“Inclusivity” in the Arts: A Term Without Much Weight or Meaning
WHEN WE INCLUDE A DIVERSE RANGE OF PEOPLE IN OUR PROJECTS ORGANICALLY, THAT MAKES SENSE. ANYTHING ELSE IS “SOCIAL ENGINEERING,” NOT ART. REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY WELL-KNOWN (BOMBASTIC & MORONIC) HISTORICAL POLITICAL FIGURE MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED, NOT ALL ART IS POLITICAL, NOR IS IT ALL PROPAGANDA. ARTISTS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE “ACTIVISTS.” A FLOWER IS NATURAL ART AND NOT PROPAGANDA.
There is an energetic and sustained push to discuss the concept of “Inclusivity” in numerous public and private contexts. The term has become a ubiquitous Widget in the political and public relations machinery of numerous entities who frequently discuss the tenets of “civilized society” (very heavily in the “Progressive Politics Community”) and whose desire to appear Relevant and Moral has overpowered any ability to think rationally. “Inclusivity” is a term often used in lieu of any effective pursuit of merit-based acknowledgement of effort or effectiveness.
It’s important to understand that the ability to function effectively and efficiently in the world has nothing to do with race, gender, sexuality, or any other commonly used identifier — but to be fair, opportunities for employment, self-improvement, and so on are often inappropriately based on those group identities. (However, that is an entirely different discussion.) Effectiveness and Intellectual Excellence exist across populations associated with all the various metrics we use to divide ourselves, and we need only be open to acknowledging such virtues in the context of personal accomplishments, without venturing into the quagmire of Social Engineering and/or Sacrosanct Cultural Relativism.