DIVERSITY | Expanding the Conversation Through an Asian Lens
Amardeep M. Dugar
If you’ve ever walked through a city at night and felt either completely at ease or quietly on edge, you already understand how powerful lighting can be. Lighting shapes how we move, who feels welcome, what feels safe, and which stories get told after dark. And lighting is never just technical: it’s social, cultural, and deeply human. For lighting professionals, this puts us at an interesting crossroads. Our work influences public life in ways that go far beyond visual comfort or energy efficiency. Who we design for, whose needs we prioritize, and whose knowledge we value all leave a lasting imprint on the built environment. This is where conversations around diversity, equity, inclusivity, and respect (DEIR) become especially relevant—not as abstract ideals, but as practical design considerations.
“For the lighting profession in Asia to evolve meaningfully, DEIR needs to be more than an add-on; it must function as both a performance metric and a shared social ethic.”
Much of today’s DEIR discourse in lighting and design has emerged from Western contexts.1,2 Yet across Asia, ideas of communal space, shared resources, and inclusive use of light have existed for centuries: embedded in urban form, craft traditions, and everyday rituals such as the courtyard-based spatial systems in traditional Chinese, Indian, and Southeast Asian homes, long-standing ritual lighting practices during festivals like Deepavali or Diwali, and communal gathering spaces in village architectures and regional rites that foreground shared experiences of light and place. Many of these practices were disrupted or erased through colonial systems,3 rapid urbanization, and globalized design standards.
Today, lighting professionals across Asia work within a complex mix of heritage, informal labor, technological acceleration, and global expectations. In this column, I will reflect on that layered history and ask important questions such as: What might DEIR look like when viewed through an Asian lens, and how can lighting professionals actively translate these values into the way we design, specify, teach, and practice lighting?
Historical studies show that ancient Asian civilizations (e.g., China, India, and Persia) were characterized by plural cultural, linguistic, and religious communities.4–6 Urban planning often incorporated climate-responsive buildings and craft-led construction, alongside mixed-use layouts and shared public spaces.7,8 For example, archaeological studies of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro from the Indus Valley civilization reveal that residential clustering and open spaces enabled social interaction across occupational backgrounds, suggesting early forms of spatial inclusion.9
Asian philosophical systems also promoted values we now associate with DEIR, such as collective welfare (Buddhism and Jainism), community governance (gram sabha, meaning “village assembly”), respect for craft knowledge passed across generations, and sustainable resource stewardship (Jainism and Taoism). Lighting in the form of daylight and fire-based systems were integrated with civic rituals, domestic routines, and ecological cycles. However, these civilizations were not free of inequity as caste stratifications hardened occupational boundaries, particularly in artisanal crafts and construction. Similarly, gender restrictions limited participation in public architecture or technical craft traditions.
Colonial rule in Asia radically changed how space was planned and built as European regimes introduced centralized planning, industrial materials, and standardized engineering methods. These changes reshaped construction industries and professional hierarchies, and are effects that still shape DEIR outcomes today. Colonial systems reinforced existing caste and class boundaries to ensure cheap labor supply. As a result, artisan-builders, balusters, lighting craft communities, and metalworkers often lost autonomy or formal recognition.10
Colonial planning also produced spatial segregation based on class, occupation, race, and policing concerns. Access to basic infrastructure and sanitation became clear indicators of privilege. Indigenous knowledge and technologies were sidelined as Western aesthetics became the norm.11 Lighting design did not emerge locally as a formally taught profession until the late 20th century and remains strongly influenced by Euro-American discourse in most Asian countries.
While working on a hospitality project in India, I found myself standing on-site late one evening with a local metal artisan who had fabricated a series of decorative luminaires. She spoke proudly about techniques passed down through generations: how certain perforations softened glare as well as the manner in which specific metals aged beautifully in humid climates. Yet when the project wrapped up, her name never appeared in the drawings, specifications, or final photography. The lighting design was celebrated internationally, but the craft knowledge that made it possible remained invisible. That moment stayed with me. It quietly revealed a recurring pattern in our industry: expertise is often present, but recognition, agency, and long-term equity are not always evenly distributed.
Since its independence, Asia has seen a growing professional design sector, shaped by modern construction and accelerated urbanization. The lighting industry has largely been shaped by three key dynamics: gender gaps in leadership, global standards within a local context, and informal labor economies. For example, lighting masterplans in cities like Seoul, South Korea, and Singapore highlight the potential of lighting policy to address urban inclusivity, mobility, and safety; hospitality projects in countries like India and Maldives have revived traditional craft lighting, creating economic empowerment but some inconsistency in fair compensation; solar-lighting initiatives for informal settlements in Bangladesh have improved gender safety, educational access, and disaster resilience. But key DEIR questions remain: How do we address challenges such as education barriers, low accessibility adoption, pay disparity, under-valuation of craft knowledge, and underrepresentation and leadership gaps?
It’s clear that ancient Asian civilizations held plural, diverse, and community-centred values, even while operating within hierarchical structures. Colonialism disrupted these systems, institutionalized inequity, and redefined built environments around extractive, centralized models. Post-independence progress has brought modern infrastructure, education, and professional practice, yet structural inequities remain embedded in the sectors that collectively shape the built environment. Three approaches are especially relevant: human-centred lighting, participatory design, and sustainable, ethical sourcing. For the lighting profession in Asia to evolve meaningfully, DEIR needs to be more than an add-on; it must function as both a performance metric and a shared social ethic. Table 1 provides a practical DEIR checklist for lighting professionals.
DEIR must be integrated into design philosophies, education models, hiring practices, product and technology ecosystems, project delivery frameworks, and site labor standards. As lighting professionals, we sit at the intersection of aesthetics, technology, and human well-being. The way we design lighting can serve as a tangible contribution toward more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and respectful lighted environments across Asia.
Amardeep M. Dugar, Ph.D., CLD, IALD, FISLE, FSLL, is founding principal of Lighting Research & Design. He serves on the IES Board of Directors, chairs the IES Global Development Committee, and is committed to expanding lighting education and professional engagement worldwide.
1 M. Zallio, C. Chivǎran, and P. J. Clarkson. “Exploring Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility in the Built Environment: A Case Study.” Buildings, vol. 14, 2024.
2 E. Rossi et al. “The Concept of ‘Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion’ in Design Education: Overview and Directions.” In Cumulus Budapest 2024: P/References of Design Conference, pp. 631–650. Budapest: Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, 2024.
3 E. Vickers and L. Un. “Editorial – Asian Perspectives on Diversity and Its Implications for Education.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education, vol. 39, no. 2, 2019.
4 F. Wang. “Toward a Theory of Plural Origins of Chinese Civilization: Hypotheses on Ancient Chinese History.” In Fu Ssu-nien: A Life in Chinese History and Politics, edited by F. S. Wang, pp. 98–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
5 D. Sharma. “Religious Pluralism in Ancient India: Unravelling the Tapestry of Coexistence and Cultural Exchange.” International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, vol. 2, no. 4, 2015.
6 J. O. Voll. “Introduction: Pluralism and Religions in Iranian History.” Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, vol. 14, no. 4, 2003.
7 V. F. S. Sit. Chinese History and Civilisation: An Urban Perspective. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2021.
8 D. Biswas. “Sustainable Development Through Ancient Indian Practices and Knowledge System: Lessons from History.” The Social Science Review: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, 2024.
9 J. M. Kenoyer. Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998.
10 A. Sonthalia. “Colonial and Post-Colonial Impact on Indian Artisans: A Case Study of Odisha and West Bengal.” International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, vol. 8, no. 10, 2025.
11 M. Das. “Colonial Laws – A Great Blow to Indian Indigenous Knowledge Systems.” Sampratyaya, vol. 1, no. 2, 2024.
