INCLUSIVITY

Do dogs concern themselves with equality and inclusivity?

The word inclusivity has come up repeatedly over the last two weeks and has left me in a real quandary. One definition of the noun is taken from the Cambridge Dictionary: the fact of including all types of people, things or ideas and treating them all fairly and equally. This is the definition that I understand and have been committed to in all that I do, or at least I believed that I was. This definition was really interesting to me, as it includes ideas as well as people, and we are currently living at a time when we are all experiencing significant manipulation and censorship of words and ideas. Society has been pushing for inclusivity at the same time as becoming less and less inclusive of thoughts that go against the script. Institutions and businesses write complex policy documents and tick multiple boxes to allow them to create social credibility, displayed like the feathers of a peacock. Is it real or imaginary?

Recently I have set up a community growing project in a small field that ‘we’ (an arts charity) had supporting nature for sure, but not our local community. We were turned down by the planners for our initial application to build an art gallery and workshop for local artists to use, so I wanted to at least have people benefit from using the land to grow food, while we regroup to go again to try and provide a local amenity. Slowly but surely an amazing group of volunteers has begun to materialise and they have set too digging vegetable beds, sowing seeds, tending the earth and growing food to share. Then we were visited by someone who basically told us that we were not inclusive, and I have to say this person left me reeling! ‘Do not offer poor people asparagus’, was one take home message. Trust me, I have no intention of offering anyone asparagus unless they would particularly like asparagus and then I will do my best to grow it for them, and if they ask I will help them to know what to do with it. The second take home was that ‘this could have been good if only it was in the centre of the town’. I value peoples opinions greatly, including this persons, as it really got me thinking about the meaning of inclusivity and the many ways that it is being interpreted and manipulated. The latter comment was to me as ridiculous as saying that Ben Nevis would have been good if it had been in the centre of Edinburgh! Ben Nevis is where Ben Nevis is, just as our field is where it is, it cannot be relocated, and has a unique value where it currently is. A community project in an inner city location, under this definition, is not inclusive either as it excludes people from outlying rural areas and from every other location in the world, as they would have to travel to reach it. Enhancing people’s lives in any way we can, wherever we are, is for me the driver. We can each of us choose to do nothing or we can choose to do something. If everyone chose the latter, how much better this world would be. Each ‘something’ will not right all the inequalities in the world, will not make a ‘poor’ person rich or a ‘sick’ person well, but just might make a small positive difference to those involved in it even if for no other reason than humans are communal animals that need connection with others. Inclusivity and equality are closely related but different. We are born equal for a split second but that rapidly evaporates as we fall under the influence of our carers and the environment and circumstances we are raised in; the inequalities escalate from then on. In a well run inclusive project, every individual who takes part should experience equality within that community setting for the time that they are engaged. This is perhaps one of the most valuable gifts of inclusive community projects.

Inclusivity is now frequently being viewed as applying exclusively to the people in society who have been marginalised by physical and/or mental disability, age, race or financial capacity. It is one of the many things in society that has been in a state of swing and has gone from one extreme to the other and still not found a healthy balance. Inclusivity is exactly as it states, it is for everyone, irrespective of who they are. To see every individual as simply another human being trying to navigate their way through this thing called life has got to be a primary goal. As for location, cities, towns and rural communities are all made up of people who can benefit in a multitude of different ways from local community based projects.

Inclusivity came up again in a completely different context in a discussion about colours in a logo, where one contributor voiced concern that a certain combination of colours might not be viewed as being inclusive. What does that mean? Who owns colour? Colours have always been associated with different things since time began, but do we as humans have any right to consider a colour or combination of colours as being exclusive, belonging to a certain group of people? The rainbow is a case in point, as only yesterday I was with my Goddaughter who was happily colouring in a rainbow in her colouring book, but immediately there is now an overlay of who ‘owns’ the rainbow and it’s symbolism in our society. Use it of course, and the analogies and meaning that it can lend a cause, but exclusively own it, no. I believe that colours belong to nature and to everyone equally, and whilst they will have different meaning for different people, and are perceived differently by different people thanks to differences in each person’s receptors of light, to be afraid of using a colour in an image is a step too far.

Do dogs concern themselves with equality and inclusivity?

When allowed to behave naturally, dogs are pack animals and within each pack of between 2 and 20 individuals there are well defined positions that need to be filled and each individual will have a specific role to play within the pack. The roles within a pack each have value but the rights that come with them are not equal for example each pack has an alpha male and female.