- Paul Constant is a writer at Civic Ventures and the cohost of the "Pitchfork Economics" podcast.
- He spoke with professor john a. powell of UC Berkeley's Othering & Belonging Institute.
- powell says "belonging" carries more weight in economic policy than terms like "inclusion."
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
The language that Americans use to describe living together in one nation has changed over time. "Tolerance" was the buzzword from the 1960s through the 1990s, but as author Kavita Das pointed out during the racial reckoning in summer 2020, "Tolerance is an underwhelming goal for a truly vibrant and just American society" and suggests that togetherness is a pain or struggle to be endured.
For most of the 21st century, just about everyone — from economists to politicians to CEOs — has instead talked about the importance of "diversity" and "inclusion" in the workplace and in communities. But like tolerance, the term diversity has simply suggested that we should be, as Das put it, "satisfied by the mere presence of those with different experiences and perspectives." In other words, just having non-dominant perspectives in the room is the goal — but the rules and social orders in those rooms can still be owned, and largely controlled, by the groups that hold the power.
john a. powell, a professor at the University of California Berkeley and the director of the school's Othering & Belonging Institute, uses another word to describe the importance of including people of different races and backgrounds in civic and economic life: "belonging."On the latest episode of "Pitchfork Economics," powell explained how shifting to this mindset will help create a more equal and just society.
"The world is organized largely around some groups being considered not full people," along lines of race, gender identity, disability, religion, and more, powell said. This othering allows one group to claim dominance over another, exploiting and marginalizing the subgroup. We've seen it again and again in the history of the US, with the theft of land from Native Americans, with slavery, and with the subjugation of women and immigrants.
"If I give a party, all of you are invited, but it's my music, my friends, my food," powell said, explaining how he believes the world currently views inclusion. "Don't come in messing with the furniture — have a good time and then leave."
Belonging, by contrast, would mean that "it's not my party. It's not your party. It's our party," he said.
In economic terms, powell described poverty in the US as "not simply a lack of stuff," but rather a "lack of belonging." Neoliberal thought leaders like Representative Paul Ryan have long embraced the othering technique by arguing that the economy is powered by a small subgroup of "makers" who create jobs and prosperity, while the majority of Americans — 60%, Ryan estimated in a 2010 speech — are "takers" who contribute nothing to the economy and instead leech off the efficiency of the elite few. (In a 2016 speech, Ryan publicly recanted the "makers and takers" ideology, admitting "I realized that I was wrong. 'Takers' wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, trying to take care of her family.")
"The promise with neoliberalism and globalization was that we grow the economy and everybody would be better off," powell said. "Half of that was apparently true, as the size of the economy since the 1970s, depending on how you count it, is three or four times larger."
"But people are not three or four times better off, unless you're Elon Musk," powell added.
To combat the alienation and criminalization of the other, powell said policies should encourage "belonging in terms of economy, in terms of health, in terms of schools, in terms of civic participation, in terms of money." Policies that promote belonging would differ from prodiversity policies, he added, by changing the goal from mere participation to co-ownership.
Universal healthcare and homes guarantees, which would ensure everyone has access to housing that's safe, sustainable, and affordable, for instance, are probelonging policies because everyone has an equal stake in them. Meanwhile, policies that require participants to maintain certain employment or income levels or meet other means-testing requirements are not. It's fairly easy to imagine a simple sniff test for probelonging legislation based around a few easy questions: Is the policy truly universal? Does the policy penalize a subgroup with diminished rights? Does the policy reinforce status-quo ideas of ownership and power?
The language around responsible governance is always shifting. As peoples' experiences change and as more people participate in the conversation, we develop a clearer picture of who gets what and why in our economy, government, and legal systems. The work that powell and dozens of others at the Othering & Belonging Institute are doing suggests that simply encouraging diversity and inclusion isn't enough anymore — for a government to be truly free and prosperous, everyone needs an ownership stake.