How the Inclusion Agenda Became Self-Defeating
Last Tuesday I covered anti-capitalism for the first of my discussions of third sector worldviews and today I turn to inclusion.
I appreciate people sharpening their quills because they read this post as an attack on inclusion. I am not opposed to inclusion, indeed a marketplace is by definition inclusive. How could it be otherwise? My problem is with how inclusion has developed over the years.
Nothing Propinques
A friend, a development worker, years ago found a chapter heading in Ian Fleming’s “Diamonds are Forever”, it reads “Nothing Propinques like Propinquity”.
We were puzzled by his constant repetition of this phrase and persuaded him to spell out his meaning.
If your concern is about poverty, then the thing the poor have in common is their poverty. Granted more women than men are poor, more black people than white are poor, more disabled people than able-bodied are poor (and you can keep going) but the point is ultimately if someone is poor they are poor whatever their sex, race, etc.
The only way to tackle poverty is by addressing its roots and yes those roots may include discrimination but discrimination is one means of dividing the poor from one another, undermining solidarity and mutuality.
Inclusion and Class
Inclusion never addresses class. We never discuss how we’re going to include the ruling classes in our communities. Why? They concentrate power in fewer hands and they will do anything to hold onto their power. We know inequalities in wealth are the cause of disadvantage. Racism is one of many ways the ruling class uses to divide and disempower communities. The focus needs to be on the roots of poverty in the economic system and not on the many ways in which it is possible to stoke the fires of prejudice.
There have been many attempts over the years to name disadvantaged groups and empower them by helping them set up a group that represents their interests. This plays into the hands of corporations and politicians because it drives wedges between disadvantaged groups. Strong democratic community organisations are the best resistance to divide and rule. The challenge is how to make these effective.
I recognise the good some of these specialist groups can do for their people. But the issues around for example accountability are profound. If you set up an ethnic economic development project, to whom should it be accountable?
I prefer generic organisations providing specialist services in neighbourhoods. The users can be members and so make sure the generic service is accountable. This would embody mutuality within the organisation, each specialist service supporting the others.
That leaves the question: how to fund community activity and I shall return to this next Tuesday.