It’s My Right!!!: The Tension Between Individualism, Collectivism, and the Future of Justice, Equity, and Inclusion

Dr. Ramon A. Pastrano IV

About five years ago, while attending an event in Washington, DC, I witnessed firsthand how difficult it can be for some people to distinguish between freedom and rights. This experience led me to a profound question that continues to challenge my thinking: Is freedom merely the permission to do what you want, or is it the power to do what you ought? This question, in turn, sparked deeper reflections on belief systems and decision-making. Too often, I find that people accept ideas without critically examining what shapes their thinking, what evidence supports their beliefs, and what consequences their choices may have. As a society, we seem to be losing the ability to think critically and reflect deeply, neglecting the cause-and-effect relationships that shape our future.

Paulo Freire offers a crucial perspective on this challenge, stating, “Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” His words underscore the inherent tension in how knowledge is cultivated. Education, when used merely as a vehicle for assimilation, reinforces existing power structures and prevents individuals from questioning systemic injustices. This is where “epistemology of ignorance” becomes particularly relevant—it is not simply that people lack knowledge, but that ignorance is actively maintained through social, political, and educational structures that discourage critical interrogation of reality.

Recent events have prompted me to revisit two quotes that have long served as valuable reference points. Peter Senge once said, “The problems we are facing today were yesterday’s solutions to other problems.” Similarly, Neil deGrasse Tyson observed, “One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong.” These insights resonate with my observations of our current societal discourse. Many people form strong opinions based on limited information, convinced of their correctness without fully exploring alternative perspectives. This, in turn, affects our ability to engage in meaningful dialogue, make informed decisions, and consider the broader consequences of our actions. As I reflect on our collective behavior, I can’t help but wonder: What is shaping our thinking? What is truly driving our actions? And how is this harming our society?

Impact on Organizations and Society

In recent years, organizations across the United States have faced increasing resistance to equity and inclusion initiatives. Some view these efforts as an encroachment on individual freedoms, while others see them as essential for creating fair and just workplaces. But beneath the surface of this debate lies a deeper cultural dynamic: the tension between individualism and collectivism.

The United States is one of the most individualistic cultures in the world. The US typically scores very high on the Individualism Dimension (IDV) in Hofstede's model.?From childhood, Americans are taught the values of self-reliance, personal achievement, and the idea that success is determined by individual effort. The belief in meritocracy—the idea that hard work alone determines one’s opportunities—is deeply ingrained in the national psyche. At the same time, equity and inclusion efforts seek to address systemic barriers and ensure that opportunity is not just a privilege of the few but a reality for all.

This tension between individualism and collectivism plays a critical role in shaping the resistance to equity and inclusion. In highly individualistic cultures, policies that emphasize group responsibility and systemic change can be perceived as a threat to personal freedoms. People fear that such efforts will impose limitations on their rights or force them into uncomfortable conversations about privilege, bias, and social inequities. Here, epistemology of ignorance functions to maintain the status quo—people remain unaware or dismissive of structural inequalities, not by accident but by design.

Conversely, in collectivist cultures, inclusion efforts are often seen as a natural extension of communal responsibility. The idea that one’s success is tied to the well-being of the broader community fosters greater acceptance of initiatives aimed at creating fairness. However, even in collectivist settings, equity and inclusion can face resistance if they are perceived as disruptive to group harmony or existing hierarchies.

The Consequences of Prioritizing Rights Over Responsibility

A key issue underlying the resistance to inclusion efforts in the U.S. is the cultural emphasis on individual rights over personal responsibility. Many people fiercely defend their freedoms—whether it’s the right to free speech, the right to personal success, or the right to express dissenting views. However, fewer people actively consider the responsibilities that accompany those rights.

For example, the right to free speech is fundamental, but it comes with the responsibility to communicate in a way that does not harm or marginalize others. The right to equal opportunity should be accompanied by a responsibility to ensure fair access for others. In the workplace, individuals expect to be evaluated on merit, yet they often resist conversations about how systemic inequities create vastly different starting points for people based on race, gender, socioeconomic background, and other factors.

The reality is that individual rights cannot be preserved without individuals first fulfilling their responsibilities to the community. If a workplace is to truly foster equity, it must move beyond policies and compliance checklists and create a culture where employees see themselves as both beneficiaries and contributors to an inclusive environment.

What Organizations Can Do

Understanding the cultural forces at play allows organizations to navigate equity and inclusion efforts more effectively. Instead of treating pushback as simple resistance, leaders must address the underlying concerns and reframe inclusion in a way that resonates with both individualist and collectivist mindsets.

1. Reframe Equity and Inclusion as an Opportunity, Not a Threat Instead of presenting inclusion as a corrective measure for past injustices—an approach that can trigger defensiveness—organizations should position it as an investment in innovation, growth, and long-term success.
2. Balance Rights with Responsibilities Leaders should create spaces where discussions about fairness include not just the rights people expect but also the responsibilities they hold. Employees should be encouraged to think beyond their own experiences and recognize how their actions contribute to—or hinder—an inclusive culture.
3. Move from Compliance to Culture-Building Mandatory training and compliance checklists often feel like imposed rules rather than shared values. Instead, organizations should integrate equity and inclusion into leadership development, team collaboration, and overall organizational culture.
4. Foster Ethical Leadership True inclusion requires ethical leadership—leaders who model personal accountability, empathy, and fairness. When leaders demonstrate that inclusion is not just a corporate mandate but a moral and strategic imperative, it sets a powerful example for others.
5. Create a Culture of Dialogue, Not Division One of the greatest challenges in today’s polarized environment is engaging employees who feel alienated by or skeptical of inclusion efforts. Organizations must move beyond “us vs. them” narratives and foster open, non-punitive conversations where all perspectives can be heard.

A Path Forward

The future of equity and inclusion depends not only on policy changes but on a shift in cultural mindset—one that balances personal freedom with collective responsibility. Organizations that recognize and navigate the tension between individualism and collectivism will be better positioned to build truly inclusive environments.

As workplaces evolve, the question is no longer whether equity and inclusion should be pursued, but how they can be implemented in a way that resonates with people from all backgrounds. The answer lies in recognizing that inclusion is not a sacrifice of individual rights but a fulfillment of shared responsibility. When organizations and individuals alike embrace this perspective, they create workplaces that are not just diverse, but truly equitable and inclusive for all.