[Naimeh Masumy is a Research Fellow a Deakin University, PhD Candidate at Maastricht University and a dispute resolution expert specialized in energy and investment disputes]

As the new administration dismantles the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, the importance of diversity within the legal profession and its broader implications beyond daily practice has come into sharper focus. Critics of this initiative often fail to articulate their concerns clearly; they may see diversity merely as a mantra in the legal field rather than recognizing it as a paradigm capable of effecting transformative change in our approach to justice, representation, and the law itself. A closer examination of the concept of diversity reveals that it is no longer viewed solely as a compliance requirement or a moral imperative, but rather as a fundamental pillar that enriches both the practice and interpretation of law. In the legal profession, diversity has been heralded as the driving factor of progress and creativity. The International Bar Association (IBA) has emphasized that diversity brings in varied perspectives, promotes inclusivity, and ultimately strengthens the legitimacy of legal processes.

The precise answer to how diversity enhances legal processes may remain somewhat elusive. It has been suggested that in law, diversity transcends the mere blend of gender, cultural background, or socio-economic experiences. Instead, it is the convergence of diverse perspectives that has the potential to truly enrich legal processes. Diversity in law is not about aesthetic differences; rather, it's about synthesizing those differences into something greater that bears the potential to challenge the prevailing dictums or the conventional legal wisdom.

What has rarely been addressed in discussions about diversity is how the systematic integration of diverse perspectives significantly impacts the fundamental archetype of persuasion in the legal field. It has been argued that the very core of the legal profession hinges on the power of persuasion. The essence of the law is not simply found in statutes or regulations, but in how effectively one can argue, interpret, and apply these rules to real-life situations. Judges and lawyers are tasked with crafting compelling narratives that can set precedent and drive decisions. Persuasion in law extends far beyond courtroom oratory. It plays a pronounced role in negotiations, where the ability to convince the other party can lead to more favorable settlements.

Thus, the integration of diverse perspectives has the potential to reshape the strategies used in these persuasive processes, offering fresh insights and innovative approaches. Yet, this critical connection between diversity and its influence on persuasion has often been overlooked. By tapping into a broader range of experiences and viewpoints, legal professionals can craft more nuanced arguments, address complex issues with greater creativity, and potentially shift the outcome of legal proceedings.

Aristotle's Rhetoric provides a foundational structure for understanding the art of persuasion through ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic). However, different cultures interpret and value these elements in varying ways, leading to distinct styles of persuasion across cultural contexts. The following sections offer a brief overview of various approaches, highlighting their subtle distinctions.

The role of pathos in Islamic law is plagued with the tension between the ideal of divine guidance and the inherent imperfections of human emotions. The core principle of Islamic law suggests that the 'human ought to conform to divine will, not the other way around.' It emphasizes that 'human endeavors' as emotions, beliefs, thoughts, and moral values- elements that are deeply tied to pathos, ought to be divinely guided. Within the same breath, it confirms that the complete detachment from human emotions and beliefs can rarely be achieved in practice.

In this context, Pathos can also be understood to entail the spiritual struggle of the individual in sincerely asking himself or herself, "What does God want from me?" This question is a profoundly personal one and is ultimately left to the moral conscience of the individual. Following this premise, in Islamic discord, Pathos becomes a lens through which the struggle between the divine ideal and human fallibility is viewed. Hence, it can include both worldly and spiritual aspects.

Following Aristotle's account of Persuasion, the purpose of pathos is to appeal to the emotions of the audience, creating a deeper connection with the argument. By evoking feelings like empathy, fear, or sympathy, pathos makes the message more relatable and impactful, inducing a favored legal judgment. The prime example of these stirred emotions can be seen in the prohibition of riba within Islamic finance. There is a sense of shame associated with violating divine commandments. The idea that God wages war on those who deal with riba creates a powerful deterrent within the community, evoking shame if a person fails to live up to religious and moral obligations. Thus, shame and fear serve as prevailing and persuasive emotions to adhere to Islamic financial principles.

In addition to fear, in Islamic discourse, persuasion often integrates admiration and emulation as essential tools for influencing behavior and guiding believers toward ethical conduct. Within this framework, admiration for figures of spiritual and moral authority -- such as prophets, imams, and respected scholars -- plays a significant role. These figures embody the highest standards of ethical living, grounded in religious teachings, and serve as exemplars of virtuous behavior. This emulation nurtures a sense of community and spiritual satisfaction, as following these principles is viewed as a path to righteousness and the attainment of divine favor, prioritizing moral influence over coercive measures.

While the Islamic discord has been imbued by divine will, Eastern cultures, heavily influenced by Confucianism, prioritize complementary and harmonious relationships as a prime component of pathos. The concept of yin and yang, central to Confucian thought, appeals to feelings of interconnectedness and balance, fostering emotional responses rooted in reciprocity and mutual respect. The focus on human-centered virtues and alignment with societal harmony and emotional fulfillment deeply engages with the audience's emotions.

In Confucianism, emotions that cause persuasion are deeply tied to a sense of moral duty, harmony, and respect for social order. Key emotions include:

In Eastern cultures, these emotions reinforce social norms and values, encouraging individuals to act virtuously, which leads to persuasion through emotional alignment with Confucian principles of morality and societal duty.

In contrast, for Western society to arrive at persuasion, individualism, personal responsibility, and analytical thinking will assume the predominant positions. Western persuasion often relies on logical, structured arguments and clear reasoning. The analytic cognitive style prevalent in the West encourages separating the individual or object from its surrounding context, making it easier to build arguments based on evidence and logical sequences. Persuasion here leans heavily on fact-based reasoning, scientific inquiry, and empirical data. In addition, pathos in Western societies often hinges on appeals to ethical standards, such as fairness, justice, and individual rights.

Within the fabric of Western cultures, Pathos stirs emotions that deeply tie into personal responsibility, individualism, and autonomy. Some key emotions include:

The analysis underscores that shame and justice stand as two central pillars in crafting the most compelling and persuasive arguments. These emotions resonate deeply across diverse practitioners, enabling a collective group to channel them effectively, whether in legal drafting, interpreting complex legal exigencies, or demonstrating skillful advocacy. Shame appeals to the conscience, igniting accountability and driving action, while justice taps into a universal desire for fairness and rectitude. Together, they evoke a powerful emotional response that transcends individual backgrounds, forging arguments that are both impactful and unifying.

Shame and justice emerge as two powerful emotional drivers across diverse cultural contexts -- Confucianism, Western, and Islamic traditions. These emotions hold significant sway in shaping moral and ethical behavior, making them critical components in persuasion, especially within legal settings. To achieve effective legal persuasion, it is essential to embrace a diversity of narratives that can resonate with different emotional underpinnings. A diverse approach ensures that the persuasive message is tailored to evoke the right emotions -- whether it's a sense of accountability through shame or a call for fairness through justice. By acknowledging and engaging with the varied emotional landscapes across cultures, we can create more impactful and compelling legal arguments that speak to the core of human experience.