The discourse on the consideration of differences, equal opportunities and the sharing of spaces, opportunities and responsibilities has seen the notion of inclusion become widespread in recent years. Is it a simple substitution of loaded and overused terms such as " diversity " and " diversity(ies )" or a real change of perspective?

What does inclusion mean and what implications can the use of this term have ?

 

 

The opposite of exclusion?

Different and incompatible ?

 

At first glance, inclusion seems to be a simple antonym of exclusion. Both words are of Latin origin, together built on the root "cludere " which means " to close ", " to forbid access to ".  " Excludere " is " to repel ", " to chase ", " to reject ", says the Gaffiot.

 

It was on this meaning of the Latin word that the notion of exclusion was built in the seventeenth century. It is found in particular in Pascal, who in his Pensées, defines the fact of exclusion as that of " rejecting one thing as incompatible with another ". Exclusion, in this perspective, makes difference the reason for an impossibility of mixing, of sharing a common space. In the language of the twenty-first century, this could be translated as follows : deep divergences constitute an irremediable obstacle to living together.

 

 

Différent.es because they are vulnerable ? The birth of " discrimination "

 

In the nineteenth century, with the advent of the social sciences, exclusion took on another meaning, which is very familiar to us today. Studies on the origins and effects of poverty soon made exclusion synonymous with misery. In the 1960s, the sociologist Robert Castel analysed the criteria of " vulnerability " that exposed certain categories of the population to marginalisation, i.e. rejection by the majority social body.

 

Unsurprisingly, it identifies elements of identity (gender, age, marital status, etc.), belongings (social, cultural, etc.) and/or situation (disability, family isolation, etc.) that narrow the paths to social recognition and amplify the effects of individuals' " missteps ". Those who wear one or more markers of " vulnerability " have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their worth and pay more for their mistakes. This is nothing more and nothing less than what we call discrimination.

 

 

From the cost of exclusion to the duty of integration

The discrediting of the " different " at the heart of conflicts

 

Very quickly, we became aware that exclusion was not only a threat to those who were directly victims of it, but also to the entire social body. The philosophers of peace, from Kant to Hugo to Rousseau, identify a common point in all conflicts : the latent inconsideration of the other as another " self ", whose interests and points of view are either denied by negation of the individual himself (as in the case of slavery, for example), perceived as a threat justifying the submission of the other.

 

Therefore, these philosophers establish as a prerequisite for concord the acceptance of the different (by its identity, by its culture, by its points of view) as belonging to the same whole as oneself (in this case, humanity). We recognize ourselves as equals before discussing what differentiates us and possibly opposes us.

 

 

The economic cost of exclusion

John Stuart Mill

 

A major political risk, exclusion also has its economic " cost ". It is the premier.es défenseur.es of women's participation in civic and economic life that evokes it: John Stuart Mill, among others, denounces the absurdity of depriving oneself of half of the human race when it seems that there are not enough forces, intelligences and skills to develop societies.

 

 

Faced with this approach based on the " loss of income " that results from the exclusion of certain populations from the active collective, social protection theorists highlight the cost factor that exclusion represents in itself. In the 1940s, Beveridge, the father of the welfare state , demonstrated that exclusion was a risk to which the vast majority of the population was in fact exposed (due in particular to accidents and illnesses), which indirectly jeopardized the industrial fabric, which was likely to lose at any time the labour force it relied on to produce as well as the consumption prospects it hoped for.

 

Not to mention the feeling of insecurity of workers which hinders productivity gains and the lack of vision of entrepreneur.es who do not know what society they will evolve in tomorrow and limit their investments accordingly. Beveridge thus convinced the economic world of his time that the cost of exclusion was lower and less sustainable when the risks were anticipated and mutualized. From the moment the principle of Social Security is established, it is quickly understood that exclusion directly threatens the balance of the system. The duty of integration/reintegration of exclu.es then comes into its missions.

 

 

From integration to assimilation to integration

A small (or big) effort to fit in...

 

The issue of integration brings the issue of discrimination back to the forefront, when it is clear that certain populations encounter more obstacles in their career. A whole current of thought will then place the responsibility of integrating into the social body on those who are not automatically admis.es into it.

 

They are asked to " whiten" their markers of difference and to assimilate the codes of the social body to be integrated. According to this approach, the integration of immigrants, for example, will have to involve their efforts to master the language, but also the uses and postures expected of the host country. If we take the case of the exclusion of women from the circles of power, they will be expected to prove that they can be " men like any other ", meeting the same criteria of legitimacy and exercising responsibilities with the same ways of doing things as the " insiders " who are the men already in place before them.

 

 

To become (like) the other, at the risk of losing oneself ?

 

George Sand assumed to take on an identity as a man in order to make his place in the world of letters. Here caricatured by Alcide Joseph Lorentz.

 

The model, which sometimes pushes individuals in the process of assimilation to deny their identity (as when people change their surname to erase a marker of origin or when, as we have seen in history, women cross-dress to make their place in spaces reserved for men) has its limits. First, because it largely fails to " integrate " people, allowing only a very small number of " different " people to make their place among the " same ".

 

Secondly, because by restricting the expression of " being oneself ", it favours caricatural postures of mimicry, to the point of provoking rejection. The situation of women subject to the " queen bee syndrome", who are reproached for being " worse than guys " when they exercise power, testifies to this.

 

 

Diversity : from the added value of differences to questioning similarity

Diversity in performance

 

We then completely change our perspective : from a factor of discrimination, difference becomes an element of diversity to be valued. It takes everything to make a world, the more we confront points of view, the better we cooperate and, to quote Saint-Exupéry, " he who differs from me, far from harming me, enriches me"!

 

Numerous studies demonstrate the benefits of diversity : through a dynamic of friction of cultures, experiences and perspectives, we better represent the population (electorate, clientele, etc.), we consider more scenarios to make more robust decisions, we strengthen the quality of life (at work, in the " living together " of society as a whole), we nurture trust, we innovate faster and better...

 

 

The time of diversity " criteria "

 

In the 1980s and 1990s, a certain number of diversity criteria were imposed: disability, gender, social and cultural origins. But soon, other markers of identity, situation or belonging emerged in the discussion on diversity: sexual orientation, age and generation, religious affiliation, appearance...

 

This reveals a major contradiction in the concept of diversity : where everyone should be allowed to have the same opportunities and the same effective rights to make their place, populations have been categorized as " different " eligible, while others have been put to the test by a test of recognition.

 

We also fail to identify and analyze intersectional situations in a satisfactory way. What about senior women of colour with disabilities , for example? How should we think about the situation of the downgraded man in the face of that of the woman on the rise in society in a policy of gender equality? How can we develop strategies for the integration of young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods that benefit both girls and boys ? etc.

 

 

Différent.es, yes, but in relation to whom ?

 

Beyond this pitfall of classifying differences, visions of diversity stumble over the very notion of " different ". When you are " different ", compared to whom and what are you different? To a so-called norm that would refer to it or to an authoritative majority of " similars "?

 

Except that the reflection on diversity has highlighted on the one hand the weight of the norm including for those who conform to it, on the other hand the great heterogeneity and strong contextuality of the apparent normative majority and finally the sterility of the self-contained.

 

After trying to identify " differents ", we find ourselves forced to question the " no different ". What makes a group of individuals considered " similar " to each other?

 

 

Inclusion : allowing everyone to be who they are and to give the best of themselves in a collective

The challenges of inclusion : permeability and coherence

 

Examining this question of what constitutes a " body of reference " from which to think about " differences " leads to a rethinking of the collective. This collective is no longer a figure imposed on the rules of access and operation installed, but a dynamic entity grappling with two major challenges :

 

• Permeability : the collective must be open enough to be accessible and welcoming to a crowd of " different " people (since we are all different from each other)
• Coherence : the collective must build a common way of operating, acceptable to everyone and beneficial to all.

 

It is at the crossroads of these two objectives that we can define inclusion : to create collective conditions (context, operating rules, shareable values) allowing everyone, whoever they are, to assert their personality, talents, ideas, and energy to bring the best of themselves to the common project.

 

 

Speak up and allow others to do the same

 

The inclusive approach is fundamentally participatory. It invites each individual to question his or her position and behaviour in the group in order to exercise two concomitant responsibilities: that of expressing himself or herself and that of allowing others to do the same.

 

If we take the example of " manterrupting ", which we have recently instructed : it is not a question of men giving up speaking, nor of women monopolizing it; but for all to contribute together to the construction and animation of a more " dialoguing " and better " listening " discussion space.

 

 

The key question of inclusion : what if we did things differently ?

 

As a result, the inclusive approach is inherently innovative : it will allow everything to be challenged by each individual : oneself (their postures, their behaviors, their ways of doing things, their visions, their brakes, their drivers, etc.), others (their legitimacy, interests, resistance, commitments, coherence, etc.) and the collective (their access and participation routes, etc.). its operating codes and software, its recognition and valuation criteria, its prospects for transformation, etc.).

 

In other words, inclusion makes it possible to answer the question " how can we act collectively when there are so many different people ?" with a proposal open to all possibilities : what if we did things differently ?