I would like to think about words today.  I want to specify that because the words I want to think about point clearly to arenas of social conflict and I do not want to be in an arena.  Just the words, ma’am

Inclusion and exclusion are fundamental human acts.  They are reciprocal and they are both necessary.  Being in favor of inclusion but not of exclusion is like being in favor in inhaling and against exhaling.

Exclusion makes “us” and “them” possible.  It is necessary to human society.

All of the questions of how we want “them” to treat “us” and how “we” are going to treat “them” are relevant to the functioning of a society, of course, but they are not relevant to the words we choose to point to those issues.

So how did “exclusivity”  become a volatile and dangerous word?  I think carelessness, mostly.  When you exclude me from something—an event, a group—to which I have a right of access, you have committed an act of unfairness.  It might be immoral; it might be illegal.  The standard I want to use is fairness.

That being the case, it seems odd that the social weight has come to fall on the act of exclusion, rather than the basis of the exclusion.  In other words, exclusivity is not the problem here and that matters.

Why does it matter?  Because our reflexive and unconsidered use of “exclusivity” points to the act of exclusion rather than the basis for exclusion.  We badly need some such expression as “inappropriate exclusivity.”  I know it is long and hard to say, but think of it as being a draftee into the army when a national conflict is looming.  Sometimes there are just things you need to do even when you don’t want to.  Saying “inappropriate exclusivity” is one of those.

And what do you get for all that work?  First, you make “exclusion” and “exclusivity” into neutral words.  If they are neutral—neither good nor bad—they direct attention away from the fact of exclusion and to the basis for exclusion and that is where the attention ought to be.  That adjective—inappropriate— requires that we imagine that there are appropriate exclusions and inappropriate exclusions.  We are against the latter type.  Only.

Without that, “exclusivity” becomes a hungry carnivore, roaming the neighborhoods and gobbling up acts of appropriate exclusion.  Even acts that allocate this to you and that to me by some method everyone has accepted, is just food for the “exclusivity monster.” When you have taken control of your portion and begin to help yourself to my portion, I object.  But “exclusivity” sticks his head in the window and points to the contested part and says that in refusing to share my portion, I am engaging in an act of exclusivity.

Now I expect that you were puzzled by the introduction of the hungry carnivore.  Why all that violence?  This is why. The idea that you, having taken control of your portion, should think that you have rightful access to my portion needs to be resisted.  Everyone agrees to that.  But the charge of exclusivity messes up that agreement.  The carnivore points a finger at my unwillingness to share my portion and say, “Ha!  Exclusivity!” and he is correct.

Ownership or exclusive access was established when the oatmeal was served, some in my bowl and some in yours.  Only exclusion will ensure that my breakfast goes into me and yours into you.  You will say, surely, that it is only common sense that the oatmeal in my bowl is mine and the oatmeal in your bowl is yours, but remember that we are not talking about common sense; nor are we talking about oatmeal.  We are talking about words.

Does “exclusivity” solve the oatmeal problem.  Of course not.  It is the clearest possible instance of it.  Does “inappropriate exclusivity” solve the oatmeal problem?  Probably.  It certainly and reliably changes the focus to whether exclusion is appropriate in this situation.

The snarling beast who points the finger and says, “Ha! Exclusion” now has nothing to say.  There is not, in our current circumstances, an “appropriateness beast.”  Appropriateness requires a committee, not a predator.

“Appropriate on what basis?” is the approach of the appropriate criterion.  And we all know that there are good bases for exclusion and bad bases.  Let’s have a discussion about what is good and bad about this reason for excluding anyone or any claim.  

To shift the metaphor just one more time, the “exclusivity” claim is surgery done with a screwdriver and a wrench.  “Appropriateness” is a scalpel.