it must be said that most of our efforts at addressing racism and sexism in higher education are framed as that of access/inclusion. this is hardly news. not only does the notion of ‘inclusion’ not fundamentally alter the frames of who is doing the including, and under what conditions; it also presumes mere adjustment of the boundaries of the institution. the institution itself does not change – its rules, its measurements, is requirements, its expectations, its epistemological commitments, its funding and governance structures.
what happens when you bring more people into an unjust system? perhaps those previously excluded people will fundamentally alter that system. but more than likely, the system will stay the same. this may be either because the previously excluded, too, want to be part of the system – the force of the dream of that system has been asserted so strongly that it often seems like the only option. or perhaps they are playing the institution, not because they believe in it, but because they believe it is necessary to do so for their survival. or perhaps the accumulated power and habit of the institution is merely impervious to their earnest efforts to change it. because, of course, those who are ‘included’ are never on equal footing with those doing the including.
as denise da silva points out, racism and sexism are not primarily constituted by ‘exclusion,’ but rather white, male ontological and epistemological supremacy, as against their non-male, non-white others. therefore, they cannot be adequately addressed by the ‘inclusion’ of other genders or other races. inclusion does not often displace or disrupt that supremacy. nancy fraser asserts that we got too caught up with ‘recognition’ and forgot about ‘redistribution.’ this is an incredibly narrow view of ‘we’ and what ‘we’ are/were demanding. but it also fails to understand that inclusion, at least in the liberal sense, does not equate to actual recognition of onto-epistemological difference, or of the creation of conditions that would support that difference and its ability to thrive. it only ‘recognizes’ that which appears non-threatening. this also means that redistribution of material resources, while necessary, will not ‘solve’ our problem. after all, redistribution alone does not necessarily alter the means or mode of production, the fundamental political structures, etc. we need to assert, therefore, that redistribution must happen, but it also must happen according to a different onto-epistemology. which many of us do not yet know how to do.
on the one hand, if this is the system we have, we must assert that all people have a right to participate within it equally; we must, as it were, play the game according to the existing rules, as much as is possible to our own advantage. on the other hand, the game is never ours; we will always, in the end, get played. and we don’t want to win this game anyway – we want to fuck it up. because the game of western modernity, of the liberal nation-state, of capitalism is only made possible through its undersides of slavery, colonialism, exploitation, dispossession, immiseration. we need other games, we need other systems, we need other dreams.