We need to talk about 'diversity' in the arts

I am not including references in this post for multiple reasons. First, I do not view academic norms as a standard to which I am obligated to conform, especially in work that I do primarily or solely for myself; second, the basis for the claims I will make here is largely in individual or collective conversations and in personal reflection rather than in research as it is traditionally defined; finally, my blog is not and has never been intended to be an exhaustive resource for anything other than a fraction of my thoughts.

This post would not be possible without many other people. While I cannot name all of them here, I would like to recognise Amelia Brey’s contribution specifically.

We need to talk about ‘diversity’ in the arts.

Diversity has been a buzzword in various capacities and contexts for close to a decade. I’ve never gotten a clear answer from anyone on what it actually means or what it ideally looks like in practice. As far as I can tell, most organisations treat it as a branding and marketing initiative to appease the consciences of white liberals who talk loudly about identity politics and continue to vote for increasingly right-wing politicians. Identity politics are an important element of analysis, but if they’re the centre of your sociopolitical identity (especially to the exclusion of other factors), then you are ignoring many equally important issues, many of which have much more immediate impact.

So let’s look at diversity in practice.

I did my undergrad at DePaul University in Chicago. My senior year coincided with the first full season of the 5th Wave Collective, an organisation started by several of my DePaul colleagues and dedicated to performing works by women (and? nonbinary?) composers. At that time this was very much in alignment with what I wanted to do artistically, and I performed a few times as part of the collective. My last performance with them, in their season finale orchestra concert, was almost a year ago.

The executive board, whose names and photographs appear on the collective’s website and all of whom I have interacted with to some degree, are all cis, 80% women, and all white or white passing. The collective has conducted several calls for scores (which I have issues with as a concept — calls for proposals are much more ethically and artistically sound for multiple reasons) and while I haven’t been privy to the lists of respondents, the overwhelming majority of selected compositions have been by cis white women. Across the board in other organisations and initiatives I’ve been part of to increase representation of gender diversity in the arts, specifically in classical music, almost all of the energy usually comes from cis white women.

Why does this matter? It’s just identity politics, right? I mean, if we want more representation of women’s voices, starting with white women is clearly the best way to achieve equity. It definitely worked with voting rights. It’s definitely working with reproductive rights.

To explain why this matters I first need to give a little context. The term ‘white feminism’ has arisen in recent years to describe a set of actions deriving from the belief that social justice is best served by the advancement of women. This tends to ignore any other relevant parts of individuals’ identities while embedding into the collective consciousness the idea that women are somehow inherently superior to men. Besides the fact that this is bullshit, replacing one hierarchical gender system with another is not the solution to gender inequality.

The English composer and suffragette Dame Ethel Smyth was one of the most well-known early white feminists. She wrote extensively about the struggles she faced as a woman who composed while completely neglecting to mention any of the other women who were also composing during her lifetime. Additionally, she was white and upper-class. In her writings she characterizes herself as a victim, ignoring the areas in which she is privileged and implying that she is alone in her victimhood.

More modern white feminists are usually a little more subtle, but the results are similar: superficial inclusion of people who value conformity more than they value community. Any organisation dedicated to performing works by women will inevitably default to programming works by women who are some combination of cis, white, neurotypical, able-bodied, and middle- or upper-class. This is because these organisations allow themselves — or in some cases are required — to be subject to capitalism. Capitalism is a bigoted system and pursuing diversity without acknowledging the economic and political roots of inequality will only result in the inclusion of the most privileged members of any given marginalised group.