Thoughts on exclusion
During our first class for Munk + Evergreen we spent a fair bit of time on definitions, discussing the meaning of terms such as “community.” We quickly determined that everyone understands “community” differently, and although it is generally regarded as a good thing, there is an inherently exclusionary aspect to community. While we did not define “exclude,” the google definition is to deny someone from accessing a place, group, or privilege. What really struck me while reading this week’s readings was the multitude of ways to exclude someone, some of which are easily visible, while others are more invisible.
One of the readings focused on a very visible form of exclusion — failing to listen to others. What I found interesting about the reading was that it flipped the script to focus on the person failing to listen rather than the person trying to be heard. By failing to make a conscious effort to listen to others, we exclude ourselves from relationships, from understanding different values, perceptions, and concerns, and from experiencing new ideas and ways of looking at things. Therefore, failing to listen not only harms the person trying to be heard, but also the person who refuses to listen. While failing to listen is a more visible way of excluding others (in the sense that the person who is trying to be heard can generally tell that they are not being listened to) a subtler form of exclusion is the language we use. Policy makers and other specialized professions are especially guilty of this kind of exclusion. We develop technical jargon specific to our particular context that is not well understood by others outside of our realm. This language is an immediate barrier to those “outside” our profession, ensuring that only those familiar with the jargon can participate. Therefore, if policy professionals are to truly listen, we must make our world accessible to those who exist beyond it.
Several other readings focused on another more visible kind of exclusion — gentrification –where more affluent residents displace less affluent ones. In the fight against gentrification, Regent Park is often looked upon as an ideal model, because residents remained in place rather than being displaced as more affluent neighbours moved into the community. However, within this “ideal model” there are more invisible forms of exclusion going on, such as lower-income residents being unable to access services due to higher-income residents occupying the space or fees being too onerous. These forms of exclusion are often the result of “elite projection” — the belief that what is best for well-off residents is best for the rest of society as well. If we want to create truly inclusionary communities, we need to break away from this belief, and focus on what is best for everyone rather than the privileged few.
