In the history of sociology, inclusion vs. exclusion is intertwined in the sense that no single state of full inclusion or exclusion as the concept is only associated with functionalist tradition. The paradoxical nature of the two terms attracts their binary application in various settings. Simmel, a renowned sociologist, gives the distinction a binary application: “The principle of including that which is not explicitly excluded is opposed by the principle of excluding that which is not explicitly included” (Mascareño & Carvajal, 2015, as cited in Simmel, 1992, p.447). Insofar as this information is concerned, these statement masks the real paradoxes.
Limitless examples explain the paradoxes of inclusion and exclusion. In the political space, the inclusion of members of the country automatically excludes members of other countries, who, in this respect, can be called “outsiders.” No sooner are the outsiders formally nationalized or given citizenship than they are included as members of that State. In such a scenario, the excluded becomes included, which means the outsider is not included or excluded. An illustration by Mascareño and Carvajal (as cited in Persons, 1965) attributes inclusion as the good, normal, and acceptable, while exclusion is the negative side. This empirical reference illustrates the “Negro situation in America.” In this context, inclusion is used to imply full citizenship.
Based on the binary interpretation of inclusion and exclusion, there is no exhaustive situation with a full state of inclusion or exclusion. However, paradoxes (inclusion and exclusion) coexist in every situation. The preliminary conclusion from this systems-related inclusion and exclusion idea confirms that neither inclusion nor exclusion of individuals is ever absolute: There is no situation of full inclusion or full exclusion.
Reference
Mascareño, A., & Carvajal, F. (2015). The different faces of inclusion and exclusion. CEPAL review.