Dynamics of Inclusion/Exclusion as a Complex Problematic for Contemporary Topics

“Inclusion” and “exclusion” are socially (re)produced phenomena that are highly (inter)dependent on contexts and institutions (Mascareño & Carvajal, 2015). Contemporary societies are characterized by intricate dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that challenge traditional binary conceptions of “included” versus “excluded.” In practice, inclusion mechanisms operate through a gradation of status and rights, suggesting that inclusion and exclusion are not opposing, mutually exclusive categories but rather interrelated processes within the same system. The practical implementation of this idea—central to the work of Luhmann (1987, 1997)—generates complex forms of categorization and differentiation that deviate from strictly binary logic.

Furthering this discussion, Mezzadra and Neilson (2013) extend this reasoning to other areas with the concept of differential inclusion, which facilitates an examination of how certain formal inclusion mechanisms may simultaneously give rise to specific forms of exclusion. This suggests that numerous populations are formally “included” within social or political frameworks—such as legal systems, public spaces, citizenship, or public services—only under certain conditions that can restrict, subordinate, segment, or render such inclusion precarious. Consequently, these dynamics may generate new forms of exclusion or sustain existing ones.

Likewise, different groups, such as Indigenous peoples, migrants, and those with limited access to health services, can be part of a social system, but they are not included in a uniform way. While binary logic is useful for organizing and structuring communication within diverse social systems, it does not adequately reflect the fluidity and complexities of social realities.

In the Mexican context, those social groups face challenges within a legal system that operates on a binary distinction of “legal/illegal.” This framework comprises numerous interpretations and exceptions, making the application of legal rules quite complex. Consequently, this dichotomy evolves into a distinction between “citizen” and “foreigner.” While visas and permits may offer some individuals protection, for others, these mechanisms can serve as tools of control and subordination.

Additionally, populations deemed “vulnerable” or “in need of priority attention,” such as women and members of Indigenous communities, exemplify this complexity. Their inclusion in political citizenship may occur alongside the exclusion of other aspects of their worldview, which leads to a disconnect from their human rights, territorial assets, and the preservation of their cultural identities. Therefore, citizenship is not a uniform category but rather a fragmented concept, characterized by varying levels of belonging and rights.

The health sector provides a compelling example of how inclusion and exclusion operate. While many countries claim to offer universal access to health services, in reality, various institutional, cultural, or linguistic barriers exist that disproportionately affect people based on their origin, social class, or gender. This reveals a situation of partial and unequal inclusion.

In this context, it is crucial to examine the paradoxes inherent in processes of inclusion and exclusion (where there is formal inclusion but actual exclusion). Social structures create forms of inclusion that do not eliminate exclusion; instead, they often reorganize it. This complexity urges us to move away from rigid ideas of belonging or exclusion and instead analyze gradients and trajectories. We can ask critical questions: How can participation in specific systems lead to new forms of exclusion? In what way do state and institutional frameworks contribute to the (re)production of these dynamics? How are these dynamics evident in collective and public spaces, particularly regarding the treatment of women’s bodies?

The goal of this thematic issue is to clarify the complexities surrounding the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion and examine their impact on contemporary societies. This is a call for submissions of scientific papers that explore the (re)production of these dynamics in various social contexts. Papers should be based on empirical evidence analyzing the experiences of specific populations, how state institutions function, their interactions with individuals, and the historical and legal processes that underpin these dynamics. We also welcome analyses of how collective and public spaces reflect these structures, including the regulation of feminized bodies and unequal access to essential services.

In general, we welcome all proposals that contribute to the discussion of differential inclusion, particularly those that provide analytical frameworks for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of these processes. Additionally, the call is open to theoretical contributions that address the topic from a critical perspective.

Instead of strictly adhering to a predetermined theoretical framework, the objective is to engage in collaborative reflection to address various legal, political, historical, and social issues through a problem-oriented approach (Shapiro, 2002). By examining the complexities and contradictions within these dynamics, we can enhance our understanding of how exclusions are produced and reproduced in practice and explore ways to promote greater inclusion and social justice.

References

Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp.

Mascareño, A., & Carvajal, F. (2015). Los distintos rostros de la inclusión y la exclusión. Revista CEPAL, 116, 131–146.

Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press.

Shapiro I. (2002). Problems, methods, and theories in the study of politics; or what’s wrong with political science and what to do about it. Political Theory, 30(4), 596–619.

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this issue are asked to consult the journal's instructions for authors and submit their abstracts (maximum of 250 words, with a tentative title) through the abstracts system (here). When submitting their abstracts, authors are also asked to confirm that they are aware that Social Inclusion is an open access journal with a publishing fee if the article is accepted for publication after peer-review (corresponding authors affiliated with our institutional members do not incur this fee).

Readers across the globe will be able to access, share, and download this issue entirely for free. Corresponding authors affiliated with any of our institutional members (over 90 institutions worldwide) publish free of charge. Otherwise, an article processing fee will be charged to the authors to cover editorial costs. We defend that authors should not have to personally pay this fee and encourage them to check with their institutions if funds are available to cover open access publication costs. Further information about the journal's open access charges can be found here.