Diversity: Staying With The Trouble

Psycho-social insights into working with diversity issues

Diversity is in the news a lot these days, and is a hot topic in workplaces and on social media.

This short essay explores why diversity is troublesome, and that to work with diversity issues we have to ‘’stay with the trouble’.  I invite you to read it noting what triggers you.  Observe your reactions and your attachments, to what you strongly agree or disagree with.  At the end of the essay I set out three steps that help us to stay with the trouble when in the diversity space, and your self-reflection will be helpful in this work.

Diversity is troublesome

Diversity is troublesome and it troubles me.  Diversity is troubling because it is not easy to speak of, and when we do speak of diversity it impacts the essence of who we are as individuals and collective groups.  What is at stake here is not something abstract but our personal and group identities. Diversity troubles me because so much commentary and works in the diversity space are polarized, with a good side and a bad side, or the trouble is swept under the carpet whereby rhetoric replaces real engagement.  

Speaking about diversity puts our identities on the line, and therefore it evokes strong feelings, sometimes conscious and often unconscious. Whether we identify with a minority group who needs recognition, inclusion, and equity, or whether we are part of a majority group, whose identity feels threatened, we react to defend our identities.  Populist politicians amplify fears of traditional group identities being diluted and overwhelmed by a ‘foreign body’. They create a ‘bad-other’ against a ‘good-self’ treating immigrants, Muslims, Jews, Gays, or other groups as if they were a deadly virus.

In the field of diversity, the idea of purity looms largely.  The pure race and the impure other, are ideas that have underpinned racist and misogynist thinking for over a century. The science of eugenics was fairly mainstream in Westernised thought in the 1930s (taken to extremes by the Nazi regime), and the idea of cleansing the nation of impurity is rising again led by white supremacists, with ideas such as the ‘great replacement theory’. Less extreme views are also held by other groups, some feminists seem worried that trans women are diluting the purity of biological women and so-called TERF feminists and Trans groups fight with vitriol over their identity rights.  

A paradox exists at the heart of the diversity issue,  for those who support diversity and inclusion the aim is to promote unity in a more equitable world. Yet in promoting diversity more differences are encouraged and exposed, and we see more categories of identities being passionately claimed.  Creating more divisions to create more unity, is paradoxical, and plays into the hands of those who thrive on division.  

The turn to right-wing populism reveals how identity politics charged with libidinal emotions have become more important to many voters than economic politics. The rise of populism in the USA, Hungary, Poland, India, Brazil, etc. has had devastating impacts on wider issues such as human rights, the economy, and the environment.  Culture wars are fought over identity issues, and watching the British political scene today, the fight for a being new prime minister and leader of the conservatives, will probably be won by the person who plays the best ‘anti-woke’, anti-immigrant, and populist/nationalist line, rather than the person best equipped to lead a country facing an economic and environmental crisis, and with a major war in Europe. 

Business & Organisational Diversity

Raising diversity issues forces us to look at ourselves and others, and to make identity choices. We cannot engage with diversity issues without reflecting and defining who we are, and how we relate to others and them to us. This is both a deeply personal issue, and it raises collective questions.  Diversity is big business in organizations. Diversity and inclusion are put high on the agenda as a badge of honor in companies because brand identity is vitally important to organizations. Internally companies want to be identified as progressive for their employees in order to attract and retain staff and there are the legal costs of disputes to consider. Externally it matters too.  Bad news stories of mistreatment of minority groups, can be devastating to a business, as customers, suppliers, and even governments can quickly turn away from them.

To be a cool brand is especially important for some organizations, it can be even more important than their products.  Coke was famously an early adopter: in 1971 they connected diversity, unity, and drinking coke with being uber cool in their famous “I’d like to teach the world to sing” advert.

However, having worked in many ‘progressive’ organisations, public, non-profit, and private, the gap between rhetoric and reality can be wide. Woke capitalism is a new term being used to describe corporations who co-opt progressive agendas such as diversity, and use them to increase profit.

Diversity is not straightforward and emotions run high in the DE&I workspace.  When discussing diversity issues, there quickly appears oppressors and the oppressed, the good ‘us’ and the bad ‘other’, victims and the perpetrators. You can be named a perpetrator without even being aware of your unconscious biases, or you may be collectively named as a perpetrator of racism by being associated with an institution that is called out as being ‘institutionally racist’ as the London Metropolitan police were in 1999. Also as a minority person, you can find yourself being labeled such as BME, (Black Minority Ethnic)  and/or treated as a victim by individuals or institutions who claim to wish to defend you (e.g. by white saviors), when you do not identify yourself with the acronym label given to you, or as a victim at all.

Diversity is troubling.  Names and acronyms are part of the trouble; DE&I stands for diversity,  equity, and inclusion and LGBTQ+ is the latest inclusive acronym I am aware of  (but usually I am a couple of years behind).  Language and acronyms can amplify existing identities, they create in-groups and out-groups, those who know and use the P.C. language, and those who are excluded because they don’t know the latest terms, or what they mean.  In my essay Political Correctness and Political Incorrectness, I explore how both of these tribes enjoy othering the ‘bad other’, and how both utilize aggression and control to deepen their ‘good-self’ identity.  Using pronouns is another example of how language is used in the diversity stakes. Using pronouns is liberating for some people who have felt boxed in by normative assumptions, finally, they can express their non-binary or gender preference. Yet using pronouns is not only a personal statement about how you identify yourself, it also says ‘I am part of the liberal-progressive tribe’ which excludes many because of cultural, class and political differences.  I recently worked on an online group relations conference where a Chinese member expressed total confusion by the use of pronouns that showed up on the screens of mainly American members, and the explanations did not clarify the situation.   

The use of pronouns also highlights another diversity issue which is hierarchy. Pronouns say what gender preference you are, but not what age, ethnicity, sexual, preference, economic class, religion, etc, therefore privileging gender diversity over other forms of our diverse identities.  Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term intersectionality in 1989 to describe how people from diverse backgrounds encounter the world i.e. all women’s experiences cannot be treated alike, the experiences of discrimination of a black woman will be different from those of a white woman, the lived experiences of a poor white women will be different from that of a wealthy black or brown woman for example. This analysis is helpful and yet it has been weaponized by both conservatives and progressive activists.  Intersectionality describes and offers accounts of differences, it was originally used to support more equity in the legal field, so that a black woman’s experience could be accounted for, not only as a woman, or as a black person, but acknowledging the specific contexts when these identities intersect.  Today there emerges a hierarchy of victimhood and privilege, some say a new caste system that overturns the old order, in this Vox intersectionality article conservative pundit Ben Shapiro described intersectionality as “a form of identity politics in which the value of your opinion depends on how many victim groups you belong to. At the bottom of the totem pole is the person everybody loves to hate: the straight white male.”

I find the intersectional discussion very helpful, but not if it’s used prescriptively. Structural and systemic issues can be overlooked as internal battles over identity take place, and personal context must always be acknowledged.

When I initially typed in DE&I, I mistakenly put the I before the E, writing DI&E.  It didn’t look right so I checked and corrected it.  I then realised that perhaps my unconscious was alerting me to the mortal danger that is very real in this space,  people do DIE due to the negative impact experienced because of their identities, often this is supported by a state apparatus as well. People are oppressed, imprisoned, and murdered for being Gay, Black, Trans, Muslim, Jewish, Roma, etc,  and marginalised groups suffer mental health issues/suicide rates at much higher levels than in the majority population. The white working class are dying too, from suicide, drugs, and violence. ‘Black Lives Matter’ is a necessary movement and perhaps DI&E is the appropriate way around to signify the real dangers that diversity issues raise.  

Language matters and it is troubling 

When talking of ethnicity, some talk of black people, which can annoy those who identify as brown or in other ways. In some parts of the world, ‘people of color’ is acceptable whereas in other places and spaces this language is regarded as old-fashioned and derogatory “I am not a person of color! I am black and proud”.   Black and White are used as if these binary groups are homogenous as if all white people or black people are the same and there is a partial truth to this. For example in apartheid in South Africa, or in the 1950s USA, to have black/brown skin put you in a different legal category and limited your human, education, and civil rights. Today in the USA, you may be a privileged and wealthy black man, but if you drive an expensive car, you (like all black men) remain fearful of getting pulled over and mistreated, even shot by the police,  simply because your skin color will draw police associations with crime, drugs, theft, etc. A black colleague of mine was very keen to move his teenage boys back to the UK from the USA, precisely because of the dangers black young men face in the USA. 

On the other hand, the diversity that exists within the terms Black or White are vast.  There is huge cultural and economic class divides within these groups, and then there are diverse categorizations such as sex, age, and ability differences.  ‘White trash’ in the US,  the British white underclass, and Irish travelers, all have terrible stats on health, education, alcohol, drug use and suicide rates - not all whites are privileged. In the USA, violence between African American males has been rampant for years with the highest death rates recorded in these groups, and African American relations with Koreans and Latino peoples are often tense, sometimes violent.  When we talk about diversity it is simply not binary or black and white. 

Then there is gender and sexuality, with new language and new identities emerging each year. The use of non-binary and queer identities is on the rise,  trans people are much more visible. Aggression, fear, and anxiety arise when diversity issues are discussed. The tensions between feminists and the trans community (if the term community makes any sense) are making the news.  Some are shocked at the vitriolic hatred and trolling that is taking place as feminists have often essentialised such aggression as more of a male characteristic. The essentialism of gender and of other differences, produce dangerous tropes that undermine the realities of difference and box people into categories… ‘women are more …., ’‘men are more……….’ Liz Truss who is attempting to become the UK’s next prime minister was accused of anti-Semitic tropes when attempting to praise the Jewish community for being good business people.

A colleague once remarked that we have become a ‘nation of stutterers’, referring to the hesitation and anxiety of speaking wrongly about diversity issues.  As I write this, I feel the stuttering sensation on the keyboard…..will I make a mistake, will I be trolled? Another trouble comes with the word ‘woke’,  which emerged from black culture to mean being awake to issues of oppression. It has now been appropriated by political conservatives and used as a derogatory term for someone who is politically correct, or ultra-liberal.   I have a right-wing friend who calls me out for being woke whenever we touch on political issues.  It’s a cheap and lazy shot, and avoids the work and engagement it takes to ‘stay with the trouble. 

Staying With The Trouble

As my coaching and leadership colleagues and students know, I often refer to Donna Haraway’s thinking. In recent work, she invites us to “stay with the trouble”.

When we feel we are getting into trouble, our instincts and westernized cultural norms tell us to problem solve, seek solutions that remove the trouble, or take flight to escape the trouble and the discomfort it brings.  To stay with the trouble is to work with the issues and challenges we meet, without expecting quick solutions or fixes. To stay with the trouble means shifting our thinking from ‘we must get rid of this bad trouble’ to ‘what does the trouble mean more systemically, and how can we engage with it for the greater good’.  Staying with the trouble is to recognise the complexities of the challenges we face, and diversity is one of these complex, knotty challenges.  Staying with the trouble, is very counter-cultural in a world that demands quick fixes, whether in economics, politics, or our personal lives, and it takes practice, resilience, awareness, and courage to face ourselves, our biases, and our fears.

To work with Diversity in any meaningful way can only be achieved if we learn how to stay with the trouble. To stay with the trouble means to hold onto our curiosity in the face of the discomfort and anxiety caused by whatever is troubling us.  It draws on the psychoanalysts’ position of working with ‘negative capability’ (Bion/Keats), whereby the analyst suspends their judgment and biases, to let go of their ‘memory and desire’ in order to pay full attention to what is being transmitted from the clients unconscious and be present to their own unconscious.   Yet Haraway’s position goes beyond vacating our minds to learn something new from our unconscious,  it asks us to pay attention to the actual trouble we face, whilst not grasping at solutions or going into flight mode.    In my coaching seminars, I remind coaches of the need to let go of their desire to be great coaches and to free themselves from performing the role of an expert professional with tools to fix the client. I invite them to ‘stay with the trouble’, which means to first work out what the trouble is. In the coaching scenario the trouble usually arises from three possibilities:

1. the challenge the client is bringing, maybe a very troublesome problem (which is not always the presenting problem)

2. the relationship between the coach and client, which I believe should be troublesome otherwise the coach is probably colluding and having a ‘nice relationship’ rather than doing ‘the work’

3. the trouble inside the coach themselves, their anxieties, defenses, and desires e.g. am I good enough?   

Taking this into the field of diversity, equity and inclusion means facing the same three challenges before we can ‘stay with the trouble’. Try asking yourself and the group you are working with these three questions before and during the process of diversity work:

1. The trouble in ourselves:  What troublesome issues arise in me/us? What defenses, desires, sensitivities, attachments, and investments do I/we hold which are evoked by this conversation?

2. Lack and Gaps: Avoiding the trouble.  What particular and/or general troublesome issues are not being addressed in this diversity conversation? What greater implications do the challenges we face have beyond the immediate issues being discussed, and are these blocking us? What is not being spoken of, what is lurking beneath the surface?

3. Troublesome relationships What troublesome relationships and group identities are evoked here? Who is powerful, dominant, vulnerable, upset, or angry in this space? Who is included and who is excluded in this discussion/process? What am I/we projecting onto others, and what are they projecting onto me/us?

The first challenge is the biggest blocker. If we do the work here, we have a chance of doing the work on 2 and 3, and if we do this work we are learning how to stay with the trouble. To work on ourselves means locating ourselves in our own histories and experiences, and in relation to others.

For example, as a white male, I will often carry the ‘bad object’ identity in diversity conversations, this may be named explicitly e.g white supremacist, white privilege, and male and stale language used, or it might be expressed more passively aggressively.  In this scenario, my identity of having a ‘good-self’ (mostly) is threatened.  I have to stay with the trouble here, and not become reactive and defensive, yet at the same time to hold onto my voice and not be silenced or resentful, as to be silenced perpetuates the trouble for all.  To stay with the trouble is to ask what meaning this has systemically.  Perhaps it reveals that these diversity conversations are one of the few spaces where others who have been silenced and oppressed elsewhere have permission to feel equity or privilege in conversation, and are able to share pent-up frustrations and anger.  As a white, heterosexual, cisgender male, I am likely to be the object of these angry feelings.  Making sense of these relational dynamics means managing my feelings of being objectified, I lose the Simon and become an object representing all white males. When we communicate, two things are always present; the conscious content of the speech, and the unconscious communication.  In this case, the objectification of me is an unconscious way of showing me how as minority groups they are treated and objectified all the time….unconsciously the communication is  ‘now see how it feels Simon!’ .  My task is to hold onto being Simon and not react with some angry or defensive stereotypical response. Staying with the trouble means holding onto thinking i.e. to be able to think in the face of anxiety.

We can all draw on and learn from our wider experiences of projections we receive. The projections (positive and negative) I receive as a white male academic, author, and consultant vary between being the expert i.e. ‘the one who is supposed to know’ (Lacan),  and being the privileged one who doesn’t understand oppression, and sometimes one of disdain or envy. This is very different from my internalized feelings that stay with me from childhood.  From being the boy thrown out of school, working in a factory, and not making it into university.  The experience of getting past both the lack of education and the childhood narrative that I was ‘stupid’ are ongoing (I have to stay with my own trouble).   My experience of being ‘othered’ as a male in a female world stay with me. Firstly as a male nurse, (treated as a lifting machine to carry heavy patients, sexually harassed and bullied by some ward sisters) and being othered as a male single parent at a young age in all women's mother and toddler groups. The experiences were very challenging but also very rewarding. I can draw on these to help make some sense of the experiences of the other, while also acknowledging my experiences are not the equivalent or the same.  Remembering not to make assumptions about individuals, and how the ‘hidden injuries of class’ and ‘personal history’ are not visible when the physical body turns up. 

The work of diversity is complex and challenging.  It is deeply personal yet at the same time, it is about collective identities, and about power structures, and systemic oppression. To stay with the trouble takes practice, but more than this it takes the commitment, support, safe spaces, and the courage to begin by staying with the trouble in ourselves.