Picking up on my previous post, I have been considering what I can do, what actions I can take, that would serve as a course correction for my thoughts on DEI. I no longer want to give the impression that I give whole-hearted support to all DEI efforts when I really believe that more nuanced dialog is needed. Yet I also want to avoid the appearance of participating in the DEI backlash that is equally un-nuanced. My goal is to contribute to more productive dialog, and to somehow seek a moderation of the more polarized opinions.
When making a course correction of this type, I try to make an assessment of my past actions – acknowledging the limitations of my own worldview – and evaluate the degree to which I have been successful in advancing certain ideas, and also the opposite, the degree to which I have come up short. I also challenge myself as to whether I have done enough to really understand a problem, or failed to see how a change in circumstance has impacted my approach. I also have to consider the possibility that maybe I was wrong about something.
There is a saying that I find very useful in situations like this – that a person is more likely to act their way into a new way of thinking than to think their way into a new way of acting. It’s a practical theory of change that says that our thoughts and feelings are more likely to be changed by taking action as opposed to advancing forceful ideas or wishful thinking.
In my opinion, too much of DEI has taken the less productive path of thinking our way in into a new way of acting. This is characterized by taking positions that are based on abstracted systems of oppression and just expecting others to go along with it, or advancing theories about white privilege or white fragility without being sensitive to people who feel unfairly villainized by these concepts. These are all theories that may help explain why certain things are the way they are, but when it comes to everyday human interactions and just trying to be better at what we do, these abstract theories can become barriers to understanding how people who just want to get along can work together better.
What DEI means for me, or for any other individual, is going to be different depending on the circumstances of the situation at the given time. Our different disciplinary backgrounds, organizational roles, personal histories, interests, and differing political, economic, and social perspectives lead us to frame problematic situations in different ways. And sometimes, it becomes necessary to seek out multiple perspectives to better understand how a predetermined course of action is affecting different stakeholders, which is, ironically, where many DEI efforts fall short.
This is what has prompted my turn to pluralism, which is a philosophy of social understanding that engages multiple perspectives. Rather than relying upon theoretical ideas or abstract concepts, pluralism is characterized by a robust, active engagement with diversity and involves real encounters and relationships between people with diverse beliefs and/or practices.
Through a focus on real-world actions and solutions, pluralism offers a more practical way of dealing with a situation or problem with methods that are based on experience and tangible results. It emphasizes things like give and take, speaking and listening, and respectfully considering real differences in relationship to one another. And, importantly, it offers a better way for individuals to act their way into a new way of thinking.
Hello, I'm Lisa Meyer 