Table of Contents
In this writing, the aim is to
examine the concepts or theories that describe the terms diversity or
inclusion; and to freely discuss both terms as would any observer in any society.
Why? Because diversity is in every nation and country.
You can see that I have mentioned three terms that describe the ‘different
aggregate of people living together’. They are ‘society’, ‘nation’, and ‘country’.
These terms may seem synonymous; however, they differ in meaning. Their
differences will help in understanding the objective of this writing. Just a
warning. I do not claim to be a sociologist, ethnologist, or political
scientist. I am writing as a free street expounder.
As part of this exercise, these
terms: society, nation, and country will be defined, and the definitions will
help in the elaboration of the claim that: ‘diversity is intrinsically a given
while inclusion is socially an adaptation or adjustment that relies heavily on
acceptance.’
Diversity
To begin with, what does diversity
mean? Without bending to any country’s definition and policy on diversity or
inclusion, the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of diversity can be useful
here. Accordingly, the full definition of diversity is:
The condition of having or being composed of different elements.
In this context, this definition considers diversity as constituting a variety of
things, especially the inclusion of people of various races, cultures,
languages, beliefs, abilities, or disabilities in or within a group or
community.
Diversity is also an example of a composition of
differing elements or qualities. In this context, it suggests examples, such as
a diversity of opinions, ideas, knowledge, talents, and more.
In like manner, Merriam-webster
defines inclusion as:
‘The act of including or the state of being included.’
And we understand ‘to include’ as ‘to take in as a part of a whole or group’,
an emphasis that the whole is not complete without the parts. It considers ‘to
include’ as ‘to contain between or within.’ It could be viewed as ‘to embrace’
(to bring together different things within a whole), or ‘to involve’ (which suggests
including something by the nature of the whole that could arise from
its natural or inevitable consequence).
The practice or act of including students with
disabilities with the general student population. Here, its emphasis is on
integration, to make an assortment or blend differing circumstances instead of
keeping them separate.
The act or practice of including and accommodating
people who have historically been excluded (because of their race, gender,
sexual orientation, religion, circumstances, and more). This definition deeps
into the past and refers to the many exclusions that had happened and probably
are still happening in different societies.
The title of this writing states
that ‘diversity is intrinsically a given while inclusion is socially an
adaptation or adjustment that relies heavily on acceptability.’ It ideates as
well as claims that true diversity and inclusion that exist in tolerant
societies, nations, and countries are on one hand viewed as a natural phenomenon
and, on the other, acculturation. For example, how do the aggregates of
people living together in a society differ from the groups of individuals that
belong to a nation? And how do these two groups of collections of people (as
in a society and nation) differ from the people that live within a country? We
can attempt to answer the above by getting to know what they mean.
Society
Society can be defined as:
a group of individuals who are involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same spatial or social territory and may be subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
The conceptual phrase here is
‘persistent social interaction.’ This suggests that the said individuals have
continued to communicate among themselves over a long time. They have
known themselves, their families, ways of life, conventions, and manners and then share
these mores, lore, and traditions amongst themselves and are inherited by their
posterity. Such conventions can be indelible and inimitable. They stay with
them. Further, society can mean “a large social group sharing the same spatial
or social territory.” In this context, we can refer to African society, American
society, British society, or Jewish society.
Nation
There are quite a few definitions
of the term ‘nation’.
The term nation can be viewed as a group of people who are desirous of forming a community because of their common culture, access to a territory that is set apart from the rest, and whose common past and future are motivations for self-rule.
Typically, we can use these
nations as examples: Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. These are
different nations that have demarcated territories, different languages, and
perhaps cultures. The individuals who belong to these nations identify
themselves as belonging to their national groups. For example, a person from
Scotland identifies themselves as Scottish. The same applies to Irish (Northern
Ireland), English (England) or Welsh (Wales).
It is pertinent to remind readers
that this writing is not about nationalism. References to the above terms are
made to help in building the argument supporting the claim that diversity is
intrinsically a given while inclusion is socially an adaptation or adjustment
that relies heavily on acceptability. Now, the last but not the least term is
‘country’. What does it mean?
Country
The term country
comes from the Old French contrée. The English term country is a derivative of
the Latin term ‘contra’, which means ‘against’ or ‘on the opposite side.’ From
Latin also, the term ‘contrata’ was derived from the ‘contra.’ ‘Contrata’ itself
means ‘that which is situated opposite the beholder’ or a ‘landscape’ or
‘expanse of land.’
The meanings of both ‘contra’ and ‘contrata’ suggest
that a country is an expanse of land that protects those within from any harm
that may come from the outside. A country can be described as an area of land
that has its own government, a place of an individual’s birth, residence,
naturalization, or citizenship. A country can also signify a collection of
people living in that expanse of land.
We have defined and described the
fundamental terms that form the substructure of the arguments of the above claim.
The definitions show that a society can constitute micro-groups within a
nation, and many nations can make up a country as in the case of the United
Kingdom. However, the term society can be used in a general sense to include
everything within a country or nation. When referring to all that Britain represents,
it can be described as ‘British society.’ This expression includes the
different nations and societies therein as well as other residents who have
become acculturated. It also encompasses any of her foreign policies and
influences in the world.
Exclusivity and Inclusivity
Many times, the question of diversity and inclusion crop up within a country when issues about race, religion, immigration, language, marriage, ability, disability, or crime are imagined or disputed. These two terms ‘contrata’ and ‘contra’ will be very important in understanding diversity and inclusion whether as an outsider or insider. Below is a description of diversity as an exclusion that is ‘unconnected’ and as an exclusive phenomenon that is ‘unpredictable’. Also, there is a description of inclusion as an inclusivity that is ‘anticipated’ as well as ‘connected’. There are four scenarios:
1: country-individual exclusivity and inclusivity scenarios
SCENARIOS
|
COUNTRY
|
AFFINITY
|
INDIVIDUAL
|
A
|
Exclusivity |
Unconnected |
Exclusivity |
B
|
Exclusivity |
Disconnected/Connected |
Inclusivity |
C
|
Inclusivity |
Connected/Disconnected |
Exclusivity |
D
|
Inclusivity |
Connectedness |
Inclusivity |
The ‘exclusivity’ in (a) and (b) - very ‘dormant’
The diversity and inclusion that exist outside the
boundaries of a country do not affect the position taken by the people inside
that country because juridically, they have no connection or control over that.
The ‘exclusivity’ in (b) has the same weight as the two-exclusivity joined by a
positive conjunction. Neither the country nor the individual within that
country has an interest in the affairs of another country.
The ‘inclusivity’ in (b) - active and predictable
The ‘inclusivity’ here is about an individual who is
still in his/her native country but sees value in the way of life, culture, and
traditions of other people in a different country. Such an individual begins to
align themselves with the values, way of life, and worldviews of the people out there
with the hope that one day he/she will be there. He/she imagines the quality of
life, equals, and the enjoyment of the same opportunities as everyone else. You
can notice this when people start to learn languages or cultures of other
countries, such as English or German, and Russian languages. Inside themselves, they are already acting and behaving like the people of his/her dream country.
Already, they are adjusting and adapting their manners and behaviours as they
wait for the invitation to enter that country. Such inclusivity is an
anticipated one. Nevertheless, it does not prove that the said individual will
be integrated into society when they eventually arrive in their dream
country. They can become very exclusive (totally reject and refuse to
integrate) or very inclusive as in the fourth category.
The ‘exclusivity’ in (c) - active and unpredictable
It is different from the ‘exclusivity’ in (a)
and (b). This type of ‘exclusivity’ is marked by both internal and external
separateness of the individual from the value of his/her adopted or naturalized
or birth country. It can be marked by dissimilarities or unlikeness, bigotry or
xenophobia, anger, or retaliation. It is racially ethnocentric. Such an
individual is very biased toward other cultures and tries to view them from their
perspectives instead of the standards of the culture where they find themselves
or the culture they are interacting with. In extreme cases, they view their culture
as superior and everyone else’s as inferior.
This type of ‘exclusivity’ does
not exist outside the country but inside. There is angst all over. Such
individuals will refuse to integrate within the larger society they found
themselves in or accept other cultures or ethnicities around them. They refuse to
adapt or adjust to the new life and world they find themselves in. But they can
pretend quite well. Even when their children try to adapt or align with the
people by making friends with people from other races, languages, and religions or
even try to marry other people from different cultures or traditions, they face
the ire of their parents, at times ostracization or even death. They have
refused to admit other cultures, belief systems, dress codes, or marriages.
The ‘inclusivity’ in (c) - has the same weight as the ‘inclusivity’ in (d)
The individual is very active and
connected with his/her dream country or is truly a patriotic citizen. There is a connectedness between the individual and the society. Society assimilates him/her, they in return align themselves to the values of the
society.
Diversity and inclusion work both ways. The assimilating
country or society makes some changes, and adjustments in their ways of life, or
culture to accommodate the assimilated. But the assimilated refuse to make the
same compromise by adapting or adjusting some of theirs. In this type of
scenario, it can be said that the assimilated does not accept the assimilating.
The use of English ‘present participle’ in ‘assimilating’ as above denotes that
the action of either the country or society is both present and continuous in
adjustments to accommodate the assimilated.
The fourth scenario, which is
‘inclusivity’ and ‘inclusivity’ is what every group aims to attain. In such an
ideal state, they are no longer two groups as the assimilating and assimilated
but one group. At this point, one common value has tied both together. They are
inseparable.
Similarity in Difference
In this section, I will examine
some features of human beings as ways to establish the fact that no matter
the differences that exist within human beings, they still have some
commonalities. They share basic features. These features are substantially what
makes them alike. For example, every human person has these features:
One body consisting of one mouth,
one nose, two eyes, two ears, two hands, and two legs to mention but a few. Your
body may be light or dark in complexion, your mouth may be hemmed by thick or
thin lips, your nose may be broad or pointed, your eyes may be brown, blue,
green, or white in colour, and your ears may be large or small, and so on, you can
still exist not minding the differences.
Disability, age, race, language,
marriage, religion, or sex cannot be a condition that will remove the essence from any human being. Inclusion should not racially or ethnically denote
indistinguishability or identicalness or be understood as a rejection of
an individual’s inherited values. Inclusion should be viewed as aligning an
individual’s held values to their newly acquired values while co-existing in a
diverse environment. The concept of inclusion means that the essential
principles or standards of behaviour that are important for peaceful co-existence
should be incorporated into the social systems. The term acculturation or
assimilation does not suggest that the dominant culture is superior but rather that
a part must continually help make up a whole.
An individual with blue eyes does
not change to brown because he/she is in a country where everyone is
brown-eyed. Or a Lilliputian becomes as tall as a Brobdingnagian overnight
because they happen to live in Brobdingnag. No! A Lilliputian will continue to
be a Lilliputian while in Brobdingnag and a Brobdingnagian will continue to be
a Brobdingnagian while in Lilliput.
Further Readings
“Diversity.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary,
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclusion.
Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.
“Inclusion.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary,
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclusion.
Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.
“Society.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society.
Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.
Guibernau, M. (1996) Nationalisms, Cambridge, Polity
Press.
Moore, M. (1997) ‘On national self-determination’, Political
Studies, vol.45, no.5.
Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on
the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, Verso.
“Country.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country. Accessed 2 Jan. 2022.
Comments