Sarah wrote:
>I'm afraid experience leads many of us to believe that if we are not
>specifically included then we are excluded. I'm sure other minorities >can
relate to this!
Even as a gay person myself (+ a pagan, and BDSMer - so lots of minority
groupings there...) I'm not entirely sure of the wisdom of this. I have
personally found that I am only excluded when I decide to emphasise my
"otherness" - and then it is my own perceptions that do the excluding...
When talking about being "inclusive", surely the more explicit we become in
listing all of those groups we must include, the more we risk *not*
including one of the smaller "minorities". Nicky's tongue in cheek comment
about Heterosexuals feeling excluded could be a genuine point - if we list
each group individually and separately, then surely we *must* also include
"Straight", "Married", "White" etc - or risk making them feel excluded.
It seems to me that dividing us all into tighter and tighter defined
"minority" groupings merely emphasises our differences, rather than our
commonalities. I know that as Librarians our urge is to catalogue and
classify every minutiae, but that very act can itself be the first step
towards the segregation and control of the thing catalogued.
Surely "Inclusive" implicitly means just that - holistically including
*everyone*, regardless of any social, religious, political (or any other)
affiliations or categories - whether externally or personally applied. To
try and make that implicit inclusion explicit merely defeats it's meaning
and it's purpose.
"Strength through Diversity" comes from our common ground, not our
differences.
Regards
David
|