How Moral Perspectives Can Shape the Debate on Diversity

This was previously posted on pixlz.com which is the home of my reckons. To find out more about how I empower neurodivergent professionals to thrive at work visit http://21cmindset.com

This one is a bit different to my usual type of post tbh. I first read this theory in a 1996 article, which I didn’t come across until July 2023. It absolutely hit me like a bolt from the blue. I could see the effect of these ideals everywhere. See what you think, I’d be interested to know.

The rollback of diversity and inclusion efforts in the United States can be viewed through the lens of the strict father morality model, which emphasises authority, control, and a traditional view of how society should function.

George Lakoff, in his books such as Moral Politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant, The Political Mind, and Whose Freedom?, contrasts two metaphors for understanding politics: the strict father model and the nurturant parent model.

Lakoff argues that when the nation is metaphorically viewed as a family and the government as a parent, conservative politics align with the strict father model, which emphasises self-reliance and discourages dependence on government assistance. In contrast, progressive politics correspond to the nurturant parent model, which prioritises protecting and supporting citizens to help them achieve their potential, often through measures like environmental regulations or healthcare assistance. These models reflect fundamentally different perspectives on the role of government in society.

Why These Models Clash

The strict father model and the nurturant parent model are fundamentally opposed. When one is active, it inhibits the other. For instance, when strict father morality is dominant, it suppresses the empathy and understanding central to the nurturant parent model, and vice versa. This dynamic makes it difficult for the two frameworks to coexist, as each views the other’s values as a threat.

Here’s how I think it relates to diversity and inclusion:

1. Rejection of Diversity

The strict father model values a hierarchical structure, where a clear authority figure (the “father”) determines right from wrong. This mindset prioritises a single, traditional way of life and views differing perspectives as a threat. In contrast, the nurturant parent model, which values empathy and understanding, tends to embrace and promote diversity.

This model tends to attribute problems to individual failings rather than systemic issues. For example, someone’s lack of success is often blamed on their lack of discipline, rather than historical discrimination or systemic inequality. As a result, there is resistance to understanding and addressing the broader societal factors that impact marginalised groups.

2. Focus on Individualism and Competition

The strict father model highlights individual discipline and self-reliance, viewing society as a competitive arena where the “disciplined” succeed and the “undisciplined” fail. This clashes with diversity and inclusion efforts, which address systemic inequalities and advocate for policies that support historically disadvantaged groups.

3. The “Merit-Based” Argument

Under the strict father model, success is seen as purely the result of individual effort and discipline. This belief often fuels opposition to affirmative action and diversity programs, which are seen as unfairly favouring certain groups. However, this perspective ignores systemic barriers that prevent marginalised groups from succeeding within current societal structures.

4. Traditional Roles and Moral Authority

The strict father model often reinforces traditional gender roles, positioning the father as the head of the household and the mother in a supporting role. This mindset can lead to resistance to LGBTQ+ rights and progressive changes that challenge conventional family and gender norms.

The strict father model promotes a worldview of absolute rights and wrongs, leaving little room for differing perspectives or ways of life. This rigidity often results in opposition to diversity-promoting policies, which are seen as undermining traditional values and authority.

What Can We Do?

To counteract resistance to diversity and inclusion, we should:

• Stay true to our values.
• Use language aligned with those values.
• Communicate directly with people who hold mixed (biconceptual) views, appealing to their nurturant side.
• Write alt text to allow people to experience our content who might otherwise be unable to do so. Ahmed Khalifa said “Learn to write alt text like you’re painting pictures with words”
• Ensure that we are speaking to lots of different people to understand their needs when we are designing services.
• Affirmative action may be a no but giving the best person the job is not and there is more to being the best person for the job than going to a certain school or college.
• The Unit of Delivery is the Team (words by Jamie Arnold, visuals by Paul Downey) and diverse teams are more successful (more to follow).

I will be doing all I can to live to my values. I have another post brewing about why diversity is important and given my interest especially cognitive diversity.

Will I look back on this post as the reason I didn’t get that piece of work? Ah well, living to my values. *presses Publish*

Originally published at http://pixlz.com on January 27, 2025.