A Critique of Chloé Valdary’s Theory of Enchantment

INTRODUCTION:

The Failure of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (“EDI”) Training and the Alternative Presented by the Theory of Enchantment

group of people in conference room
Photo by Christina Morillo on Pexels.com

 EDI training is a popular tool for addressing discrimination in the workplace. However, research demonstrates that EDI training is failing in its purpose. In this paper, I propose that there is an alternative to traditional EDI training. One which works and is likely to engender and support the anti-discrimination objectives of traditional EDI training in work settings. The substance of this alternative to traditional EDI training can be found in Christian theology. Here, it is important to emphasize the key difference between Christian theology on the one hand, and adherents of Christian theology or Christians on the other. The former is a philosophical worldview aimed at the transformation of conflict – both internally (within the individual) and externally (between individuals). The latter consists of people aiming to live out that worldview; often with mixed results. I demonstrate that the Christian theological approach to dispute resolution has been well captured and mainstreamed by an emerging form of EDI training, namely Chloé Valdary’s Theory of Enchantment (“ToE”). In doing so, I have taken it for granted that EDI training is a form of dispute resolution, put in place by organizations to proactively or reactively respond to discrimination including bias, both conscious and unconscious, with the ultimate goal of promoting workplace harmony and productivity.[1] To manage the breadth of what could be said on this topic, I focus on EDI training in the workplace and not other EDI practices such as hiring policies and mentorship programs. I also focus on the type of discrimination often reported by blacks and other minorities namely unconscious or implicit bias which I define below.

I have divided this commentary into five parts. In part I, I present a brief methodology of this essay and define core concepts. In part II, I summarize relevant reasons, based on research, why EDI is failing as well as the opportunities presented by the situation. In part III, I show how ToE presents a new approach to EDI training. This is followed by a critical analysis of this approach in view of Christian theology in Part IV. In part V, I consider some implications of ToE in the world of EDI training and conclude.

PART I: Method, Definition and Relevant Context

This commentary is based on meta-analyses on EDI training over the years, particularly the work of Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev[2] as well as Katerina Bezrukova, Karen A Jehn and Chester S. Spell.[3] I also draw from first-hand experience of EDI training, including a high-level version presented during an online intensive course on the theory and practice of dispute resolution, by Linda Ippolito[4], as well as EDI training from the ToE website where anyone can access the full course for a fee. Primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography guided my analysis and assessment of Christian theology and the subsequent critique of ToE.

What is Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Training?

Decades ago, the buzzword for anti-discrimination at the workplace was “Diversity.” Employers prided themselves as equal opportunity employers who wished to have diversity represented in their teams. Unsurprisingly, the result of this effort was window-dressing in the form of tokenism of blacks and minorities.[5] The one black or disabled person was often placed on workplace brochures as evidence of diversity in the organization. Often, the “token” was not doing meaningful work or truly included in the workplace culture and structure. Concrete steps to remedy inequities and promote inclusion were often lacking.[6] It was in this context that EDI as an inclusion and equity-centred approach to workplace discrimination was born.

EDI has traditionally taken various forms; from mere incorporation of ethnic minorities into the workspace, to training and workshops, as well as hiring policy and practice.[7] Nowadays, EDI training has become a hot topic because of several key incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the extra-judicial killing of George Floyd and the simultaneous rise in anti-Semitism and anti-Asian discrimination in the western world in particular – a region of the world that foregrounds this paper.

EDI training may be defined as training to enable people to learn to work effectively with others who may be different from them, without bias or discrimination such as based on ethnicity or creed, and by purposefully ensuring that all people, regardless of any differences are represented and included in the organization, to increase overall success of both the organization and individuals.[8] The training often emphasizes, one or both of awareness or behaviour change. In the former, an attempt is made to help participants identify their cognitive or attitudinal biases and heuristics that may affect their behaviour.[9] In the latter, attempts are made to help participants monitor their actions, including what responses are appropriate in common circumstances.[10]

EDI training often uses a generalizing framework to point out the importance of patterns in human behaviour.[11] This has been referred to as the multiculturalism framework. The multicultural framework categorizes individuals predominantly by their ethnicity.[12] Critics have pointed out that this approach results in the (in)advertent pitting of one ethnic group against the other, setting the stage for more conflict.[13] Still, others such as Robin DiAngelo, a white American woman, known for writing White Fragility, a seminal work in which she highlights the need for white people to recognize their group behaviour in the field of EDI, points out the need to use these generalizations in EDI training. She explains that, to avoid these racially defined generalizations is to ignore informative patterns of behaviour in the EDI field. Blanket statements on human nature are insufficient because these “invalidate” the experiences of particular people groups such as black people.[14] However research from the above meta-analyses shows that the multicultural or class-based framework is a leading cause of EDI failure. This point is discussed further in Part II.

What is the Theory of Enchantment (ToE)?[15]

ToE entered into the EDI space in 2018 in a response to criticisms of traditional EDI training. The point of departure of conflict resolution in the ToE is not how do we combat hatred but how do we get people to love? ToE uses the arts as a tool to make blanket statements on the nature of humanity, emphasizes the ties that bind including our common capacity to do both good and evil. ToE uses principles elicited from this observation of human nature to support its ultimate goal of love of neighbour as a cure to the ills of conflict particularly those manifesting as discrimination including unconscious bias. Chloé Valdary, the founder and author of ToE is an African-American woman with a Christian upbringing, and an early career experience in fighting anti-Semitism. According to Valdary, the title: ToE was fitting because it opens up humans to the complexities of one another, to be enchanted by the marvel that the other is: a composite of good and bad.[16]

PART II: EDI Failure & The Opportunities

Reasons for EDI Failure

Why is EDI training failing? Several reasons have been identified including the problem of time: training alone is insufficient to cure a long-term ingrained issue such as unconscious bias. Another common reason is that white people have reported feeling ostracized, excluded and have consequently reduced support for EDI training objectives.[17] This is a significant problem because the success of these trainings needs everyone on board – especially white people who reportedly occupy a significant portion of organizational leadership.[18] One meta-analysis of human resources specialists found that EDI training had no effect on the careers of women or minorities.[19] In addition, from multiple field studies, EDI training failure also was found to be the result of misalignment of expectations from participants of these trainings.[20] These include the expectation that short-term educational interventions in general would change people; the unrealistic confidence that the training instills in anti-discrimination programs; the (in)advertent aggravation of stereotypes by sheer focus on these during these trainings; and participants tend to react negatively to programs that attempt to control their behaviour.[21]

On the bright side, these studies identified that EDI training is likely to be successful when they engage decision makers in solving the problems themselves; use multi-pronged diversity measures so that the training is part of a wide system of change; and when we manage our expectations by incorporating patience because EDI trainings – which lay bare deeply rooted problems – will take a lot of work and time to be effective.[22] EDI training would also be successful when the multiculturalism as a framework is inclusive of white people or the majority culture. This way, the majority culture responds better for the sake of the minorities in the context.[23]

Three Opportunities

Jean Paul Lederach, in his game-changing Little Book of Conflict Transformation, said conflict is “an opportunity, a gift.”[24] I believe he is right because ToE emerged as a response to the failure of EDI particularly in organizational settings. Before delving into ToE, it is important to recognize other opportunities at the juncture of EDI failure and dispute resolution.

i) An opportunity to address the unique nature of non-overt racism

First, EDI training of the twenty-first century is tackling a post-civil rights type of bias. This is the type of racism which does not consist of overt acts of racism such as policemen hosing away at Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow protestors. This is a “new manifestation of racism” in the form of unconscious bias. Benson and Flarman define unconscious bias as “learned beliefs, attitudes and stereotypes about a particular race” which are often very subtle in their manifestation and may seem minute when taken as an isolated event, but considered of significant effect when taken together because of the potential to take a cumulative toll on the person on the receiving end of such biases. [25] Laws such as the Civil Rights Act in the US or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, may not easily offer protection from unconscious bias since its forms are often less concrete, and easy to explain away. Examples include “microaggressions”[26] such as repeated questions to black people relating to their ethnic origins even if they were born in Canada and have ancestral roots in the country.

This post-civil rights type of racism or bias is why critics and leading voices in the EDI space are calling for an avoidance of the binary of racist/non-racist and to understand that racist or biased acts do not have to be intentional to have the same effect as an intentional act of racism or bias.[27]

Given the myriad of influences in our lives as humans, the learning of unconscious bias may happen in complex ways. This suggest that the unlearning of such biases requires a process of EDI training that is sensitive to this fact: that “unconscious” was probably learned unconsciously and therefore the EDI training framework applied should preferably not be accusatory of any individual or class of people. How can this be achieved given the individual’s right to freedom of expression and to conscience? How can this be achieved in the private sector, where many EDI trainings play out and where profit-seeking is often prioritized over subjective experiences? These are some of the questions that emerge in this situation which suggest the need for a type of creativity that would enable EDI to better respond more effectively.

ii. An opportunity to use the Conflict Transformation Lens

Secondly, the failure of EDI training, is an opportunity to uproot the training from the sphere of dispute resolution into the sphere of conflict transformation. There is an increasing recognition of the need to resolve long running and deeply contextual conflict such as racial discrimination, with conflict transformation and not merely conflict resolution. According to JP Lederach, the shift from resolution to transformation requires our response to conflict to be both “short term responsive and long-term strategic.”[28] In other words, the process designed to transform conflict should be adaptive, encompassing both subjective and objective; particular and systemic issues that make up the situation. Lederach summarizes conflict transformation as a “life-giving opportunities for creating constructive change processes that reduce violence, increase justice in direct interaction and social structures [sic], and respond to real-life problems in human relationships.”[29] To reduce violence requires understanding of the “underlying patterns and causes” of the conflict at issue including its “peaks and valleys,” and to see presenting issues as a window only to a larger context.[30]

Finally, conflict transformation requires a process response that integrates multiple frames or at least represents these as much as possible, given the overlapping issues that tend to materialize. In the case of racial discrimination, intersecting frames include gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, among others.

iii. An opportunity to incorporate lessons from other fields

The field of dispute resolution is increasingly borrowing from other disciplines to improve its conceptualization and program design to be more responsive to the human needs at the base of conflict. Firstly, neuroscience research is increasingly intersecting with psychology, resulting in an increased awareness that humans are primarily emotional beings.[31] This realization is posing a seismic shift in dispute resolution because for decades, and centuries since the enlightenment, the notion of man as a rational being has dominated legal and other studies in philosophy and the human sciences. Knowing this, how should EDI training pivot its approach? For instance, should the notion of White Fragility – the attempt to bring awareness to white people that they, as an ethnic group, generally tend to have an unhelpful defensiveness to EDI – be incorporated into EDI training? Would not an emotional reaction by white people, given what we know from neuroscience, be an inevitable response? If so, should we not find another effective way to include white people if we are to achieve the objectives of EDI? According to the ToE, the answer to both of these questions are in the affirmative, and this is likely a part of ToE’s success to date in the EDI field. Moreover, ToE’s incorporation of the arts as a tool that attracts and guides conflicting parties into a positive space, is a lesson that Valdary learned from observation of pop culture. The incorporation of the arts – both by analogy and concretization – is a growing part of dispute resolution in general because of its ability to unite parties that otherwise have nothing in common due to conflict.

The rise in human psychology in dispute resolution is another element that can be harnessed by any attempt to improve EDI. As often iterated in dispute resolution texts, human needs are at the root of conflict.[32] When this is understood in view of Abraham Maslow’s widely accepted hierarchy of human needs we note that after fulfilling our basic needs of housing, shelter, food and security, we humans tend to look for transcending values such as love, belonging and self-esteem in the first place, followed by the need for self-actualization.[33] Since these needs are not concrete or tangible, they are described as “self-fulfilment” or, in my view, spiritual needs. The current failure of traditional EDI training is an opportunity to assess how these spiritual needs may be incorporated in EDI training programs.

In Part III, I demonstrate how the Theory of Enchantment seizes some of the above opportunities at the intersection of EDI training and dispute resolution.

 

PART III: The Theory of Enchantment: Love as an Alternative to Traditional EDI Training

Content of the Theory of Enchantment

 

In this section, I demonstrate that the main elements of ToE, detailed below, are based on the theory of love found in Christian theology. I believe that Christian theology was a good source for Chloé Valdary to draw propositions of love given that Christianity – particularly its orthodox forms – provide a rich scholastic history and extensive publications on the meaning of love. These include scriptural interpretation and the deposit of divine revelation contained therein as well as tradition.

Both Valdary and Christian theology presume that love is the answer to any conflict. I join them in this presumption. Objectively, the fact that Christianity boasts the largest amount of religious following on earth, and given some of the positive feedback the ToE has received, my presumption that love is at least an attractive component of human relationships is reasonable.

Before providing a summary of ToE below, it is noteworthy that given the newness of ToE, it was difficult to find any summations or analysis of the program from credible sources. I believe my summary of ToE below with the critical analysis that follows could be among the first of its kind.[34]

ToE is presented to the participants using three principles. The culmination of the first two prepare you for the third – love.

Principle 1: Remember that we are humans not political abstractions.[35]

The first step in learning to love one’s neighbour in ToE is to see ourselves and others as human and not caricatures. The participant of ToE is guided through various artistic snippets to understand the complexity of what it means to be a human. The goal is clear; no human being is totally good or totally bad. Rather, we are guided to understand human nature as a composite of good and bad. A perpetrator of racism could at the same time be a loving father to a child at home. On this point, the participant of ToE is guided through an analysis of rap lyrics by the Pulitzer-Prize winning hip-hop artist, Kendrick Lamar, who in his rap entitled “DNA”, says “I’ve got power, poison and pain in my DNA.” Lamar’s lyrics and the guided analysis by Valdary illustrates the range of capacity in the human condition. One comes to understand very quickly that to be a human means being imperfect and the implication is the need to have compassion for one another.

This principle of seeing the humanity in ourselves and also in others can facilitate connection with others. It is the reason a board room full of white male executives in the ToE training could connect with Kendrick Lamar, a black hip-hop rap artist. According to studies at the intersection of neurobiology and psychology, this connection is crucial for building meaning in our lives, both as individuals as well as in relationship with one another.[36] However, for these connections to happen, we have to “let ourselves be seen” – good and bad in ourselves exposed – and “lean into the discomfort” that ensues. The discomfort of knowing that we are not perfect and that others can see that we not perfect.[37] In letting ourselves be truly seen, we could quickly see similar patterns in the cards of others and engender a deep compassion and mercy for one another’s flaws and consequently become more understanding and encouraging of one another. This baring of cards could also enable the rejection of the notion of perfection. A rejection of perfection conditions us to support one another and prepares us to forgive one another. This sub-principle of letting ourselves be seen is coached into the ToE participant’s awareness through open introspection. This is aided by a guided analysis of the lyrics of a song by John Mayer, titled, In the Blood. In this song, Mayer confronts his own complexity. He worries about reproducing family or parental errors stating: “how much of my mother has my mother left in me? Could I change it if I wanted? Will it wash out in the water, or is it always in the blood?”[38] A similar exercise is carried out with the lyrics of Prodigal Son by the musician, Rationale, in which he says “I wanna hold counsel with the ghost of my father. Tell him I’ll be everything he could never be.”[39]

Finally, in the training on this principle, participants are coached on the practice of stoicism: a type of principled detachment to check the emotional response that our neurobiology automatically unleashes in difficult situations. Using the example of Martin Luther King Jr., participants of ToE are guided through several levels of self-inquiry and practices to help them with stoicism. These include whether a particular situation is within my control; to learn to see things from an above all or a “zooming out” vantage point; to meditate on my mortality; to understand that things are fleeting, to train our perception to avoid boxing every person as strictly good or bad and to practice misfortune or dealing with negative things positively; to be better prepared for the future which no doubt, will contain things we do not like as much as things we do like.

In all, this principle trains participants to condition themselves to see themselves and others in a new light. One that highlights our complexity particularly the human capacity for good and bad. It also prepares participants to understand and exercise compassion, forgiveness and generally, to positively view and accept distasteful things in themselves as well as in others.

Principle 2: Criticize to empower not to tear down

Participants of ToE are guided to see that criticism of others must be done with the compassion learned at Principle 1. Therefore, those forms of criticisms which stroke the ego of the critic are not properly placed in this framework of love. Arguably, this is what happens in the concept of white fragility in traditional EDI training since by default, white fragility implies that non-whites are not fragile in the EDI context.

To assist participants to embody this principle, ToE shows participants how to conduct appreciative inquiry. A model that helps stakeholders engage in self-determined change.[40] The three core inquiries are recognizing and treating the other person as human and a subject not an object; recognizing the other’s capacity to change and asking yourself whether your criticism is animated by your belief in the other’s capacity to change. Does your criticism distinguish between the person and their behaviour? All these questions are to apply not only to our criticism of others but also to our own self-criticism.

For embodying this principle, the I have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King is analyzed with participants. In this speech, King interweaves the greatness of America in its past feats and in its continued potential for more greatness with his criticism of an America that was yet to truly liberate African Americans. Similarly, the commencement speech by Denzel Washington at the University of Pennsylvania and a similar speech by Dr. Joyce DiDonato at Julliard are assessed to map out the same patterns of a criticism that both affirms and transcends problems presented by the generations that made up their respective audiences.[41]

This principle ultimately conditions the participant to see, to hope for and to draw out the good at the site where bad is manifesting. This is in accordance with the premise at principle 1, that all humans are a composite of both good and bad and are thus capable of both good and bad actions at any given time.

Principle 3: Love

This third and final principle is the “apex and pinnacle” of principle 1 and 2 in ToE.[42] Love is taught here not as a mere emotion but as a verb. Valdary specifically refers to it as agape love. It is noteworthy that agape love is a Christian form of love that Christians are to aspire to.[43] Agape love is:

…not referring to some sentimental emotion. It would be nonsense to urge men to love their oppressors in an affectionate sense […] When we speak of loving those who oppose us […] we speak of a love which is expressed in the Greek word, Agape. Agape means nothing sentimental or basically affectionate; it means understanding, redeeming goodwill for all men, an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return.[44]

In view of principle 1 and 2 and the above definition of love in ToE,[45] we ought not to pigeon-hole people but to see that they or the person is always, and unconditionally, worthy of love and compassion by virtue of being human, no matter the monstrous behaviour they have engaged in. We see this in our laws that protect perpetrators of crime through procedural fairness rules and proportionality rules to ensure that the punishment fits the crimes and that mitigating factors impact sentencing. In our day-to-day lives, we do this by breaking bread with those with whom we have conflict to restore connection, and ultimately to empathize with them: to love, even when there is no reciprocation because love is transformative of both the lover and the beloved. Ultimately, this practice of love allows humans to transcend their proclivity to do bad with a decision to do good.

Valdary concludes reiterating that the change brought about by ToE as a form of EDI is not always immediate in its effect. The learnings of ToE require daily practice and is ultimately the foundation for a lifestyle change for the propagation of love: love as a preventive and reactive substance in relationship to conflict.

Methodology: ToE versus Traditional EDI Training

ToE is similar in method to EDI in terms of its use of a workshop style-participatory framework aimed at both awareness and behavioural change.[46] The main difference in the methodology from, on the one hand, my assessment of the meta-analyses of EDI trainings discussed at part I as well as my direct experience in such training and on the other hand, my participation in the ToE online course, was the curriculum or substance of the training. Traditional EDI training tends to focus on “laying bare”[47] apparent or current conflict arising from the lack of inclusion, bias or discrimination faced by people of colour among other minorities whereas ToE, on the other hand, focuses on the human conditions that can lead to discrimination and bias and creates awareness about those conditions so we can guide our behaviour away from them.

Another key difference is the unit of analysis. While EDI tends to work with generalities based on class or particular social groups such as blacks, whites, Asian and so on, ToE “zooms out” working with one class: the human race. However, ToE does have unit-based expectations for change, and that is at the individual level. It is implied that change – systemic or not – must begin with the individual’s awareness of the complexity of themselves and others. Afterall, systems and structures are often made up of individuals.

There are also differences in what I describe as the “by-product” of the unit of analysis in EDI and ToE respectively. Proponents of traditional EDI training see the necessity in emphasizing ethnic classes as a precursor to mapping the issues to resolve them.[48] While there has been backlash in response to this approach, proponents defend their method citing the need to generalize as necessary to map class-based tendencies in the conflict and to assess whether these facilitate or exacerbate conflict and to work towards eliminating these tendencies accordingly.[49] In this regard, they argue discomfort of participants should be expected[50] and can be addressed by a repeated act of humility of all participants, including by the EDI trainer who could share her own ongoing learning and need for introspection to check her own (in)advertent contribution to bias and discrimination.[51]

On this point, ToE does not appear to have the same issue as traditional EDI trainer. According to Valdary, this is because ToE is like the Japanese martial art, Aikido, which teaches participants to respond to conflict with two simultaneous actions: defend themselves and at the same time, protect their attackers from (further) injury because the less your opponent is injured, the less he will want to injure you.[52] In this sense, Valdary suggests that ToE gives participants the tools such as empathy to protect themselves from the injury of bias. The idea is that the perpetrator of bias is a complex being whose actions may be explained by other factors that are not totally related to the victim. In addition, ToE gives participants tools to discuss human social problems such as bias and discrimination with compassion such that no particular class is labelled or accused.

The Christian Elements of ToE

Christian Theology in Principle 1 – Remember that we are humans not political abstractions

Christian theology recognizes that all humans, regardless of ethnicity or other difference have inherent dignity, haven been made in the image of God.[53] However, Christian theology also acknowledges the complexity of the human person, noting that there are “two laws at work” in all human beings.[54] One is tended toward the good and the other toward evil.[55] This is because human nature which was originally perfect later changed through the bad choices of the original man and woman, namely Adam and Eve.[56] The implication of this change in human nature is that human beings cannot be perfectly good without the discomfort of an internal battle between choosing the good option versus the bad at every instance. However, because of this potential for good that remained in humans, God saw it fit to condescend to become human in the person of Jesus Christ, a man who lived and walked on earth and who willingly accepted his own torture and execution as an atoning sacrifice for the restoration of access to the original perfection for all humans. Details of the mechanics of this salvific act are beyond the spatial limits of this paper. It is sufficient to understand that Christ accepted suffering to win for humans an end to the hopelessness that resulted from being cut off from their original perfection. Humans can now access their perfection by a principled knowledge and practice of love on this earth which will come to perfection (without the discomfort of the two laws at war internally) after death.

On this basis, Christ set an example with his life, charging all to imitate him: to see the good in others and not reduce them to the evil they have done or which they are capable of doing. Moreover, Christians are to practice a type of stoicism, commonly mentioned as self-control; and a certain resignation to and acceptance of suffering for the sake of the other.[57]

Christian Theology in Principle 2 – Criticize to empower not to tear down

Nowhere is this principle more apparent than in the behaviour of Jesus Christ. Jesus separates the sin from the sinner, always forgiving the latter even while charging them to sin no more. This was the case in his encounter with a woman caught in adultery who faced death according to the Mosaic law. Jesus also overrode the conventional practice of avoiding certain ethnic groups such as the Samaritans and the Syrophoenicians who his fellow Jews saw as “dogs” for various reasons including cultural or religious practices that the Jews found abhorrent.[58] He engaged too with fellow Jews who were known publicly as sinners and ostracized.[59] He called one of these to be a close disciple of his. A shock, no doubt, to many but for Jesus and for Christians, a proof of the redeemable quality in humans and the power of criticism done in love.

Christian Theology in Principle 3 – Love

To attain the third principle of love, Christians must see themselves in others – and do unto them as they would have done to themselves.[60] They are to recognize that “no one human is good but God alone”[61] because “all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.”[62] Moreover, and above all, they are to see the true meaning of love in the person of Jesus who is described as love incarnate in Christian theology.[63] Therefore, everything he did including letting himself be killed and converting that horrific public execution into a sacrifice of atoning quality, was a model of love. Christian love is cross shaped because of its vertical dimension (love of God) and its horizontal dimension (love of neighbour).[64] The Christian must optimize love by standing at the point where both vertical and horizontal dimensions meet. This is the position of Christ on the cross which indicates that we must aim to combine both dimensions of love and that this act will entail suffering that is salvific. This dimension of love as inclusive of acceptance of suffering is missing in the ToE principles and is a subject matter taken up in part IV.

ToE Seizes Opportunities

ToE arguably incorporates the three opportunities undedicated in Part II. The lesson from neuroscience and psychology that humans are more emotional than rational is seen in ToE’s classless approach and its emphasis on compassion. ToE also appears to address non-overt discrimination including unconscious bias through its incorporation of self-reflection via appreciative inquiry, although it is not clear how ToE provides justice to victims given that injury from bias is still an injury whether one empathizes with the perpetrator or not. This issue is taken up in Part IV

Out of all three opportunities identified in Part II, ToE best seizes the opportunity to incorporate conflict transformation into EDI. When we assess ToE in light of the core elements of conflict transformation above, we find that ToE consists of conflict transforming properties. First, ToE uses the presenting situation of bias and discrimination, particularly the forms based on race and ethnicity, as a window to the wider issues about the human condition, including our capacity for good and evil; our “peaks and valleys,” our common experience of suffering as well as our need for understanding, compassion, empathy and love. It is integrative of multiple frames because it does not focus on a particular form of discrimination or bias, but all forms. The three principles, and love above all, can be applied to a wide range of specific situations. To individuals, to groups or classes of people and above all, to humanity in general. This makes ToE adaptive but also “short-term responsive and long-term strategic.”[65] This is because the conceptual framework of ToE is tied to the human condition. A frame that is a constant in all types of conflicts across time. Moreover, since humans make up or control institutions and systems, these structures may be transformed by individuals re-conditioned by ToE. The new perspective that ToE plants in its participants gives them lifetime tools to deal with all forms of conflicts in human relationships. In addition, because it is more inclusive than traditional EDI training in its reduced or lack of emphasis on particular social groups, ToE training is likely to be imbibed by all people at all levels of an organization, meaning that EDI objectives could be met in a system-wide and sustainable way.

PART IV: A Critical Analysis of the Theory of Enchantment: The Missing Parts of Love

I noticed that ToE receives profoundly good testimonies as displayed on their website. According to Valdary, these testimonials are voluntary and are not actively elicited from participants.[66] However, Valdary admits that not everyone is happy with the ToE approach to EDI. Critics have called the ToE “insufficient at best” and “very much problematic.[67] During my research for this paper, it was difficult to find any formalized or published critiques of ToE. This is likely because of the relative newness of ToE and the fact that its rival, traditional EDI training, is an older, more established, self-sustaining industry whose sheer size overshadows ToE.

To address this gap, I propose a critical analysis of the ToE based Christian Theology’s development of love as a transformative agent in human relationships. Since Christian Theology is an older, more established field based on a theory of love which has influenced both religious and secular spheres – including the foundations of great democracies such as the US’ – it is reasonable that ToE be assessed from this point of view. In so doing, I have identified two main areas that need improvement in ToE. The first is reactive justice or justice in response to an act of discrimination. Currently, this appears to be overshadowed by a tilt towards mercy in ToE. The second is the question of collective identity. ToE focuses on the individual and how the individual ought to respond to bias or discrimination and how to avoid being a perpetrator of these acts. However, it seems to avoid the concept of group suffering or group perpetrators. However, these are realities that are not only recognized in traditional EDI training but also in Christian theology.

Justice

ToE’s emphasis on mercy is at its foundation. The first principle of ToE: to treat others as humans and not as political abstractions is a merciful starting point because it suggests that someone carrying out a racist act – even an overt one – should never be described as “racist” since that would be reducing him or her to a caricature. Valdary has criticized the apparent clamour for justice in EDI by leading black voices of traditional EDI as more indicative of their spiritual (not material) need. One that cannot be attained by rehashing historical wrongs done to blacks such as slavery. [68] She underscores the success of blacks particularly in America overall and suggests, in other words, that many blacks in their grievances in the EDI space are seeking the spiritual goods at the peak of Maslow’s hierarchy which the material or human remedies such as a museum of black history, apologies, hiring practices in EDI, cannot satisfy.[69] I agree with Valdary on this point. However, it is important to note that ToE as it stands is unable to meet that spiritual need. To be fair, and by all indication, ToE never set out to meet that need.[70] However, it is important to explain how ToE could meet that need should Valdary decide to address it through ToE or to guide those seeking to complement their ToE training.

The missing piece in ToE is justice. What to do with the pain of unconscious bias? In Christianity, mercy is fused with justice – both proactive and reactive forms. Mercy and justice are not alternatives or opposites.[71] The fusing of these two concepts is quintessentially Christian because arguments opposing them littered the historical landscape[72] before Jesus Christ became man and fused the two in his use of his crucifixion to simultaneously gain justice for God and mercy for humans. According to Christian theology, the death of Christ atoned (justice) for the breach of Adam and Eve and simultaneously[73] became the source of restoration (mercy) for humanity. Christ’s restoration begins spiritually on earth and comes to completion in heaven, after death.

Due to the fusing of mercy and justice in Christianity, and because of a premise that the logic of God – being in the realm of infinite goodness – surpasses that of human perception, Christian theology rejects a narrow conception of justice as it is often defined in human understanding and indicated in justice systems and conflict resolution processes.[74] Jesus transforms the concept of justice into one in which the offended not only shows mercy to the offender through compassion, as captured by ToE, but also one in which the offended chooses forbearance.[75] The victim of an injustice must forgo his right to justice, to put an end to a cycle of injustice and vengeance that could otherwise ensue between parties to a dispute.

This does not suggest that the victim will never get justice and should forgo it permanently. According to Christian theology, the victim of an injustice has three options: the first is restoration through a remedial process in which they are placed back in the position before the breach. This implies a type of judicial or quasi-judicial processes that can enforce such remedies and is an option for justice that is better suited to overt acts of racism or the types anticipated by legislation. However, for subtle forms of discrimination such as unconscious bias and racism, the Christian has two simultaneous options collectively known as redemptive suffering.[76]

Redemptive suffering is a suffering integrated into and matured by love. One that is accepted, “voluntarily and innocently.”[77] Essentially, redemptive suffering is a sacrifice made by the offended to forgo or postpone the rightful need for justice against a perpetrator. In so doing the offended frees the perpetrator from fear of punishment which, due to an innate sense of natural justice, would often emerge in the mind or conscience of a perpetrator after their act of wrongdoing.

The first aspect of redemptive suffering is to accept the discomfort and suffering; and “offer it up.”[78] The act of offering up one’s suffering to God is a popular response to suffering in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. All it takes is a personal choice. An act of the intellect and will: to speak or say in one’s being the intention of giving one’s suffering over to God. The idea is that because God – whose nature is infinite goodness – can do much more with that suffering, the human who has no such power, is better off giving their suffering to God. While this may not take away the pain or injury, the Christian knows that a lot of good will be done with such an offering. At the spiritual level, to offer up a victimization is a type of prayer. A powerful one because one fuses their suffering with that of Christ – which is believed to have infinite value given the infinite nature of Christ himself. Often, the offeror makes the offering for the sake of an intention. Everything from the conversion of the perpetrator of injustice, to the healing of a sick friend can be intentions for which the sacrifice of offering is made. No good intention is disallowed. The offering-up process allows the offeror to convert an otherwise painful experience to an active offering for a good purpose. Essentially, the victim becomes a hero and this is empowering.

The second and simultaneous option for Christians facing non-overt discrimination is to postpone their present right to and need to remedial justice to the end of time. In Christian theology, this postponed justice is known as an “eschatological” or end-time event. It is based on the premise that the world is finite. At the end of the world, there will be cosmic justice characterized by a separation of good from the bad with the former entering heaven, a world of permanent goodness and love (heaven) and the latter entering a world without goodness and without love (hell). This process, known as the “final judgement” is anticipated by a “particular judgement” of each individual who dies before the final judgement. At both the judgements, any wrongdoing or sin perpetrated against another human being would be accounted for through punitive experiences that are either short term (purgative) in purgatory or permanent in hell. By all accounts, these punishments consist mainly of a separation from God who is the source of all goodness. Since man was made for good, this separation causes a suffering of a type unknown on earth, where goodness remains accessible to us. The idea of eschatological justice is a psychological comfort to those who do not receive remedies for injustice they face on earth. It also facilitates their ability to offer up the suffering and ultimately let go of the anger.

These theological approaches to justice for non-overt discrimination should be read in context of all other key Christian theological principles such as love, and the inherent dignity of man. This is an important point because it illustrates that the victim of such discrimination has a healthy “worthiness” and agency to fall back to and which helps them cope with present suffering. For instance, a black woman whose hair is styled by braids popular among blacks but not among the majority culture, and who is indirectly or directly (through exclusive policy) criticized as unprofessional for having the hairstyle, may choose to let go of this pain by leaning into her inherent dignity and her hope of eschatological justice, while offering up the suffering encountered for her family or for the sake of her colleagues at issue.

Ultimately, redemptive suffering is a paradox. It is the use of suffering as an instrument of freedom from the same suffering. It is also a gift of peace from a victim to a perpetrator who may live in innate fear of punishment for the wrong done. Meanwhile the victim is able to move on in joyful hope for an eschatological justice while enduring whatever pain – physical or moral – brought on by the wrongful act.

Given the centrality of justice and mercy in Christian love, the Christian theory of love as a whole is a place of paradox. One that invites us to be comfortable in discomfort, to sit in the intersection of seemingly opposite truths. If we do not embrace the paradox in this manner, then we would end up in the “paradoxical distress” described by James Baldwin in the opening quote of this paper. To fuse justice and mercy, it is important to embrace and reconcile the opposing truths all around us because they are an inescapable part of our human condition. In a recent interview, Valdary herself, appears to be pondering and propagating the power of paradox as a welcome part of conflict transformation although how this will play out in the ToE’s incorporation of justice in this regard is yet to be seen.[79]

Valdary arguably incorporates some of the concept of redemptive suffering in the ToE by the inclusion of appreciative inquiry (at Principle 2) which includes an acknowledgment of the redemptive value of one’s past suffering to prepare one for compassion for others. However, this element without redress for the injustice such as an offering up or the act of patiently waiting for eschatological justice, means that the incorporation of redemptive suffering in the ToE is only partial.

Without incorporating some concrete outlet for justice, the question of what to do with the pain or injury will continue to linger over ToE. In traditional EDI training, the concept of White Fragility, is an example of a response to this search for some form of outlet for remedial justice in EDI. Its generalizing allegation of a certain weakness in all white people may be satisfying to blacks or other racialized groups since it gives “whites” a taste of the medicine of discrimination. However, the question is: to what end? White fragility might give a form of respite or justice but it is likely to continue to cause white alienation and the vicious cycle of injustice-vengeance will be perpetuated.

While I propose that ToE incorporates redemptive suffering as a response to the justice issue, I am aware that it may be challenging to incorporate especially because it is asking more of someone who may be victimized. Ibrahim Kendi, a popular figure in the EDI space, once said that, “you can’t legitimately ask people being mistreated to patiently wait for justice.”[80] Kendi’s statement is clear: eschatological justice is insufficient. This is understandable especially when the person being victimized does not accept the Christian theological premises that there is an end-time reckoning and that s/he should offer up their suffering in accordingly. The challenge therefore for Valdary and the ToE is to research these Christian approaches to justice, especially because these approaches have developed in context Christian theory of love for millennia. If their findings are positive, they should aim to incorporate these notions of justice in a secular way into the ToE. Given the potential psychological benefits of some of these Christian justice practices including the power to facilitate a “letting go” process, transplanting these Christian principles of justice into ToE appears to be possible and is promising.

Collective Identity

ToE appears to be silent on the issue of group dynamics or collective suffering. Collective suffering is a reality and is not mutually exclusive from individual suffering in context of discrimination.[81] For instance it is legitimate to speak of the collective suffering of the people of Ukraine this year, or of Jewish people during the Second World War, and of black people in America. Christian theology also recognizes the dynamics of group identity. Christian scripture is replete with narratives of God’s anger toward the entire nation of Israel who He had chosen as a party to a several Covenants of privilege with Himself.[82] In the same vein, the same scriptures have good examples of group reconciliation, group atonement and God’s forgiveness of groups sins.[83] Traditional EDI training tends to recognize group suffering or group dynamics in general, and often in a public way. This was indicated in the meta-analyses above and as part of the reason for white alienation in the process. DiAngelo explains that she wrote White Fragility for this reason: to show that on the opposite end to the collective experience of black suffering lies a collective defensiveness and an unwillingness of whites to listen and engage in EDI discourse.[84]

JP Lederach warns that group dynamics involving collective identity are a necessary part of conflict transformation, yet are often ignored.[85] The engagement of group dynamics in conflict transformation means to “create spaces and processes that encourage people to address and articulate a positive sense of identity in relationship to other people and not in reaction to them.”[86]

If ToE keeps its unit of analysis at the individual level, then participants of the ToE program who belong to historically marginalized groups such as black people, should be aware that in addition to the training received from the ToE, there may be a need to supplement the training with other processes for exercising a positive sense of identity in relation to their collective suffering. The challenge would be to ensure a compatibility between that group process and the framework of love of ToE

PART V: Implications & Conclusion

The Implication of ToE in the EDI Training Field

Overall, the implication of ToE for traditional EDI training is that there is another way to do EDI training that carries everyone along with a unifying ingredient of love.

The implications for EDI practitioners including mediators is that a class-based or multicultural EDI training, no matter how fact-based it may be, could be counter-productive to EDI objectives if one class with power feel excluded and resentful of the process. We are unable to totally control behaviour in this context and research indicates that people are generally resentful of control of their behaviour, particularly in a sphere outside the scope of legislation such as unconscious bias or covert racial discrimination. Therefore, it is important to take a conflict transformation approach. One that gets to the root causes of conflict that are beyond classes of people. It is beneficial to learn from other disciplines in this regard such as the arts, neuroscience and psychology. I have drawn mostly from Christian Theology.

Conclusion

Indeed, love is all we need in the EDI space to transform conflict resulting from discrimination, particularly unconscious bias towards blacks and other minorities. Love is a double white flag. It prevents conflict through empathy, compassion and mercy. Love also responds to conflict through redemptive suffering which goes far beyond the narrow conception of justice. The latter ought to be considered for inclusion into ToE’s theory of love, otherwise the theory will remain lacking and participants would have to seek an outlet for justice elsewhere. ToE would also need to address the issue of collective identity and relevant group dynamics such as collective suffering to ensure that the conflict is totally transformative at all levels. The incorporation of redemptive suffering and components of identity into ToE would lead to a fuller incorporation of love into EDI training, and revolutionize EDI for good.

WORK CITED

PRIMARY MATERIAL

Primary Material: Monographs

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,

2011)

The Holy Bible, New International Version (Biblica Inc., 2011), online: <https://www.biblegateway.com&gt;.

Primary Material: Lectures & Training Material

Valdary, Chloé, Course Pack: Theory of Enchantment: Mastery (Full Course) (Theory of Enchantment), online: Theory of Enchantment <https://theory-of-enchantment.teachable.com/p/theory-of-enchantment-mastery&gt;.

SECONDARY MATERIAL

Secondary Material: Monographs

Benson, Tracey A & Sarah E Fiarman, Unconscious Bias in Schools: A Developmental Approach to Exploring Race and Racism, revised ed (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press, 2020).

DiAngelo, Robin, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018) (Osgoode Hall Library Online).

Ippolito, Linda M, Music, Leadership and Conflict: The Art of Ensemble Negotiation and Problem-solving (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

Kleefeld, John et al, Dispute Resolution: Readings and Case Studies, fourth ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2016).

Lederach, John Paul, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003).

Secondary Material: Articles

Arnold, Jen, “Redemptive Suffering & Fasting,” (31 March 2019) online (blog): Corpus Christi

Catholic Church <https://www.corpuschristiphx.org/blog.php?month=201903&id=284832956&cat=&pg=1&title=Redemptive+Suffering+%26+Fasting >

Arnold, Jen, “The Vertical and Horizontal Beams,” (28 March 202) online (blog): Corpus Christi Catholic Church < https://corpuschristiphx.org/blog?month=202003&id=1461457306&cat=All&pg=1&title=The+Vertical++and+Horizontal+Beams&gt;.

Baldwin, James, “Everybody’s Protest Novel” (1949) 16(6) Partisan Review 578 at 582.

Bezrukova, Katerina, Karen A Jehn & Chester S Spell, “Reviewing Diversity Training: Where We Have Been and Where We Should Go” (2012) 11:2 Academy of Management Learning & Education 207, online: <https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amle.2008.0090&gt;.

Blair, Irene V, John F Steiner & Edward P Havranek, “Unconscious (Implicit) Bias and Health Disparities: Where Do We Go from Here?” (2011) 15:2 Perm J 71, online: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140753/>.

Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, “Justice and Mercy”, online: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network <https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justice-and-mercy-3751&gt;.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, “A Christian Understanding of Pain and Suffering”, online: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network <https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/christian-understanding-of-pain-and-suffering-9911&gt;.

“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Training Is More Important Than Ever”, (19 November 2018), online: Training Industry <https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei/>.

Dobbin, Frank & Alexandra Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia” (2018) 10:2 Anthropology Now 48, online: <https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182&gt;.

Lu, Denise et al, “Faces of Power: 80% Are White, Even as U.S. Becomes More Diverse,” (9 September 2020) online: New York Times (<https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/09/us/powerful-people-race-us.html>

McLeod, Saul, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” (4 April 2022) online: Simply Psychology < https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html&gt;.

Noon, Mike, “Pointless Diversity Training: Unconscious Bias, New Racism and Agency” (2018) 32:1 Work, Employment and Society 198, online: <https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017017719841&gt;.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Deus caritas est”, (25 December 2005), online: Vatican <https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html&gt;.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Justice and Mercy in the Logic of God”, online: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network <https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justice-and-mercy-in-the-logic-of-god-6914&gt;.

Pope John Paul II, “Dives in Misericordia”, (30 November 1980), online: Vatican <https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html&gt;.

Pope John Paul II, “Salvifici Doloris”, (11 February 1984), online: Vatican <https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html&gt;.

Seijts, Jana & Thomas Watson, “Moving Beyond Window Dressing on EDI”, (3 August 2021), online: Ivey Business Journal <https://iveybusinessjournal.com/moving-beyond-window-dressing-on-edi/&gt;.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “agape”, Encyclopedia Britannica (3 October 2021), online: <https://www.britannica.com/topic/agape&gt;.

“Unconscious Bias Training”, online: Office of Diversity and Outreach UCSF <https://diversity.ucsf.edu/programs-resources/training/unconscious-bias-training#item-89>.

“What Are Microaggressions? 3 Main Types”, (2 February 2022), online: Cleveland Clinic <https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-are-microaggressions-and-examples/>.

Secondary Material: Videos

Hughes, Coleman, “Living In Paradox with Chloé Valdary (Ep.8)” (13 May 2020), online (video): YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cBS9SPG_rM&gt;

Peterson, Jordan B, “Theory of Enchantment | Chloé Valdary | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast S4” (24 January 2022), online (video): YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rZkv_prTOk>

Secondary Material: Lecture

Boutet, Nathalie, Class Lecture: The Neuroscience of Conflict (Osgoode Hall Law School, ALDR 6301, The Theory and Practice of Dispute Resolution, (1 February 2022). {Zoom}

Bramwell, Edith, Class Lecture: ALDR 6301 – The Theory & Practice of Dispute Resolution (Osgoode Hall Law School, 2 February 2022).

Ippolito, Linda, Course: ALDR 6301 – The Theory & Practice of Dispute Resolution (Osgoode Hall Law School, 31 January to 4 February 2022).

 

END NOTES

  1. Katerina Bezrukova, Karen A Jehn & Chester S Spell, “Reviewing Diversity Training: Where We Have Been and Where We Should Go” (2012) 11:2 Academy of Management Learning & Education 208, online: <https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amle.2008.0090&gt;.

  2. Frank Dobbin & Alexandra Kalev, “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia” (2018) 10:2 Anthropology Now 48, online: <https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182&gt;.

  3. Katerina Bezrukova, Jehn & Chester, supra, note 2 at 207.

  4. Linda Ippolito, Course: ALDR 6301, The Theory & Practice of Dispute Resolution (Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, 31 January to 4 February 2022).

  5. See “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Training is More Important than Ever” (19 November 2018), online: Training Industry <https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dei/&gt; and Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 208. Also see Jana Seijts & Thomas Watson, “Moving Beyond Window Dressing on EDI” (3 August 2021), online: Ivey Business Journal <https://iveybusinessjournal.com/moving-beyond-window-dressing-on-edi/>.

  6. Seijts & Watson, supra note 6.

  7. “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, supra note 6.; Seijts & Watson, supra note 6.

  8. See “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”, supra note 6.; Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 208.

  9. Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 217.

  10. Ibid.

  11. Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018) (Osgoode Hall Library Online) at 26-28.

  12. Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 210

  13. See meta-analyses of Dobbin & Kalev, supra note 3 at 49-50.

  14. See DiAngelo, supra note 12 at 24-26; a similar response was made in ALDR 6301 by guest lecturer, Edith Bramwell, Lecture: ALDR 6301 – The Theory & Practice of Dispute Resolution (Osgoode Hall Law School, 2 February 2022).

  15. All factual information on the ToE is taken from: Chloé Valdary, Course Pack: Theory of Enchantment: Mastery (Full Course) (Theory of Enchantment), online: Theory of Enchantment <https://theory-of-enchantment.teachable.com/p/theory-of-enchantment-mastery&gt;.

  16. Jordan B Peterson, “Theory of Enchantment | Chloé Valdary | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast S4” (24 January 2022) at 01h:25m:00-01h:27m:00s, online (video): YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rZkv_prTOk>

  17. Dobbin & Kaley, supra note 3 at 49-50.

  18. Denise Lu et al, “Faces of Power: 80% Are White, Even as U.S. Becomes More Diverse,” New York Times (9 September 2020), online: <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/09/us/powerful-people-race-us.html>

  19. Ibid at 49.

  20. Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 218.

  21. Dobbin & Kaley, supra note 3 at 49-50; Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4 at 207-218.

  22. Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 7.

  23. Dobbin & Kaley, supra note 3 at 51-52; Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 2.

  24. John Paul Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003) at 18. Note that the e-book is not paginated. I have used the PDF page number in the footnotes.

  25. Tracey A Benson & Sarah E Fiarman, Unconscious Bias in Schools: A Developmental Approach to Exploring Race and Racism, revised ed (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press, 2020), Ch 1; “Unconscious Bias Training”, online: Office of Diversity and Outreach UCSF <https://diversity.ucsf.edu/programs-resources/training/unconscious-bias-training#item-89&gt;; Irene V Blair, John F Steiner & Edward P Havranek, “Unconscious (Implicit) Bias and Health Disparities: Where Do We Go from Here?” (2011) 15:2 Perm J 71, online: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3140753/&gt;.

  26. “What Are Microaggressions? 3 Main Types” (2 February 2022), online: Cleveland Clinic <https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-are-microaggressions-and-examples/&gt;.

  27. Benson & Flarman, supra note 26; Also see DiAngelo, supra note 12 at 54-57 & 94-97.

  28. Lederach, supra note 25 at 41.

  29. Ibid at 16. (Opening of Chapter 3). Note that e-book is not paginated. I have used the PDF page number in the footnotes.

  30. Ibid at 11 & 16.

  31. Nathalie Boutet, Class Lecture: The Neuroscience of Conflict (Osgoode Hall Law School, 1 February 2022).

  32. John Kleefeld et al, Dispute Resolution: Readings and Case Studies, fourth ed (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2016) at 14.

  33. See Saul McLeod, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” (4 April 2022) online: Simply Psychology < https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html&gt;

  34. All quotes provided in my summary are from Valdary, supra note 16.

  35. Valdary, supra note 16.

  36. Principle 1 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  37. Quoting Brené Brown in Principle 1 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  38. In Principle 1 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  39. In Principle 1 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  40. In Principle 2 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  41. In Principle 2 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  42. In Principle 2 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  43. See The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “agape”, Encyclopedia Britannica (3 October 2021), online: <https://www.britannica.com/topic/agape&gt;.

  44. In Principle 3 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  45. All of the remaining facts of ToE in this paragraph is taken from Principle 3 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  46. See Bezrukoka, Jehn & Spell, supra note 4.

  47. Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 7.

  48. Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 7. Also see DiAngelo, supra note 12.

  49. Bramwell, supra note 15.

  50. Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 7.

  51. This was the approach taken by both Bramwell, supra note 15 and DiAngelo, supra note 12 at 14.

  52. In Principle 2 in Valdary, supra note 16.

  53. The Holy Bible, New International Version (Biblica Inc., 2011) at Gen 1:27, online: <https://www.biblegateway.com&gt;.

  54. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Romans 7: 23.

  55. Ibid.

  56. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Genesis 1-3.

  57. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Galatians 5: 22-23.

  58. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Mathew 15: 21-28.

  59. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Mathew 9: 10-17.

  60. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Mathew 7: 12.

  61. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Mathew 10: 18.

  62. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Romans 3: 23.

  63. The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at John 1: 14.

  64. See Jen Arnold, “The Vertical and Horizontal Beams,” (28 March 202) online (blog): Corpus Christi Catholic Church < https://corpuschristiphx.org/blog?month=202003&id=1461457306&cat=All&pg=1&title=The+Vertical++and+Horizontal+Beams&gt;.

  65. Supra, note 29.

  66. Peterson, supra note 17 at 01h:31m.

  67. Ibid at 01h:29m.

  68. Coleman Hughes, “Living In Paradox with Chloé Valdary (Ep.8)” (13 May 2020) at 01h:17m, online (video): YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cBS9SPG_rM>.

  69. Ibid at 01h:17m -01h:17m.

  70. Ibid at 01h:17m.

  71. Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, “Justice and Mercy” online: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network <https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/justice-and-mercy-3751&gt;.

  72. Ibid.

  73. Ibid.

  74. Pope John Paul II, “Dives in Misericordia” (30 November 1980) at para 5, online: Vatican <https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html>.

  75. Bagnasco, supra note 72.

  76. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011) para 618. Also see Jen Arnold, Corpus Christi Catholic Church, March 31, 2019, online: Also see Jen Arnold, “Redemptive Suffering & Fasting,” (31 March 2019) online (blog): Corpus Christi Catholic Church <

    https://www.corpuschristiphx.org/blog.php?month=201903&id=284832956&cat=&pg=1&title=Redemptive+Suffering+%26+Fasting >

  77. Pope John Paul II, “Salvifici Doloris,” (11 February 1984), online: Vatican <https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html>; Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, “A Christian Understanding of Pain and Suffering” online: EWTN Global Catholic Television Network <https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/christian-understanding-of-pain-and-suffering-9911&gt;.

  78. Arnold, supra note 77.

  79. See interview with Hughes, supra note 69.

  80. Ibrahim Kendi in Seijts & Watson, supra note 6 at 3.

  81. Barragán, supra note 78.

  82. See The Holy Bible, supra note 54 at Exodus 32:10; Numbers 32:13;Jeremiah 32:29; 2 Kings 13:3 Mathew 23: 27-29; Luke 21: 5-38.

  83. See Ibid at 2 Kings 19: 1-2; Jonah 3: 6-10; Mathew 11: 21.

  84. DiAngelo, supra note 12 at 24-26.

  85. Lederach, supra note 25 at 41-42.

  86. Ibid at 42.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: