Across many institutions, current conversations about diversity and inclusion begin from a sincere aspiration: to widen participation, strengthen belonging, and improve the quality of our shared life. These efforts have helped surface overlooked experiences and have, in places, led to meaningful change.
At the same time, practitioners and researchers have raised concerns about how these aims are pursued in practice. In organizational settings, a "principle–practice gap" can appear when commitments outpace capabilities or incentives.[1] Some initiatives can drift toward visible gestures that are easy to execute but hard to translate into durable shifts in customs or decision-making.[2] Over time, this can generate skepticism among both proponents and critics, and it can blur the language we use—what “DEI” names and what it does—in ways that obscure underlying questions of power and practice.[3]
This chapter proposes a different framework for understanding diversity, one that moves away from static categories and corporate mandates to a more dynamic and generative model. It posits that a more robust understanding can be achieved by viewing society not as a single entity to be managed, but as a complex and evolving ecosystem of what will be termed 'enclaves'. These enclaves are not defined by fixed demographic traits but by shared, learned systems of customs, practices, and aesthetics. The central thesis of this chapter is that the friction experienced at the boundaries of these enclaves—the feeling of exclusion—is not a social pathology to be eradicated. Rather, it is a fundamental and productive force in social life. This friction is the engine of cultural development, creating a motivational tension that drives individuals toward one of two constructive paths: the mastery of an existing enclave's customs through a form of apprenticeship, or the innovation of new customs through the creation of a new enclave.
To develop this model, this chapter will proceed in several stages. It will first define the nature of the enclave, drawing on concepts from sociology, learning theory, and social theory to describe it as a living, immersive cultural environment. It will then explore the psychology of the boundary, examining how the experience of exclusion functions as a powerful signal that motivates action. Following this, the chapter will detail the two primary responses to this motivation: the path of apprenticeship, which leads to inclusion within an existing group, and the path of innovation, which leads to the creation of a new one. Subsequently, it will turn to the responsibilities of those inside an enclave, arguing that insiders have a duty of stewardship to preserve the quality and integrity of their unique customs. Finally, the chapter will introduce the concept of 'meta-rules'—a higher-order framework based on the principles of agonistic pluralism—that governs the interactions between enclaves, ensuring that the competition between different custom systems remains civil, productive, and guards against the dangers of permanent, oppressive exclusion.
To build a model of social diversity, it is first necessary to define its fundamental unit. While terms like "society" or "social group" provide a starting point, a more precise concept is needed to capture the dynamic and culturally specific nature of human association. The term 'enclave' is proposed here to describe these units, which are far more than simple collections or aggregates of individuals. An enclave is a coherent social world, a distinct sphere of human activity defined by a shared system of practices, values, and aesthetics.
At its most basic level, a social group is understood as two or more people who interact, share similar characteristics, and possess a collective sense of unity. Sociologists define a society as a group of people who share a common culture within a definable area. Culture, in this context, refers to the group's shared practices, values, beliefs, norms, and artifacts—it encompasses a group's entire way of life, from routine interactions to its most important rituals. An enclave, therefore, is a concentrated manifestation of a specific culture, a social unit held together by common motives, an accepted division of labor, established status relationships, and shared norms that are enforced through sanctions, both positive and negative. It is a space where a particular set of "cultural rules that govern social life" are operative. This initial definition, however, is static. To understand how enclaves function, grow, and reproduce, it is necessary to see them as living, learning systems.
The concept of a "Community of Practice" (CoP), developed by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, provides a dynamic framework for understanding the enclave. A CoP is a group of people who "share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly".
First is the domain. An enclave is not merely a network of friends; it has an identity defined by a shared domain of interest. This domain creates a sense of common purpose and implies a commitment among its members, fostering a shared competence that distinguishes them from outsiders. This competence need not be a form of expertise recognized by the wider world; it can be any shared endeavor, from a group of engineers solving similar problems to artists seeking new forms of expression.
Second is the community. In pursuit of their shared domain, members of an enclave engage in joint activities, discussions, and mutual support. They build relationships that enable them to learn from one another. This interaction is essential; simply sharing a job title or being listed on the same website does not form a community. The members must interact and learn together, even if they do not work side-by-side daily. The Impressionist painters, for example, formed a community by meeting in cafes to discuss their emerging style, even though they often painted alone.
Third is the practice. An enclave is more than a community of interest; its members are practitioners. Over time, through sustained interaction, they develop a shared repertoire of resources: experiences, stories, tools, and ways of addressing recurring problems. This shared practice is the tangible expression of the enclave's collective knowledge. It can be developed consciously, as when engineers document their lessons learned, or more informally, as when nurses share patient-care strategies during lunch breaks.[4]
This CoP model reveals the enclave to be an immersive learning environment. Wenger notes that the term was originally coined to describe the community that acts as a "living curriculum for the apprentice". This transforms the understanding of inclusion. To become part of an enclave is not a matter of gaining permission or being granted access; it is a process of deep, embodied learning through participation in the enclave's practice.
While the CoP model explains the social mechanics of an enclave, the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu explains the deep, often unconscious, nature of its customs. Bourdieu's concepts of 'field' and 'habitus' provide a way to understand how an enclave's culture is internalized by its members, becoming a "second nature".[5]
An enclave can be understood as a field, which Bourdieu defines as a specific social arena—a domain of interaction with its own organizing logic, its own "rules of the game," and its own "stake at stake".[6] Each field values different things, and what confers power or status in one field may be irrelevant in another. This valued resource is what Bourdieu calls 'capital', which can be economic (money), but also cultural (knowledge, taste) or social (networks). The enclave, as a field, is a structured space where members compete and cooperate according to a specific, localized logic.
Within this field, members develop a corresponding habitus. Habitus refers to the deeply ingrained habits, skills, dispositions, and ways of thinking that individuals acquire through their upbringing and long-term immersion in a particular social environment. It is not a set of rigid rules but a socialized instinct, a "feel for the game" that guides a person's actions, preferences, and choices automatically, often without conscious thought. The habitus is what makes a person's behavior seem natural and appropriate within their enclave; it shapes their sense of what is possible, what is valuable, and what "feels right".
The relationship between field and habitus is reciprocal: the field structures the habitus, and the habitus, in turn, helps to constitute the field as a meaningful world. Social reality, in Bourdieu's view, exists twice: externally in the structures of the field, and internally in the embodied dispositions of the habitus. The 'practice' of an enclave, as described by Wenger, is the very mechanism through which the external field is internalized, creating and reproducing the habitus in its members. This process of inscription explains why joining an enclave is a profound transformation, requiring the gradual reshaping of one's most intuitive ways of thinking, feeling, and acting.