The Words We Choose: DEI and Linguistic Relativity
The Framing of DEI in American Politics
When House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is asked about DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), he explains that these principles embody “American values”—supporting his view by referencing the Constitution, the flag, and the foundational ideals of the United States. In describing DEI as “American values,” Jeffries isn’t simply labelling policies or initiatives; he’s framing these concepts in a way that may resonate on both a moral and cultural level.
By choosing the term “values,” Jeffries uses language to suggest that DEI principles are intrinsic to the American identity—core beliefs that align with what many citizens hold dear. This strategic use of language can influence public perception, potentially making these principles appear not only acceptable but essential to the national discourse. At least, that seems to be his aim.
The Counter-Narrative: Trump’s Merit-Based Framing
In stark contrast, within hours of being sworn in for his second term, Donald Trump issues an executive order to terminate all federal DEI efforts. His order declares, “Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex.” Here, Trump employs language that frames DEI as a threat to a merit-based system, positioning it as counter to the ideals of fairness and opportunity.
The Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis and Linguistic Relativity
To me, these two examples serve as practical illustrations of the belief in the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (also known as linguistic relativity), which states that the language we use shapes our thoughts and perceptions. On one side, DEI is elevated as an essential part of American identity, while on the other, it is depicted as an obstacle to meritocracy. Both approaches reveal how carefully chosen words can frame policy debates in ways that align with distinct ideological perspectives.
Another example: consider the evolution of the word "woke." Originally, "woke" signified a heightened awareness of social injustices—a call to remain alert to issues of discrimination and inequality. Over time, however, the term was co-opted and repurposed in public discourse, often used pejoratively to dismiss or undermine progressive social movements. This shift demonstrates how language can be reappropriated to serve divergent ideological ends.
This raises important questions for DEI experts and practitioners. Should we reconsider how we label our initiatives? Might it be more effective to discuss fairness instead of equity or representation instead of diversity?
Beyond Terminology – The Limits of Linguistic Change
Is it truly that simple? Could a change in language fundamentally alter the way people think? No, I do not think so. While words do matter—and indeed, how we talk about and explain these concepts plays a significant role in shaping opinions—simply changing the terminology is akin to treating a symptom rather than addressing the root issue. Any linguistic shift must be paired with substantive changes; otherwise, critics may continue to oppose DEI, merely under new labels.
The Oversimplification of DEI as a Single Concept
Perhaps we've been grouping diversity, equity, and inclusion under one monolithic banner—“DEI”—when in reality, each may represent a distinct organisational phenomenon that could benefit from its own tailored tools, mechanisms, and processes. It’s worth considering whether we’ve fully explained what each of these elements truly entails. This oversimplification might be contributing to widespread confusion about the essence of DEI and, in turn, giving critics an easy target to dismiss the entire framework.
The Future of DEI Discourse in Europe
Returning to the examples of Jeffries and Trump’s discourse on DEI, analysing them highlights just how different the conversation around diversity, equity, and inclusion is in the U.S. compared to Europe. Describing DEI as embodying “European/EU values” can sound awkward or even out of place, considering our broader social context. Trump’s merit-based argument, while resonating with many American voters, might not align with European priorities and social models.
Do we need the same discourse in Europe? Should our conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion adopt an approach that reflects our own historical context and societal challenges rather than borrowing from American narratives? If yes, what would it be?
Language alone cannot transform attitudes or behaviours. But it may play a supporting role in shaping our collective understanding. As we consider the future of DEI in Europe, we must be intentional not only in how we frame these discussions but also in the values we emphasize, ensuring that our initiatives reflect our unique identity and aspirations.
Stay open, get informed and be kind to other people without any reason.
Magda Witkiewicz-Gavenda
