Abstract
The ancient parable of the blind men and the elephant, originating on the Indian subcontinent, provides an accessible example of the supposed benefit of inclusion. In the story, a group of blind men who have no knowledge of an elephant touch an elephant to discern what it is. Each man touches a different part of the same creature and from this interprets what the whole animal is. Having only their own individual frame of reference and no cognizance of an elephant, each is convinced that the animal aligns in whole to what they have interpreted by part. Unfortunately, their individual convictions affect their ability to work collectively. Hence, the moral of the story: Humans are limited in their perceptions, and ignorance of their individual limitations leads to arrogance of their actual understanding.
The challenge of each blind man in his inability to exchange ideas and face his own limitations of understanding remains today in and across populations. Arguably, the elephant can be a proxy for the common issue of climate change, as each global location feels it differently and within locations, socioeconomic and other demographic factors impact the perceived significance of changes. However, given the uncertainty of climate change and the accepted finiteness of global habitable space and resources, there is an emerging understanding of the need to include a diversity of perceptions and lived experience to assist with adaptation to known changes and risk assessment of emerging environmental issues.
However, in spite of the benefits, implementation of diversity programs even within countries can be challenging due to institutional and social impediments. Cohesion between groups cannot simply be regulated into being.
Diversity and Inclusion
Diversity and inclusion programs existed in the United States prior to the documentation of attributions of human impact on the environment by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These programs were largely led through equity initiatives catalyzed by the country's passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2023). However, evidence from the United States highlights that regulating diversity and inclusion may result in only observational data rather than any measurable qualitative evidence of the parameters (Ely & Thomas, 2022). In other words, rather than addressing inclusivity of varying perspectives, implementation has focused on physical appearance, making the intention of diversity and equity superficial rather than substantive (Sweeney, 2023). This is most easily noted in the areas of economics and finance where limited representation of women and underrepresented minority groups persist (Bayer & Rouse, 2016; Ellul et al., 2022; Girardone et al., 2021). When observable, the background and education of these groups so closely matches the dominant group comprised of white males, it is questionable if much diversity in perception exists to the same extent as physical diversity.
Interestingly, diversity and inclusion has been highlighted as a potential source of conflict (Ahmadi, 2018; Turi et al., 2022; Yasmeen et al., 2022), hence the adoption of equity and the facilitation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Equity seeks to define diversity and inclusion by ensuring that fairness and access are available to all. However, again, the institutionalization of limitations to access may not be observable or understood within a social group given different starting points, knowledge, and perceptions of history. Arguably, there is no wider umbrella than belonging (DEIB), which was appended to DEI in the 2020s, but again, how can quantitative data address a qualitative attribute?
Collective participation is founded on mutual trust. This characteristic is what precluded the blind men in the parable from working together and may yet be the limitation of DEIB. Regulation cannot eliminate distrust and may even exacerbate it, given that some agents in a system may feel that DEIB is the sole basis for observable heterogeneity.
Focus on Trust
Trust is the cohesive element that allows for exchange and consideration of information. Though hierarchy may be needed in decision making, trust between parties provides equity in access to the decision-making process and arguably, in doing so creates inclusion, enabling belonging. Trust is the basis of collective action, as the attribute allows for a belief in the common benefit of an initiative.
The US challenge of DEIB may be directly linked to the decline in trust. Data collected by the Pew Research Center noted that trust in the United States has been on the decline, with 64 percent of Americans noting declining trust in one another and 75 percent noting a decline in trust in the federal government (Raine et al., 2019). From a generational perspective, 35 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds noted confidence in the American people to respect the rights of those who are not like them, compared with 67 percent of those 65 and older.
The challenge for climate change action may be overcoming the decline in trust in the United States. The United States is perhaps the most significant country in the present period, not only because of consumerism and its cumulative greenhouse gas impact, which are cultural exports, but more importantly because of its active recognition that the limits of the Earth are human limits as well. Fostering trust in leadership from the federal to local government as well as within businesses and communities may be the missing and most crucial aspect of fostering collective action in spite of varied perceptions of the same. From this perspective, addressing DEIB may be akin to tending to only the symptom.