Ogheneruemu Alexander
As the crusade for better Inclusion of persons with disabilities into the larger space continue to gain ground, there’s a need to keep our eyes wide open, and our faculties fully alert to resist insidious exclusionary forces that might ultimately sabotage the noble cause.
To lower guard against these forces is to settle for “Pseudo-inclusion” instead of the “full-inclusion” we originally set out for.
Pseudo-inclusion. What do I mean? Simply put, it is that indecorous intrusion of the sanctity of the Disability space by appointing persons outside that space to deciding positions of the Inclusion trajectory.
Again, by pseudo-inclusion, I mean that overt and covert barring of persons with disabilities (on account of their disabilities) from specific leadership positions in the larger sector. It’s an irony that insults human intelligence. They want to have a veto in your case and still stop you from having same in mainstream cases. Meanwhile, perpetrators of this injustice always have handy some specious arguments for subterfuge.
In this piece, we look at one side of the exclusionary inclusion theory otherwise referred to as pseudo-inclusion.
It’s high time we become increasingly concerned about this ridiculous phenomenon (in its various veiled appearances) that goes against the run of play.
In stolid defiance to the age-long adage that it is the person wearing the shoe that knows where it pinches, we are being treated to a ridiculous spectacle whereby a barefooted people either take it upon, or have it irrationally entrusted on them to determine for the shoe-wearers where the shoe pinches. In other words, to determine their fate.
We see a self contradictory situation whereby the object of inclusion end up subtly excluded in the place where it matters most – the decision/policy making process.
As a person with disability, you can probably relate instances when your complaints of discrimination, stigmatization, etc, were met with typical: “we will look into it”, “we will see the pastor”, “we will talk to leadership and find a solution“, etc? Meanwhile, neither leadership or whoever is mandated to resolve the problem has any experiential disability background. Paper certification? Maybe.
And sure enough, they go ahead as promised, and without your substantive input find a solution to the complaint.
Now, you are happy that the matter is resolved.
But wait. Did you consider that the solution could have been better had your opinions and those of your ilks (seeing you wear the shoes) been considered in the resolution process?
Did you realize that without your substantial involvement, a basic rule of thumb has been violated in the solution finding process? You may or may not realize it. The point is, time and again, we see this kind of unjust thing happen. It’s called Pseudo-inclusion.
Which reminds me of my campus experience. I remember advocating for, and proffering possible solutions for better inclusion of the Deaf section on campus fellowship.
Fortunately, leadership saw reason and there were improvements. The unfortunate side was that I wasn’t properly involved in the decision making process. I still remember the indignant feelings then. I was like: “what were they thinking”? By the way, I am not alone in this experience.
Meanwhile, similar scenarios are replayed at secular level – this time on an even larger scale. We find it in government, we see it in politics, we encounter it in the academia – an ubiquitous presence.
I love this slogan of the deaf cluster: “Nothing about us without us”. The same holds true for all the disability clusters.
So here’s the challenge before us the very ones wearing the shoe. The challenge consists in walking the tough talk – nothing about us without us. We need to ask ourselves how effectively we have been doing that – walking the talk.
There are two ways to go about this:
First, leadership and stakeholders of the various disability clusters must be quickened to the imperative and urgency of standing up for this sacred task.
Secondly, a customized training/mentoring system must be conscientiously put in place to revamp and perpetuate the succession sequence by equipping upcoming talents among the rank and file for the task of carrying on the baton. We need to devise a system of raising and bringing together a new breed of “justice-minded” intellectuals to sustain the fight against pseudo-inclusion.
Agreed, this battle will not be conceded by opponents on a platter. Therefore, we must be ready to go all out using every legitimate means at our disposal to ensure there’s really nothing about us apart from us. It begins with ourselves. Are we ready?
Watch out for Part 2: “Paradox of Exclusionary Inclusion”