Diversity and Identity in Identity Formation and Acknowledgement

This article discusses the markers of diversity and identity formation, including the post-structuralist discourse and the Maori people's political representation. It explores the balance between fixed and conventional ethos and the deferring nature of identity formation.

Running head: DIVERSITY AND IDENTITY
DIVERSITY AND IDENTITY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1DIVERSITY AND IDENTITY
There are various markers of diversity which goes in to the formation or shaping, and
subsequent processes of reshaping of identities (Villesèche, Muhr, & Holck, 2018). These
markers often leads to the formulation certain structured stereotypes based on dominant
socio-cultural features, which prevents a nuanced approach towards identity formation or
acknowledgement of the same. This gives rise to post-structuralist discourses of identity
formation by acknowledging the diversities, much in line with the post-colonial ideas of ‘self’
and the ‘other’.
The progress of any community or organization depends on the how it treats this
diversity (Carroll, Ford & Taylor, 2015). The inclusion and empowerment of Maori in the
political environment of New Zealand, and its subsequent cultural impacts is a problematic
area subject to much debates for over a period of time. While on one hand the their ability to
do justice with the legislative power is a questionable issue, on the other hand, depriving
them a chance to climb the socio-political ladder amounts to social inequality. The latter
would lead to cultural antagonisms, whereas the former to a unification of the cultural codes,
whereby the originality and uniqueness of both may be hampered.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) recognizes certain structured areas of commonality
based on which the diverse individuals or groups are categorized (Holck, Muhr & Villesèche,
2016). The dominant areas of demarcation in this regard are race, gender, class, ethnicity and
the like. It breeds identity formation based on certain strict grounds of inclusion and
exclusion.
Conversely, the post-structuralist discourse rejects such strict notions and
emphasizes upon subjectivity rather than identity formation. Going by the propositions of the
famous philosopher Michel Foucault, the very idea of identity formation stands on power
politics through creation of stereotypes (Holck, Muhr & Villesèche, 2016). The post-
structuralist perspective focuses on subjectivity, where the one’s perception of oneself and of

2DIVERSITY AND IDENTITY
the others is constantly evolving with respect to the surroundings and is not subject to any
fixed ideals.
The Maori people have a long heritage on the New Zealand, soil and as such, have
every right to share a portion of political and decision-making powers, more so because such
decisions would intervene with their culture and lifestyle. The SIT theory emphasizes on
diversity in the strict sense and affects the fortunes of the Maori by considering them to be
cultural and racial minority, thereby ostracizing them much like the native Red Indians used
to be ostracized in America. From a post-colonial perspective it would otherize the Maori.
However, post-structuralists would negate such discrimination of the indigenous people,
breaking the stereotypes of sameness and difference and questioning the grounds of political
representation (Kowal & Paradies, 2005). Neoliberal reasoning obstructs parliamentary
representations of the Maori, especially on grounds of incompetence. It sees them as a
cultural threat.
Therefore it may be concluded that, political representations, while on hand, would be
valuable to the Maori by giving prominence to the indigenous culture, especially their health
which is often looked after by agencies of the dominant culture with a certain discriminative
mentality, on the other hand, it would lead to the absorption of the nuances of the dominant
culture within the Maori, thereby limiting the exposure of the authenticity of Maori culture.
The concept of ‘floating identities’ may offer a probable solution to this paradox, which
proposes a balance between fixed and conventional ethos on one hand, and the deferring
nature of identity formation on the other.

3DIVERSITY AND IDENTITY
Reference List
Carroll, B., Ford, J., & Taylor, S. (2015). Leadership. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Holck, L., Muhr, S. L., & Villesèche, F. (2016). Identity, diversity and diversity management:
On theoretical connections, assumptions and implications for practice. Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35(1), 48-64.
Kowal, E., & Paradies, Y. (2005). Ambivalent helpers and unhealthy choices: public health
practitioners’ narratives of Indigenous ill-health. Social science & medicine, 60(6),
1347-1357.
Villesèche, F., Muhr, S. L., & Holck, L. (2018). Introduction: From Diversity to Identity and
Back. In Diversity and Identity in the Workplace (pp. 1-8). Palgrave Pivot, Cham.