“Inclusion”

Let’s start with Inclusion. In modern-day ‘equalities’ terms, the term Inclusion is a logical contradiction. It doesn’t and cannot mean Inclusion. It simply means shifting who is Excluded from one place to another. See the following dialogue:

A: I believe in Inclusion

B. Very nice. Inclusion implies everyone is included. Otherwise some are Excluded, right?

A: OK.

B: What does an Inclusive environment require of its people?

A: Well, Inclusive behaviour.

B: So Non-Inclusive behaviour is not tolerated?

A: Yes.

B: So those with non-Inclusive behaviour are Excluded.

A: Well, yes.

B: But you said everyone is Included.

A: Er…

(A thinks)

A: But it’s OK to Exclude those who are not Inclusive, so we can form an Inclusive environment

B: My point is made. Inclusion is not Inclusion, it’s just shifting Exclusion from one place to another.

Person A then seeks to shift the discussion and justify the Exclusions within Inclusion!…

A: But only the occasional ‘wrong/bad person’ is Excluded from our Inclusive environment. So that doesn’t really count.

B: You mean like challenging those who use committing Microaggressions.

A: Yes.

B: So someone who commits a Microaggression is not being Inclusive?

A: Yes.

B: So the Microaggression has to be challenged.

A: Yes.

B: What if the person deemed to have committed a Microaggression simply has a different point of view that they think is valid and fair?

A: Well then it’s up to the Bias Committee to decide whether the Microaggression(s) require sanction.

B: Ah, the Bias Committee. Yes, I saw who makes that up. ‘Critical Theory’ adherents, of course. They will always take the side of the offended from a so-called ‘oppressed or marginalised group’.

A: Well…usually yes.

B: So those Excluded are simply those who adhere to Classical Liberal values and not Critical Consciousness values. And all those who adhere to Classical Liberal values need to be Excluded.

A: I don’t know what you are talking about. We are simply creating an Inclusive environment and society.

B: QED. Your so-called “Inclusion” is a logical contradiction, as it is always prepared to Exclude those who disagree. Inclusion is a contradiction in terms.

Reader: Please bear in mind that this is not only a criticism of hardline Applied Critical Theory. Exactly the same logical contradiction exists for Counterweight for the term Inclusion from a Classical Liberal perspective (as they would exclude Critical Theorists as un-Liberal), or indeed in any human organisation. Exclusion is an inevitable part of any organisations. It’s the Karl Popper Tolerance Paradox. All organisations require a Value-system. And anyone behaving outside the Values must be Excluded or the organisation’s integrity collapses.

Summary: The value of Inclusion inevitably and simultaneously requires Exclusion.  It’s a contradiction in terms – a logical contradiction. So I think the term will become obsolete at some point in future.

‘Diversity’

Some people may think that Diversity means welcoming, employing or recruiting more people from wider (minority) backgrounds, so their views can add good ideas and add value to the thinking of the organisation. This may hold up as good business practice, or in some cases it may not.

But Diversity can be another Trojan Horse term, that changes its meaning and function once initially accepted. And becomes a logical impossibility in the process.

In Applied Critical Theory, Diversity means not only the inclusion of minorities and intersectional minorities, but also a requirement of all to relate to minorities in ‘authentic’ ways; in Diverse (‘authentic’ to the oppressed) ways, not in diverse (different) ways. It’s about the point of view of the marginalised/oppressed person taking priority over the point of view of the traditional majority uncritically-conscious person. For example, in Applied Critical Theory, to regard a transgender person as ‘being of their assigned sex and living as the opposite sex’ fails to acknowledge the ‘authenticity’ of their lived experience, that they are in fact, of their chosen gender identity, and not of their assigned sex.

So a Diversity of Viewpoint or a Cognitive Diversity – a different individual viewpoint – is disallowed. Only compliance to the needs of the person from the marginalised/oppressed group is regarded as Diverse behaviour. This is a contradiction in terms; as Diversity also means Compliance.