If you read Words of the West frequently, you’ve probably noticed that many of the topics covered converge on one central theme.
Inclusivity.
I’ve long talked about the importance of doing things together. Of the strength of working as one for mutually beneficial causes.
I’ve spoken of breaking down barriers that stand in the way of our success. Of pushing past selfish thinking that, at scale, can hold us back.
No matter what angle is covered, the underlying message is the same.
Together we rise.
Yet, for all I’ve written of the virtues of inclusivity, I’ve done a poor job of practicing what I preach.
I live with my own blind spots. Only they’re not all that blind.
In fact, they’re out in the open.
I’ve long spoken of a simplistic concept. One where there are two types of people in the world — those who go after the results they seek, those who wait for these results to be given to them.
In essence, this theory splits our society into two groups — one that views the world as an ongoing grind and one that views it as a meritocracy.
Which one do I prefer? Ideally, the answer should be neither. But read a few articles of Words of the West, and it’s clear I lean toward the mindset of affecting change. Of actively going after what we seek.
Implied in this preference is an air of elitism.
By actively promoting those with a certain drive, I create a boundary of my own. I state, This is the mindset I associate with. These are the types of people who can help us forward to the brightest future.
This, of course, says just as much about those I don’t associate with. Those I identify as the problem, not the solution.
It assumes working with these people will send us on a path to nowhere.
And right within that statement lies a major issue.
If I consider myself above those with a different mindset, I can never fully live into the objective I speak of.
And if that I becomes a we, our hopes of achieving an inclusive society dwindle. The wedge between the haves and have-nots grows wider.
Worse still, an air of snobbiness can be associated with this elitist thinking. One that will make unifying the sides of the divide we’ve created even more challenging.
So, what’s the solution?
Should we suppress any inherent biases we have toward a particular mindset or attitude, and simply make the best of the situation? This model could drive us toward greater inclusivity, but everyone would not necessarily be pulling in the same direction.
Should we consider keeping things as is? This could help us promote the change we seek, but at the risk of alienating those who don’t buy in to our vision.
I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
We must be more inclusive. We need to commit to breaking down the barriers we all know exist, and breaking through the inherent ones we might create in the process.
But we also must be wary of carrying too much of the load. Of taking initiative on behalf of those whose attitude, mindset or temperament don’t jibe with the vision we promote.
In other words, we should give everyone an opportunity to participate in the culture we build. But we shouldn’t look with scorn on those who go a different way.
This strategy, by nature, won’t bridge the divide completely. But it’s a step in the right direction.
I need to buy into this as much as anyone. And I’m game to do so.
Are you?