We have deliberated
whether to give our conference the title Ethics of ‘non-exclusion’ or
‘inclusion’.[1]
The first impulse was ‘no-exclusion’, since the ethical imperative of
non-excluding people was the one of the realisations of the democracy of direct
action applied in some occupy movements (Maple & Kurnik, 2012; Flaker@ Boj
za, 2012; Urek, 2015) and seems to be a cornerstone of any real democracy and
of an equal community and society. Social work is able not only to provide the
knowledge and technology of how this can happen, but since its epistemological
and even more so praxeological basis, it is its major contribution to the doing
of the society. We chose, however, the title of Ethics of Inclusion, primarily
because its broader meaning and to avoid the unstylish negation in the title.
Although, it looks like we are dealing with
two synonyms, and that non-exclusion and inclusion have more or less the same
meaning, this is not the case. We chose to distinguish between the imperative of non-exclusion and ethics of inclusion in itself.
The difference between imperative of
non-exclusion and inclusion itself is in the fact that imperative of non-exclusion
is an imperative, a command, a stance and an attitude, maybe a blue-print for
action, while inclusion is an act, something that requires doing, involvement,
engagement – both, on the part of the people who ‘include themselves’ and those
who include others.
We can postulate a universal imperative of
non-exclusion, but not a universal imperative of inclusion. ‘I do not want to
be excluded (a priori) out of anything, but I do not want (and cannot) to be
included in everything.’ (Marx once said: "I would not want to be a member
of any club that would have me as a member." Groucho of course.).
The term ‘inclusion’ has been in political
parlance much abused, became sort of amoeba word or new-talk of many
professions. In many places and areas professionals have full mouth of
Inclusion, but they sustain the very institutions of exclusion. Same can happen
to the imperative of non-exclusion, if it is not followed by an active ethics
of inclusion. Even if we embrace, in principle, imperative of non-exclusion (or
anti-discrimination), the strategy of not
doing, of omitting the act of inclusion, can be in effect, a passive, act
of exclusion and effectively a strategy of exclusion. It can function as an
excuse, a tally to include people globally (in a global community of humanity),
but not include them locally – as it happens with the refugees at this very
moment.
However, seminal Lemert's (1962) work on
dynamics of exclusion, whole industry of apartheid and discrimination show that
exclusion as an active process. As such it has to be resisted. Exclusion is the problem, not so much the lack
of inclusion. The imperative of non-exclusion is therefore not only a passive
stance or a lifeless pointer, it is an imperative to denounce and actively
dismantle the mechanisms of exclusion.
Ethics of inclusion requires, therefore,
double action: indirectly inclusion happens by fighting the exclusion –
detainment, isolation, discrimination, etc.; directly it happens by actively
including people into what they want to be included.
Inclusion is an act – and we have to devise
machines, processes, procedures etc. – and an imperative of non-exclusion is a
necessary stance, principle, attitude for this act to be performed ethically.
On the other hand, exclusion is also an active process, with its investments
and not just a static result. So denouncing and fighting it is a moral deed of
imperative of non-exclusion. While mere inclusion need not to be polemic with
exclusion by necessity the imperative of non-exclusion has to be.
Imperative of non-exclusion is like leaving
the doors opened. But when somebody appears at the doorstep the invitation,
hospitality is necessary – and it is up to both the host and the visitor to perform
the act of inclusion (or for that matter exclusion) and determine the mode and
degree of it. It is a dialectic between virtual, potential and actual, done. Imperative
of non-exclusion and ethics of inclusion are a dialectic double of action.
Non-exclusion is an imperative, a proposition of an action. If the action does
not follow it remains futile and pointless. The action stemming out of it is
either an act of inclusion or an act of denouncing and dismantling exclusion.
Or a pasodoble of both.
Furthermore, by including somebody, you did
not dis-exclude everybody who is still not included. Inclusion needs an
imperative of non-exclusion to reach conclusion that everybody who has been
just to be included is not the last one, he or she is at least the penultimate
member. There is always somebody else to come. J This is the reality of sublime community.
Inclusion is an effort worthy of Sisyphus.
It is hard to imagine a society that will not exclude, but not impossible, the
act of inclusion will need to be performed endlessly. If the imperative of
non-exclusion is something basic that makes us human, incessant action of
inclusion is the price to pay for humanity. And as Camus points out, we can
smile with content walking down the hill, happy to had being done something
that takes us apart from gods.
References
Lemert, E. (1962) 'Paranoia and the
Dynamics of Exclusion', Sociometry, vol.
25, no. 1 (March 1962), pp. 1–20.
Maple, R. & Kurnik, A. (2012)
'The Occupy Movement in Žižek’s hometown: Direct democracy and a politics of
becoming', American Ethnologist, vol.
29, no. 2, May 2012, pp. 238–258.
Urek, M. (2015) ‘Vito Flaker@Boj za, Direktno socialno delo (Direct
social work), Ljubljana: Založba /*cf., 372 pp., 2012. ISBN: 978-961-257-047-7,
Dialogu in Praxis, vol. 4, no. 1–2.
[Online] Available at: http://dialogueinpraxis.fsd.uni-lj.si/index.php?id=5&a=article&aid=48
Flaker, V.@Boj za (2012)
Direktno socialno delo (Direct social
work), Ljubljana: Založba /*cf.
[1] Conference of the School of Social Work Theory and Practice,
Inter-university centre, Dubrovnik, 21st–25th September
2015. This blog is part of a paper
that I am writing as a leading, introductory paper to the special issue, which
is outcome of the conference. Soon to appear on the web site of Dialogue in
Praxis http://dialogueinpraxis.fsd.uni-lj.si/
Ni komentarjev:
Objavite komentar