There is a tension in the modern conversation around diversity in writing. On one side of the spectrum, there’s the call for more diverse characters in stories—to break the monotony of white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered protagonists and open the door to the fuller spectrum of human experience. On the other side lies an equally impassioned plea: that writers should not appropriate cultures that aren’t their own, that they should refrain from stepping into experiences they’ve never lived, especially if that leads to misrepresentation or exploitation. Both positions have truth. Both have shadows. And the truth, like in most worthwhile debates, lives in the dialectic between them.
Diversity in writing is not a one-lane road. It is a bridge—and that bridge is built from both ends.
The Out-Group Writer: The Curious Observer
Writers who approach a culture from the outside have a unique vantage point. Precisely because they are not immersed in the culture, they can see what makes it different, fascinating, and meaningful to a wider world. They can identify what may seem “ordinary” or unremarkable to insiders but is, in fact, rich with meaning, uniqueness, and story potential.
Out-group writers play an important role in building the initial curiosity. Their work, if approached with humility and deep research, can build a bridge from the mainstream to the margins. They help an audience that might never have considered a particular experience or culture stop and take notice. They help create a sense of relevance, and, when done well, help the audience feel a sense of shared humanity.
The In-Group Writer: The Lived Experience
But it’s the in-group writer who knows the texture of the culture from the inside. They know what it feels like to live it. They know the rituals, the contradictions, the humor, the pain. They don’t need to guess at how the culture interprets certain events or how its members speak, move, or think—they’ve lived it.
The in-group writer’s power lies in authenticity. Their characters can speak with a kind of authority that an out-group writer, no matter how diligent, may never quite capture. And as the audience—now intrigued, thanks in part to the efforts of the out-group writer—begins to seek more nuance, more accuracy, and more truth, it is the in-group writer who can meet them with depth.
Both Sides Are Essential
There is no hard line between who can or should write what. That is not the writer’s job. The writer’s job is to do the work. For an out-group writer, that work includes deep research, empathy, humility, and a commitment to honoring their characters as fully human. It involves listening, not assuming, and being open to critique.
For an in-group writer, the work is about owning their perspective without being forced into the position of “representing” their entire group. It is about writing their truth, even when it diverges from stereotype or expectation.
What is essential is recognizing the dance. Out-group writers build a bridge from the mainstream in. In-group writers build a bridge from the margins out. The bridge only works if both sides are contributing. Neither side holds all the truth. Neither side should be silenced. And readers—especially those outside the culture being portrayed—have a responsibility, too: to walk across the bridge, to seek out multiple perspectives, and to recognize when a character’s voice is imagined versus lived.
My Own In-Between
As for me, my own in-group is the Baha’i Faith. It’s a spiritual tradition that very few people outside it know anything about. In theory, I could write Baha’i characters with tremendous authenticity. But because the world knows so little about this faith and its culture, I find myself hesitating. I don’t know which parts of the experience are relatable. I don’t know what a wider audience would find intriguing.
Ironically, what I really need is the perspective of an outsider. Someone who doesn’t know what I take for granted. Someone who can reflect back to me what is unique about this worldview. Someone who can say, “That part? That’s different. That’s interesting. Tell me more.”
Cultural Conversations and the Green Meme
Zooming out a little: the tension between inclusive multiculturalism and cultural appropriation mirrors something deeper happening in our collective evolution. In Spiral Dynamics and Integral Theory, it’s a tension inside the “Green” level of development—a stage that values pluralism, compassion, and equality. Green wants inclusion, but it also wants protection. It wants to celebrate cultures, but it also wants to protect them from being flattened or commodified.
Green struggles when those values come into conflict. Should we all write across cultural boundaries in the name of inclusion? Or should we stay in our lanes in the name of safety and authenticity? The next stage, the “Integral” stage, doesn’t resolve the tension by picking a side. It transcends and includes. It says: yes to both. Let the outsider write, respectfully. Let the insider write, deeply. Let readers engage critically and curiously.
The Bridge is the Point
In the end, diversity in writing isn’t about who gets to tell which story. It’s about how many stories we’re willing to hear. It’s about making space for everyone to build the bridge from their side—and meeting each other somewhere in the middle.
Because that middle? That’s where the real stories begin.
