Utopia and dystopia: diversity and superdiversity
Managing a culturally diverse society is not an easy task for social institutions. There are positive and negative consequences of diversity and superdiversity, w'hich require a suitable conceptual framework for managing diversity. Though challenges exist in more or less every society, every society needs a reshaping of its regular, monotonous life conditions through diversity. The transformation of a society is a process of some inclusion and, concurrently, some exclusion among social groups (Castells, 1996). But the end of this reshaping leads to a new' social contract. Some groups are valued, and some are devalued in such a diverse society. There are both costs of and benefits to ethnic diversity (Yeasmin, 2018). Superdiversity is a complex phenomenon that inspires debates on how to understand the realities and consequences of diversity. As we see from the above discussion,
Superdiversity and the educational system 23 when it comes to a utopia, the impetus towards hopes for a positive focus on a diverse education system is readily identified. The reasoning behind these countries’ high PISA results demonstrates a hope for a utopian future in a diverse/ superdiverse society. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if we focus on social justice, then this discussion demonstrates a sense of frustration and fear of a dystopian future. Access to good education appears as a concern and a stressful phenomenon in Singapore, whereas access to quality education is easier in Finland. The impact of similar characteristics creates both fear and hope, depending on the social structures. Under some circumstances, diversity provides a perfect image of a perfect society, as diversity improves some educational aspects - resembling a utopia in a perfect way. Therefore, the cognitive value of the consequences and warnings of diversity or superdiversity to the educational system highlights that achieving the unachievable is a process of striving. In regards to the utopian discussion above, it suggests a need for a dialogue on diversity and superdiversity to generate discursive argument on dystopian aspects in a more skilful way.
We cannot step back from the dystopian impacts of diversity or superdiversity. We can hope for good solutions from our fear images that can lead to an understanding of the utopian constellation. Managing diverse classrooms is challenging, but a diverse, bilingual or monolingual class may also have higher levels of divergent thinking along with cognitive flexibility (Cox, 1991).
We can conclude from our analysis that, if there is a problem, there are also solutions. Diversity and superdiversity may be viewed as a route to dystopia. By changing the perspective, they can simultaneously appear to be the makings of a utopia. The analysis is to show that we need to be ready to acknowledge a variety of perspectives in order to recognise those features of education that are functional and those that are not.
Conclusion
The ultimate challenge of diversity or superdiversity in education systems is the rise of pluralism in the educational institutes. Also contributing to the diversity of classrooms are the numerous subcultures, different identities, and different choices of norms (Colombo, 2013). Shaping this heterogeneity requires co-responsibilities to understand diverse perspectives, which include critical thinking, adaptation, and ethical consideration in diversity management. All pluralistic views in a diverse community represent a need for innovative and effective learning to confront new situations. New attitudes towards new social structures and a new set of values could create a mirror image of utopia or dystopia in the respective society. A (super)diverse community requires key abilities to understand the concept of pluralistic approaches. If a society has the capacity to understand this and can utilise the opportunities of diversity, it can be called an example of utopia (Cox, 1991; Hoffman, 1959; McLeod & Lobcl, 1992; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Northcraft, Polzer, Neale, & Kramer, 1995; Thomas &: Ely, 1996; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 1993). However, if the society loses the capacity to learn about diversity, it can create the negative result of failure
Figure 2.1 Impacts of superdiversity (designed by NY)
(Cox, 1991; Ibarra, 1992,1995; Watson et al., 1993), which could symbolise the dark mirror image of dystopia (Claisse & Delvenne, 2015). Figure 2.1 illustrates the aforementioned processes.
We know that a utopian way of thinking in any given social structure outlines relative improvement through learning and making accommodations to the diverse arrangement. Converging and assimilating socio-ontogenetic capacities in order to absorb diverse preferences are usual traditions of utopian (Spiro, 1956) thinking (Dahrendorf, 1958; Kateb, 1971). Both of these societies are dreaming about a better education system in a society, even if it is (super)diverse. In Finland, we are making predictions about our future education system, in what is becoming an increasingly diverse community. In that case, we can rely on a critical observation of other diverse countries and their education system, such as Singapore. If Finland also continues to grow in diversity owing to increased immigration, similar to Singapore, can Finland maintain its educational quality in the future? Here, the dystopian posture has been used to defend the notion of diversity in education. When it comes to diversity and whether it is super or not, Singapore proved its success in the last PISA test, as well as in its overall educational system (Yeasmin & Uusiautti, 2018).
Thus, critical reflection on solutions that have already been implemented in diverse and diversifying situations is crucial. We have to be able to open our eyes to various scenarios. Finland cannot rest on its laurels with its eternal happiness and success; it must face reality and the new demands for quality education that the diversifying population creates. Neither can Singapore be complacent - it has to evaluate the purposefulness of its system, too. However, perhaps the comparison of the utopian and dystopian mirror images of these two fundamentally different countries, with their unique education systems, can provide a fruitful ground for further discussion.
