensational reports in the media. Yet, the new paternalism announced in
2007 by the government after the dramatic revelations of
abuse also strikes much of the Australian public as wrongheaded since it resurfaces memories of colonialist oppression.
In Europe, the diverse Roma/Gypsy groups (some settled,
some itinerant) likewise frequently confound authorities,
whose strategies have shifted over time. At times, governments
have provided services and pressure to assimilate, which some
Roma have resisted. At other times, it is expulsion and discrimination. Attempts at integration are often not successful
or done only halfheartedly. The dilemma is expressed in the
battle over whether to accept nomadism either as a way of
life or as a problem requiring solutions (Roman 2012:69).
Attitudes have recently become more negative, as expulsions
of Roma populations have increased in a number of countries,
such as France.
European states have taken contrasting positions on diversity, such as France with its universalist orientation and
Britain with a more multiculturalist bent (Sala Pala 2010).
Increased immigration in recent decades, however, has roiled
these countries to the extent that the British, German, and
Dutch governments have controversially declared the failure
of multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010) as opinions have turned increasingly against the large, mainly Muslim
minorities in their respective countries, with gains by Far
Right political parties. Some of this is certainly xenophobia,
but some of the tension is from a (perceived) lack of integration and over ostensibly different attitudes and practices
toward work, state benefits, and other lifestyle practices such
as the treatment of women. The welfare states of Scandinavia,
for instance, are admired around the world, but few notice
the dependence of this model on specific cultural legacies that
include conformism and a secularized Lutheranism that created high levels of trust and a focus on work (Srensen and
Strath 1997). Welfare states across Europe have come under

strain recently because of increased diversity, and support for


the welfare state has consequently declined, though this varies
across different parts of the continent (Clasen 2011; Eger
2010).
The current trouble in the Eurozone over debt is further
evidence of the tensions over diversity and equality, the stickiness of cultural differences, and the willingness of elites to
ignore them in favor of a universal mode of wealth and accumulation (Eichengreen 2011). As we now see, quite different practices over accounting, budgeting, borrowing, taxation,
licensing, and work/leisure habits (and of course political/
economic factors) contributed to the debt crisis that currently
envelops the European Union (EU) and has roiled markets
worldwide. Mediterranean countries are struggling after entering a northern EU milieu with a contrasting ethos and
practices. Some argue they will need to adopt the way Americans deal with the tension between diversity and equality, by
net government transfer payments to poorer regions. But the
looser EU, without unified taxation and spending policies,
cannot currently accommodate this model.
The North American Context
Like the Roma/Gypsy groups of Europe, there are many lower
income populations in North America that confound authorities by following egalitarian and freedom-oriented lifestyles. This general orientation is defined by part-time or
nonwork, temporary living arrangements, and frequent mobility. Some of these are homeless, others more settled, but
most of them living on very low incomes, such as the scrap
collectors common in urban areas (Ferrell 2006). Larger numbers are found in California because the weather allows vehicle-dwellers and homeless populations some respite. Here,
an itinerant population stays near beaches trying to sell goods
to tourists, though they are seen as a nuisance by nearby
residents, so officials attempt crackdowns (Lovett 2010). In
San Francisco, the progressive government has long fretted
about what to do about the large numbers of homeless, some
of whom gravitate toward itinerant work such as recycling
over more standard jobs, for various reasons. Here the impulse toward accepting diversity bumped up against the perceived problems they create, and the city ended up with a
policy of authoritarian medicalization (Gowan 2010).
Often, the situation is traced to simple availability of jobs
and housing or mental illness, but it is clearly more complex
than this, especially if one has an understanding of and sensitivity to diverse groups and orientations. Nonmainstream
or alternative lifestyles exist for a variety of reasons, from
stigmatization and prejudice to the attractions of the lifestyles
themselves, and often a mix between these poles. People are
pushed and pulled in different directions, and understanding
how this process works among people means getting a grasp
on everything from family dynamics, networks, identity issues, personality orientations, normative beliefs, and larger
social, cultural, and economic contexts. Sometimes biograph-

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

ical and biological factors such as addiction and mental health


issues intervene. The complexity of contemporary life requires
relatively high levels of human and cultural capital not only
to obtain jobs but even to do things such as maintain bank
accounts (Caskey 1997).
Building codes are another example of policies that authorities use to legislate equality. In mainstream discourse,
these codes are portrayed as a matter of safety, cleanliness,
and aesthetic beauty, but these are all culturally relative concepts, and people in different localities may have widely varying standards. Official building codes and zoning policies have
created conflicts with ethnic and immigrant groups that have
contrasting practices, such as among Latinos, Laotians, and
Hasidim (Rapoport 2000). Mariana Valverde recently detailed
the contradictions between the official celebration of diversity
in Toronto (and other North American cities) and the reality
of regulations and laws over aesthetics (sounds, smells, yard
appearance), housing, and other practices such as street selling, all of which severely limit diversity (Valverde 2012). Mobile homes and trailers are another common flashpoint between different economic classes, with middle and upper
classes typically lobbying to get rid of this kind of diversity.
All of these issues pivot on whether to enforce a specific
equality or allow diversity. Differences, if they become too
large, create tensions and stresses that may invite backlash,
or in the case of too much inequality, create problems in areas
such as health life satisfaction or social trust.
One can also see the tension and contradiction expressed
in popular culture. According to Robert Bulman (2005), in
urban-school films such as Stand and Deliver featuring underprivileged youth, the dominant theme is utilitarian individualism, where the youth overcome odds and work their
way to success. Solving poverty means addressing inequality,
and therefore we (media consumers) encourage utilitarian
individualism. In suburban school films like Ferris Buellers
Day Off, which features a hero rebelling against school authorities, it is expressive individualism. In one context, inequality violates our sense of justice, and in the other conformism violates our sense of freedom and diversity. In the
suburban school film Pump Up the Volume, the heroes are
independent and free thinking while the antagonists are narrow-minded achievement-oriented adults and some students
(Bulman 2005:85). At the same time the suburban films seemingly promote a rebellious creativity, we lament declines in
academic standards. And it is the expressivity and aesthetics
of some youth cultures that affect work and study habits and
clearly hurt academic and work careers (Gunter 2008). Youth
seek to generate worth and value through their investments
in style, though these practices may also play into oppressive
social relations and contribute to fixing the young people
within marginalized and disadvantaged social positions (Archer, Hollingworth, and Halsall 2007:219). Popular culture
and peer influence play a role in influencing attitudes toward
schooling, which have a significant relationship with inequal-

321

ity and later life income (Gibson, Gandara, and Koyama 2004;
Vaisey 2010).
Educational practices, of course, are common fodder for
the courts, as in the famous 1972 Supreme Court case of
Yoder vs. Wisconsin, which pitted Amish practices on education versus the states desire for a universal standard of education intended to limit inequality. The Amish rejected the
state requirements because their own particularistic practices
meant education only through the eighth grade. The court
ruled in favor of the Amish, after having considered the validity of contrasting cultural patterns in their decision. Most
other Western countries, however, are more restrictive of childrens education outside of official state institutions, and
homeschooling in the United States continues to be contentious in some jurisdictions. Likewise, the ongoing debate over
national education standards places the equality of No Child
Left Behind and the Common Core in tension with those
who say these policies do not take diversity into consideration.
The Native American situation in some ways mirrors the
Australian aboriginal dilemma. Policies toward Native Americans have shifted radically over the years, in an attempt to
address their income and wealth levels, lowest of all racial/
ethnic groups in the United States and Canada. As in Australia, the legacy of usurpation and exploitation by European
immigrants has meant that policy makers have felt responsible
for this inequality and attempted to solve it by various
means. In the United States, many reservations were eliminated in attempts at assimilation and then reestablished later
in the twentieth century to allow for autonomy. Yet the inequality has remained, mitigated only more recently by business enterprises and gaming compacts that allow many Indian
tribes regular sources of income. This, however, has created
new tensions over diversity and equality within and between
Indian groups across the United States, such as among the
Seminole (Cattelino 2008), Lakota (Fenelon 2006), Southern
Plains region (LaVere 2000), Iroquois, and others, with some
tribes being torn by these tensions. Traditionalists lament the
distancing from Indian ways of life centered on clan, community, and traditional subsistence and thus lean toward cultural particularity (diversity), while progressives or modernizers more attached to the mainstream welcome business
development, including casinos or natural resource exploitation (though this division is more complicated than this,
as Cattelino describes). Urban Indians also manifest a different kind of diversity, utilizing alternative nomadic patterns
of exploiting resources in urban areas (Darnell 2011). Pushing
equality here could essentially mean hurting or eliminating
diversity, but interesting arguments are made, for instance, in
favor of development while trying to maintain at least some
of the communal nature of Indian ways (Warry 2007).

Antipoverty Nonprofits and the Tension


The tension between diversity and equality can also be seen
in local contexts, such as among local antipoverty nonprofits.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

In most urban communities around the United States, nonprofits attempt to assist the poor through various means.
These include homeless shelters, those that provide emergency
help with utility bills, church-related organizations like the
Salvation Army or Catholic Charities, womens shelters like
the YWCA, drug treatment centers, drop-in day centers, those
that serve single mothers and provide job training (e.g., Goodwill), and a host of others that involve mentoring, classes, or
self-help groups, from STRIVE to Bridge of Hope.
The philosophies and practices of these groups vary, and
each deals with the dilemmas of diversity and equality in
different ways. Some are more intent on moving the individual to the path of self-sufficiency by involving participants in
the classes, counseling, training, or other more intensive activities that often move people out of poverty and off social
assistance programs, while others focus on more modest goals
such as providing community, support, or immediate stability.
These latter organizations may also serve a different clientele,
such as those with more severe needs or disabilities that prevent them from holding regular jobs. These organizations
sometimes change their philosophies over time and become
more or less intensive in their efforts, or they have internal
debates and differences on whether, for instance, the residents
of a homeless shelter should be required to take classes to
improve their job prospects. In essence, these organizations
range from those that lean toward equality through specific
practices, to those that are less intensive and thus accept more
diversity (Jindra and Jindra 2013).
Another dimension of the tension or trade-off between
diversity and equality can be seen in how one antipoverty
organization works with individual participants. In one Midwestern city, a local antipoverty nonprofit utilizes ongoing
classes, networking meetings, and other activities, encouraging participants to consider their mental map and associated behaviors that go with it, set goals, and work toward
a more stable life. The nonprofit utilizes the published Bridges
out of Poverty curriculum (DeVol 2013), which focuses on
understanding the hidden rules of economic class, the
eleven different kinds of resources (e.g., financial, mental,
relational), how to build these resources, and how to create
a plan to get from poverty to prosperity.
Classes are led by a facilitator and a cofacilitator, one or
both of whom have come out of poverty and were earlier
graduates of the class. Bridges out of Poverty uses a collaborative, participative model where the participant coinvestigators (of diverse ethnicities) consider differences in how
people in poverty, the middle class, and wealth structure and
orient their lives, dwelling especially on the hidden rules of
class. The class in essence encourages participants to offer a
self-critique of their lives, their background, and where they
are going in the future. They also analyze their communities
and wider socioeconomic structures and obstacles. Those that
graduate from the class are further mentored by volunteer
allies from middle class backgrounds.
The tension between diversity and equality is found, for

instance, when participants consider language registers


(such as formal/casual) and discourse patterns, time orientations, and attitudes and practices about education, money,
food, clothing, and other categories. In general, they compare
the achievement orientations of the middle class to what
are regarded as the relationship/survival/entertainment orientations of generational poverty. In effect, participants learn
that they must consider taking on at least some middle class
behaviors in their path out of poverty. This, however, is where
some (e.g., Froyum 2010) have criticized Bridges out of Poverty for overvaluing middle class standards, illustrating the
dilemma between diversity and equality.
One interviewee, Randy, a white male, took the course in
2006 after a series of felonies involving DUIs and domestic
abuse. He had been in a halfway house and was a recovering
alcoholic who had a skilled trade and had done well in the
past, but his drinking and spending kept him from saving
any money and achieving any stability. Poverty was all about
chaos, constant drama he told me. His father had grown up
in poverty in Appalachia, a family background which he reports contributed to his day-to-day pattern of living. The
Getting Ahead course helped him see the pattern he was in:
blowing his paycheck quickly and using payday loans. Stopping drinking meant he also had to drop his drinking buddies,
since they now had less in common. Relationships changed.
He adopted more middle class habits like saving, and he works
at carpentry on the side of his regular job as a foreman at a
plastics plant. But he has not turned into the stereotype of
an ascetic miser. He does not charge much for his carpentry
work, which keeps him in high demand, and he provides help
for his children, though with strict guidelines about repaying
him, lest they maintain what he calls the chaos of poverty.
Other interviewees demonstrate a wider variety of life goals,
aspirations, and definitions of success. For some, success is
modestly defined as being stabile and not on public aid. Some,
especially seniors, are unlikely to acquire the various capitals
to enter the middle class and have trouble handling the complexity of modern life, including financial predators and the
complexities of bank accounts. In other words, they do not
all strive to enter the middle class. They are diverseoften
strong-willed, independent, and unwilling to submit themselves to the strict requirements of educational institutions
and workplaces guided more by neoliberal principles, as those
in the middle and upper classes do. One should not, however,
use these differences as an excuse to other them and ignore
poverty or inequality. Many do want something better and
want to know how to get ahead. This is where programs like
Bridges out of Poverty (and many others that focus on patterns of behaviors and attitudes, such as STRIVE or the Circles
Campaign) encourage people like Randy to adapt at least
certain middle class modes of life, thereby decreasing lifestyle
diversity, but with the potential to lessen inequality.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

Ignoring the Tension


The tension between diversity and equality is important to
understand, but it is rarely discussed by stratification (or
other) scholars, for several reasons. For one, many are either
uncomfortable with or theoretically opposed to a focus on
culture. Indeed, scholars who work on poverty have been
accused of a gross neglect of the existence and workings of
a culture among the poor (Sanchez-Jankowski 2008:48). This
situation is a legacy of the debate that started back in the
early 1960s over the culture of poverty, after which it became taboo to discuss different behaviors, habits, and practices among the poor (Patterson 2010). Related to this, academics often prefer to avoid an issue if they fear
misinterpretation by the public, as one also finds in the debate
over the existence of acting white accusations in schools,
as Stuart Buck discusses (2010).
Indeed, much ethnographic writing on poverty has been
driven by the desire to address stigmatizing characterizations
of the so-called underclass (Munger 2002:11).1 Scholars, in
essence, follow narratives that are driven by dominant academic discourses. In anthropology, for instance, scholarship
on marginalized groups has veered from a victim narrative
in the 1970s to one of heroic resistance in the 1980s and
90s as scholars realized that victimology leaves agency entirely
out of the picture. More recently, the resistance narratives are
now also seen as unsatisfactory, one-dimensional, and overused, and scholars have moved onto other topics such as
identity.
The neglect of the tension is also because the social sciences
have long been prone to reductionisms of personhood to
more materialistic motives such as interest and power (Sahlins
1976; Smith 2010). This means that the complexities of human action are missed when studying certain issues like poverty, which involve the interaction of structural, cultural, and
individual/agency forces or causes. Indeed, when it comes to
poverty, anthropologists and other scholars who are normally
sensitive to cultural difference suddenly assume that everyone
aspires to one universal, upwardly oriented mode of life or
lifestyle (Kerbo 2006:263ff.; Robbins 2009:273).2 The question
then becomeswhose aspirations? Typically it is that of the
standard American success model (Strauss 1992) held by
the middle and upper classes. Most mainstream individuals,
academics included, consistently underestimate the attractions of alternative lifestyles, revealing the bourgeois ethnocentrism that Marshall Sahlins (1972) fingers. As sociologist Joseph Davis (2008:276) argues, even in our
1. Another recent example of this is Krumer-Nevo and Benjamin
(2010), who contest the othering of those in poverty by proposing
three contrasting narratives (e.g., voice/action). While their intentions
are good, any analysis that counters othering has the potential to impose
an inappropriate sameness on different groups, if the analysis indeed
refuses to countenance differences.
2. This is a common conceit that can be found in wider society, including those on the Right, such as when George W. Bush argued for
the invasion of Iraq under the guise of promoting democracy.

323

multiculturalism, we imagine a sameness of outlook and aspiration, an unwitting projection of ourselves in the end.
Thus, anything else that deviates from the mainstream pattern
must be explained or rooted in some other structural or adaptive force, and one only needs to remove structural barriers
to be lifted out of poverty.
One basic mistake that many of these scholars make is to
argue from interviewees simple statements or assertions,
whereas in reality our behavior often deviates from our stated
aims (Strauss 1992). In other words, most of us tend to verbally buy into the ideology of upward mobility and success,
yet actual behavior varies widely. For instance, while immigrant families verbally stress the importance of education,
immigrant family processes may orient in other directions
(Vermeulen and Perlmann 2000). Strong orientations toward
family mean lower college enrollment for Latino children
(Desmond and Turley 2009). Older children are expected to
share in family-related responsibilities, while education takes
a backseat. Parents end up providing little support for their
children in school, partly because they are unfamiliar with it
themselves. The cultural model of success is strong, but the
behavioral paths are influenced by a wide variety of forces,
from family dynamics to subcultures and individual interest.
Another way of putting this is that we are influenced by several
different cultural models or traditions, all of which can be in
tension (Waldron 1996).
Meanwhile, most textbooks on stratification and inequality
typically highlight that any cultural differences are superficial
and only situational, and do not discuss any tensions between
the various orientations (e.g., Kerbo 2006). Ronald Takaki
(1993), a well-known scholar on inequality, argues explicitly
for both diversity and equality, while avoiding discussion of
any tension between the two. Even in the recent reconsideration of the relation of culture to poverty, the same weaknesses appear. The introduction (Small, Harding, and Lamont
2010) to a special journal issue on culture and poverty
highlighted in a front-page article in the New York Times
(Cohen 2010)differentiates seven cultural influences related
to poverty (e.g., frames), but actual practices and habits are
given short shrift in their summary, even though these have
been central to definitions of culture for the last century (Worsley 1997). Consumption practices, often a major contributor
to poverty because they prevent savings (Moav and Neeman
2008), are not even mentioned. They even seem uncomfortable with values, another central element of culture. Anthropologists (e.g., Goode and Maskovsky 2001; Robbins 2009)
still beat on the old simplistic culture of poverty model and
ignore better arguments connecting culture and poverty. If
agency is highlighted, it is how the poor have adapted to
the structures and contexts and navigate their way through
their situation. Concepts of agency that involve self-reflexivity
and routine ethical choices are simply left out of consideration, as Laidlaw (2014) discusses. However, research points
to the direct and important influence of cultural inputs,
values, and their connected practices on socioeconomic

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

324

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

outcomes (Abramson 2012; Hitlin and Piliavin 2004). Culture


may be used to explain the advantage of the rich, as in Bourdieus work, because the taboo only exists in relation to the
poor, as Khan (2012:368) notes.3
In poverty studies, there is also an almost total neglect of
the influence of popular cultureeven though television
viewing and popular culture consumption in general are substantially higher among lower income groups. Not only does
pop culture consumption substitute for other activities such
as education and work, but the messages of popular culture
often work against obtaining success, as discussed above with
the influence of movies. Some musical genres, such as hip
hop and southern rock, work against bourgeois orientation
and practice (Tanner, Asbridge, and Wortley 2008). In media
such as advertising, rebellion, individualism, and anti-institutionalism predominate. While the upper and middle classes
consume these products also, they (especially youth) can strategically combine a rebellious image on the outside with a
success-oriented habitus through family and community socialization.
In sum, those who reject culture as an important influenceRichard Shweder (2003) calls them anticulturalists
will simply not see the connection between culture and inequality. The discourse that typically rejects cultural difference
intersects with another significant scholarly discourse on social problems that has pervaded the social sciences (and
broader contexts) in the last few decades, that of fault.
Shweder, for instance, has highlighted the mixed and perhaps
changing discourse on suffering and fault in the United
States, which removes the idea of the agency of the sufferer
as a relevant contributory factor (Shweder 2003:128), which
Joel Robbins recently discusses as the anthropology of suffering (Robbins 2013). This rather one-sided discourse is
partly in reaction to the other, individualist extreme, where
all responsibility is put on those in poverty. Attributions of
fault are commonly disparaged as blaming the victim.4 This
is understandable, since social forces and circumstances beyond ones control often do contribute to misfortune. But,
according to Shweder, there is a problem when victimization
becomes the dominant account of suffering and when it becomes politically incorrect to ever hold people responsible for
their misery (Shweder 2003:128129). This depersonalizes
the sufferer, who is encouraged to think and act as a passive
victim with few personal capabilities, which certainly does not
contribute to their well-being. Shweder, informed by the
moral metaphors of other cultures, argues that people need
to be aware of whatever degree of personal control they have
over their own conditions and that a discourse of personal
responsibility should be encouraged without going to the ex3. Bourdieu is also limited by a bent toward social structural determinism at the expense of the agent, and a neglect of human capital in
favor of cultural capital.
4. For a discussion of how this blameless discourse does not apply to
certain marginalized groups, such as poor southern whites, see Grindal
(2011).

treme of laying all responsibility on individuals (2003:129).


Barbara Ehrenreichs popular writings on poverty are a classic
example of the blameless discourse, and she even goes to the
extent of discouraging the kind of self-improvement that can
help lift people out of poverty (Ehrenreich 2009). Work on
poverty must take in all these dimensions of human life,
including diverse human capabilities such as volition. This
kind of human creativity and agency comes out only in very
selective ways in work on poverty, usually as resistance or
adaptation to structural forces.

Recognition of the Tension


Public discussion of cultural and lifestyle differences immediately brings up issues of moralizing and judgment, not to
mention generalizing and stereotyping. We often prefer to
avoid discussing these kinds of differences, while talking of
diversity superficially, usually based on an outmoded belief
that racial/ethnic groups define diversity, when intragroup
differences are often larger than intergroup differences.
Given the ever-widening gaps between different lifestyle
patterns, more tension between the values of diversity and
equality is likely. A few scholars have recognized this tension,
though they are rare. Emma Kowals writings (above) on
white antiracists in Australia are probably the best illustrated
and most extensive discussion of the quandaries of trying to
be committed to both diversity and equality. Social psychologist Hazel Markus and colleagues note how we commonly
hold the paradoxical idea that society should celebrate difference with the idea that this difference doesnt really matter.
. . . This perspective on difference is an all-American effort
to reconcile diversity with equality (Markus, Steele, and
Steele 2002:461).5 Minow, Shweder, and Markus (2008) similarly recognize an equality-difference paradox in the
schools context, where pressures to integrate meet pressures
to value diversity. In Britain, David Goodharts (2004) essay
in the left-of-center Prospect sparked considerable discussion
when he laid out the progressive dilemma between solidarity/equality and diversity.
Some fall clearly on one side or the other of this issue, as
we see above with the debate in Australia. Organizations such
as Survival International advocate in defense of multicultural
identities and groups, though normally leave out any sense
of the tension with equality, which Kowal explicitly includes.
James Scott (2009) backs the strategies of diverse antistate
highland peoples against wealthier lowland mainstream
groups and states. In a strong defense of culture theory, James
Boggs argues for Native American interests against regnant
liberal theory (Boggs 2002). From the opposite direction,
the influential Harrison and Huntington (2000) volume
largely pleads for poorer communities and nations to adopt
mainstream values of economic progress. The rather large
5. For an interesting discussion of the tensions between values and
practices of freedom, equality, and civil peace, see Salzman (2005).

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

corpus of writings on the homeless is another touchstone for


this debate, with some (Wasserman and Clair 2010) leaning
more toward recognizing the diversity of the dispositions of
the homeless, and thus against large-scale top-down measures
aimed at entirely eliminating homelessness, which they argue
denies them a role and contributes to their oppression. On
the more egalitarian side, one can find anthropologist Michael
Blim (2005) and those such as Brian Barry (2001) or Walter
Benn Michaels (2006) who argue that diversity, or at least a
multicultural politics of identity, should give way to policies
aimed at eliminating inequality, though they display little
awareness of how actual diverse practices are related to inequality.
The political issues involved also relate to theoretical differences. While those solidly on the political left often recognize only structural sources of inequality and thus structural
solutions (Goode and Maskovsky 2001), some on the political
right, such as followers of Ayn Rand, take the opposite tack
and individualize inequality by making it mostly the result of
choices or preferences. Many of the latter also posit a simplistic belief in the free market as the cure to a variety of
economic issues and thus also display no awareness of cultural
difference. If allowing for cultural differences, they understand
them as choices and not as historically generated and structurally influenced practices.
I argue that understanding cultural influences means taking
a mediating position between these extremes, by incorporating the importance of the macro factors that help form culture
while allowing that alternative lifestyles may have some pull,
even if those in the mainstream (including academics) find
some of these lifestyles perplexing. In social theory terms, this
means allowing for both structural forces and agency, along
with culture. More specifically, poverty scholars fail to adequately incorporate all of the elements of social theory, especially those involving culture and agency (Abramson 2012;
Alexander 2007; Vaisey 2010).
The focus has typically been on the structure of job opportunities, the way income is distributed across those jobs,
government policies, or the beliefs and practices, such as discrimination, of privileged groups that disadvantage marginalized groups. These analyses certainly point to reasons why
patterns of inequality are so stubborn and why inequality is
getting worse, but they are also notably incomplete. As Kowal
argues, scholars are prone to overstructuration, the tendency to downplay agential explanations and highlight structural explanations for any given situation (Kowal, forthcoming). Other social forces, such as the pleasures of identifying
with marginalized groups (Kulick 2006), also act upon scholars, which at the same time can create a certain self-righteousness and groupthink (Sutton 2009:137139).
It is important to note that recognizing the tension between
diversity and equality does not imply naturalizing inequality
or making it functional. It should never be used as an excuse
to ignore poverty or inequality. A proper understanding of
inequality means keeping all of the causes in mind, which

325

include everything from family background, networks, identity issues, personality orientations, normative beliefs, religious background, and other social, cultural, and economic
contexts (Keister 2011:12). Patterns of habitual behavior are
key (Farkas 2003). Education and job training, for instance,
have often had disappointing results, unless the more culturally generated soft skills are also considered, from interpersonal skills to time management, emotion control, and
conscientiousness. One can gain a rich array of insights from
other disciplines like developmental and social psychology,
behavioral economics, along with advances in biological anthropology, where there has been a burst of recent work,
including the interactions between biology, the human person,
and the environment (Chiao et al. 2013; Lende and Downey
2012; Narvaez et al. 2014). Biographical approaches (Chamberlayne, Bornat, and Wengraf 2000) and interdisciplinary
approaches are also needed here, with a view to the developmental pathways that people navigate through structural,
cultural, and individual contexts.

Conclusion
In order to understand the tensions between diversity and
equality, we will need an adequate understanding of lifestyle
diversity, which also means reconsidering some of the taboos
on incorporating culture. Anthropologists ought to offer their
unique insight into the tremendous diversity that is ignored
by most who study inequality. This will be a tricky enterprise,
but well worth it if it gives us better insights into what contributes to poverty and inequality, while remaining sensitive
to diversity. Despite some of the ethnographic work on the
poor, there still seems to be a huge disconnect between the
anthropology of poverty and inequality, and the reality of the
lives of the poor and the organizations that work on poverty
alleviation. The standard scholarly narratives simply do not
adequately address both the structural and cultural aspects of
the lives of the poor or the related tensions between the central
values of diversity and equality. By their one-sided structural
approaches, stratification scholars leave themselves open to
easy takedowns from public intellectuals who write for
broader audiences (e.g., Wolfe 1999) and thus have simply
taken themselves out of the public debate on poverty, leaving
the field open for writers like Charles Murray (2012).
The typical policies promoted by well-meaning academics
often assume a homogenous and compliant public simply
needing opportunity, ready to take up jobs when available.
They do not get at the dynamics and diversities of social
groups. Some of the lower income groups (e.g., downshifters,
Amish) are relatively stable and contribute to few social problems, and one could argue they provide positive alternatives
to the mainstream neoliberal juggernaut. But others struggle
to survive in our speeded-up technocratic world of high competition (on the production side) and the temptations of everincreasing opportunities for leisure and immediate gratification (on the consumption side), preventing the slower

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

processes of education and savings that promote stability over


the long run. Daniel Bells Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976) is here prescient, leading us to understand that
our predicaments go deeper in society than we often realize,
with our public policies often hamstrung by the ongoing tension between diversity and equality.

Acknowledgments
An earlier draft of this article was presented to the Culture
Workshop at the University of Notre Dame, and I wish to
thank the organizer, Terence McDonnell, and the participants,
along with others who provided input along the way: Emma
Kowal, Philip Salzman, Sean Kelly, Bonnie Bazata, Maurizio
Albahari, Laurie Arnold, Ines Jindra, and the anonymous reviewers.

Comments
Jonathan Benthall
Department of Anthropology, University College London, Downingbury Farmhouse, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 4AD,
United Kingdom (jonathanbenthall@hotmail.com). 19 XI 13

The general thrust of Michael Jindras article is admirable. It


is marred, however, by inconsistent use of key terms, equality and diversity, used sometimes to denote observable
social phenomena and sometimes to denote values or principles.
On the one hand, we may compare the observable extent
of equality between two specific populations in space and
time, using economic or human development indicators.
And when Jindra concludes that there has been an increase
in diversity in the West, even in the world at large, there is
no problem in understanding what he means, though we may
go on to ask what are the criteria for forming this hypothesis.
Jindra adduces such a wide range of criteriapractices, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as numerous socially constructed
markersthat the claim is unverifiable. One could point to
many social phenomenasoccer, the English language, the
Internet, management taught at business schools, New Age
spiritualitywhich seem to attest to convergences as much
as to increased diversity.
On the other hand, equality and diversity can represent
values or principlesas in Jindras first paragraph. For both
theologians and humanists, the equality of all human beings
is an article of faith. Egalitarian values also underpin many
political ideologies, from that of the United States, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, to state communism. As for diversity, it is promoted as a political value
in some countries today, though as Jindra notes, the concept
of multiculturalism is contentious. The result is a commingling in this article of the analytical or etic use of the terms

equality and diversity with their folk or emic use, and


a less-than-smooth train of thought.
Moreover, the principles of equality and diversity are not
precisely comparable. Equality is an ideal of the same order
as liberty, each with a long history of political advocacy, and
it makes sense to think of these two principles as in continuous tension. As for diversity, it is admittedly given a high
value by a school of humanist thought, much influenced by
social-cultural anthropology. Emmanuel Terrays essay on
Levi-Straussian lines, The role of the Other in the constitution of the human being, is an eloquent example, a warning
against xenophobia and political hysteria (Terray 2011:1523).
However, there is as yet no diversitarian movement to set
alongside egalitarianism and libertarianism.
More positively, I would like to single out one of the many
stimulating points made by Jindra when he writes that In
anthropology . . . scholarship on marginalized groups has
veered from a victim narrative in the 1970s to one of heroic
resistance in the 1980s and 90s as scholars realized that
victimology leaves agency entirely out of the picture. More
recently, the resistance narratives are now also seen as unsatisfactory, one-dimensional, and overused, and scholars
have moved onto other topics such as identity. In my own
research on welfare provision in the Palestinian Territories, it
is impossible to avoid either the aspect of Palestinian victimhood (resulting from expulsions, confiscations, military occupation, ethnic cleansing, aid dependence, and political
manipulation by Arab states as well as by Israel and Western
powers) or that of resistance, which is indeed closely linked
with the affirmation of Palestinian identity.
The Palestinian capacity for active resistance (muqawama)
is well known to everyone, extending to the lurid cult of the
martyrdom operation (istishhad). But although another
term in the Palestinian cultural repertoire, sumud, best translated as steadfastness, has received less international media
coverage, it is more pertinent to the everyday lives of Palestinians under pressure. S umud can be expressed, for instance, through the determination not to give up land or
emigrate, through building up local welfare institutions,
through asserting national cultural values, and through nonviolent protest (though this has been given little practical
support by Palestinian politicians, and shades into muqawama). The term has Islamic resonance, for Al-S amad is one
of the names of God (Quran 112.2). Leonardo Schiochett
(2011) argues that sumud also has a secular history but has
recently become re-Islamized.
At the beginning of the present century, numerous international aid donors saw local Islamic charitable organizations
in the Palestinian Territories as worthy objects for subventions
that sidestepped the corruption then associated with the Palestinian Authority. These charities saw themselves as practical
manifestations of sumud (Schaeublin 2012). The long-running political crisis in Israel-Palestine was exacerbated by the
Fatah-Hamas split in 2007. International counterterrorist
measures, led by the United States, have subjected all external

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

aid flows to suspicious scrutiny. For this and other reasons,


donors have shunned what was formerly a decentralized, relatively unpolitical, and locally trusted sector. The weakening
of nonviolent sumud in the face of overpowering forces that
increasingly threaten Palestinian futures is likely to be followed by a revival of more violent opposition from dissenting
factions. Cultural adaptations are trumped here by geopolitics.

Nanlai Cao
Department of Religious Studies, School of Philosophy, Renmin
University of China, Beijing 100872, China (nanlai_c@hotmail
.com). 10 XII 13

By making explicit the tension between economic equality


and cultural diversity, Jindra has offered an effective critique
of the popular scholarly discourse on stratification that assumes a homogenous public needing opportunity. Drawing
on such high-profile cases as the Roma/Gypsy in Europe,
Native Americans in the United States, and Australian aboriginals, he points out lifestyle diversity as an important (but
often ignored) contributing factor of persistent inequality so
as to highlight the role of human agency and cultural embeddedness in understanding poverty and inequality. While
I fully agree with his analysis, it seems that he has focused
exclusively on advanced Western countries that have completed the nation-building process and generally have high
tolerance to diversity. Here I would like to put this tension
in the contemporary context of Chinas modernization and
national rejuvenation with reference to religious diversity and
its connections to development.
Mainstream cultural values in China are scrutinized and
regulated by a powerful party-state preoccupied with making
exclusionary loyalty claims of the countrys diverse ethnic and
religious groups and constructing commonalities of lived experience across the nation (Kipnis 2012). Unlike what Jindra
has observed in the Western context, there is no taboo against
connecting cultural difference with poverty in the political
space of the Chinese state. In both official and popular Chinese discourses, rural inland provinces are perceived not only
economically poor but culturally backward, as evidenced by
the national project of sending culture down to poor rural
areas. Both state and nonstate actors (such as evangelical
Christian groups and domestic nongovernmental organizations) share the view that there is a need to transform rural
peoples backwardness while lifting them out of poverty (Cao
2009, 2011, 2013). However, development-related state interventions and bureaucratization have fostered resentment
and resistance in impoverished minority regions where there
is rich local religious life such as in Tibet and Xinjiang, where
Tibetan Buddhism and Islam, respectively, have substantial
influence among the local populace.
In the dual context of state and market modernities, officials have taken a utilitarian approach to religion by setting

327

up the religious stage for promoting the economic development show (zongjiao datai jingji changxi; see Oakes and
Sutton 2010). While Chinas five officially recognized religions
are under pressure to adapt to socialism, those categorized as
feudal superstitions (such as folk religions and local cults)
may be preserved in the form of intangible cultural heritage
if compatible with the political and economic interests of the
state. Technically illegal religious structures and wasteful ritual
activities are for the most part tolerated if not encouraged by
local state agencies as long as they help stimulate the local
economy and enrich local elites (Chau 2006; Fisher 2008; Yang
2000). Not unlike the political left in the West as described
by Jindra, the post-Mao reformist state tends to view the
connection of cultural/religious diversity and inequality essentially not as a matter of individual choice or preference,
but as a manifestation of developmental tensions to be overcome, a view in line with the atheist-state understanding of
the doomed fate of religion in modernity.
Empowered by Chinas reform-era economic miracle, President Xi Jinping has recently described the ongoing nationbuilding project as a gradual and linear process to realize the
Chinese Dream (apparently a paraphrase of the famous
American Dream). As a top buzzword in the Chinese media
now, the Chinese Dream emphasizes the revival of the Chinese
nation and aspirations for development, prosperity, and
Chinas modern identity, all of which signify a national call
for breaking away from local traditional forms of community
and the rise of a new form of politically motivated national
homogeneity. In this nation-building process, pluralism has
become a political formality serving to justify the use of collective efforts and resources to maintain the status quo in
politics. While the party-state recognizes the freedom of religion as a constitutional right, religious believers continue to
be disallowed to join the ruling Communist Party even though
the latter has incorporated private entrepreneurs into its
power structure, defying the supposedly proletarian nature of
the party. What appears to be a dangerous consensus in todays Chinese society is the understanding of the tension of
diversity and equality as a transient phenomenon of economic
nature, inevitably resulted from dramatic modernization and
uneven development and thus bound to be resolved by the
completion of an all-around well-off society led by efficient
state agencies as well as elite entrepreneurs and scientists imbued with a modern secularist tendency. The strong relevance
of the state and its emphasis on gross domestic product accumulation in the Chinese model of development will likely
continue to perpetrate the misconception of the fundamental
human need for economic opportunities and development in
the making of public and foreign policies. At this juncture of
Chinas increased global economic outreach and political impact, Jindras article serves as a timely reminder by questioning this seemingly universal truth.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

Patrick Chabal
Kings College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom (patrick.chabal@kcl.ac.uk). 21 XI 13

The very title of Michael Jindras article sets the stage for a
fascinating discussion on one of the most persistent conundrums of our modern societies: How do we reconcile equality
and diversity? My remarks here will focus less on the substance
of the article, much of which is well informed and impeccably
presented, and more on the assumptions behind the very
enterprise. It seems to me there are three issues that merit
reflection. The first concerns the definition of the concepts
used in the article. The second has to do with the discussion
of the causalities implied in the theories that deal with questions of equality and diversity. The last turns on the need to
revisit the premises of the social sciences we use to analyze
these processes.
(1) The article uses but does not question a number of
important concepts, which to a large extent color the way the
argument is presented. The notions of equality, diversity, poverty, and, above all, culture, are all loaded both historically
and conceptually, and because of this they tend to overdetermine the ways in which the main topics are approached.
Clearly, the major issue is that explosive question about the
alleged link between culture and povertya problem that
afflicts all Western societies. The problem is twofold: one the
one hand, it is simply politically unacceptable to suggest a
cultural root to poverty; on the other, there is a politically
understandable but theoretically dubious attempt to portray
poverty as diversity. So, politics and analysis clash, leading to
a seesaw approach to this thorny dilemma. While the article
is lucid in the exposition of these contradictions, it does not
propose any conceptual way out.
(2) Clearly, the key issue here is that of causality. Whereas
sociology searches for structural explanations to the relation
between poverty and diversity, anthropology looks more
closely at the question of diversity and culture. Both offer
explanations as to why it is so difficult to achieve diversity
and equality: the one stressing the socioeconomic constraints
making progress virtually impossible; the other explaining
that there may be distinct cultural understandings of diversity,
which do not fit the template of our Western societies as they
are currently organized. The result is that there seems to be
no satisfactory, or even workable, concept of agency. Either
there is no scope for agency that would allow greater equality
or agency becomes the veil that is (not so) discreetly thrown
upon practices that are seen to be detrimental to socioeconomic advancement.
(3) The difficulty in identifying relevant causalities stems
from two distinct but interrelated questions. The first has to
do with the limits of the concepts we use. But the second,
and more important, is linked to the nature of mainstream
social science. The concepts we use are intimately tied to the
development of Western societiesthat is, in effect, Westernization. One way out here is to conceive of culture not as

a concatenation of (supposedly universal) values but as a


language that makes it possible for people to understand and
share the ways in which they perceive and operate within the
world they inhabit. Seen thus, the notion of poverty can only
be relative, and it is therefore impossible to conceptualize it
satisfactorily outside of the cultural context within which it
is found. Are the nomadic Maasai poor because their wealth
is invested in cattle?
One way out of this analytical dilemma is to search for
concepts that enable us to analyze these issues outside the
iron box of social science theory.6 This involves a double
exercise. One is to set the theories within their historical context, in order to show how they were meant to conceptualize
the progress of our Western societies since the Enlightenment. The other is to search for concepts that can stand tall
outside of this specific Western framework. This is not easy,
since we are all conditioned by the setting in which we have
lived and worked. However, it is not impossible, and, in any
event, the attempt to do so is a liberating exercise that may
make it easier to tackle those apparently intractable issues in
a more productive way.7

Pyong Gap Min


Queens College and Graduate Center, City University of New
York, and Research Center for Korean Community, Queens College, Department of Sociology, Queens College, Flushing, New
York 11367, U.S.A. (pyonggap.min@qc.cuny.edu). 25 XII 13

In this article, Professor Jindra has documented the tensions


between increasing diversity and rising levels of inequality
using many salient examples. In doing so, he used a broad
definition of diversity that includes not only the conventionally used social categories of race/ethnicity, class, nationality,
gender, and sexual orientation, but also (and more important
for him) many subcultural groups. His definition of diversity
is based on actual practices and beliefs or attitudes.
He has provided an excellent review of several salient examples of the tensions between diversity and equality in the
international, North American, and antipoverty nonprofit
contexts. His review includes policy makers and experts
shifting back and forth between the autonomy and integration
policies in their attempt to help aboriginal communities in
6. The key here is to expose the axioms and assumptions of our social
scienceswhich have evolved theoretically very little since they first appeared at the end of the nineteenth century and are thus still geared to
searching for the holy scientific grail that will make it possible for them
to emulate the physical scienceswhich is what I try to do in my last
book: The end of conceit: Western rationality after postcolonialism (Chabal
2012).
7. For lack of space I can only give one example: my book Africa: the
politics of suffering and smiling (Chabal 2009) is an attempt to reflect the
nature of real-life politics in Africa, one that tries to understand from
within the meanings of equality and diversity while not neglecting a
discussion of poverty in its appropriate historical and socioparticular
context.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

Australia and local antipoverty nonprofit organizations frustrations over how to deal with the dilemmas of diversity and
equality. Through this review, he has convincingly demonstrated that subcultural differences, as well as structural barriers, contribute to poverty and other forms of economic
problems on the part of disadvantaged groups. He criticizes
stratification scholars for ignoring cultural diversity that contributes to inequality. He points out that most stratification
scholars on the political left have intentionally focused on
structural factors because of the conservative implications of
cultural explanations. He has the courage to recognize culture
as an important influence on poverty and other forms of
stratification.
I believe Jindras article will serve as an important source
for research on the tensions between cultural diversity and
equality in the future. I admire him for clearly telling the
readers of Current Anthropology that lifestyles of disadvantaged groups do influence their economic problems. His message is likely to encourage many social scientists to consider
the influence of cultural differences in economic adaptations
in the future. I have read his article with great interest, and
I agree with his central argument.
Since Jindra provides more examples of the tensions between cultural diversity and class inequality in his article, I
would like to introduce here a salient example of the tensions
between cultural differences and racial inequality. In her
award-winning book Black identities: West Indian dreams and
American realities, Mary Waters (1999) pointed out that Caribbean black immigrants are ready to take low-status, lowpaying jobs that most African American workers would not
accept, partly because as new immigrants they have a higher
motivation for economic mobility and partly because they
consider their jobs temporary. Many other immigration studies have also shown that business owners and managers prefer
Latino immigrant workers to African American workers because they consider the former to be harder working than
the latter. There are many other reasons, in addition to cultural reasons, why we should believe new immigrants from
underdeveloped countries work harder and have a higher motivation than native-born Americans: their self-selection in
terms of class and achievement orientation, their urgent immigrant situation, and their psychological motivation deriving
from a big gap in the standard of living between the United
States and their home country. For these reasons, most immigration scholars accept the proposition about immigrant
workers harder work and higher motivation, but because of
its negative implication for African Americans, many race
scholars, including Stephen Steinberg, are critical of this and
other similar findings.
Diversity (multicultural) policy in the United States over
the past 50 years has helped to moderate racial and gender
inequality by reducing prejudice and discrimination against
these minority groups on the one hand and by hiring many
minority members and women through affirmative action
programs one the other. The US government has had to take

329

various measures to moderate racial and gender inequality


because historical and contemporary prejudice and discrimination against and stereotypes of these minority groups based
on physical differences have contributed to their lower socioeconomic status.
However, multicultural policy cannot do anything to moderate the economic disadvantages of those groups based on
lifestyle differences reviewed in Jindras article that challenge
meritocracy. The contemporary postindustrial society demands highly skilled workers. Accordingly, it is inevitable that
people get economic rewards based on their educational credentials and other human capital investments. Also, the contemporary postindustrial society economically rewards people
with technical skills, frugal attitudes, and legalistic and business minds. Thus, why medical doctors make $300 per hour
compared to janitors who make only $7 per hour is not a
diversity issue, but an issue related to social equality. The
United States is a far more multicultural, but far more unequal, country than most European countries. European
countries have achieved class equality to a greater extent than
the United States using mainly socialist programs, such as a
much higher minimum wage, levying much higher taxes for
people with high-incomes brackets, and providing greater social safety nets than the United States. This means that we
can achieve not only class but also racial and gender equality
effectively in the United States mainly through socialist programs rather than through diversity programs.

Richard A. Shweder
Department of Comparative Human Development, University of
Chicago, 5730 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
U.S.A. (rshd@uchicago.edu). 29 XII 13

Opening Ones Eyes to the Equality-Difference


Paradox
Promote equality in wealth or embrace genuine cultural diversity? The two aims are not harmonious. From a descriptive
point of view, there appears to be a trade-off between the
amount of equality in wealth and the amount of cultural (or
lifestyle) diversity achievable within human societies. If you
survey the world, you will discover that the most egalitarian
countries with respect to domestic wealth distributions (e.g.,
Denmark, Croatia, Slovenia, Rwanda) are (relatively speaking)
culturally homogeneous. These egalitarian countries often
have a history of partition, succession, ethnic cleansing, or
intense top-down pressuring of minority groups to assimilate
to mainstream norms. One speculates that it becomes easier
to enforce policies of wealth redistribution in a more culturally
uniform country, perhaps as a result of the fellow feeling and
the primordial sense of kinship, trust, and visceral attachment
that develops in homogeneous in-groups.
The trade-off goes both ways. Countries that are multi-

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

ethnic or religiously or linguistically diverse (culturally heterogeneous countries such as India, Brazil, Israel, or the
United States) tend to be relatively unequal in domestic wealth
distributions. Between 1918 and 1965, when the United States
took steps to close its borders and stopped being a land welcoming of immigrants, the country became both more culturally (and linguistically) uniform and more egalitarian in
the distribution of wealth than it is today or than it was in
the 1890s. The contemporary (and much discussed) rising
wealth inequalities in the United States run more or less parallel to shifts in immigration policies in the mid-1960s that
made the United States once again a more culturally diverse
place. Levels of wealth inequality in the United States appear
to be roughly the same today as they were in the decades
prior to World War I (18701914), when the cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity of the country was on the increase and the United States was proudly viewed as a world
federation of nations.
From an evaluative point of view, this trade-off between
promoting equality and embracing diversity is sometimes
called the equality-difference paradox (see Shweder 2008).
The paradox is a central theme in Michael Jindras highly
original, elegant, and courageous essay. His essay is corrosive
of received paradigms and is likely to provoke critical responses from both egalitarians and multiculturalists. Egalitarians will be inclined to resist the suggestion that wealth
inequalities within a society are not necessarily immoral or
at least might be a measure of something good. For egalitarians, the provocation in Jindras argument is the implication
that the existence of wealth inequalities might be interpreted
as a positive index of (a) the scope of lifestyle diversity in a
society, (b) the existence of individuals and groups within a
society who remain poor by choice or unwilling to sacrifice
their inherited lifestyles at the altar of Mammon, or (c) reject
neoliberal achievement ideals and upper middle class bourgeois notions of success in a global capitalist economy. While
the essay acknowledges so-called structural factors and questions of power, the originality in the essay is its balance and
its willingness to acknowledge (for example) that: The high
achievement pattern . . . often comes at a cost in terms of
sociality, time, freedom, and increased stress . . . so for many
the sacrifices required for upward mobility are simply not felt
to be worth it. Indeed, in the light of Michael Jindras eyeopening account of lifestyle diversity in the United States,
wealth inequalities might even be viewed as a partial measure
of the extent to which (perhaps even for structural reasons)
the country truly tolerates (or at least puts up with) the free
exercise of culture within its borders.
The opening of ones eyes to the equality-difference paradox is likely to provoke multiculturalists as well, at least those
multiculturalists who actually value cultural differences and
do not automatically attribute such differences to false consciousness or a history of domination, exploitation, or vicious
discrimination. The moral ideal for such multiculturalists is
a pluralistic society. In the ideal pluralistic society, groups or

factions are free to be culturally different (to adopt alternative


lifestyles with respect to the raising and education of children,
subsistence activities, gender relations, time management, expressive behavior, wealth acquisition) but are also made equal
with respect to the distribution of material benefits. In effect,
the reality of the equality-difference paradox unmasks that
ideal as naive or utopian. Multiculturalists are not likely to
appreciate the irony that income equality is most readily
achieved by flattening out the cultural variety within a society.
And they will be inclined to resist the suggestion that the
greater the legal and ethical scope for lifestyle diversity, the
more likely the resources of that society will be unequally
distributed.
For all these reasons, this is a welcome, eye-opening contribution and a pleasure to read. The essay addresses a deep
and significant issue by means of a skillfully conducted, humane, and balanced review of many literatures. While there
may be limits on how much wealth equality is possible in a
genuinely culturally diverse society, Jindras essay raises in my
mind the following question: What is the ideal balance between equality and diversity in a complex society such as the
United States where at least some of us value both?

Reply
I am pleased that the commenters recognize the crucial issues
that I address in the article, but I suspect that these mostly
friendly comments do not reveal the hesitance many feel
about the connections between diversity and inequality. Since
I first submitted this article, economic inequality has become
the hottest issue in public debate, highlighted by President
Obama and addressed even by Republicans. Preschool programs have become one of the favorite programs to deal with
inequality. In this sense, they are an effort to address the
diversity of parenting practices, but because socialization and
subcultural processes continue well past preschool as the influence of peers and popular culture kicks in, evidence as to
their long-term success is mixed. On all sides, there seems to
be little awareness of the complexity of the issue.
As Benthall points out, there are problems with measuring
diversity (more so than economic equality), and while there
is certainly lifestyle convergence, I believe the evidence for
increased lifestyle diversity is strong. This is matched by the
rise of the ideal, not as diversitarianism but certainly as
multiculturalism, and calls to celebrate diversity. This, however, focuses mostly on racial/ethnic diversity (and often superficially at that) while leaving out the lifestyle diversity that
is the most relevant factor. As for inconsistency, I indeed use
those terms both as observable phenomena and as things we
value. The point is to show how they are changing but also
how we value both without realizing they conflict. While they
are not precisely comparable, there is certainly a relationship

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity

between them, as Shweder details in his comments. Also, I


specifically define equality as economic equality, not as political equality, a more nebulous ideal.
Nanlai Cao offers excellent insights into the situation in
China, where the dilemma is simply resolved by the state in
favor of development for all, diversity be damned (while keeping it superficially for tourists). Of course, they get resistance.
While diversity discourse is more upheld in Western contexts
rather than non-Western ones, the dilemma is still felt. In a
democracy like India, however, the dilemma pops up again,
most notably with the minority and rural scheduled tribes.
Government efforts to promote literacy, education, and intensive agriculture among them are both egalitarian and an
attempt to eradicate cultural difference by superimposing a
majority style of life on the daily habits of minority members
(Schermerhorn 1978:339). Some tribal elites have benefited
from affirmative action programs, but the vast majority remain poor, and debates flair over who exactly should be included in these programs. As in other countries, government
policies have vacillated between autonomy and assimilation,
with the latter usually favored under the pressure of dominant
Hindu groups.
Pyong Gap Min adds a nice example in Waterss important
book on the success of West Indian immigrants. Later, he
discusses the shifts in labor market structures and rewards,
refers to more equal European societies, and advises for more
socialist programs. These programs, however, do not tend to
work well in more diverse societies, as Richard Shweder points
out in his comments. Part of the reason for more equality in
Europe is also due to cultural notions that operate more under
the radar. A human resources director at a Swiss corporation
once told me that executives there turned down the large pay
increases the new Russian owners wanted to give them. The
reason? Along with a sense of modesty and ethics, executives
anticipated the resentment and enviousness this could engender in Swiss society. Compare this to Wall Street, through
the revelatory account Sam Polk (2014) recently gave in the
New York Times about his addiction to wealth as a trader,
unrestrained by any sense of social pressure or judgment
only a nagging sense of guilt that saw him eventually walk
away from that lifestyle. Swisslike social pressure is more likely
to occur in less pluralistic societies, which is not so much an
argument against diversity as one that says we must realize
the implications of it. Without strong ethical codes, market
forces and, along with it, inequality are likely to get stronger.
Richard Shweder highlights some very relevant country
data on the connection between equality and diversity and
the controversy over this equality-diversity paradox. At the
end, he asks about the ideal balance between these principles
in complex societies where both are generally valued.
First, we must simply recognize the trade-off exists, the
main point of my essay. Better awareness would allow us to
be more realistic and modest in our goals, such as the unreachable ending poverty, which would certainly eliminate
much diversity by forcing all nonmainstream groups into

331

modernist lifestyles. Certain groups, like old-order Amish,


would certainly be defined as poor by most income data,
though they have wealth in other ways.
On the other end, we would also be more careful about
celebrating diversity. If that means a rather superficial acceptance of different ethnic groups, it is certainly admirable,
but when it shades into tolerating all lifestyles, it becomes an
unworkable and extreme relativism, an issue which anthropologists have thoroughly dissected before, most notably in
Geertzs anti-anti relativism. In some contexts, we end up
with high rates of extreme poverty, mortality, and other social
ills, as among the indigenous in Australia, and we draw lines.
Partly in answer to Shweders question, Patrick Chabal asks
for concepts that can apply outside the West, and his own
work takes us in that direction.8 Similarly, Bjrn Thomassen
(2012:171173) deals with the relationship between modernity and diversity, points to some of the inconsistencies in
our discourse of celebrating diversity, and argues that we
should study the frictions of multiple modernities, as in
Bhutans floundering flirtation with happiness as a unified
national goal (Harris 2013). Diversity, he argues, is a part of
modernity, but it offers no solution since one inevitably needs
to rely upon specific traditions to address the dilemma. Chabal
is right that poverty is a problematic and relative concept, as
defining poverty only materially is simply not sufficient. Many
have recognized this, from Mary Douglas to Amartya Sen,
but it often becomes too complex an issue for the public and
policy makers to easily discuss, and it muddies up the simple
statistics that people prefer. There are more promising and
precise ways of measuring poverty in multidimensional ways,
including things like inner capabilities and relational resources
(Wagle 2014). Or one could take the broad concept of human
flourishing (Smith 2014) as a guide, though one should be
cognizant of the multiple ways that it is defined. This does
not solve the issue, but makes it one of ongoing public contention to be worked out in most places through the often
imperfect mechanisms of liberal democracy.
Once we understand we are dealing with a trade-off and
avoid political extremes, the political and legal system kicks
in at all levels, from the Supreme Court down to local ordinances and zoning boards, and involves liberal democratic
processes, as mentioned above. This is where the United States
has been more flexible than countries like France. Shweder
is right that allowing a certain amount of inequality is a sign
of tolerance. A key question, one I am working on right now
in research on antipoverty nonprofits, is: To what extent do
we push in order to reduce poverty, to nudge people, a` la
the behavioral economists, to do what is good for themeat
better, act more responsibly, show concern for their families,
neighbors, and the wider society? Or, to what extent do we
8. I am both honored and saddened by the comments of Patrick
Chabal, as they are likely among the last things he wrote before his death
in January 2014, after a very influential career. I was looking forward to
future correspondence with him.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

332

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

allow diversity here? Do we want to enforce work, or allow


people who can work to avoid it?
This gets to the heart of Shweders question, and it takes
us into tricky areas of paternalism or conditionalityother
anathemas to social scientists but ones we cannot avoid, as
my research on even the most tolerant nonprofits reveals.
Organizations that work with the poor simply do not have
the luxury of removing the human agent, as structuralist accounts tend to do. All of these considerations are fine balances
or edges to maintain, and people will lean different directions
on this and hopefully find an (uneasy) balance. We will need
to keep space for diverse communities, not to acquiesce to
all poverty or to deny injustice and oppression, but to allow
lifestyles that are stable and can flourish, even if they skew
the statistics on inequality or sometimes violate norms of
middle class respectability.
As I write this in early 2014, another book on culture and
success, by Tiger Mother Amy Chua and her husband, is
about to be released amid much publicity. Early reviews make
me doubt that these two lawyers have handled it well, with
heavy reliance on psychological language (superiority complex, sense of inferiority, and impulse control) rather than
stronger social theories. Here, and with the debate on inequality now at the top of the political agenda, anthropologists
and sociologists are again left behind. The 2007 American
Anthropological Association annual meeting theme was Difference, (In)equality, & Justice, but the description and connected panels showed no awareness of the tension between
these concepts, so an opportunity went wasted. We must realize we face a stickier issue than most people realize, with
roots in deep-seated cultural and social changes, besides the
economic ones at the forefront of the discussion.
Michael Jindra

References Cited
Abramson, Corey. 2012. From either-or to when and how: a contextdependent model of culture in action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 42(2):155180.
Abramson, Corey, and D. Modzelewski. 2011. Caged morality: moral worlds,
subculture, and stratification among middle-class cage-fighters. Qualitative
Sociology 34(1):143175.
Alexander, Jeffrey. 2007. The meaningful construction of inequality and the
struggles against it. Cultural Sociology 1(1):2330.
Allen-Collinson, Jacquelyn, and John Hockey. 2011. Feeling the way: notes
toward a haptic phenomenology of distance running and scuba diving.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46(3):330345.
Altman, Jon C. 2006. In search of an outstations policy for indigenous Australians.
Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research.
Anderson, Elijah. 2000. Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life
of the inner city. New York: Norton.
Archer, Louise, Sumi Hollingworth, and Anna Halsall. 2007. Universitys not
for meIm a Nike person. Sociology 41(2):219237.
Archer, Margaret. 2007. Making our way through the world: human reflexivity
and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bell, Daniel. 1976. The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic.

Benson, Michaela, and Karen OReilly. 2009. Lifestyle migration: expectations,


aspirations and experiences. Farnham: Ashgate.
Binkley, Sam. 2007. Getting loose: lifestyle consumption in the 1970s. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Blim, Michael. 2005. Equality and economy: the global challenge, vol.1. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Boggs, James P. 2002. Anthropological knowledge and Native American cultural practice in the liberal polity. American Anthropologist 104(2):599610.
Bourgois, Philippe I. 2002. In search of respect: selling crack in el barrio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buck, Stuart. 2010. Acting white: the ironic legacy of desegregation. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Bulman, Robert C. 2005. Hollywood goes to high school. New York: Worth.
Burstein, Paul. 2007. Jewish educational and economic success in the United
States: a search for explanations. Sociological Perspectives 50(2):209228.
Campbell, Colin. 2007. The Easternization of the West: a thematic account of
cultural change in the modern era. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Cao, Nanlai. 2009. Raising the quality of belief: Suzhi and the production of
an elite Protestantism. China Perspectives 4:5465. [NC]
. 2011. Constructing Chinas Jerusalem: Christians, power, and place in
contemporary Wenzhou. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [NC]
. 2013. In the world but not of the world: governing grassroots Christian charity in China. In Charities in the non-Western world: the development
and regulation of indigenous and Islamic charities. Justin Pierce and Raj
Brown, eds. Pp. 187203. New York: Routledge. [NC]
Caskey, John P. 1997. Beyond cash-and-carry: financial savings, financial services, and low-income households in two communities. Report, Consumer
Federation of America and the Ford Foundation. http://www.swarthmore
.edu/Documents/academics/economics/beyond_cash_and_carry.pdf.
Cattelino, Jessica. 2008. High stakes: Florida Seminole gaming and sovereignty.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Chabal, Patrick. 2009. Africa: the politics of suffering and smiling. London: Zed. [PC]
. 2012. The end of conceit: Western rationality after postcolonialism.
London: Zed. [PC]
Chamberlayne, Prue, Joanna Bornat, and Tom Wengraf, eds. 2000. The turn
to biographical methods in social science. London: Routledge.
Chau, Adam Yuet. 2006. Miraculous response: doing popular religion in contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. [NC]
Chiao, Joan Y., Bobby K. Cheon, Narun Pornpattananangkul, Alissa J. Mrazek,
and Katherine D. Blizinsky. 2013 Cultural neuroscience: progress and promise. Psychological Inquiry 24(1):119.
Chua, Amy. 2004. World on fire: how exporting free market democracy breeds
ethnic hatred and global instability. New York: Anchor.
. 2011. Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York: Penguin.
Clasen, Jochen, ed. 2011. Converging worlds of welfare? British and German
social policy in the 21st century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, Patricia. 2010. Culture of poverty makes a comeback. New York
Times, October 17.
Dake, Karl, and M. Thompson. 1993. The meanings of sustainable development: household strategies for managing needs and resources. In Human
ecology: crossing boundaries. Scott Wright, ed. Pp. 421436. Fort Collins,
CO: Society for Human Ecology.
Darnell, Regna. 2011. Nomadic legacies and contemporary decision-making
strategies. In Aboriginal peoples in Canadian cities: transformations and continuities. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University.
Davis, Joseph E. 2008. Culture and relativism. Society 45(3):270276.
. 2009. Adolescents and the pathologies of the achieving self. Hedgehog
Review 11(1):3649.
Day, Sophie, Evthymios Papataxiarchis, and Michael Stewart. 1999. Lilies of
the field: marginal people who live for the moment. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Desmond, Matthew, and Ruth N. L. Turley. 2009. The role of familism in
explaining the Hispanic-White college application gap. Social Problems
56(2):311334.
DeVol, Philip E. 2013. Getting ahead in a just-gettin-by world: building your
resources for a better life. 3rd edition. Highlands, TX: Aha! Process.
Duneier, Mitchell. 2001. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Durrenberger, E. Paul, and Dimitra Doukas. 2008. Gospel of wealth, gospel
of work: counterhegemony in the US working class. American Anthropologist
110(2):214224.
Eckert, Penelope. 1989. Jocks and burnouts: social categories and identity in the
high school. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eger, Maureen A. 2010. Even in Sweden: the effect of immigration on support
for welfare state spending. European Sociological Review 26(2):203217.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Jindra The Dilemma of Equality and Diversity


Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2009. Bright-sided: how the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America. New York: Metropolitan.
Eichengreen, Barry. 2011. The Euros never-ending crisis. Current History 110:
9196.
Elmelech, Yuval. 2008. Transmitting inequality: wealth and the American family.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Engbersen, G., K. Schuyt, J. Timmer, and F. Van Waarden. 2006. Cultures of
unemployment: a comparative look at long-term unemployment and urban
poverty. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Farkas, George. 2003. Cognitive skills and noncognitive traits and behaviors
in stratification processes. Annual Review of Sociology 29:541562.
Fenelon, James V. 2006. Indian gaming: traditional perspectives and cultural
sovereignty. American Behavioral Scientist 50(3):381409.
Ferrell, Jeff. 2006. Empire of scrounge: inside the urban underground of dumpster
diving, trash picking, and street scavenging. New York: New York University Press.
Fincham, Ben. 2007. Generally speaking people are in it for the cycling and
the beer: bicycle couriers, subculture and enjoyment. Sociological Review
55(2):189202.
Fischer, David Hackett. 1991. Albions seed: four British folkways in America,
vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, Gareth. 2008. The spiritual land rush: merit and morality in new Chinese
Buddhist temple construction. Journal of Asian Studies 67(1):14370. [NC]
Froyum, Carissa M. 2010. The reproduction of inequalities through emotional
capital: the case of socializing low-income black girls. Qualitative Sociology
33(1):3754.
Gibson, Margaret A., Patricia C. Gandara, and Jill Peterson Koyama. 2004.
School connections: US Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the late
modern age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Goode, Judith, and Jeff Maskovsky. 2001. New poverty studies: the ethnography
of power, politics, and impoverished people in the United States. New York:
New York University Press.
Goodhart, David. 2004. Too diverse? Prospect 95(February):3037.
Gowan, Teresa. 2010. Hobos, hustlers, and backsliders: homeless in San Francisco.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Grindal, Bruce. 2011. Confrontation, understanding, and friendship in a redneck culture. Anthropology and Humanism 36(1):89100.
Gunter, Anthony. 2008. Growing up bad: black youth, road culture and badness
in an East London neighbourhood. Crime, Media, Culture 4(3):349366.
Hannerz, Ulf. 2004. Soulside: inquiries into ghetto culture and community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hao, Lingxin. 2007. Color lines, country lines: race, immigration, and wealth
stratification in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Harris, Gardiner. 2013. Index of happiness? Bhutans new leader prefers more
concrete goals. New York Times, October 4.
Harrison, Lawrence E., and Samuel Phillips Huntington, eds. 2000. Culture
matters: how values shape human progress. New York: Basic.
Hayward, Keith J. 2004. City limits: crime, consumer culture and the urban
experience. Oxford: Routledge Cavendish.
Hein, Jeremy. 2006. Ethnic origins: the adaptation of Cambodian and Hmong
refugees in four American cities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, and Carolyn Buck Luce. 2006. Extreme jobsthe dangerous
allure of the 70-hour workweek. Harvard Business Review 84(12):4959.
Hitlin, Steven, and Jane A. Piliavin. 2004. Values: reviving a dormant concept.
Annual Review of Sociology 30:359393.
Holloway, Susan, Bruce Fuller, Marylee F. Rambaud, and Costanza EggersPierola. 1997. Through my own eyes: single mothers and the cultures of poverty.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Jindra, Michael, and Ines Jindra. 2013. Neoliberalism and antipoverty nonprofits. Paper presented at The Future of NGOs Conference, Chicago.
Kabachnik, Peter. 2009. To choose, fix, or ignore culture? The cultural politics
of Gypsy and Traveler mobility in England. Social and Cultural Geography
10(4):461479.
Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of crime: moral and sensual attractions in doing
evil. New York: Basic.
Keister, Lisa. A. 2011. Faith and money: how religion contributes to wealth and
poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kerbo, Harold R. 2006. Social stratification and inequality. Boston: McGrawHill College.

333
Khan, Shamus Rahman. 2012. The sociology of elites. Annual Review of Sociology 38:361377.
Kidder, Jeffrey L. 2011. Urban flow: bike messengers and the city. Ithaca, IL:
ILR Press.
Kipnis, Andrew. 2012. Constructing commonality: standarization and modernization in Chinese nation-building. Journal of Asian Studies 71(3):731
755. [NC]
Kottak, Conrad P., and Kathryn A. Kozaitis. 2002. On being different: diversity
and multiculturalism in the North American mainstream. Boston: McGrawHill College.
Kowal, Emma. 2008. The politics of the gap: indigenous Australians, liberal
multiculturalism, and the end of the self-determination era. American Anthropologist 110(3):338348.
. Forthcoming. Trapped in the gap: doing good in Indigenous Australia.
London: Berghahn.
Krueger, Patrick M., Tajudaullah Bhaloo, and Pauline V. Rosenau. 2009. Health
lifestyles in the United States and Canada: are we really so different? Social
Science Quarterly 90(5):13801402.
Krumer-Nevo, Michal, and Orly Benjamin. 2010. Critical poverty knowledge.
Current Sociology 58(5):693714.
Kulick, Don. 2006. Theory in furs. Current Anthropology 47(6):933952.
Laidlaw, James. 2014. The subject of virtue: an anthropology of ethics and freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamont, Miche`le, and Virag Molnar. 2002. The study of boundaries in the
social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 28:167195.
Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal childhoods: class, race, and family life, with an
update a decade later. Berkeley: University of California Press.
LaVere, David. 2000. Contrary neighbors: Southern Plains and removed Indians
in Indian territory. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Lende, Daniel H., and Greg Downey, eds. 2012. The encultured brain: an
introduction to neuroanthropology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levey, Hilary Leigh. 2010. Playing to win: raising children in a competitive
culture. PhD dissertation, Princeton University.
Lewis, Oscar. 1959. Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty.
New York: Basic.
Lieske, Joel. 1993. Regional subcultures of the United States. Journal of Politics
55(4):888913.
Lloyd, Richard. 2006. Neo-bohemia: art and commerce in the postindustrial city.
New York: Routledge.
Lovett, Ian. 2010. When home has no place to park. New York Times, October
4.
Lyng, Stephen. 2005. Sociology at the edge: social theory and voluntary risk
taking. In Edgework: the sociology of risk-taking. Stephen Lyng, ed. Pp. 17
50. London: Routledge.
MacDonald, Robert, and Tracy Shildrick. 2007. Street corner society: leisure
careers, youth (sub)culture and social exclusion. Leisure Studies 26(3):339
355.
Malenfant, Romaine, Andree LaRue, and Michel Vezina. 2007. Intermittent
work and well-being. Current Sociology 55(6):814835.
Markus, Hazel Rose, Claude M. Steele, and Dorothy M. Steele. 2002. Colorblindness as a barrier to inclusion: assimilation and nonimmigrant minorities. In Engaging cultural differences. Richard A. Shweder, Martha Minow, and Hazel Rose Markus, eds. Pp. 233259. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Michaels, Walter Benn. 2006. The trouble with diversity: how we learned to love
identity and ignore inequality. New York: Metropolitan.
Miller, Henry. 1991. On the fringe: the dispossessed in America. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Milner, Murray. 2004. Freaks, geeks and cool kids. New York: Routledge.
Minow, Martha, Richard A. Shweder, and Hazel Rose Markus, eds. 2008. Just
schools: pursuing equality in societies of difference. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Moav, Omer, and Zvika Neeman. 2008. Conspicuous consumption, human
capital, and poverty. Working paper. http://ssrn.com/abstractp1140634.
Moore, David. 2004. Beyond subculture in the ethnography of illicit drug use.
Contemporary Drug Problems 31(Summer):181212.
Muckle, Robert J. 2012. Indigenous peoples of North America. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Munger, Frank. 2002. Laboring below the line: the new ethnography of poverty,
low-wage work, and survival in the global economy. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Murray, Charles. 2012. Coming apart: the state of white America, 19602010.
New York: Crown Forum.

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334

Current Anthropology Volume 55, Number 3, June 2014

Narvaez, Darcia, Kristin Valentino, Agustn Fuentes, James J. McKenna, and


Peter Gray, eds. 2014. Ancestral landscapes in human evolution: culture,
childrearing and social wellbeing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nisbett, Richard E. 2009. Intelligence and how to get it: why schools and cultures
count. New York: Norton.
Nisbett, Richard E., and Dov Cohen. 1996. Culture of honor: the psychology
of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Oakes, Tim, and Donald S. Sutton, eds. 2010. Faiths on display: religion,
tourism, and the Chinese state. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [NC]
Obermiller, Phillip J., Thomas E. Wagner, and E. Bruce Tucker, eds. 2000.
Appalachian odyssey: historical perspectives on the Great Migration. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Ortner, Sherry. 2003. New Jersey dreaming: capital, culture, and the class of 58.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pardo, Italo. 1996. Managing existence in Naples: morality, action, and structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patterson, James. 2010. Freedom is not enough. New York: Basic.
Patterson, Orlando. 2006. A poverty of the mind. New York Times, March 26.
Pincus, Fred L. 2011. Understanding diversity: an introduction to class, race,
gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Polk, Sam. 2014. For the love of money. New York Times, January 19.
Polsky, Ned. 2006. Hustlers, beats, and others. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Pope, Denise C. 2001. Doing school: how we are creating a generation of
stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Rapoport, Amos. 2000. Theory, culture and housing. Housing, Theory and
Society 17(4):145165.
Robbins, Joel. 2013. Beyond the suffering subject: toward an anthropology of
the good. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19(3):447462.
Robbins, Richard H. 2009. Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach.
5th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Roman, Raluca Bianca. 2012. The right to roam: travelers and human rights
in the modern nation-state (review). Romani Studies 22(1):6769.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. The original affluent society. In Stone Age economics.
Pp. 140. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine-Atherton.
. 1976. Culture and practical reason. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Sala Pala, Valerie. 2010. Differentialist and universalist antidiscrimination policies on the ground. American Behavioral Scientist 53(12):17881805.
Salcedo, Rodrigo, and Alejandra Rasse. 2012. The heterogeneous nature of
urban poor families. City and Community 11(1):94118.
Salzman, Philip Carl. 2005. The iron law of politics. Politics and the Life Sciences
23(2):2039.
Sanchez-Jankowski, Martin. 2008. Cracks in the pavement: social change and
resilience in poor neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sawhill, Isabel. 2012. Are we headed toward a permanently divided society? CCF
Brief no. 48. Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families, Brookings
Institution.
Schaeublin, Emanuel. 2012. Role and governance of Islamic charitable institutions: Gaza zakat organizations (19732011) in the local context. CCDP
Working Paper no. 9. Geneva: Graduate Institute. [JB]
Schermerhorn, Richard Alonzo. 1978. Ethnic plurality in India. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Schiochett, Leonardo. 2011. Palestinian sumud: steadfastness, ritual and time
among Palestinian refugees. Working Paper no. 51. Ramallah: Birzeit University. [JB]
Schull, Natasha Dow. 2012. Addiction by design: machine gambling in Las Vegas.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scott, James C. 2009. The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of
Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, John. 1996. Stratification and power: structures of class, status and command. Cambridge: Polity.
Shweder, Richard A. 2003. Why do men barbecue? recipes for cultural psychology.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. 2008. After just schools: the equality-difference paradox and conflicting varieties of liberal hope. In Just schools: pursuing equality in societies
of difference. Martha Minow, Richard A. Shweder, and Hazel R. Markus,
eds. Pp. 254290. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [RAS]
Small, Mario Luis, David Harding, and Miche`le Lamont. 2010. Introduction:

reconsidering culture and poverty. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 629:627.
Smith, Christian. 2010. What is a person? rethinking humanity, social life, and
the moral good from the person up. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 2014. To flourish or destruct: a personalist theory of human goods,
motivations, failure, and evil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Soeffner, Hans-George. 1997. The order of rituals: the interpretation of everyday
life. New York: Transaction.
Srensen, ystein, and Bo Strath, eds. 1997. The cultural construction of Norden. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Stebbins, Richard. 2004. Between work and leisure: the common ground of two
separate worlds. New York: Transaction.
Stewart, Michael. 2001. Spectres of the underclass. In Poverty, ethnicity, and
gender in Eastern Europe. Rebecca Jean Emigh and Ivan Szelenyi, eds. Pp.
191204. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Strauss, Claudia. 1992. What makes Tony run? Schemas as motives reconsidered. In Human motives and cultural models. Roy DAndrade and Claudia
Strauss, eds. Pp. 197224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Susser, Ida, and Thomas C. Patterson, eds. 2001. Cultural diversity in the
United States: a critical reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Sutton, Peter. 2009. The politics of suffering: indigenous Australia and the end
of the liberal consensus. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.
Takaki, Ronald. 1993. A different mirror: a history of multicultural America.
New York: Back Bay.
Tanner, Julian, Mark Asbridge, and Scot Wortley. 2008. Our favourite melodies: musical consumption and teenage lifestyles. British Journal of Sociology 59(1):117144.
Terray, Emmanuel. 2011. Combats avec Meduse. Paris: Editions Galilee. [JB]
Thomassen, Bjrn. 2012. Anthropology and its many modernities: when concepts matter. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18(1):160178.
Thome, Helmut. 2008. Value change in Europe from the perspective of empirical social research. In The cultural values of Europe. Hans Joas and Klaus
Wiegandt, eds. Pp. 277319. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Thompson, M., R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky. 1990. Cultural theory. Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Tonkinson, Robert. 2007. Aboriginal difference and autonomy then and
now: four decades of change in a Western desert society. Anthropological
Forum 17(1):4160.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2010. What people want: rethinking poverty, culture, and
educational attainment. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 629(1):75101.
Valverde, Mariana. 2012. Everyday law on the street: city governance in an age
of diversity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vermeulen, Hans, and Joel Perlmann, eds. 2000. Immigrants, schooling and
social mobility: does culture make a difference? New York: St. Martins.
Vertovec, Steven, and Susanne Wessendorf, eds. 2010. The multiculturalism backlash:
European discourses, policies and practices. London: Taylor & Francis.
Wagle, Udaya R. 2014. The counting-based measurement of multidimensional
poverty. Social Indicators Research 115:223240.
Waldinger, Roger D., and Michael I. Lichter. 2003. How the other half works:
immigration and the social organization of labor. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 1996. Multiculturalism and melange. In Public education in
a multicultural society. Robert Fullinwider, ed. Pp. 90120. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Warry, Wayne. 2007. Ending denial: understanding Aboriginal issues. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Wasserman, Jason Adam, and Michael Clair. 2010. At home on the street: people,
poverty, and a hidden culture of homelessness. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Waters, Mary. 1999. Black identities: West Indian dreams and American realities.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [PGM]
Weiss, Michael J. 2000. The clustered world. Boston: Little, Brown.
Williams, Jackson. 2013. Regional cultures and health outcomes: implications
for performance measurement, public health and policy. Social Science Journal 50(4):461470.
Wilson, William Julius. 2009. More than just race: being black and poor in the
inner city. New York: Norton.
Wolfe, Alan. 1999. Margaret Mead goes to Harlem. New Republic 220:4855.
Worsley, Peter. 1997. Knowledges: culture, counterculture, subculture. New York:
New Press.
Yang, Mayfair M. 2000. Putting global capitalism in its place: economic hybridity, Bataille, and ritual expenditure. Current Anthropology 41(4):477
509. [NC]

This content downloaded from 142.104.2.151 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:20:39 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Você também pode gostar