A Deep dive within the landscapes of contested meanings of “Inclusion”
Concepts emerge through the experience of humans, they are dependant on the intersubjective reality shared by a group. it then follows logically that a concept morphs its meaning along with the changes in any of the factors of that intersubjective space.
The Systemic / Structural Perspective (The Architect of Hierarchy)
This is the perspective of the dominant power structure (e.g., the Spanish Crown, colonial administrations, neoliberal state) as it constructs and maintains systems of othering.
Definition: Inclusion is the process of assimilating selected individuals from marginalized groups into the pre-existing structure on the structure’s terms, without changing the structure itself.
Manifestation
From this viewpoint, inclusion is a strategy for managing difference and maintaining stability. The goal is to make the “other” legible and non-disruptive to the system.
In a historical colonial context, this was the offer of conversion to Christianity and acceptance as a converso or assimilado, which required the total abandonment of native language, culture, and identity in exchange for conditional, second-class status.
In a modern institutional context, it means teaching marginalized individuals the “corporate culture” or “academic norms” (which are the culture and norms of the dominant group) and expecting them to succeed within those unchanging parameters. The included individual must do all the adapting.
The Perspective of the Marginalized (The Subject of Hierarchy)
This is the perspective of those on the “lower end” of the constructed marginalization/privilege hierarchy, as articulated by critical voices within these groups.
Definition: Inclusion is meaningful participation and shared power in shaping the culture, norms, and goals of a community or institution. It is the right to co-create the space, not just to enter it.
Manifestation
For marginalized groups, true inclusion is transformative, not assimilative. It is inextricably linked to self-determination.
It is the difference between being invited to the table and having the right to set the agenda. It means the institution’s definitions of “excellence,” “professionalism,” and “valid knowledge” expand to encompass other ways of being and knowing.
From an Indigenous perspective, true inclusion would mean not just having a seat on a government environmental board, but having Indigenous sovereignty and ecological knowledge fundamentally guide the board’s decisions.
From a disability justice perspective, it is not about building a ramp as an afterthought (accessibility), but about designing the building from the ground up with the principle that access is a collective responsibility and a source of innovation (inclusion).
The Perspective of Internalized Racism (The Internalized Oppressor)
This is the perspective that has been absorbed by individuals within marginalized groups, reflecting the logic of the dominant system.
Definition: Inclusion is the ultimate goal of individual assimilation—being accepted by the dominant group as “one of the good ones.” It is a testament to one’s success in shedding the stigmatized markers of one’s own group.
Manifestation
This perspective sees inclusion as a personal reward for conformity. It is the validation of having successfully navigated respectability politics.
It generates a pressure to be a “credit to one’s race,” where inclusion is conditional on non-disruption and on embodying the model minority stereotype.
This view fosters a deep anxiety about losing this hard-won inclusion, which can lead to policing other members of one’s own community for behavior deemed “too ethnic,” “too loud,” or “too political,” fearing it will jeopardize the conditional acceptance of the entire group.
The Neoliberal Co-optation Perspective (The Manager of Dissent)
This is the perspective of the system adapting to demands for change without altering its fundamental power dynamics
Definition: Inclusion is the psychological and cultural component of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), focused on creating a “feel-good” environment where everyone feels “welcomed” and “valued,” thereby increasing productivity and reducing conflict without altering hierarchies.
Manifestation
This is the dominant corporate definition. As with diversity, inclusion is stripped of its political teeth and turned into a matter of individual sentiment and interpersonal relations.
It manifests as “inclusion training” that focuses on empathy and “unconscious bias,” placing the burden of change on individual employees’ attitudes rather than on discriminatory policies or pay inequities.
It promotes cultural celebrations (e.g., potlucks, heritage months) that showcase difference as a form of entertainment or cuisine, while the leadership and decision-making power remain homogenous.
Scholar Sara Ahmed calls this the creation of “institutional happy faces.” The institution commits to the performance of being welcoming, which effectively masks its unchanging, exclusionary structures. The goal is to make people feel included without actually sharing power
The Dissident / Critical Researcher’s Perspective
A multifield with a critical dissident lens, this perspective synthesizes and analyzes all of the different perspectives and their contradictions.
Definition: Inclusion is the practice of transforming structures and cultures to make space for, be shaped by, and share power with those who have been historically and systematically excluded. It is not an invitation to join the hierarchy but a process of dismantling the hierarchy itself.
Comprehensive view
From a critical lens, “Inclusion” is the most precarious concept because it is so easily co-opted. A rigorous definition must therefore be fiercely precise.
Inclusion is Power-Sharing, Not Assimilation. The critical question to ask of any inclusion initiative is: Who is being asked to change? If the marginalized individual or group is expected to do all the changing to fit in, it is assimilation. If the institution, its culture, and its power brokers are expected to change, it is transformative inclusion. True inclusion is the decentralization of power.
Inclusion is Conditional without Equity. Inclusion is an empty promise if the fundamental rules of the game are rigged. You cannot “include” someone in a race while their legs are shackled. Inclusion, therefore, is logically dependent on prior equity—the fair distribution of resources and the removal of systemic barriers. Without equity, inclusion is merely the right to participate in your own subordination.
Inclusion Requires Epistemic Justice. True inclusion is not achieved when people from diverse backgrounds are in the room; it is achieved when their ways of knowing are respected and can influence outcomes. It requires dismantling the hierarchy of knowledge that privileges Western, white, patriarchal, and abled ways of thinking over all others.
A Critical Test: The Right to Disrupt. The ultimate test of genuine inclusion is whether marginalized people have the right to fundamentally disagree with, critique, and seek to change the institution’s core practices without being labeled as “difficult,” “ungrateful,” or “not a team player.” If inclusion is contingent on compliance, it is not inclusion.
“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”
― Angela Y. Davis
Complementary Concepts
Contrasting Concepts
Back to JEDI Glossary