修行会

This was written in response to a Facebook thread advertising in the Aikido Seminars and Events group titled “Unity & Diversity in Aikido“ when it had been asserted that using the word “diversity” created division in a post advertising an online discussion titled “Unity And Diversity In Aikido”, subtitled “with Patrick Cassidy, Bruno Gonzales, & Miles Kessler”.

From the cheap seats over here, it wasn’t the word that created division, it was the incongruence between the topic summarized in the title with “diversity” in it and the narrow intersectionality of the authorities in chief discussion on the topic which presented a mild form of cognitive dissonance.

I live in and around on[e] of the most intersectionally diverse parts of the United States representing individuals that work for tech and supporting industries that have immigrated and/or are on visas. What’s nice here is that most of the organizations are making great strides in facilitating diversity, and it’s been a long and difficult road. So to label some perspectives “American” misses the reality that many areas of the United States do represent an effort to integrate, to apply Allport’s (1955) contact theory, and to move forward. 

As the United States, global businesses, and the world struggles with issues touching on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, we simultaneously share struggles with other global issues. It’s difficult right now, yet, I think back to the time when our leadership (I was part of it) made a decision at a prior company to mandate that all employees must attend at least three sessions at the Women in Tech conference in Seattle, WA comprised of tech workers from all around the world. We made this decision for many reasons, not just one, two, and these had nothing to do with political orientation. The results were surprising.

Actually sitting in sessions, panels discussions lead by minorities and tokenized identities taught us all numerous things. It felt good. The thing that really struck us, is that it was refreshing, it was a breath of fresh air, and it was invigorating to enjoy the success of these people (i.e., mudita) having a platform to speak from, and it was legitimated by corporate sponsorships and yes, “rich white people”. Our productivity did indeed improve after this, especially on the engineering team I had been responsible for. We clearly had inherited the white male dominated tech bias and were working against that.

So on matters of diversity, poor translation or not, this is a very sensitive topic in society and worth continued discussion. I cannot fault heuristics at work when people’s time is short leading individuals to operate on stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination regardless of perceptions. Yet, perception is core to our practice, and it is here in this space that heuristic behavior may very well lead to successes, failures, and everything between. The fight for civil rights has rang around the world as the Zeitgeist changes with new versions of labels (see Becker, 1963; Mead, 1934), euphemistic labelling in moral disengagement (Bandura, 2016), along with associated justifications and excuses. This is social ordering at work.

That all said, in the US Army there was an expression learned, “good initiative, bad judgement.” I’m not a fan of labeling (that’s a justification to excuse the future absence of deploying labels when asked to label people and meeting social resistance and pressure to label), but I do recognize the power of perception to “mark for later remembrance” according to Buddhist psychological description of perception as it relates to memory. The words are just saliently available due to repeated priming and shorter recall times due to said priming. It’s ok, it’s normal. No different than priming certain movements or responses repeatedly shortening their response times as compared to other movements less practiced etc.

So in short, this seems to be filed in the “good initiative, bad judgement” territory of public relations faux pas. It’s ok, it happens, fall down, get back up, more aware, more conscious, and able to accept the diversity of human experience. 

So in short, it wasn’t the word, it was the incongruence between the intentionality inferred in the title with the presentation of authorities offering a discussion on the title’s signified and indexed topic of discussion. That’s all. Basically it comes down to semiotics, and for what it’s worth, I can tell you in a very diverse institution comprised of people from all around the world, labeling either way doesn’t help. You’re in a position of privileged legitimated charismatic authority as conferred by a traditional authority of rank in that it is a gatekeeper to rank (i.e., legitimation) conferred onto a whole array of people who lack senior legitimated authorities representative of their interactive experience between various dominant groups (formative of personality and identity). Therefore, I cannot fault the desire for representation, because well, I’m from the United States, and representation in governance of a peoples [in a social sphere [of a practice [is very important in the part of the world [comprised of many peoples from around the world [that had been discriminated against [in their own more monocultural communities]]]]].

So good luck, and for what it’s worth, I wish you the best of luck, because from what I’ve heard Patrick, your voice hasn’t really yet come out, and that’s what I’m waiting to hear. So get out there… and maybe use that voice, once developed, to give representation and a safe place for others to have the floor, once without it. What they’re looking for is the legitimation of equal representation of their social experiences, and the sooner traditional and charismatic authority legitimates and “lifts each other up” such that this representation is available, the easier it gets, until new forms of personality/identity emerge between new groups built by the creation of new labors and well… such is the queer… always creating…

Take… musu… ai… ki… funny that… 

Beyond even identity…
Later!

Sincerely,
Another queer.

---

At this point Patrick had asked, “I appreciate that you obviously put a lot of thought in your response…and in an effort to remain as clear as possible…could you summarize your message into a more succinct form? What exactly are you trying to share here?” What follows is the reply.

---

Here are four summaries in succinct 9th, 12th, undergraduate, and graduate reading levels; a 6th grade level had been omitted as it seemed redundant to the 9th. Each successive interpretation is progressively more reliable and valid, as oversimplification (i.e., minimization) is oft a reason for the problems evident in discussion. I hope this approach is instructive. The process used OpenAI ChatGPT-4 to analyze the text, generate four interpretations at each reading level, where one was selected for each level. Take your pick. I am curious which one lands as it will instruct where rank legitimated authority in your community rests. A few edits had been made for readability and accuracy.

9th Grade Reading Level

In our conversation, we talked about how important it is for companies and groups to include people from different backgrounds and experiences, especially in technology and business. We shared a story about how attending a conference with speakers from diverse backgrounds helped a team work better and understand each other more. It was a reminder that even though trying to be more inclusive can sometimes be tricky and lead to misunderstandings, it’s really important to keep trying. We also talked about how using labels to describe people can be helpful at times but can also be limiting. The main idea is that everyone should be given a chance to share their experiences and be part of a team, which makes the whole group stronger and more creative.

12th Grade Reading Level

In our discussion, we delved into the complexities surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts within organizations in the United States, highlighting the challenges and successes of integrating diverse perspectives in the tech industry and beyond. We explored the importance of genuine representation and the potential pitfalls of initiatives that may inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes or fail to fully embrace intersectionality. The conversation underscored the necessity of continuous reflection and adaptation in diversity strategies, emphasizing that effective inclusion requires more than token gestures—it demands a deep commitment to understanding and valuing the myriad experiences and identities of all individuals. This approach not only enriches organizational culture but also drives innovation and progress by harnessing the full spectrum of human potential.

Undergraduate Reading Level 

(understanding of multicultural representation in recent global scientific literature is assumed)

The discourse critically examined the implementation and outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies within the technological sector and corporate America, juxtaposing the ideals of inclusivity against the practical challenges of operationalizing these concepts in a multicultural and intersectional context. It highlighted the dichotomy between intent and execution in DEI initiatives, suggesting that while strides have been made towards fostering inclusive environments, the journey is marred by instances of cognitive dissonance and public relations missteps that underscore a deeper need for authentic representation and engagement. The discussion further explored the implications of these efforts on organizational culture and productivity, applying psychological theories such as the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Caccioppo, 1986, 1996) to understand the nuances of how individuals process persuasive communications. This conversation underscores the ongoing complexity of integrating DEI principles into the fabric of organizational practices and the critical importance of aligning these initiatives with the lived experiences and expectations of a diverse workforce.

Graduate Reading Level

(understanding of multicultural representation in recent global scientific literature is assumed; working knowledge of communications psychology is assumed; Allport’s research that gave evidence to leading US and worldwide efforts advancing civil rights is assumed; basic literature on authenticity is assumed)

The discourse navigated the intricate landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within organizational settings, particularly in the tech industry, through a lens that integrates psychological theories such as Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM; Petty & Caccioppo, 1986, 1996). It critically assessed the alignment between DEI objectives and their operationalization, highlighting instances where cognitive dissonance and public relations oversights reflect a gap between the aspirational goals of inclusivity and the pragmatic challenges of implementing such initiatives. The conversation underscored the importance of authentic representation and the nuanced engagement of diverse groups, suggesting that the efficacy of DEI efforts can be significantly influenced by the manner in which messages are processed—either through peripheral or central routes as postulated by the ELM. This approach emphasizes the critical need for DEI efforts to transcend tokenistic measures, advocating for a more integrated, psychologically informed approach to fostering genuine inclusivity and understanding within organizational cultures.

Discussion

I hope these four framings offer a reading level, or combination thereof, anticipated and desired. In final note, do include the marginalized at the outset of coordinating discussion on these topics in advance of soliciting cooperation, as they can help avoid unseen impacts, otherwise it will be akin to a dominant solution coming from the dominant and its impact will feel like a continued suppression and tokenization of the marginalized. Clarify problems first, after this solutions will naturally arise, defer solutions until all parties agree on the problem(s).

Oh and that last sentence? This is the same as O’Sensei’s message to the world. It’s not technique. Perception… kan.

Good Luck.

---

For reference here is the original 6th grade and omitted kindergarten reading levels:

6th Grade Reading Level

We talked about how companies and groups are trying really hard to include people from all different backgrounds, which is very important. Sometimes, when people try to make everyone feel included, they might make mistakes or it might not work out perfectly the first time. But, it’s really about trying again and making sure everyone gets to share their ideas and be part of the group. We also talked about how it’s important to listen to lots of different people and learn from them so that everyone can work together better. This is a way of making sure everyone’s voice is heard and everyone feels important.

Kindergarten Level

We talked about how it’s nice to include everyone and make all friends feel welcome. Sometimes, people try to do good things but it doesn’t go as planned. It’s ok to make mistakes because we can always try again. It’s important to listen to everyone and share. By doing this, everyone can be happy and work together better.