There is a COST of Inclusion
Here are two ideas from my book, Reconstructing Inclusion: Making DEI Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable and other texts I leaned on in writing it. In addition, I’ve included one quote, a book recommendation, and a video or article that has inspired or influenced me and hopefully will resonate with you, too. (That’s ✌🏿+ 💡📚➕).
Page 58-60
"For companies whose business models depend to any degree on AI (and that pretty much means all companies given how ubiquitous it is), there is a cost that must be paid if keeping customers and talent is important. It is the COST of inclusion. That is Care, Openness, Safety, and Trust.
There is a COST of inclusion. It comes from creating the conditions for people to feel like and perhaps even unambiguously know (as much as this is feasible) that their well-being is prioritized by tech (all) companies; that they care; and that they are open with you because they want to ensure with full trust that you are safe as employees, vendors, or consumers of their products.
Related post: Many of our organizational DEI initiatives fail because we fail the Terminator test
In his ethnographical work looking at algorithmic systems, anthropologist Nick Seaver suggests that the issues don’t lie in the biases of an individual. Seaver’s observations suggest that the popular view of algorithms isn’t congruent with the actual practices in how they are created and evolve and by whom they are created. The “makers” of algorithms would not call themselves as such because the piece(s) of code they wrote would be, as a rule, changed by the next person who interacted with it. The final result(s) are multiple algorithms in motion, designed by multiple actors, often without direct connection. Even when they do have direct and regular access, it may not mean much. Given the speed of projects and the volume of work they do, sense-making about code written fifteen months ago is not very likely or very productive.
"So, algorithmic systems are interdependent works of collective authorship by design. They are made, maintained, and revised by many people with different goals at different times. And once these systems reach a certain level of complexity, their outputs can be difficult to predict precisely, even for those with technical know-how. Simply making the system transparent does not resolve this basic knowledge problem, which afflicts even “insiders.”
Without built-in evaluation systems, the fear of algorithms making the machines turn on humans (à la Terminator or the inevitable job losses due to technological advances of AI) is real. In theory, algorithms could produce a cataclysmic event, just like in the Terminator franchise. It’s more likely that algorithms, with limited or low-frequency feedback loops, will create oppressive results. Results like past Google results (prior to the company updating its algorithm) when people typed “Black Girls” into the search engine and got pornographic content leading the results. This is indeed a negative result, and one a tad more likely than a large former top bodybuilder showing up to kill his adversary before he was born. And perhaps it’s a bit more possible than machines using humans as living batteries to power a digital world, à la The Matrix."
Related video: DEI practitioners must be beacons for dissent
Page 60-62
"We tend to take what is most quickly presented as familiar. For example, consider the predictive text feature on most smartphones. You start to type, and a suggestion for what you should say comes up. In some cases, these suggestions, if enabled, allow you to be pointed to popular language on the web and social media. This is fine, but it also drives us toward sameness. It feeds us things that allow us to have a common preference for a certain lexicon.
One impact is that you are presented with language that resonates and that you incorporate into your lexicon. When you are posting on social media, using certain phrases and idioms, it is being reinforced as the language of your in-group. It is like a feedback loop: Language suggestions → Incorporated into personal lexicon → Lexicon is used in social media → Other people using the lexicon follow and connect, effectively reinforcing their discovery of what they prefer.
We all do this, and it’s similar to finding our in-group. DEI people are great at it! We have our own language, inaccessible to most, but each day we try to make it more mainstream by incorporating popular language that is “celebrified” and is desirable by a mass audience. This makes DEI a bit cooler, trendier, more aware of social issues than others. And perhaps a bit more conversation-worthy, especially when topics of mental health, celebrity social justice causes, and identity activism often focused on celebrities are discussed as they are discussed as they are included in the DEI bucket.
The problem is that echo chambers are exclusive. Only certain ideas and people get to enter; most of the time, we let in that with which we are familiar. It is a common trap for DEI practitioners. We too easily attach to particular ideas which can compromise our ear for dissent. DEI practitioners need to be beacons for dissenters. Our responsibility is to home in on the quietest (or even silenced) voices and the loudest resistance. Part of our reason for being is to understand the sentiments, contributions, and insights that come from all areas of the organization."
Related post: DEI Conversations Beyond Echo Chambers
💡A Quote
“The Western conception of the person as a bounded, unique, more or less integrated motivational and cognitive universe, a dynamic center of awareness, emotion, judgment, and action organized into a distinctive whole and set contrastively both against other such wholes and against a social and natural background is, however incorrigible it may seem to us, a rather peculiar idea within the context of the world’s cultures.”
― Clifford Geertz, “On the nature of anthropological Understanding” (1975, p. 48)
📚A Book
Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community, Kenneth J. Gergen
A few excerpts:
“If innovative scholarship is the outcome of hybridity, of impurity, or blurring the boundaries between disparate realms of reality, disciplining is its enemy. There is no “thinking outside the box” without risking banishment from the box.” (p. 210).
“To think critically is essentially to deliberate on one tradition through the discourse of another. The advantage of the critical thinker is not in having the superior tradition, but in being capable of seeing the advantages and disadvantages of both traditions. The critical thinker who claims superiority of perspective, not only loses this advantage, but strangulates the potential for action.” (p. 261)
“If we understand that all rationales and values originate within relationships, and are essential to sustaining these relationships, our options expand. We are not destined to remain ignorant, disgruntled, and possibly vengeful. In particularly, such conflict may also be used as a stimulus to curiosity. Like many people, I typically avoid talking with people who advocate “stupid” or “inhumane” positions. Likewise, I suspect they avoid talking with me. Yet, this is precisely the moment in which active inquiry into the other’s realities is most needed.” (p. 168).
➕An Article
How The Trans Movement is Erasing Black Women from History: Setting the Record Straight About Pauli Murray
by N3VLYNNN
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, we talk about the importance of listening for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and how it can be practiced and improved upon both personally and professionally. Raquel Ark, the Founder of listening ALCHEMY, shares insights into her background, growing up between cultures, and how it shaped her understanding of different perspectives and listening. Raquel emphasizes the role of listening in high-stakes situations, the need for humility, and the impact of listening on building trust and effective communication.