The Importance of Heterodox Thinking in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Heterodoxy is about intellectual curiosity. Intellectual curiosity goes beyond what we traditionally frame as DEI.
Greetings good people. I am currently in the process of developing the E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System™.
Over the next several months, I will occasionally share random elements of the framework in long form. In some cases, I might revisit a concept to expand on it or share a change in direction. I will post some of my related thoughts on Substack notes, too.
Unlike other articles I’ve written in the past, this writing is raw. I am only lightly editing it and some ideas might occur as disjointed and stream of consciousness. It is me crafting a narrative of my current mindmap. Now, on heterodoxy, a critical element in the framing of the first set of skills taught in the E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System™ framework.
If you follow Jonathan Haidt’s work, you are likely familiar with Heterodox Academy. Some of my friends who work in the DEI space or adjacent to it in people and organization development roles don’t like him. His ability to act as a neutral arbiter seems to them to be against some of their core premises and ideological leanings.
I understand how that can occur to those who haven’t read him in depth or were not curious enough to examine why they have this immune reaction intentionally. I am confident that if they did, agreement might not be reached. Still, they’d be more willing to be influenced by his scholarship (public and academic) and acknowledge it is worth engaging with, if only with healthy skepticism.
The fact that some of my colleagues, who consider themselves supporters or practitioners of DEI, miss or avoid opportunities to enthusiastically (or even reluctantly) engage with perspectives contrary to theirs is perplexing and problematic. It is perplexing but not surprising. To some, a public intellectual like Haidt could be seen as a threat to some folk's ability to share their wares.
This quote (contributed to Upton Sinclair) sums it up, “It’s hard for a man to understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.”
This is problematic because Haidt is relatively pro-DEI. When someone with his depth shares perspectives that could serve as rungs in the ladder of growth for the field, you avoid them or dismiss them at your peril.
The information Haidt and other scholars who openly and accessibly share with a lay audience, pointing out thoroughly researched and broadly applicable perspectives on a field or set of ideas is akin to regularly eating foods rich in digestive enzymes. Not being willing to explore their work due to preference or convenience alone is detrimental to individual practitioners and the deepening of our capacity to make a sustainable impact in the space.
Why is heterodox thinking more important than ever for DEI?
Heterodox thinking is increasingly critical for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for several reasons. The first reason is that the foundations of DEI emphasize the significance of having a heterodox view of the world. When Jared Karol and I hosted a screening of
at his home last month when I was visiting the San Francisco Bay Area for work and a little time with my niece and mother.One of the themes that emerged from the discussion after the film was that none of the people chosen to appear in the film were U.S.-born non-whites. Director Ted Balaker recently published a Substack post about this.
The argument that a few participants shared was that the documentary featured three recent colleague graduates from Nigeria, Uganda, and India who came to the USA for their post-secondary education. All of them negatively and disturbingly experienced a focus on group identity and all that comes with that related to DEI (e.g., microaggressions training, equating identity with oppressed/oppressor dichotomies, safetyism, etc.).
The impact left them wanting to return home, rail against the ideology, or fade away into the scenery apart from this line of thinking.
Some participants at Jared’s place simply said, “They don’t get it!” meaning that if you aren’t born in the USA, it’s impossible to get what it's like to be “condemned by their DNA,” one person said.
At first I thought, DAMN! Is he referencing Kendrick Lamar? And then I recalled the lyrics of his song DNA and responded in my head, “No!”. Kendrick is not making skin color a marker for condemnation.
When one follows an ideological path without being open to influence from those who disagree, they miss opportunities for rich relationships (that are the heart of a healthy personal and organizational life) and sustainable influence. Meaningful engagement builds the capacity for long-term interaction and deepening of shared context rather than merely reacting to fleeting stimuli (e.g., like any event between the police and black people).
Openness is essential, and curiosity must be cultivated. One must establish a foundation that embraces a variety of perspectives. This allows for the digestion and understanding of differing viewpoints rather than automatic rejection. If someone holds a strong ideological stance without being prepared to consider contrary information, they may respond defensively, akin to an immune response. Therefore, developing a habit of reflexivity is essential, which involves learning on one's feet while being grounded in the right foundational knowledge.
What is Reflexivity?
Professor Chris Mowles and colleagues who research and write about reflexivity in organization development, describe reflexivity in an article about reflexive organizational development: “Reflexivity points to the impossibility of standing outside of our experience and observing it, simply because it is we who are participating in and creating the experience, always with others. Reflexivity is the activity of noticing and thinking about the nature of our involvement in our participation with each other as we create something together.”
Several fundamental elements are necessary for this foundation. One key aspect is recognizing interdependence; we are engaged in a dynamic relationship with others, regardless of agreement. Additionally, reflexivity—the ability to respond meaningfully—requires the development of habits that facilitate engagement with differing perspectives. This means being willing to be influenced by others and critically examining challenges (even those that occur as threats) to one's viewpoint.
Rejecting opposing arguments outright without listening diminishes growth opportunities and harms relationships. A certain level of astuteness and empathy is required. In his book Against Empathy, Dr. Paul Bloom discusses the challenges of empathy toward those with whom we fundamentally disagree. He argues that while empathy is easier with those who share our views, it is crucial to cultivate compassion and understanding, even in the face of disagreement.
The mindset we aim to develop involves establishing and continuously cultivating foundational knowledge. This ongoing process consists of seeking information that may contradict our beliefs. It is essential to reflect on whether our initial response is rejection or digestion, even if the information is difficult to accept. Building habits around engaging with diverse content and perspectives is vital, which is why the metaphorical digestive enzymes of heterodoxy are critical for the growth and development of a committed practitioner.
Finally, consider how we empathize with those we perceive as "others." I often refer to the "so-called other" because separation is an illusion. Disagreement on a specific topic does not mean that someone is fundamentally different; they may align with us on many other issues and ideas. Sharing our growth and experiences can help create new ways of thinking and being in the realm of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Establishing a DEI future-fit FRAME means constantly exploring what your people need to thrive.
We define inclusion in many ways. One of the primary ways we describe it is “Any action that creates the conditions for people to thrive and for the organization to be generative.”
What does the E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System™ framework’s prime definition for inclusion mean? The difference between how one thinks about a particular topic vs. who one is is like the difference between a cavern and a bridge.
First, it signals that DEI is for everyone. And it is ‘of’ everyone.
When DEI practitioners use the rhetorical notion of “centered on the most marginalized,” we set ourselves up for contention. Many who hear that are likely to conclude: “that’s not me,” “that’s for ‘them’.”
For others, the idea is that DEI is for me, not just that it includes me. This can do one of two things.
One, people take it personally when someone disagrees with a viewpoint that is in conflict or in contrast to their ideological notion.
For example, if a person disagrees with how an anti-racism intervention or training is being done a racialized person who has experienced what occurred as a racist act might conclude that the person is against “them” or everyone who shares their group identity.
As well, when DEI occurs to some as being “for” [all people with my group identity] there might be an expectation of the organization to not only be vigilant about helping people “who look like me” to succeed, but also to do so now (“Right now!”) and in the way I feel like “they” should.
The problem is, that this thinking is held without nuance or a deeper understanding of organizational context; as well as, the context of influential individuals.
Skin in the Game
Heterodoxy is about intellectual curiosity. Intellectual curiosity goes beyond what we traditionally frame as DEI. It speaks to our ability to be honest with one another across contexts. It lies adjacent to intellectual honesty and psychological safety. Intellectual honesty is one element taught in the E.M.E.R.G.E.N.T. Inclusion System framework.
To be curious takes us to another way we define inclusion, “A willingness to be influenced by the so-called “other.” I use “so-called” quite a bit when I encounter something in language that is broadly understood but is inaccurate for me.
In this case “the so-called other” is inaccurate because the “other” in this case often times is simply an individual who has a perspective, at minimum, slightly different from mine or yours. And, maximally, on an entirely different spectrum. However, that perspective is about how one thinks about a single thing, topic, or framing of an issue. It’s not about who this person is.
The difference between how one thinks about a particular topic vs. who one is is like the difference between a bridge and a cavern.
Practicing and curating a heterodox view of DEI requires one to remember what they are working to convey, who they are working to convey it to, and how to do so in a way that creates the conditions for their audience to hear and find value in it.
What happens without orthodoxy? Why is it a critical set of skills to curate and cultivate?
1. Right now, many are saying that, “DEI is under attack.” I don’t believe this to be true. To me, the criticism and attention is part of a course correction.
DEI is being scrutinized. It should be questioned. Nothing grows without questioning what creates growth and nothing gets stronger without stress factors that make it so. Kind of like strong winds creating more flexible trees with deeper and more resilient roots.
Heterodoxy and having to dance with the winds of resistance are a gift that catalyzes us to deepen our capacity. Heterodoxy is part of the path to adaptability. Without it, like a tree in a dome that hasn’t experienced winds—once it reaches a certain height, it falls over.
2. I entered a thread from an influencer on LinkedIn who declared that he was stopping the perpetuation of victimhood due to the racialized part of his identity.
He went on to declare that he had agency and privilege and he would anchor on that instead.
One person responded that he should look out for the pending D&I mob. The thread left me denying such a thing as a D&I mob, and if there is a mob, it isn’t well organized like the connotation of a crime family.
In fact, if heterodoxy is at play, notions of victimhood diminish, if not disappear, from the way DEI is framed and practiced.
If you are sharing an idea, have put thought into it and are willing to dance with the good, bad, and ugly responses–you must share it. Being heterodox makes it necessary even if it occurs as risk.
As Bob Marley said, “The truth is an offense, but not a sin.”
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
