GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

PART VI

Equality and diversity interventions and

change
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

22. Inclusion and diversity as an

intercultural task
José Pascal da Rocha

INTRODUCTION

The debates on multiculturalism are developing in different directions, with

different assumptions, tendencies and different value systems. Negotiation
between diverse cultures and their daily side-by-side coexistence has
become an intercultural challenge for any type of organizational, societal
and managerial structure. Propelled by the effects of globalization, fluctu-
ation of goods and persons, fast-spreading technology and general migra-
tion, scholars as well as practitioners face the new realities. It is no longer
a question of ‘if’, but a matter of ‘how’ to adapt theories and practices of
disciplines to the hybridity of people, societies and cultures. Nevertheless,
many argue on the grounds of cultural relativism, that each culture main-
tains its own value system, that it cannot be understood from the outside
perspective. Therefore, all cultures can equally claim their rights and
identity. The right of self-determination is a status of principle. According
to the cultural anthropologist Spiro and his theory of ‘moral cultural
relativism’ (Spiro, 1993), equality becomes a matter of equal value, which
renders any critique of cultural norms impossible. Thus, heterogeneity
would follow and characterize the relationships between cultures. The
issues at hand still remain: how does intercultural communication add up
to diversity and inclusion? Where to place it in this relationship? How to
assess it according to cultural relativism if the assumption is that any form
of acculturation is deculturation?

TOWARDS PLURALISM

Many European societies have adopted the realities of multiculturalism

in their societal and organizational strategies.1 Thus, multiculturalism is
the practice of a multicultural lifestyle, a construct of Western academic
theory, sustaining the principles of pluralism (see Greene 1992, 250–61).

­289
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

290 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

The critiques of that concept are divided: Samuel Huntington states that
multiculturalism is a source of weakness for his American society: ‘A mul-
ticultural country with many civilizations is a country without any civiliza-
tion and cultural center at all and as such doomed to vanish’ (Huntington
1998, 305).
According to Leggewie, the hybrid mixture of all cultures stands for the
power of the American dream (2000, 886). Michelle Wallace states that
multiculturalism is certainly not paradise, but even in its most cynical and
pragmatic form, multiculturalism has something worth living. Thus, there
have to be ways to publicly manifest cultural diversity and pluralism and to
integrate the input of the ‘people of color’ into the societal context (Wallace
in Hall 2004, 191). The issues of this construction are at hand and they are
normative ones: that is, whether all cultural practices are recognized as
being equal (and at the same time the danger is to get entrapped in possibly
inhumane practices in some cultures of the world such as slavery or genital
mutilation of women in most parts of Eastern Africa), or we praise a single
cultural and moral value valid for all, such as postulated by Huntington,
or parts of the Marxist tradition or liberalism. The West itself is stumbling
across a whole world of concepts trying to balance out this dilemma. While
the Western world rejects ethno-centrism, it encourages it in non-Western
cultures without a second thought (Abou 1995, 28). Yet, many scholars
have pointed out that productive intercultural relations can only be formed
with the help of a universally valid normative order (ibid., 29, 79–80,
83–85). Further, scholars do support the idea of cultural norms, without
labeling them as cultural imperialism or even racism (Tibi 1995, 8).

THE CONCEPTS OF POST-MODERNITY

A possible way out of the normative dead-end without being locked into
cultural imperialism might be found with Charles Taylor and his book
Multiculturalism and ‘The Politics of Recognition’ (1992). His starting-
point was based on the concepts of Communitarianism and the prevailing
disappointments of many scholars about John Rawls’s liberal book A
Theory of Justice (1971). The core of this book, which Rawls and others
developed and which can also be found in ‘The law of peoples’ (Rawls
1993), is the sketch of a globally acceptable legal basis apt to guarantee
a minimum of individual freedom, but with a strict neutral position of
the state, that is, the authorities and other governmental institutions, for
the particular identities of the people and their beliefs remain untouched.
The primary demands of the citizens towards the states enclose so-called
‘universal rights’ to satisfy ‘universal needs’ such as a salary, medical care,
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

Inclusion and diversity as an intercultural task ­291

freedom of speech and religion, among others (Amy Gutmann in Taylor

1992, 4).
However, other particular rights should not be considered by the con-
stituent. At the same time, Rawls excludes from the primary rights the
positive freedoms at the core of human rights in order to avoid potential
conflicts with non-Western cultural norms or the potential charge of neo-
colonialism (1993, 36–68). Nevertheless, looking at today’s realities and
taking the example of women in reformed Morocco, Rawls’s model fails
to stand the test and to offer practical utility in two major areas: first,
with respect to a man’s infinite possibilities of turning a woman out of his
house; second, with respect to women’s financial compensations for agree-
ing to a polygamous family life. In fact, the model does not even indicate
which direction the position of women in Morocco (90 per cent are illit-
erate) might take. Yet, for Rawls, it is the different cultural and political
value systems that maintain primary validity. On the other hand, Taylor
suggests that the ‘primary needs’ or ‘primary rights’ entail not only the
supply of economical and judicial resources, but also the recognition of the
individual through the cultural society as a primary, positive right (Taylor
1992, 26; See also Kymlicka 1989, 166). A substantial ‘Self’, a personality
with self-confidence and an ‘I-identity’ can only be reached through the
interaction with significant others (Mead 1962). Only if we start looking
at ourselves through others’ eyes, will we learn who we ‘really’ are; only
through identification with others can we appreciate what should be and
what should not. The Self is constituted through the dialogue with the
significant other – not only at the beginning, but throughout the whole
life, even if the ‘Other’ disappears from our life (Taylor 1992, 33). Only
through recognition from the cultural group and society can the Self gain
identity. Therefore, the state is in the line of duty to defend and protect
marginalized cultures, groups and minorities, against the oppression by
the majority culture or titular nation (ibid. 43; see also Amy Gutmann in
Taylor 1992, 5). Equality should not be dictated, or imposed, but rather
the right to be different should be postulated, protected and sustained by
governmental bodies and agencies. In an organization such as an eco-
nomic entity, space should be negotiated for the interaction, development
and formation of individuals, and the valorization of this space should
stand at the core of executive policies.
Yet, there are issues with such concepts if they are tested against the
realities of the various cultural contents. Taylor’s solution is based on
the premises of liberalism (Taylor 1992, 63). Liberalism cannot offer neu-
tralities in which all cultures can meet and coexist and it cannot and must
not provide cultural neutrality. Liberalism has to define boundaries and
clarify what can be public and what belongs to the private sphere. This
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

292 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

is especially applicable to politics and religion. Unwillingly, we tend to

drown in the mainstream debate of multiculturalism and constructions
of conflicts between the Christian civilized world and Islam, where some
authors even argue the lack of an equivalent to the Age of Enlightment
(see Tiel 1998, 223).
Another solution provided by Taylor in order to mediate the different
types of conflicts in the concepts of multiculturalism with a perspective on
liberalism is tolerance. ‘Tolerance’ itself is a vague term; although en vogue
in Western concepts of multiculturalism, it lacks a productive foundation.
Scholars still have to determine to what extent tolerance is a justifiable
response to intolerant and aggressive behavior. In the context of the inter-
cultural conflict of values, tolerance and respect fail as normative guide-
lines, both in the public and private spheres. To practice tolerance and
respect requires reciprocity as well as the development of a shared horizon
of values that allows for a precise definition and critical assessment of the
boundaries of these concepts. In this regard, also, Taylor did not provide a
convincing answer (see Kuper 1999, 236–37). Equally, this poses important
questions for the concepts of diversity, equality and inclusion within an
organization: if such core concepts are communicated by leadership and at
a higher level of the organizational hierarchy, these concepts, become not
only strategic but also political. For instance, tolerance proves to be useless
as well as detrimental if merely employed as a political catchword, similar
to solidarity, which is also the narrative used by political leaders.
For post-modernists (for example, Maxwell 1994), the concept of
culture is an exclusively pluralist one (see Kuper 1999, 23–46, 59–63). Yet
the valorization of cultural diversity in the sense of a radical equality of all
cultures, and even subcultures, prevents any form of critical engagement,
thus contradicting the notions of a universally valid reason or a binding
ethical norm. Returning to Taylor’s concept of recognition, he strongly
argues for an assumption of equality of all cultures. If recognition is a
primary right protected by rights and having the same level of protection
such as the guarantee of human rights, then it is a breach of human rights
and of justice, if a majority culture or the titular nation does not recognize
the minority culture as equivalent in rights or as (a) rightholder(s) (Taylor
1992, 66). But even this assumption has to be justified and transparent
and be the object of hermeneutical findings. Taylor refers to Gadamer’s
Wahrheit und Methode (1960). Briefly, this concept starts with the under-
standing of values and beliefs of another culture. What is important for
the ‘Other’ has to be understood by one’s ‘self’. Acceptance and tolerance
lead to a shift in perspectives and comprehension of the Other’s system,
and one’s own values are being re-evaluated. The ideal stage is when both
horizons and comprehension merge into one another. The new acquired
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

Inclusion and diversity as an intercultural task ­293

perspective not only changes the apprehension of a value of a culture upon

another culture, but also tends to another understanding of institutions
and systemic powers as already elaborated by Michel Foucault (1977) and
his discourse theory. Taylor’s concept is still arguable as he firmly divorces
himself from Communitarianism (see Etzioni 1996). However, his strong
support of Liberalism and concept of a ‘good life’ is its weakness as well,
and puts him unwillingly in the line of Euro-centrism, essentialism and cul-
tural relativism. Yet the question still remains on how to assess the validity
of culture in the post-modern society. Seen from a comparative perspec-
tive, there are two criteria: first, which culture provides better protection
for the basic existential needs of human beings (this includes Rawls’s
‘primary goods’) and, second, which culture provides better opportuni-
ties to realize the ‘good life’, a concept started by Taylor and picked up
and developed by other learned scholars (see Sen’s ‘capability set’ 1999,
74–110; Nussbaum’s ‘Gerechtigkeit’, 1997, 187–226). The implication of
an institutionalization of cultures leads to a freezing of cultural differences
and a reifying of cultural ‘communities’. The trouble with multicultural-
ism is that it imposes concepts of membership in collectivities that are
defined by their ‘cultures’, and it construes such membership as the basis
of collective rights.
Appiah (1994, 169) argues that the collective dimensions of identity
provide people with narratives of personhood and life scripts, and he
argues for a much closer concept to a transcultural socio-political space
shaped by Cosmopolitanism. According to Appiah, Cosmopolitanism
stands for the world citizen, the person who is not subject to such con-
structions as ‘diversity’, ‘difference’ or ‘in-/out-group’. It advocates for
another approach in today’s reality of globalization: every person, every
market, every metropolis is accessible, anytime, anywhere, emotionally,
intellectually and physically (p. 101). Everything is integrated, thus it
does not belong to a specific Western or even Chinese concept. In this
sense, human variety matters because people are entitled to options and
strategies to shape their lives and relationships with others (p. 104). This
concept reveals a variety of views. For instance, some argue for commu-
nity among all humans, regardless of their social and political affiliation.
Others argue for the share of a moral community. Yet others conceptual-
ize the universal community in terms of political institutions to be shared
by all. In recent philosophical literature, the cosmopolitan encourages
cultural diversity and appreciates mixtures, yet he/she rejects national-
ism and nation-state narrative in media. Waldron (1992), for instance,
states that Cosmopolitanism can acknowledge culture as a societal linkage
between humans, while at the same time denying that this would logically
imply that a person’s cultural identity should be defined by homogeneous
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

294 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

cultural assets. Cultural purity is an oxymoron as it defies today’s reality,

and cultural aspects specific to one cultural unit cannot be imposed upon
or assumed for another cultural unit.
As seen in the above, elaborations on the concepts of culture, difference
and equality do not really seem to present an open door, suggesting pos-
sible solutions for reaching diversity and inclusion. Yet, these elaborations
are useful and helpful in their basic conceptions, as they all hold validity,
correlations and interdisciplinary value for a comparative approach to
solutions, whether at the domestic level or in the organizational hierarchy.
Thus, I should like to advocate that the center of gravity for any debate on
diversity, equality and inclusion should start with the person, the individ-
ual, without, in a first step, taking into account his (or her) background,
values and culture, which is a construction of both his own interests and
his environment. This also means that, say, the manager in the human
resources department, should interview individuals not only with regard
to the position that needs to be filled or some politics of diversity from the
corporation leaders, but to take the concept of personhood as the basic
starting-point, to see the person first, then his/her possible contribution to
the workforce. Martha C. Nussbaum proposes a ‘conception of person’
grounded in ‘central human capabilities’ (1997, 190). While accepting
the validity of some of Rawls’s ‘primary goods’, Nussbaum considers the
opportunity to make full individual use of these primary goods – rather
than human rights (as guaranteed by the constitution) – as a prerequisite
for a ‘good human life’ defined as the opportunity to develop into ‘full
personhood’. To prevent someone from utilizing these primary goods is
tantamount to preventing him/her from fully achieving ‘personhood’ and
thus disregards human ‘autonomy, dignity, and emotional well being’
(ibid., 204). Nussbaum (following Aristotle) argues empirically, basing the
validity of her concept of personhood on the self-interpretations of differ-
ent cultures as they manifest themselves in ‘myths and tales’.

THE CONCEPTS OF POST-STRUCTURALISM

Addressing the term ‘inequality’, the literature shows an abundant number

of theories, research, roots and causes of inequality and the problem for
gender diversity and gender equality (for example, Orloff, 1993; McCall,
2000). In the context of the social concepts of Cosmopolitanism and
hybridity, I shall now recall less rigid binary approaches that can be applied
to gender pluralism. From the exhaustive literature, I brief mention will be
made of various theories and approaches to (liberal, critical) feminism,
masculinity studies, post-structuralist approaches and queer theory.
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

Inclusion and diversity as an intercultural task ­295

Liberal feminism stems from 18th- and 19th-century thinking regarding

individual equal rights (Tong 1998, 10). It involves a focus on achieving
equal rights via reform, particularly in the public sphere (Beasley 1999:
51–2). There is an emphasis on the rights of the individual, limited state
intervention and freedom from prejudice (ibid., 52). Liberal feminism can
be used as a basis for developing a politics of sexual and gender diversity.
According to Monro (2005, 24), the emphasis is on individual rights and
it proves to be useful for supporting diversity. The issue with the liberal
approach is the rationalism of the collective nature of politics involved,
linked to masculine subjectivities. From this issue, radical feminism
evolved, indicating causes and roots of sexual oppression and other forms
of power as purely coming out of social systems of male domination.
Thus, men as a group are considered to be the beneficiaries of this sys-
temic and systematic form of power (Beasley 1999, 55). Marxist feminism
also extends modeled sexual oppression as an aspect of class power just
as socialist feminism evolved at the intersections between radical and
Marxist feminism and involves various approaches with combined strands
of thinking. With linkage to psychoanalytic feminism, these theories
discuss the psychological processes that lead to the formation of women
as different from men. French feminists such as Kristeva (1985) draw
on Jacques Lacan (1988), linking unconscious mental phenomena with
the construction of feminity at both social and psychological levels. For
Lacan, the self and sexuality are socially constructed via language – a very
useful theory. Prosser (1998) and More (1999) discuss accounts of trans-
gender that draw on psychoanalysis. Black and white feminism give rise to
further approaches and theories (see Davis 1981). With a linkage to post-
colonialism, Spivak (1987) examines how racism operates to construct
racial boundaries, which continue to organize both the colonialization of
indigenous peoples and the black/ethnic/‘diaspora’ communities.
Other studies address the issue of masculinity, ranging from conserva-
tive and mythopoetic to pro-feminist and post-modern perspectives (see
Monro 2005). Post-structuralist approaches deconstruct not only rigid
gender roles, but also notions of ‘male’ and ‘female’. Post-structuralism is,
along with post-colonialism and post-modernism, a theory which argues
that subjectivity is socially constructed, contradictory and fragile, and
it rejects the notion of an underlying ‘reality’. Instead, reality is seen as
constructed via the exclusion of ‘others’ or other options (Beasley 1999).
Post-structuralist theory provides important tools for understanding
gender diversity. In her work on gender politics, Monro (2005) contrib-
utes useful theories regarding application fields and limitations of the
­post-structuralist approach, the strongest critique being an overemphasis
on construction, though the nature of identity does not necessarily have
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

296 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

to be constructed in the way that post-structuralism assumes. The last

approach in the field of gender theories is queer theory has been discussed
in gay and lesbian academic work in the area of literary and cultural
studies. Its roots mainly depart from post-structuralism with its strong
linkages to the work of Foucault (1977). According to Sedgwick (1991),
queer theory deconstructs gender and sexual identities, primarily through
the interpretation of the cultural text. Finally, queer theory can be a useful
counterpart to rigid post-structuralism and it can support multiplicity (see
Butler 1990 for further details).
All these theories provide the basic tools for an interdisciplinary
approach to gender diversity in economic entities. Gender pluralism and
transsexuality form the new framework for debates on gender, diversity
and inclusion. Yet, the most promising results for qualitative and quan-
titative data on inequality would be gathered from the assumption that
modern inequality has both a gendered and a racial character. McCall
(1998) addresses these issues through an investigation of the social com-
position of inequality – including gender, racial and class dimensions.
Therefore the politics of gender and diversity has an effect on policy strate-
gies. The transition to the service economy, job-sharing, loss of job security
and relativity of workforce value do have implications, which re-emerge in
the social and cultural concepts of ‘center’ and ‘periphery’, thus closing
the interdisciplinary circle from social and cultural concepts to economic
issues and back to concepts of power, ‘otherness’ and ‘personhood’.
The current Western emphasis on the concept of personhood is related
to the fact that philosophers as well as cultural critics and historians
have moved the notion of ‘virtue’ to center-stage in their discussion of
values. At the same time, the term ‘character’, neglected since the rise of
Modernism, has gained importance in literary criticism, psychology, and
ethics, especially in connection with an ‘ethical attitude’ and (especially
since Jean-Paul Sartre) the existential personal decision. J. Melvin Woody
comes to the conclusion that ‘freedom’ is meaningless without ‘integrity of
character’: ‘Freedom of choice’ and ‘character’ are two sides of the same
coin (1998, 305). Peter Frederick Strawson (1992) similarly insists on an
intersubjective aspect inherent in the concept of personhood, defining a
person as someone who acknowledges other people as persons and vice
versa. The concept of personhood is thus a reciprocally relational term.

ENGAGING THE ‘OTHER’

Intercultural negotiations demand a new kind of theory, thinking and

acting, namely, bifocal thinking as social practice (see also Geertz’s
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

Inclusion and diversity as an intercultural task ­297

(1973) ‘bifocal understanding’ and ‘cross-traveling’ and Hall’s (2004)

‘bifocal perspective’). Only by employing a dialectical discourse – that is,
by adopting each other’s perspectives – can culturally specific and hence
different modes of subjectivity and discourses be reintegrated into an
‘inter-discourse’ without subjecting the culturally competing elements to a
new master discourse (for example, Appiah 1996). The objective must be
translation and transition and certainly not homogenization. Translation,
however, is apt to produce misunderstandings; as the old dictum goes,
traduttore traditore (translators are traitors). This is all the more true of
intercultural translations, in which difficulties in understanding semantic
and cultural codes add up and multiply (Clifford 1999, 6, 36–8, 41–2,
182–5). Moreover, translation is often interpretation. Transition demands
transcultural awareness and sensibility and contextual situatedness.
Mediators have the tools, capabilities and capacities to support and foster
translation and transition. Mediators (practitioners, multiplicators of all
sorts as well as media) build bridges, yet they also create new obstacles.
At best, they help us to familiarize ourselves with and adopt the foreign,
without, however, removing its foreign quality; at the same time, they
also throw into relief our own irreducibly foreign quality in encountering
the ‘Other’. Without drawing on Foucault’s archeological methods, and
without a large-scale intercultural cooperation, such a dialogue cannot be
realized.

CONCLUSION

The constant flux of changes and asymmetric contexts renders new

assumptions on the negotiations of relationships, intercultural commu-
nication and day-to-day life and business. The intercultural approach
functions by taking into account three levels of system, the personal, the
structural, and the cultural, and the process of interculturality occurs by
focusing on three levels of action: ‘de-centring’, understanding the other’s
system, and negotiation between the systems. The concept of personhood
and capability used as a de-constructing method of nationhood narra-
tives and the use of post-structuralist approaches certainly help organiza-
tions, societies and individuals to build a knowledge management system,
making it possible to share values and to benefit from those shared values.
The most important asset and focus on investment for a company should
certainly be the human factor. Understanding and engaging the human
factor is paramount for a prospering organizational culture. Thus, the
merging points of the different cultures can be taken into account by a
focused diversity management program, based on the aforementioned
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

298 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

theoretical foundations. The intercultural and diverse encounters fill up a

space with constructive potentials for every CEO. Further research should
focus on developing the concept of personhood, as it proves to be a valid
ethical guideline within the corporate world.

Note
1. See www.euractiv.com/fr/europe-sociale/commentaire-assimilation-francaise-multicultur
alisme-anglais-modele-integration-europe/article-148250, accessed 15 July 2007.

REFERENCES

Abou, Selim (1995), Menschenrechte und Kulturen, trans. A. Franke and W.

Schmale, Bochum: Winkler.
Appiah, K. Anthony (1994), ‘Identity, authenticity, survival: multicultural soci-
eties and cultural reproduction’, in Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 149–64.
Appiah, K. Anthony (1996), ‘Race, culture, identity: misunderstood connections’,
in K. Anthony Appiah and Amy Gutmann (eds), Color Conscious: The Political
Morality of Race, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 30–105.
Beasley, C. (1999), What is Feminism? An Introduction to Feminist Theory, London:
Sage.
Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London:
Routledge.
Clifford, James (1999), Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth
Century, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davis, Angela Y. (1981), Women, Race, and Class, New York: Random House.
Etzioni, Amitai (1996), The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a
Democratic Society, New York: Basic Books.
Foucault, Michel (1977), The Archaeology of knowledge, New York: Random
House.
Gadamer, Hans Georg (1960), Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.
Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, New York:
Basic Books.
Greene, Maxine (1992), ‘The passions of pluralism: multiculturalism and
the expanding community’, Journal of Negro Education, Africentrism and
Multiculturalism: Conflict or Consonance, 61 (3): 250–61.
Habermas, Jürgen (1981), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp.
Hall, Stuart (1994), Rassismus und kulturelle Identität, trans. and ed. Ulrich
Mehlen, Hamburg: Argument.
Hall, Stuart (2004), ‘Ideologie, Identität, Repräsentation’, Ausgewählte Schriften,
Vol. 4, Hamburg: Argument.
Huntington, Samuel P. (1998), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of
World Order, London: Touchstone.
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT

Inclusion and diversity as an intercultural task ­299

Kristeva, Julia (1985), Au commencement était ľamour. Psychanalyse et foi, Paris:

Hachette.
Kuper, Adam (1999), Culture: An Anthropologist’s Account, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kymlicka, Will (1989), Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Clarendon.
Lacan, Jacques (1988), The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II, trans. Sylvana
Tomaselli, edited by J.A. Miller, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leggewie, Claus (2000), ‘Hybridkulturen’, Merkur, no. 618: 879–89.
Maxwell, A. (1994), ‘Postcolonial histories and identities. Negotiating the subjects
of “social change” and “postmodern theory”’, Literature and History, 3 (1):
64–82.
McCall, Leslie (1998), ‘Spatial routes to gender wage (in)equality: regional restruc-
turing and wage differentials by gender and education’, Economic Geography,
74: 379–404.
McCall, Leslie (2000), ‘Gender and the new inequality: explaining the college/
non-college wage gap in US labor markets’, American Sociological Review, 65
(2): 234–55.
Mead, George Herbert (1962), Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a
Social Behaviorist, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Monro, Surya (2005), Gender Politics, Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.
More, Kate (1999), Reclaiming Genders: Transsexual Grammars at the Fin de
Siecle, edited by S. Whittle and K. More, London: Cassell.
Nussbaum, Martha C. (1997), Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defence of
Reform in Liberal Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Orloff, Ann (1993), ‘Gender and the social rights of citizenship’, American
Sociology Review, 58 (3): 303–28.
Prosser, Jay (1998), Second Skins: The Body Narratives of Transsexuality, New
York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Rawls, John (1993), ‘The law of peoples’, Critical Inquiry, 20 (1): 36–68.
Said, Edward (1993), Culture and Imperialism, London: Chatoo & Windus.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky (1991), Epistemology in the Closet, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Sen, Amartya K. (1999), ‘Capability and well-being’, in Martha C. Nussbaum and
Sen (eds), The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon pp. 30–53.
Spiro, Melford E. (1993), ‘Cultural relativism’, Cultural Anthropology, 1 (3):
259–86.
Spivak, G. (1987), In Other Words: Essays in Cultural Politics, London: Methuen.
Strawson, Peter Frederick (1992), Die Grenzen des Sinns. Ein Kommentar zu Kants
Kritik der reinen Vernunft, trans. Ernst Michael Lange, Frankfurt: Hain.
Taylor, Charles (1992), ‘The politics of recognition’, in Amy Gutmann (ed.),
Multiculturalism and ‘The Politics of Recognition’, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, pp. 61–73.
Tibi, Bassam (1995), Der Krieg der Zivilisationen: Zwischen Vernunft und
Fundamentalismus, Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe.
Tiel, Reinold (1998), ‘Die frustrierte Moderne des Islams’, E+Z – Entwicklung und
Zusammenarbeit, no. 9, September, 223.
Tong, Rosemarie (1998). Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction,
2nd edn, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
GRAHAMS IMAC:Users:Graham:Public:GRAHAM'S IMAC JOBS:11651 - EE - OZBILGIN:M1780 - OZBILGIN TEXT GRA

300 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work

Toro, Alfonso de (1995), ‘Jose Luis Borges. The periphery at the center/the periph-
ery as center/the center of the periphery: postcoloniality and postmodernity’,
in Fernando de Toro and Alfonso de Toro (eds), Border and Margins: Post-
colonialism and Post-Modernism (Theorie und Kritik der Kulturen und Literatur),
Vol. 5, Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, pp. 11–45.
Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven (2003), ‘From comparative literature today toward
comparative cultural studies’, in Tötösy de Zepetnek (ed.), Comparative
Literature and Comparative Cultural Studies, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
University Press, pp. 235–67.
Waldron, Jeremy (1992), ‘Minority cultures and the cosmopolitan alternative’,
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25: 751–93.
Wallace, Michele (1990), ‘Modernism, postmodernism, and the problem of
the visual in Afro-American culture’, in Russell Ferguson, Cornel West,
Trinh Minh-ha and Martha Gikers (eds), Out There: Marginalization and
Contemporary Cultures, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press in association with the
New Museum of Contemporary Art, pp. 39–50.
Woody, J. Melvin (1998), Freedom’s Embrace, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press.