I’ve been involved with three groups with varying approaches to inclusion recently. In two, there was a strong reluctance to engage in unconventional topics or to try new meeting formats for fear of alienating some members of the community. It was striking to me that both groups used this same terminology of “alienation.” In the third, such conversations and approaches were welcomed and embraced. In fact, the presence of some resistance and discomfort was seen as a healthy indication that the group was stretching and growing. 

When I hear groups express the fear of alienating some members, I often wonder about the corresponding risk of alienating those who silently crave the very new approaches and topics that are thought to be too risky. Sticking to safety and the status quo is not a guarantee that no one will be alienated. What creative impulse is stifled – or alienated – by accommodating only the way things have always been done? 

We all want to feel safe and comfortable. But the challenges we’re facing at every level of society demand that we figure out how to stretch beyond the known and familiar. If we’re going to go beyond business as usual, we might have to get a little uncomfortable. 

In a chapter titled From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces, educators Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens ”question the degree to which safety is an appropriate or reasonable expectation for any honest dialogue…. We argue that authentic learning … often requires the very qualities of risk, difficulty, and controversy that are defined as incompatible with safety.” They are writing about social justice work, but their point is relevant for any context where collective learning and profound change are needed. And I struggle to think of an industry or area of our lives where that isn’t the case. 

The solution, in my experience, is to ask: what would help us feel brave enough to create space for these new topics or approaches, if there truly is an impulse among some to engage in them? What would sufficiently shield us from being judged or rejected as alien, as seems to be the underlying fear? How could we support this new exploration without losing our relevance and belonging? 

For example, how could we offer new approaches or topics on an opt-in basis? Where could we create experimental space for those who are interested in and ready for the new? With clarity of invitation, how could we allow the reluctant to dip in at the margins – or not? And how can leaders model curiosity and the courage to ask bold questions? 

There is an inherent conservatism woven into the truism that we have to “meet people where they are.” It too often presumes to know where they are and where they might want to be. But being inclusive is not simply catering to this assumed lowest common denominator of openness to change. In some cases, being inclusive means creating a space that is explicitly not for everyone – that is for the brave and the visionary – and then allowing each person to decide if it is for them.

These times call for spaces of authentic conversation and brave experimentation. Not everyone will be ready for this right away, and this must be acknowledged. But it is a mistake to assume that all people are not. And more than the risk of alienation is the risk of not making way for change.

Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash