This past week, I have been reflecting on the terms social integration, assimilation, and multiculturalism. These are not abstract concepts for me; they are lived realities. I have often grappled with their meanings and implications, and I remain of the view that certain groups are expected to quietly and without protest embrace integration and assimilation, while members of the “dominant” group often take issue with multiculturalism — especially when it asks something of them.

This thought resurfaced recently as I delivered training on the growing wave of anti-DEI sentiment.

Laying the Groundwork: Definitions

• Integration – Cambridge Dictionary defines this as “the action or process of successfully joining or mixing with a different group of people.” This is often described as social integration.
• Assimilation – The Oxford Review frames it in the context of DEI as “the gradual absorption of a minority group into the dominant culture,” often at the cost of losing or diluting one’s original cultural identity.
• Multiculturalism – According to the American Psychological Association, this refers to: “The condition of a society in which different ethnic and cultural groups have equal status and access to power while maintaining their own identity and characteristics.” “The promotion or celebration of cultural diversity within a society.”

Professor Tariq Modood offers a deeper perspective. Writing in 2023, he argued:

‘Multiculturalism is specifically concerned with the right to a subgroup identity and that subgroup identity is treated in an equal citizenship way. This means symbolic recognition but also institutional accommodation and the remaking of the whole, namely, of the citizenship identity itself. This leads to a second feature, namely the recognition of the subgroup identity as part of or at least consistent with full membership, a form of inclusion that allows all citizens to have a sense of belonging to their national citizenship; sometimes expressed as fraternity or solidarity. Minorities, especially marginalised or oppressed minorities, have this right to group identity recognition because the majorities do; or, if you like, all subgroups, including the majority, have this right.’

Modood’s article goes on to explore:

• Multiculturalism as a civic idea
• Multicultural nationalism
• Depolarisation in the context of immigration, identity anxiety, and national belonging

Assimilation Is Not Multiculturalism

History reminds us that colonialism, imperialism, missionary work, and the transatlantic slave trade were never about multiculturalism. They were about assimilation — the forced erasure of cultures, languages, religions, and identities to fit into a dominant framework.

For many of us outside the dominant group, assimilation has often meant denying our cultural or racial differences: modifying our speech, changing our accents, straightening or altering our hair, even bleaching our skin. And yet, two things remain true:

1. We can never erase every marker of difference, no matter how much we adapt.
2. There will always be those — in society, and in our workplaces — who see that difference, even if they claim to be “colourblind. ” Even when we adapt, even when we assimilate, there remain those who make it clear, in words, actions, or silences, that they don’t want us near them, and would rather we did not exist in their spaces, or exist at all.

At its heart, the tension around social integration, assimilation, and multiculturalism reveals a deeper struggle over power and identity.

• Integration speaks to the ideal of mixing and belonging—allowing diverse individuals to join a wider society while contributing their distinct voices.
• Assimilation, by contrast, demands conformity—requiring some to shed or modify their identity to fit into a dominant culture.
• Multiculturalism, as theorised by scholars like Tariq Modood, offers a more equitable vision: a society that not only tolerates differences but actively recognises and incorporates them into public life, transforming the very idea of citizenship itself.

The rising anti‑DEI sentiment is not just about dissent; it is a form of resistance against genuine inclusion and belonging. It posits that only some identities deserve to remain whole while in positions of power; others must fade or disappear. This mirrors broader critiques of multiculturalism—that it either weakens social cohesion or highlights “us-versus-them” divisions.

This reframes anti-DEI not simply as policy pushback, but as a struggle over who gets to keep their identity while asserting influence—and who does not. It’s a fight over the right not just to exist, but to belong fully, authentically, on one’s own terms.

Integration shouldn’t come at the price of erasure. Assimilation may offer acceptance—but only if identity is sacrificed. Multiculturalism dares to say we can belong as ourselves. And yet, anti-DEI sentiment stands firmly against that idea. Because true inclusion isn’t just about mixing; it’s about recognising, valuing, and empowering difference.

As I observe what is happening in society and our workplaces, I return to the same conclusion: anti-DEI sentiment is, at its core, is about power and identity. It is about who is permitted to hold power while retaining their identity, and who is told that in order to belong, they must surrender aspects of their identity.

Our societies, and our workplaces, must choose: do we want uniformity with the illusion of unity, or a richer solidarity that honours identity?

I believe some countries and organisations have clearly made a decision about their direction of travel. Instead of embracing multiculturalism as a civic good, they fall back on assimilation, demanding that difference be managed, softened, or erased. This is why anti-DEI sentiment resonates: it protects the dominant group’s comfort while denying others the possibility of integration without erasure. And that is not belonging and inclusion.