COMPANIES DON’T HAVE CULTURES. CULTURE HAS COMPANIES

The evolution of DEI pt 2

Written by Border|Land

Harvey Dent said, “you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”. Around 2022 that sort of happened to Marvel superheroes. And DEI.

Superhero fatigue became a thing; lower (but still great) sequel revenue, stale story telling, poor reviews, over saturation and spinoffs on big and small screen, created that impression and conversation.

Followed on, quietly at first, but louder as wider cultural conversations changed, by complaints of over-politicising, moralising and social engineering of what in essence is escapism.

Around that same time (‘21-’22) media coverage/ conversations around DEI started to change.

Terms like diversity fatigue, peak-wokeness became more pronounced in narratives.

On this point David Rozado has done amazing work visualising and analysing DEI language in the media. I strongly recommend if you haven’t yet done so, to go and read his substack.

Along with less front page attention, journalists - when revisiting DEI related stories - often would delve deeper, writing and analysing issues with layers of nuance not evident before.

Media institutions, once in close alignment with the aspirations of progressive champions, seemed to delineate their journalistic purpose from the sociopolitical ones of activists.

DEI 2.0

There is no point denying the conflicts around issues of gender, free speech, race and culture. But the nature of the conflicts has started to change. Many remain firmly rooted in progressive vs conservative narratives. However, some conflicts have started to feel more like civil war.

The transgender debate is pitting self declared progressives against each other. And in the wake of the transgender debate, Muslims (longtime, if silent partners of progressives in the West) are standing up for their views.

Throughout North America and Europe, Muslim parents, kids and leaders are finding their voice and also finding their place in the progressive universe being questioned.

Teenagers and young adults seem to yearn for subversion and fun. Smoking is making a comeback. The grand narratives of cultural battles have left them a bit shell shocked. Too serious, too soon. And as the plates of culture shift, so too do the structures of corporate power.

Corporations [see BlackRock CEO Lary Fink’s ESG remarks], appear to be reconfiguring their talking points, often to the dismay of stakeholders. The once sought-after role of Chief Diversity Officer seems less en vogue.

Now, as we’ve seen, part of this reconfiguring is driven by new emerging geopolitical superordinate goals. But is everything due to that?

Polarity saves relationships

Barbenheimer broke the superhero’s back. It grossed over $2 billion at the worldwide box office, proving that audiences are captivated by vastly different films, narratives, subjects and points of view.

Cynics will dismiss this as just a ‘movie’ moment. But can we dismiss that Hollywood trusted and financially backed the hunch that audiences are at a point where cultural tension is not just tolerable, but again a desirable respite from the monolithic MCU narrative?

Now, because we’ve just had the first major counterprogramme since 2008, does this mean we’re reverting back to pre-2010 cultural thinking and doing? No.

The best thing about DEI 1.0 anger is that we can’t unsee or unhear what has been exposed.

The bad/good thing about DEI 2.0 is that going forward, won’t be as straight forward. Realignments are happening and will probably create new aesthetics that will confuse and/or offend all. From a corporate point of view DEI counterprogramming would not be about inviting more voices to find their place within preset DEI narrative and ERG structures.

It would be about having internal, senior lead discussions on if HR wants to keep reflecting or move to suppressing wider cultural sentiment, now that more sentiments don’t fit old narratives and agenda’s.

To investigate how much of DEI 1.0 support was based on alignment vs self-censorship. To harness the polarity to strengthen bonds, so employee trust and talent is not [further] lost.

The business of culture is getting more complicated and employees (like citizens) will find the ground beneath them less and less certain as new changes embrace us. Negative capability will become a must for all of us.

The good news?

Well, what doesn’t kill us, will only make us stranger..