In our quest for inclusion it is interesting that we continue to use language that has the opposite connotation.
We continue to proliferate concepts such as dominant vs non-dominant groups; minority vs majority; privileged vs non-privileged; younger vs older; immigrant vs native born and the list goes on and on.
While these distinctions are perhaps useful to help us address how such differences manifest to create disparities in outcomes, I believe it may get us closer to behaving inclusively if we think in relatives rather than absolutes.
Who is the dominant group? Those who have the largest numbers in the population? Those with the greatest power and influence? In the recent presidential election, the collective voting power of so called minority groups made the difference in the outcome. In this case you could conclude that they comprised the dominant group.
It is truly an oxymoron to say “minorities are now the majority”. If they are the majority, how can they be the minority? What are we really trying to convey? Is the deeper polarizing meaning that even though the numbers have shifted, the new majority will continue to be treated as “less than” as it relates to equal opportunities. As a case in point, women comprise more than half of the population and half of the workforce but still hold disproportionately fewer seats of power in the global world, and face pay and other inequities. In this regard the majority is treated in a “less than” way.
What is the language of inclusion? Rather than using broad divisive terms, let’s be specific and use data and facts. Rather than terms like non-dominant or minority which can be judgmental and lead to defensive conversations, lay out the data articulating the consequences for the inequities.
Here is an example. Fact: Globally women represent 70% of those living in poverty. Consequence: Economists agree that the world’s economy will not improve until the plight of women is improved. From a relative perspective we are all “worse” off when women are “worse off”. My argument requires more of a collectivist and mutualistic mindset, and the ability to give up absolute thinking.
In any given situation the dominant may be the non-dominant or vice versa. The majority may be in the minority position. In our journey towards inclusion I advocate that we discontinue polarizing language and replace it with descriptions that help us understand the impact of disparities on everyone. (In other words we are all included!)
