Inclusion

I'm not a big party person. If you handed me a standing invitation to dinner but the catch was there would be twenty or so people there, I'd probably show up a time or two out of politeness. Then I'd eat at home.

It's just too many people. Thankfully, I've seen studies showing my reaction is normal. So, I think more often than not, the things we do in the name of inclusion actually end up causing the opposite. In simple terms, the party people go to the party; everyone else stays home. We don't notice because if we are at the party, we just see the party. The party appears to be evidence, but it is not because the people at the party comprise a much smaller demographic than the larger population does. The party is just louder, not more meaningful.

We do better in smaller groups where conversations can develop- and everyone can follow the same conversation and not feel left out. I wish the party people would do a little experiment and try breaking up their big parties in favor of smaller ones. Rotate attendance so that everyone can see each other over several dinners, but always keep the party small, preferably 5 to 6 people, but definitely under 10.

It's hard to describe the benefits here, but I think they are significant. It's kind of like the difference between a clique and a family. Obviously the specific relationships in a clique and a family are different, but the relationships are also different in kind. Smaller groups allow for love, for us to wait on one another, and get to understand each other.