How is trauma connected to diversity, equity, and inclusion work?
When I say “trauma” I mean: a wound and an event or series of events that overwhelm one’s ability to cope.
Some close colleagues and friends who work in the diversity, equity and inclusion space view trauma as I do. We see trauma as something that can range from an interpersonal to a sociopolitical (combining social and political factors) experience. Oppression and specifically racism, is an example of both. Other people in the mental health space, the majority of whom are white, view trauma from a narrower lens, and for example, do not think to include racism and other forms of oppression in the definition of trauma. Other people in the corporate and legal space hear the word trauma and immediately associate it with mental illness or think I am diagnosing them when I use the work in a training. Trauma is connected to the DEI space because:
The impact of being Black and working in predominately white spaces can be distressing.
Daily microaggressions and experiences of marginalization that inevitably show up in the workplace impact the ability to cope.
These are experiences that often result in an uneasiness of being and potentially threaten the physical, spiritual and emotional safety of people of color.
I was motivated to write this blog because I have been questioned lately on the use of the word “trauma” in the DEI space. As an associate professor and as a DEI trauma-informed consultant, in the course of one day I enter several different spaces to do this work. I operate as a social work professor in a classroom, a woman of color in a predominately white institution, a consultant for technology start-ups, large non-profits, the private corporate space and the legal space. This means I have to change my narrative to fit the language and the culture of the classroom, the academy, and the various organizations and agencies I enter. I am grounded in trauma-informed diversity, equity and inclusion practice yet I am also aware that the word “Trauma” brings up an emotional intensity for folks.
I am aware that for the most part, as a society, we do not work across silos, we remain grounded and very comfortable in our “skill sets” and ways of knowing. For example, we stay in our discipline. Rarely are we looking at our work from an interdisciplinary lens but rather from a fixed mindset connected to the discipline we were trained in. A way of being that feels safe and comfortable for many and to me, like a very small world filled of people just like us, essentially void of diversity in body, mind, spirit, language and ways of knowing.
The question for me is when you hear the word “trauma” used in any space, are you using the skills of curiosity and asking what it means, how it is related to the topic at hand, or are you assuming that you know and then come to a conclusion and make a judgement based on your way of knowing?
We generally see and respond to the world through our individual lens that is grounded in our personal histories and ways of knowing. Any interruption of this way of knowing may feel uncomfortable. That means when we hear the word trauma, we have an emotional reaction to how we define the word, regardless of how it is being used. Yet, when we hold onto our epistemologies and constructions of our identities so tight, we constrict ourselves literally and figuratively. As a result, we may miss opportunities to expand our lens, thus blocking or obstructing our ability to engage with different ways of being and knowing, in this case, specific to diversity, equity and inclusion.
In everything I do, I strive to be curious and not assume. That practice does not always work because sometimes I react and jump to my meaning rather than question how a word or concept fits in a certain space, and wonder what I am missing. But ultimately, DEI work involves an unpacking of the language and suspending our ways of knowing, using the skill of curiosity in an effort to engage in sincere ways that foster belonging and build diverse spaces.
Trauma is at the heart of diversity, equity, and inclusion work because repeated acts of marginalization, oppression and racism are wounds that overwhelms one's ability to cope.
More specifically, unintentional acts of exclusion, not seeing anyone on leadership that looks like you, bringing up the need for diversity in a meeting and seeing people look away or the room goes silent, not receiving credit for an assignment, repeatedly being interrupted, being called the wrong name, being asked about the taste of food from your perceived culture, referring to a person of color as articulate, being looked over for a promotion, feeling the need to stay silent in a meeting because you feel your opinion is not valued, ignoring the everyday realities of being Black in American today. These are wounds and trauma is the reaction to wounds.
These are the traumas that show up in the work space that are often not named or discussed for many reasons. Some of those reasons may include the denial and lack of recognition of these spaces and acts as actual “traumas,” and because of the discomfort, shame and pain that accompany conversions centered around race, inequity and disparity, particularly among white leaders.
I encourage leaders to a closer look at which behaviors and standards are valued, rewarded and communicated. What are the organizational norms? Does everyone know that these are the norms? Are these norms grounded in an ideology of white supremacy? Is there room to offer new and different ways of being? This is an inclusion inventory that moves beyond things like “diversify the board,” “increase the hiring of Black and Brown partners,” “bring in more diversity.” This focus on bodies only provides an institution of whiteness with color and while perceptions can be changed by said quantitative measures and performatives, it takes naming oppression as a form of trauma and the working collaboratively to change culture through our work with ourselves and others.