Thoughts on “inclusive” and “exclusive”

After 3 years back in content marketing, it’s clear that the term “exclusive” continues to be a staple of the marketing pitch: “exclusive offer,” “your exclusive invitation,” “this exclusive event,” and so on. This week, I am participating in a company-wide program to promote “inclusiveness” in the workplace. That has me thinking about both words: what they mean, and what they imply.

What if we replaced “exclusive offer” with “inclusive offer” in our headlines and emails Would it have the same effect? Would people feel special, but in a different way? Is “inclusive” more welcoming, or is it too welcoming, implying a less focused, less valuable experience? Are inclusive and exclusive antonyms, or are they two sides of the same coin?

Both words are built on the same Latin root, claudere, which means “to close, or to shut.” (Other words based on claudere are preclude, seclusion, reclusive, and occluded.) To exclude is to shut out. In its original usage, to include is to shut in. Both define a boundary. In either case, you can be out (while others are in) or you can be in (while others are out). As I reminded those who supported the idea of a border wall: a wall works both ways. To keep people out and to keep people in, physically and psychologically.

I began to see both words as expressions of power: the power to exclude and the power to include. Even with the best of intentions, to be inclusive is to assume the power to admit someone to a group. As employees, we may be recruited and trained as agents of a policy that stresses inclusiveness. We can be sensitized to situations or behaviors that exclude people based on race, gender, sexual identity, age, or belief. We can come to realize that we benefit from systems that favor one group over another. But only a handful of people in an organization have the actual power to define and enact policy.

This may explain some of the confusion about, skepticism of, and, in some cases, resistance to such policies that I’m seeing at the individual level—not to the ideal, but to the ideology. Rather than encouraging people to choose which side of the wall to be on, it may be more effective to focus on the marvel of diversity and the power of the individual to practice respect, understanding, generosity, empathy, curiosity, or simple friendliness.