Cultural Kaleidoscope of DEI Across Borders

This post is written by T. Roy, Junior Research Assistant at the Department of Psychology, Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai, India.

Consider the concept of bread: a baguette in France, naan in India, or tortillas in Mexico. Each serves as a staple food but differs significantly in form, texture, and cultural significance. Similarly, take English tea; devoid of masala, it may appear to someone from India as little more than flavored boiled water.

Just as bread and tea maintain their essence while differing in significance across cultures, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a universal necessity, yet its interpretation and application vary based on cultural context. Although the origins of DEI may have emerged from an American perspective, it cannot be seamlessly adopted in other cultural settings without adaptation.

The roots of DEI can be traced back to the 1960s. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, gender, nationality, religion, and sex, and this is where the wave of DEI took off. Diversity training began in response to the Civil Rights movement and equal employment laws. However, the focus was mainly on race-based integration programs in the workplace to promote diversity and a sense of security and belonging. From the 1970s to the 1990s, a significant shift in DEI programs was observed when multiculturalism gained traction. The focus expanded beyond racial issues and gender to a much broader spectrum of cultural diversity. Today, DEI programs are not just to combat racism but also sexism, heterosexism, transphobia, ableism, and more.

Unfortunately, in 2023, we saw many big tech organizations cutting their DEI budgets and dropping the program. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, even DEI experts are critiquing the implementation of diversity programs and calling DEI programs out as mere business buzzwords, failing to provide meaningful inclusivity. As we have seen these days, LinkedIn job leads by corporate companies often put up: “Our company is an equal opportunity employer…. diversity and inclusive workforce is valued…” These are called “diversity statements,” the bare minimum, if I may.

One study by Rutgers Social Perception Lab also found that DEI programs are leading to an increase in hostile attribution bias and perceived discrimination. The study also reveals within the South Asian context, while some community members promote the recognition of caste in DEI policies, others fear that this could perpetuate stereotypes. Recently, a Pew Research survey revealed that U.S. workers’ views on workplace diversity (DEI) have become slightly more negative; interestingly, but not surprisingly, it is mainly the conservatives and the White men who purport that DEI programs put them at a disadvantage. The White man might not notice a difference within his own country, but that same White man might be the difference if put up in a conference room in China or India.

So, what should DEI policies in China or India look like? This underscores the importance of how privilege and marginalization are not static concepts but are defined contextually. An important question emerges here: How can we implement DEI in a cross-cultural way and see it as more than just an “American export”?

First, it is important to understand what cultural diversity means. In today’s multicultural world, the traditional notion of diversity has evolved. As Sakshi Ghai wrote, “Human diversity is multifaceted and ought to be viewed on a continuum to promote a fair and accurate representation of the human race.” She also explains how the culturally diverse population cannot be put under the umbrella term: Non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic) population. These five dimensions overlook other dimensions of cultural diversity, such as ethnicity, religion, caste, sexual orientation, educational literacy, and more. Diversity is accommodation, not assimilation. Lin (2020) critiques the assimilation approach to diversity, highlighting how prioritizing social unity and homogeneity could lead to the erasure of minority culture, making marginalized people abandon their identities to gain acceptance.

Source: Gerd Altman/Pixabay

DEI programs and initiatives are important in providing a safe environment where historically excluded groups can live authentically—without feeling the need to hide their roots or identities to be accepted. It is not about what the space feels like; it is about who the space is for. Today, DEI policies seem no more than just sensitivity training. As Audrey Lorde says, diversity without structural change is tokenism. The pride celebrations, diversity statements, or reserved seats for a woman/LGBTQ/Black candidate in the name of representation are neither equity nor inclusion. The effectiveness of DEI often depends on cultural nuances and the context within which it is being implemented.

For DEI to succeed globally, the adoption of a “glocal” lens is needed. While the broader focus or understanding of diversity can be inspired by the Western counterpart, to diversify DEI, local adaptations have to be mixed in the Americanized DEI recipe. When viewing DEI from a cross-cultural perspective, it is of utmost importance not to get confused between DEI and cross-cultural training. While cross-cultural training primarily focuses on cultural sensitivity and how to navigate cultural disparities, DEI encompasses a broader focus on diversity and equity. Finally, the cross-cultural take on DEI focuses on how diversity in itself is defined contextually across cultures. Every culture has its own diversity issues and challenges.

Race and Ethnicity Essential Reads

Challenging Deficit Views of Black People

Healer, Heal Thyself: Addressing Vicarious Racial Trauma With Self-Care

Klarsfled et al. (2014) corroborate this point by emphasizing that managing diversity is embedded in specific regional, national, or international contexts. This emphasizes the point that the DEI initiative must focus on various dimensions of diversity (such as age, ethnicity, laws, policies, disability, economic status, etc.) relevant to the specific cultural context. The paper provides multiple cases of how diversity management would vary across countries, reflecting on the historical and social context of each country.

For instance, India’s affirmative policies are for the protection of the lower castes, while the private sector remains “caste-blind.” In South Africa, the DEI initiatives would stem from a post-apartheid context focusing on race and gender. In France, the diversity model leaves out ethnic minorities due to restrictions imposed by policies that limit the collection of data on ethnicity and race, while Canada’s equity framework focuses on four groups: Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, visible minorities, and women. In Australia, diversity management would mean focusing on indigenous populations and non-European immigrants. Nigeria’s diversity is characterized by multiple ethnic groups, religions, and languages, while in Japan, ethnic and cultural minorities do not receive much attention in terms of diversity management. So, how can we use the American-style race and gender-based initiatives in countries like Singapore, where race is considered a taboo topic overall?

To conclude, a major problem, other than the backlash of DEI in America by White men and conservatives, is why no one in the “non-Western” countries is talking about DEI initiatives altogether. What inclusion looks like in Tokyo doesn’t mirror Texas, and Paris may have its own ideas about equity that won’t translate in Pune. A glance at the Aperian’s global DEI map offers insight into how diversity varies locally. So, whether it is the English tea or the desi masala chai—the essence remains the same, but the flavor matters. Simply put, DEI works best when brewed to the local taste.