A critical enquiry into the moral and philosophical basis against boundary-making in post-liberal societies
Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed / For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones and worse. - Bob Dylan "Chimes of Freedom"
And rest yourself ’neath the strength of strings / No voice can hope to hum. - Bob Dylan "Lay Down Your Weary Tune"
In contemporary political discourse, the concept of
inclusion often finds itself under scrutiny. Critics argue that inclusion
without boundaries leads to moral entropy and societal fragmentation. However,
here, I offer some arguments that inclusion, far from being a surrender of values,
represents an evolution of moral and civic strength.
Liberalism’s Moral Depth
Liberalism is frequently criticized for its emphasis on
individual rights, which some interpret as a neglect of communal duties. Yet
this dichotomy is misleading. Liberalism fosters civic duties such as
participation, responsibility, and mutual respect. Philosophers like John Rawls
and Martha Nussbaum have articulated a vision of liberal inclusion that demands
engagement and justice, not passive permissiveness. Moreover, liberal
universalism is grounded in human dignity, providing a moral foundation that has
empowered civil rights movements to challenge unjust traditions.
The Misuse of Schmitt
Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction offers a compelling
but dangerous framework for political identity. Historically, this binary logic
has justified authoritarianism and exclusionary nationalism. Liberalism resists
such framing not out of naïveté but from a recognition of the moral hazards
inherent in defining identity through opposition. Pluralism, contrary to claims
of fragility, thrives when institutions are robust and inclusion is paired with
deliberation. Democracies such as the United States, Canada, and many European
nations demonstrate that diversity can coexist with strong civic identity.
Tradition vs. Transformation
While thinkers like Roger Scruton and Alasdair MacIntyre
rightly emphasize the value of tradition, it is essential to acknowledge that
traditions can perpetuate injustice. Inclusion challenges traditions not to
erase them but to refine them. Historical milestones such as the abolition of
slavery, women’s suffrage, and LGBTQ+ rights emerged from this tension between
tradition and transformation. Furthermore, models of hospitality need not be
conditional. Radical hospitality, practiced in various faith and secular
communities, welcomes without demanding assimilation, trusting in shared
humanity over shared doctrine.
Inclusion as a Practice of Virtue
MacIntyre’s concept of "practices" underscores the
importance of narrative unity within communities. However, this unity need not
be exclusionary. Communities can embrace diverse voices while maintaining
coherence—much like jazz, which is improvisational and plural yet deeply
structured. Inclusion does not imply the abandonment of standards; rather, it
calls for the co-creation of expectations rooted in democratic norms, human
rights, and civic responsibility.
Boundary-Making Reimagined
Liberalism does not reject boundary-making; it redefines it.
Boundaries should be negotiated through dialogue, not imposed through coercion.
Inclusion fosters resilience through diversity, and tradition must be
continually tested by justice. Persuasion and participation are more effective
tools than coercion in maintaining social cohesion.
|
Conservative
View
|
Liberal
Counterpoint
|
|
Boundaries protect identity
|
Boundaries must be negotiated through dialogue
|
|
Inclusion erodes cohesion
|
Inclusion fosters resilience through diversity
|
|
Tradition is moral anchor
|
Tradition must be tested by justice
|
|
Coercion may be necessary
|
Persuasion and participation are stronger tools
|
Conclusion: Inclusion as Moral Maturity
Inclusion is often dismissed as sentiment unchecked by
reason. Yet, when rightly understood, it embodies reasoned compassion. It is
not the refusal to draw lines but the refusal to draw them in fear. A community
that includes does not lose its soul; it discovers its depth. To include
rightly, we must sometimes expand. Inclusion, therefore, is not erosion—it is
evolution.
To include rightly, we must sometimes expand.
- A thought experiment produced with assistance of Co-Pilot AI
