Ava DuVernay’s works include ‘Selma’ (2014), ‘Middle of Nowhere’ (2012) and ‘I Will Follow’ (2010). (Morales, 2015)
On October 19, Ava DuVernay, a black woman filmmaker and distributor of independent films, was honored at the 22nd Annual ELLE Women in Hollywood Awards. There, among of population of people underrepresented in the film industry, she outlined a solution to the lack of diversity in Hollywood, in front of and behind the camera.
Her narrative begins with an anecdote her uncle told her about a black village deemed valueless by its country. Though considered subordinate, the villagers continued existing as everyday citizens—cutting each other’s hair, teaching, preaching, baking, performing works that help a community function as a people.
Despite that, the village lived in a state of coerced segregation. When confronted with situations that denied their existence they “fought…for recognition of their humanity and dignity.” DuVernay’s anecdote illustrates a community’s desire to exist beyond external perspectives. They live as themselves, not consuming or allowing sources that devalue them to control their existence.
To live like such people we should focus on supporting our neighbor and developing the community. “We value us. We build or village. ….We focus on her—the woman sitting next to us. We focus on us.” DuVernay emphasizes the community by perpetually stating “we.” Contrasting the isolation experienced by the villagers, she believes that a solution to overcome a system of segregation exists by redefining our understanding of “us,” so that “we” extends to the villagers rather than the comforts of the country, the self.
Dwelling within the comfortability of the self, only inhabiting spaces congruent to one’s social identity, and, therefore, prolonging segregation, creates a social impediment that perpetuates issues like racism, sexism—every “-ism” within the patriarchy. The conflict of the self, which leads to the creation of “-ism” terms, distracts us and “keeps [one] explaining [their] reason for being.” This conflict embodies a problem with the term “diversity.”
Diversity focuses on how the self looks and appeals to external sources. It does not support, celebrate, or attempt to create a village. It, rather, simulates the relationship the country has with the village. When populations exist in a space, like the villagers, they must learn to live beyond external perceptions, defined by the country, or within it. Either decision marginalizes them and prevents them from belonging within the space of the country.
Less metaphorically, a couple of weeks ago, I found myself in an awkward position in class as someone felt obliged to announce my blackness. Needless to say, I was the only black student. The comment derived from a need to justify my reading of a black character, while signifying that such action did not mean I was to act on behalf of black people. The person made such concept into a joke. Out of confusion and discomfort, I laughed in response.
After speaking with a professor about the moment, she explained that these types of classes typically lack “diversity”, and cases like mine are nuanced but frequent. As the only black student in a class lacking racial variability, I exist as an outlier because my presence and actions needs to be justified—comically or otherwise.
My state of being, however, rests in the hands of someone (the country) who traditionally exists in the place I inhabit. In representing the villagers, the moment forces me, as I did, to overlook the situation or address the discomfort. Either decision forces me into a role of separation, where I must confront another’s distress with my being in the class.
The conflict rests in the need for my presence to justified or presented as a disclaimer when I perform a task in the classroom. Having “diversity” within a class, then, creates a varied population that does not know how to exist comfortably with each other.
DuVernay’s conclusion articulates my sentiments, which “diversity” fails to address. “I really hate the word ‘diversity’,” she says, “It feels like medicine. Diversity is like, ‘Ugh. I have to do diversity.’ I recognize and celebrate what it is, but that word, to me, is a disconnect. There’s an emotional disconnect.”
The “disconnect” refers to how the term merely seeks to acknowledge difference in a singular space. Diversity has no transformative action. As determined by its definition, diversity represents a state of being diverse—having variety. The term embodies an inactive noun that allows one to evade social issues by, for example, acknowledging variability (or the lack thereof) within a population and not doing anything with it.
In my example, the professor uses the lack of diversity to distract from the belief that I do not belong in the class. The burden of comfort rests in my need to adjust to the others rather than each student in the class adjusting collectively. Diversity falsifies the experience of a united community; it recognizes the village in the space, but does not address the relationship it has to the country.
DuVernay suggests we replace “diversity” with “belong.” She states, “… We all belong to film. We all belong to television. We all belong to what this is…So I just want us to think about belonging. Think about who belongs. And welcoming people into that belonging.” Again, she requires the audience to adjust for the sake of the group. We need to think about who belongs. We need to welcome those people. We need to broaden and extend our power to best practice this liberal delusion of diversity.
Chernikoff, Leah. “Why Ava DuVernay Hates the Word Diversity.” ELLE. 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015