Social Justice Acronyms
- rrossparker
- Mar 10, 2024
- 5 min read
Making Sense of the Alphabet Soup
In recent years there has been a plethora of acronyms that have emerged to describe various models of social justice topics and initiatives: DEI, EDI, DEAI, DEIA, DEIB, IDEA, JEDI… Similar to what has happened in the 2SLGBTQIIA (or Pride) communities, there is real potential for the meanings to become diluted or lost in an expanding and tongue-twisting alphabet soup. The very nature of social justice movements does not lend itself to uniformity – one size rarely fits all, especially when a key ingredient is diversity. But can there be an umbrella term that is descriptive, memorable, and easy to use?
Roots of this term, and much of the movement and policy, can be traced to US President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Executive Order where the term “Affirmative Action” was first used in this context. The policy was expanded by his successor, President Lyndon Johnson, through Executive Order and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The movement continued to grow until it virtually “exploded” (from Time Magazine) following the Me Too and Black Lives Matter Movements and the murder by police of George Floyd. In 2024, there are now laws, policies, procedures, advocacies, trainings, and entire movements that fall under the umbrella of “social justice”. But this is both too loosely defined and too specific, with Justice being just one of the ingredients.
Let’s start with the basics of these acronyms:
A. Access commonly refers to providing physical access for those with mobility challenges, such as persons in a wheelchair. It is increasingly used to describe a wide range of physical challenges, such vision or hearing impairment, and cognitive or neurodevelopment disorders. It is also aligned with behavioral issues, such as those with emotional trauma.
B. Belonging may be characterized as “having one’s voice being heard". It is defined as a “close or intimate relationship”, and as a “sense” (or feeling).[i] Dr. Erin L. Thomas at Upwork defines belonging as “the extent to which employees can show up to work fully without having to sacrifice meaningful aspects of their identity”.[ii] It is “the emotional feeling that an individual or group feels when their identity, diverse characteristics, and unique needs are seen and accepted.”[iii]
D. Diversity has been characterized as “having a seat at the table,”[iv] specifically for people outside of the mainstream, typically those who are not white, male, heterosexual, and cisgender (one whose anatomy aligns with their identity). Age, culture, religion, class, and even opinion are also frequently included. Biases or acts of discrimination that include the suffix “ism”, such as “racism”, are likely to be included.
E. Equity is commonly described as “equality of outcome”. It derives from the Latin word meaning “Even”, “fair”, or “equal”.[v] In some societies, the E refers to Equality and is commonly described as “equality of opportunity”. Equality is frequently described as people just needing to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", which may work for thow priviledged to have bootstraps or boots.
I. Inclusion has been characterized as “having a voice at the table”. [vi] It refers to social inclusion, “the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded”[vii] - because of an inherent characteristic - with the goal of improving people’s ability to take part in an activity, group, or society at large. It is sometimes used as a counter to exclusion, in particular social exclusion, which has been legally defined in Italy as "social alienation combined with poverty".
J. Justice is the concept that individuals are to be treated "impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law” and any person or structure wielding power. Creating justice is seen as dismantling oppressive or unfair structures and systems. [viii]
So, how are these inter-related?
Access, Diversity, and Equity are inter-related and interdependent.
They do no require Belonging, Inclusion, Justice.
Inclusion requires Diversity, Access, Equity.
Justice requires Access, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.
Justice does not require Belonging.
Belonging requires Justice.
A broadly-encompassing term for social justice would reflect more of an outcome than an action and would incorporate other concepts that serve as building blocks. This would place Inclusion, Justice, and Belonging at the top of such a pyramid diagram, supported by Access, Diversity, and Equity.
In my own work with JEDI committees, Justice was sometimes considered to be an end result or goal. The others were considered building blocks or steps to be achieved along the way. Justice strives to be impartial, fair, and rational. That sounds like a solid base upon which to build or start. But does it create a result that is positive, or is it merely the absence of negative? For emotional beings such as humans, what about the positive feelings, such as connection, support, and happiness? These are what contribute to our social-emotional well-being.
Of these single-letter identifiers, Inclusion and Belonging are specifically linked to emotion, to feeling. Inclusion can be both an action and a feeling. Other than admitting someone to an identifiable and restricted group, Inclusion is in common parlance more closely linked to a positive feeling and a positive outcome. Belonging is clearly a desired outcome, perhaps the most sought-after for any social being, especially humans. it depends on perception, of more than just facts and circumstance. Having a sense of belonging meets the needs of both our primitive and higher order brain functions. On the hypothetical social justice pyramid, Belonging would be the shining beacon at the top.
For an acronym, there are several combinations of the two or three ultimate goal-oriented single-letter identifiers (A, B, D, E, I, J) that are brief and easily identifiable. But most can be disqualified as they are widely used elsewhere, for common words, phrases, or companies; some simply do not roll off the tongue naturally.
DEI meets these criteria, and that is perhaps a major reason for its common usage, but it does not rise to the inclusive and descriptive umbrella being sought. Is DEI the new Queer? It has become a near-pejorative amongst partisan conservative groups and DEI initiatives the target of laws against “wokeness”. Others are also embracing it to reclaim it, similar to how the Pride Community has embraced Queer to reclaim it from negative connotation.
I&B (or I+B) is the sole acronym that meets all of these criteria, as does its full name, Inclusion and Belonging. If we were exploring this two decades ago, before any acronym had risen to prominence, this would be my recommendation.
JEDIB (or JEDI-B or JEDI+B) offers an easy transition from those who recognize JEDI. But when pronounced – it lends itself more to pronunciation as a word than to saying each letter individually, as with DEI+B - it is not familiar.
DEIB (or DEI-B or DEI+B) has the benefit of name recognition; at least 3/4 of it is recognizable in this context decades into these acronyms. The B is an easy add and satisfies the criteria for emotional inclusion. This is my suggestion. It is also descriptive, memorable, and easy to use.
What would you like to see?
Notes:
Kommentare