Why the acronym CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse) is finally being culled

The terminology we use to describe groups of people can significantly impact how they are perceived and treated in society, both in the moment and for decades to come. For years, terms such as Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) have been used to refer to non-Anglo Australians, and it has failed to move the conversation on race forward in Australia.

As a result, peak bodies such as the Diversity Council of Australia are using Culturally and Racially Marginalised (CARM) as a term to more accurately reflect the experiences of Indigenous, Black, Brown, Asian or other non-white groups, and we’re all for it. We (Kind Enterprises) have been an active and persistent voice in the movement to retire “CALD”, and in this blog post, we'll explore the harmful ways that this type of language impacts our thinking, actions and policy frameworks.

Let’s learn why the term CARM is more conducive to a socially cohesive and equitable society.

Why we’re culling CALD:

1. It assumes and perpetuates whiteness as the norm

Firstly, the term “culturally diverse” labels anyone who is non-white as “different”, “exotic”, or “divergent” from the norm on the assumption that whiteness is the standard and others are diverse.

This suggests that there is a monolithic, homogenous “Australian culture” against which all other cultures are compared, "othering" individuals from non-white backgrounds and, more specifically, those from non-European heritage. By categorising some people as “culturally and linguistically diverse”, we inadvertently establish a binary distinction between the dominant white culture and the "diverse" others, creating an “us and them” dynamic. This reinforces what is known as white normativity, which rests on Robin DiAngelo’s ‘definition of whites as the norm or standard for “human”, and people of colour as a deviation from that norm’.

Reinforcing white normativity through our language perpetuates the idea that whiteness is superior or different to other cultures, which is otherwise known as racism. This sets up a power dynamic with very real implications on health, education, politics, policy, academia and incarceration outcomes for People of “Colour”. 

On the other hand, white normativity also nullifies the interrogation of whiteness as a culture in and of itself, creating no room to question or unpack the very cultural perspectives that contribute to racist thinking and actions. Hence, the status quo remains uninterrupted.

2. It detracts from our ability to address systemic racism

While CALD acknowledges cultural and linguistic diversity, it does not explicitly address the racial and systemic challenges that non-European people face. This is intentional. The use of this term, therefore, focuses on people’s cultural and linguistic differences as opposed to the structural barriers that they face. In this sense, it hones our focus on individual inadequacy over institutional accountability for racial marginalisation. By not confronting the issue of race, the use of terms like CALD perpetuates a lack of racial literacy and the necessary skills to talk about, identify and effectively dismantle racism (Diversity Council of Australia, 2023).

3. It overlooks intersectionality and the complexity of identities

With a primary focus on culture and language, CALD overlooks other critical aspects of identity, such as race, gender, and socio-economic status. The concept of intersectionality recognises that individuals can hold multiple marginalised identities that create unique, complex, and compounding experiences of oppression for differing groups, which directly contrasts with the homogeneity that CALD implies. With this, intersectionality acknowledges the power and privilege that upholds whiteness and works towards equity by being inclusive of all experiences. By referring to people of Indian, Iranian, Zimbabwean, Spanish, Dutch and German heritage as “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse,” we distract and deny in fact the very real reality of racial marginalisation in Australia and try to pretend we all experience life and policy without any differences along the line of race! And that’s a lie.

4. It focuses on diversity, without inclusion and equity

The term CALD emphasizes diversity but may not adequately address issues of inclusion and equity. This is because, by nature, CALD perpetuates white cultural superiority by holding whiteness as the ideal standard that we are encouraged to conform to. While it is essential to recognize and celebrate cultural and linguistic differences, it is just as important to ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities and access to resources, career development, social capital and political power regardless of the colour of their skin. 

5. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes

By lumping thousands of ethnicities into one category, CALD can also suggest that people from non-English speaking backgrounds are all the same, overlooking the profound diversity within these groups. Furthermore, the term "linguistically diverse" implies that people who speak languages other than English are lacking in proficiency in English, which is not necessarily the case. CALD can therefore reinforce stereotypes that people who come from non-English speaking backgrounds are not as intelligent or capable as those who only speak English. This directly impacts someone’s ability to gain employment, be treated respectfully and have their expertise valued equally in the workplace.

This creates and perpetuates a Eurocentric narrative that centres the histories, achievements and academic contributions of English-speaking white Australians, while breeding prejudice and ignorance against other ethnicities and cultures even though they speak 3 or 4 languages. 

Why Culturally and Racially Marginalised (CARM) is more effective

The language of CARM directly acknowledges the cultural and racial barriers that prevent non-European individuals from accessing opportunities and resources, as opposed to focusing on cultural and linguistic differences. By centering the experiences and perspectives of those who are in fact racially marginalised, a CARM framework is able to effectively identify and address the systemic barriers to equitable outcomes in society.

When an intersectional lens is applied to understand the complexity of the ways in which power interacts with the identity and experience of People of Colour, the CARM framework becomes inclusive by design and therefore advocates for fair treatment, rights and representation of all.

Using the word CARM provides a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to addressing issues of social justice and equity along the lines of race, calling out the true dynamics that contribute to inequitable human experience so that we can be accountable for dismantling them.

In conclusion

By shifting from CALD to CARM, we focus on marginalisation and systemic racism, acknowledge the complex nature of intersectional identities, and challenge the assumption of whiteness as the norm that the use of CALD continues to reinforce.

Using the term Culturally and Racially Marginalised encourages us to confront and challenge the structural barriers that People of Colour face, so that we can effectively identify and dismantle them.

Ultimately, adopting the CARM framework allows us to work towards a more equitable and just society that embraces and celebrates the diverse cultures, identities and experiences of all by addressing the systemic racism that has been holding us back.