Monthly Archives: September 2017

The war on exclusivity and the poison of progressive “inclusiveness”

Words drift in meaning as do and along with values in society. I think this is mostly unfortunate. While meanings of words drift they do not usually do so without the help of an agenda. “Exclusive” used to mean that a product, social club, or conference was merely designed for a particular purpose and appealed to a certain set. While an exclusive event designed to suit the interests of golfers might not only require credentials I happen to lack, it is my lack of interest in golf that is of primary importance. Orange juice is delightful partly because it includes no grape, apple or carrot juices. It used to be that a hammer was designed exclusively for an efficient and precise transfer of kinetic energy and it offended no one by doing so.

But then there is a sense in which exclusivity might be considered mean-spirited.  This is not necessarily a problem with exclusivity or its meaning. There are televisions that cost more than I can afford to pay and are in a sense exclusively available to those who can afford them. I am fine with this because it drives down prices and raises minimum standards for lesser models. But I am attempting to address an idea gone rabid.

It seems the conditioners of mankind have decided that children should not have BFFs anymore in school and instead are “encouraged” to play in groups in order to protect anyone from feeling left out. While it may be true enough that young children may not have very well defined interests, it is worth noticing the organic desire to bond with another in a special friendship is a natural behavior that requires interference to stop. By protecting the collective from the feeling of being left out, no individual is allowed to feel let in. Out of fear that some might feel isolated, none will learn the value of deep trust or sincere, mutual interest. This is because groups do not have ordered preferences. Individuals within a group can have preferences or interests in common but what excites friendship is ordered interests.

This is the trouble with using words to focus primarily on the feelings of the speaker. The modern usage seems to emphasize the feeling of being excluded ignoring the objective meaning let alone the benefits of exclusiveness. A question too rarely asked is this. What might be the unintended consequences of rooting exclusivity out of our society? Besides cancer to creativity, such an indirect attack on individuality and personal liberty is a down payment on potential atrocities the conditioners will sell as ointment for what ails society.