Life of Prejudice

Since the inception of the neo-liberal economic order, pervasive proliferation of identity groups with a persuasive demand for inclusion in different job opportunity spheres has acquired wider recognition. Of late, the members of such groups seem to have become quite vocal in their complaints against the inattention, if not redemption, of their exclusion from the opportunity spheres. It can be argued that the nature of exclusion of the marginalised can be both irrational and morally offensive. It is irrational on the grounds that exclusion, particularly of those members who are comparatively more competent than some of the others, is bound to lead to the waste of human creativity and the loss of productivity of a firm. Exclusion is also morally offensive inasmuch as it can lead a qualified person from the deprived group to develop a sense of diminishing self-worth. The diminishing of self-worth can occur either from total or rhetorical exclusion that can result from the use of measures that are used not to appreciate the skill and talent of a person but to strike a balance between mean and robust measures of recruitment. The robust measures base recruitment on individual talent and skills acquired through open competition. The self-worth of a person gets determined with the application of robust rather than mean measures.

How far does the vision of inclusion put forward by the excluded persons enjoy the respect that, in the current imagination, hinges on recruitment by robust measures? Does recruitment resulting from the constant pressure of complaints that is mounted by the members from excluded social groups, enable the former to enjoy wider recognition? Does the “forced inclusion” yield respect for a person? Similarly, in the current context, another perhaps more important question can be raised. Should one treat mere access to opportunity structures as a sufficient condition for the resolution of the question of exclusion? Both these questions become relevant in the context where the employers from the public and the private sector retain the power to not only decide the content—for example, of the media—but also constantly assess the performance of the employees in the organisation. It is in this power context that one has to apprehend the limits of the identitarian vision of inclusion.