Faces
by J. Jay Miller, PhD, MSW, CSW
Inclusion is not enough. We need expansion.
It’s been a number of weeks since the killing of George Floyd—even longer since the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Oscar Grant III, and countless others. These events, singularly and collectively, have sparked demonstrations and mobilized people in unprecedented ways. Indeed, we are living in unique times.
Over the last several weeks, like many of you, my inbox has been inundated with reactions and responses to these recent events and surging momentum. Sympathetic expressions of unity, clarion calls for systemic change, and manicured messages of solidarity proliferate in these communications. Organizations, associations, and the like have scrambled to proffer actionable steps aimed at assuaging racism and addressing historic oppression.
Veritably, many of the responses are authentic and heartfelt. Frankly, the very fact that organizations are moved to offer any response is refreshing. However, I fear that far too many are conveying oversimplified, desultory activities. Sadly, many of these efforts are more about placating and pandering to what is viewed as a contemporary “hot” social moment and less about propelling a systemic, sustained change movement. Left unchallenged, these efforts can be merely performative rather than meaningfully transformative.
An all-too-common response for organizations centers on inclusion. A plethora of entities have announced new inclusion initiatives aimed at diversifying the people, practices, and policies associated with their brands. Others have renewed or doubled down on commitments to existing inclusion endeavors. Whilst these efforts are mostly commendable, many of these responses seem to be overly reliant on inclusion as a panacea to address deep-seated social ills associated with racism—with the positive aim of diversity.
Inclusion, in an idealistic sense, refers to intentionally engaging with difference. Inclusion initiatives aim to foster norms and cultures that ensure a sense of belonging among all people in a particular system or community. At the intended core, inclusion revolves around value, respect, and empowerment.
From a pragmatic standpoint, though, inclusion looks far less idealistic. Inclusion, in its real-life form, is strikingly incongruous to quixotic notions of equality and celebrating difference. Efforts at inclusion typically start with an administrator or committee and include some semblance of assessment, training, and targeted hiring practices aimed at improving workplace cultures. These efforts, typically, include additions—rather than excavate systems.
Although (usually) done with laudable intentions, the impact of inclusion is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a deep wound. It may look pretty; it may cover up temporarily. It may even serve a better-than-nothing purpose. But, eventually, the wound gapes open and requires deeper attention.
This implementation of inclusion has notable limitations and can even exacerbate the problems. Here is an initial list of inter-connected critiques.
First, language (i.e., the words we use) is crucially important. The very term inclusion is rife with embedded privilege. Inclusion refers to the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure. This definition begets the query: Who gets to decide who and/or what is included—and for what purposes? Inclusionary aims, in theory, strive for broader policies, practices, and procedures to foster welcoming environments.
But, ultimately, PEOPLE make these decisions and take actions. Inclusion is not an abstract construct. Inclusion is a process that is driven and enacted by people. Thus, inclusion is inherently impacted by the privileged perspectives of those doing the “including.”
Next, a fundamentally flawed assumption related to inclusion initiatives must be critiqued: that they actually work to change environments. Despite years of inclusion efforts and dedicated resources, financial and otherwise, many professional sectors are less inclusive than they have ever been. This issue is specifically true among upper administrative positions prevalent among higher education administration.
In the current social climate, simply including diverse populations or practices cannot be assumed to create meaningfully diverse and inclusive communities. That is, a xenophobic hiring official or supervisor can recognize the need (or be forced) to include a Muslim employee in an interview pool. And that same official or supervisor could actually hire said Muslim person. The institution can adopt practices that permit space and time for prayers and hold trainings on Islamic religions and cultures for all faculty and staff. None of these practices mean that the administrator or institution is actually any less xenophobic. At best, it could mean a Muslim person is now supervised by a xenophobe in a xenophobic institution. At worst, these types of efforts to be inclusive can sow broad resentment for inclusion efforts or serve as a diversion for the actual treatment of said employee.
In real world implementation, too often, inclusion requires the membership cost of conformity. The actual system does not change. Those included must “buy into”/be acculturated to the dominant norms or risk being ostracized or excluded.
Regrettably, inclusion can perpetuate toxic moral license. In short, moral license occurs when people (and, by extension, an entity) engage in prejudicial behavior, but excuse their actions because they behaved in non-bigoted ways previously or in other circumstances. As an example, organizations may point to bias training, hiring, or other endeavors as “proof” that the institution is not discriminatory, whilst engaging in rampant racism and other harms. These inclusionary measures can provide window-dressing for insidiously discriminatory cultures.
These things in mind, it is time to move beyond inclusion initiatives that conform and, instead, center on expansive frameworks that transform.
According to Merriam-Webster, expansion means to open up. It refers to actions or processes that expand a scope, arena, impact in exponential ways. Rather than inclusion, social service organizations should focus on expansion. That is, environments should be expanded such that people are inherently engaged in equitable, diverse systems.
Expansive practices move beyond proverbial “check box” exercises in diversity hiring or committees that proffer agendas associated with inclusion assessments and activities. Making environments welcoming is not ONLY about changing practices, policies, and procedures. It is about changing people. Expansive practices recognize that changing the former does not necessarily lead to change in the latter.
In a contemporary landscape replete with discrimination and prejudice, almost any authentic effort is welcomed. However, it is time to recognize that current inclusionary conceptions have significant limits, at best—and, left unchanged, may actually exacerbate the problems. The end goal shouldn’t be inclusion, lest we land in a place of perpetual tokenism and unfulfilled obligations.
Progress is laudable. Inclusion is part of the progressive continuum, not the end of it. Inclusive initiatives moved us from the long-held exclusionary norms—whereby the privileged, dominant groups excluded others. Now, we should shift to frameworks which expand our practices, policies, and procedures. Social service organizations must collaboratively create mechanisms whereby diversity is not just superficially represented, but inherently embodied, pragmatically instituted, and consistently ensured.
Moving forward, we must embrace difference in a way that we haven’t before—in an expansive way that transforms, rather than simply conforms. That means difference that we know, and perhaps more importantly, difference that we don’t know. Diversity must be normative, rather than performative.
The era of inclusion has run its course. No one should have to wait on the periphery to be included. As such, we must expand—ideas, approaches, frameworks, and people. The time is now. The moment requires it. The movement demands it.
Justin Jay Miller
Justin "Jay" Miller
J. Jay Miller, PhD, MSW, CSW, is the Dean, Dorothy A. Miller Research Professor in Social Work Education, and Director of the Self-Care Lab in the College of Social Work at the University of Kentucky. You can follow his work via Twitter @DrJayMiller1.