We Need Caveats On Inclusivity

The Occupy movement is based on some core principles of structure and process: non-violence, inclusivity, democratic decision making and a non-hierarchical horizontal structure being the most obvious. I’m a fan of them all, but talking about them – or more accurately, where their limits ought to be – seems almost taboo. So why might I think we should place limitations on principles I’m in favour of? Well, taking any principle to an extreme can result in undesirable consequences. Absolutist positions are seldom sensible as they tend to ignore complexity and context, but the aspect I think is most problematic for the Occupy movement is total inclusivity.

Now I’m not suggesting Occupy ought to be members only, and I realise the importance of outreach and trying to build a critical mass, but that’s exactly why I think we need firm caveats on our open-door policy. It’s easy to see the consequences of something we do, but we sometimes have blindspots over the consequences of action we choose not to take, and inclusivity if taken to its absolutist logical conclusion would only end up alienating large sections of society.

Here’s my thinking. Let’s say Gary Glitter rocks up saying, “Hi guys, I’m here to join your lovely inclusive movement”. Would we welcome him in? If we did, it would immediately rule a lot of people – me included – out. It might seem crass my using Glitter as an example, perhaps I could have invented someone who has shown extreme violence or intimidation toward women in the past, except that has happened without the individuals being told categorically where they can go. So it seems a more extreme example is needed to make the point. Or what if Nick Griffin fancied doing a session at TentCity University on ethnicity. Presumably some people are collectively deemed off limits already even if it isn’t overtly expressed. If so, why maintain the facade?

When you have a set of principles you are prepared to adhere to absolutely, they end up cancelling each other out and you achieve none of them. Take free speech and anti-racism; in law, these are balanced to try to ensure the best possible civil rights. Take free speech as an absolutist value and you tolerate all hate speech. Impose total intolerance of racism and you have abolished free speech as a principle. Inclusivity and non-violence also need to be balanced if they are to actually have any meaningful effect. If we dare not cast anybody out, we grant them the ability to cause physical harm with an invite to come back and do the same again, something likely to exclude good-minded women and men alike. We shouldn’t fall into the liberal trap of having principles we are terrified to enforce for fear of disregarding another of our principles; stifling us into a position where we fail to implement either to any degree of success. We shouldn’t fetishise ideas, nor tactics, but should evaluate their value and limitations, and implement them accordingly.

I’m yet to hear it said someone ought to be excluded from Occupy (though I expect and hope it has happened in unique circumstances) and some might consider it sacrilege to utter the words. We’ve tolerated people with no desire to actually do anything constructive who continually undermine our efforts and are most likely agents provocateurs, and shamefully, even people who have been aggressive towards women. I don’t think limiting inclusivity means making Occupy a card carriers club. Pubs don’t tolerate certain behaviour without becoming members only. And I don’t think it would mean needing to establish rules; any situation could be dealt with individually and democratically. Occupy wouldn’t shift from being an open, ethereal movement to a religious doctrine simply because we refuse to tollerate certain behaviour.

So let me break what some people have held as a taboo and say it: inclusivity should have caveats, and some people should be excluded.