1.1.6 |
THE NORM OF INCLUSIVITY INFORMALLY |
An
ideology, attitude,
practise
or action shall be inclusive, that is, it shall include, take into
consideration and respect all matters of the field it covers, without
arbitrarily and exclusively choosing, or being appealed by, matters of
one kind and not choosing, or not being appealed by, those of another
kind.
It shall not stimulate alienation from specific things due to a tendency
of excluding or exclusivity, or due to ignorance.
It shall not arbitrarily endow certain things with highness, while
attributing lowness to other ones.
It shall be as broad in orientation as possible while simultaneously
refraining from inadmissible generalizations.
This is inclusive theory and practise as governed by
the norm of inclusivity.
(The words matter and thing are to be understood in their
widest sense here.
They do not only refer to material things but also to events and
phenomena; not only to systems of
primary predicates but also to
systems of
secondary predicates and other
predicative systems; not only to nonpersonal matters or things but also
to persons or groups of persons.)
When saying that all matters of a field covered by an
ideology, attitude or practise should be included, taken into
consideration and 'respected', we certainly do not use respect
in the sense of thinking high of, treating with high regard
or honoring.
The principle of
relevance —in other
words: the norm of inclusivity— does not as such prescribe any
particular predicate of the
honor-catena,
let alone the, or a, positivity of this catena.
It is a practical corollary of the principle
tho
that where it is impossible to treat literally everyone with high or with
low regard everyone should be treated with neutral regard.
Regard is, then, used in the same sense as respect when it
means concern (and what is someone's 'concern' is, again, a
'matter for consideration').
The norm of inclusivity does not require that we honor, but that we show
concern —in the first instance— for everything and all
matters we meet on our way.
Every inclusive ideology, attitude or practise shall concern, and show
concern for, all matters of the field it covers.
It shall not result from arbitrarily and exclusively thinking high of
things, such as particular sorts of sentient beings, of bodily qualities
or of personal characteristics; and it shall not result from arbitrarily
eliminating or ignoring other things of a different sort.
It may seem paradoxical but inclusiveness does need a certain type of
exclusion, namely the exclusion of exclusiveness.
(Compare freedom, which needs a certain type of control, namely the
control over attempts to interfere with other people's freedom.)
Without the exclusion of exclusiveness, inclusiveness would lose every
meaning.
Exclusivist ideologies, and exclusive or exclusionist attitudes and
practises, are the only matters an inclusive mind, body or other system
can never include, take into consideration or respect.
This applies to all ideologies, attitudes and practises, whether political
or nonpolitical, whether religious, irreligious or otherwise nonreligious,
whether theistic, agnostic, atheistic or otherwise nontheistic, and so on
and so forth, however traditional or novel the denominations or other
labels.
In general we employ, and will continue to employ, the phrases
exclusive(ness), exclusivity,
exclusion and to exclude in such a way that the
irrelevance of the exclusion or the act of making something exclusive is
already part of the meaning of the phrase.
This usage is not different from that of discrimination when it
does not just mean making a distinction but making an
irrelevant distinction.
In informal parlance this nonrelevance is, or can be, part of the
meaning of phrases such as respect, regard and
concern too, and it definitely is part of the meaning of
arbitrariness.
Arbitrary is that which is selected without reason, while that which is
selected for a reason (even a random distribution) has relevance at
least as an implicit criterion.
An arbitrary decision is not simply a decision made on the basis of one's
own opinion, rather than on the basis of a general rule or law; it is
a decision on the basis of one's own opinion to do something with
respect to which one's own opinion is not unique, that is, a decision
which concerns other people as well.
When an action solely concerns oneself in every respect, it need not be
arbitrary at all to base one's own decision on one's own opinion,
feelings or taste only.
A ruler who uses
'er power without
thinking of other people's opinions, feelings and tastes is, indeed, 'an
arbitrary ruler' as
'e rules over others, not
just over
'imself.
It is easy to speak of "arbitrariness", "respect" and suchlike when it
is agreed on already what correct or incorrect behavior would be in the
first place.
It is when people disagree that a guideline is needed most, and the norm
of inclusivity is not the sole one but an important one then.
Each question of inclusivity, however —and with it each question
of what is 'arbitrary', or of what is 'respect'—, boils down to a
question of relevance.
This does or did not only concern rulers of whole countries, but equally,
for example, the person or persons who take the decisions in an office
or company, whether private, worker-owned or government-owned.
These decisions also concern the relationship between the manager or
management and the workers employed by them, or by whom they are
employed themselves.
One such decision might be that the employees or workers must dress
and/or adorn themselves in a particular way, perhaps even dependent on
their sex or gender, if not sex, gender and age, or sex, gender, age
and class.
Talking about "arbitrariness" and "respect" is not likely to carry anyone
much further, and it might be illustrative to see what role the universal
version of the principle of relevance can play in such situations.
Let us analyze this role in an imaginary example.
For the sake of clarity we must leave out other normative considerations
than those of inclusivity (or relevance) and truth in this example.