Managing differences is a perennial challenge of social life. Although such tensions appear across time, space, and cultures, their manifestations vary widely – who is in conflict and why, who is marginalized, and whether diversity is best addressed at the level of collectives, sub–groups, or individuals. Yet despite profound differences in social histories, demographic compositions, and local challenges, diversity scholarship and practice have converged on a remarkably similar, United States–based approach to managing difference under the banner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The effectiveness of many such programs remains uncertain even within the United States, raising doubts about their suitability for global export. We suggest that this convergence reflects a form of soft, epistemic neocolonialism, in which the same diversity categories and proposed solutions spread across the world through institutional influences rather than local needs or demonstrated effectiveness. While identity–based approaches may advance marginalized groups in some settings, their application elsewhere risks misalignment and the diversion of limited scholarly resources from locally salient concerns. We conclude by calling for decolonialisation and greater pluralism in how societies define and manage diversity.
Graso et al. (Mon,) studied this question.