From Exclusion Feedback to Inclusion Feedback: An Evolving Synpraxis

Transforming Dynamics: Shifting from Marginalization to Engagement through Synpraxis

Introduction: Moving Toward Inclusion

The “Exclusion Feedback Synpraxis” (EFS) provided a framework to understand how exclusion operates as a self-reinforcing feedback loop at multiple levels—from individual to global. The goal of EFS is to illuminate these loops and identify how trauma, systemic biases, and social dynamics perpetuate cycles of exclusion. However, understanding exclusion is only the first step. The next evolution of this work is to develop the “Inclusion Feedback Synpraxis” (IFS), which seeks to transform these exclusionary loops into inclusive ones, fostering connection, collaboration, and mutual growth.

Understanding Inclusion Feedback Synpraxis (IFS)

IFS emerges as a complementary framework to EFS, aimed at reversing the dynamics that reinforce exclusion. It recognizes that inclusion does not happen passively; it requires intentional actions, systemic changes, and shifts in both individual and collective consciousness.

1. Reversing the Dynamics with Game Theory: Toward Cooperative Strategies

Game theory offers valuable insights into how to shift exclusionary dynamics towards inclusion. Traditional approaches in game theory, such as competitive strategies, assume a zero-sum game where one party’s gain is another’s loss. However, cooperative game theory and evolutionary game theory suggest alternative paths:

• Cooperative Game Theory (Axelrod, 1984) emphasizes strategies that promote collaboration and mutual benefit rather than competition. In the context of IFS, this theory helps us understand how fostering environments that prioritize cooperation over competition can disrupt exclusionary loops. Strategies such as creating shared goals, transparent communication, and equitable power distribution can build trust and cooperation.

• Evolutionary Game Theory (Nowak, 2006) examines how strategies evolve over time, particularly how cooperation can emerge even in environments initially marked by competition. IFS can apply these insights to develop interventions that create conditions favoring inclusionary behaviors, such as recognizing diverse contributions, ensuring fair resource allocation, and promoting adaptive, resilient practices.

2. Practical Applications: Holacracy and Sociocracy for Inclusion

Holacracy and Sociocracy provide practical governance models for creating inclusive systems.

• Holacracy (Robertson, 2015) decentralizes authority, distributes decision-making, and removes traditional hierarchies. By fostering transparent communication and empowering all members to contribute, it aligns with the principles of IFS. It disrupts power dynamics that typically exclude marginalized voices and encourages diverse participation.

• Sociocracy (Rau & Koch-Gonzalez, 2018) focuses on consent-based decision-making and continuous feedback, creating systems where every voice is valued. In IFS, Sociocracy’s emphasis on equivalence and collaboration can foster environments that resist exclusion by design.

3. Integrating Indigenous Practices and Spirituality for Inclusive Systems

Indigenous knowledge and spiritual traditions offer profound insights into fostering inclusion:

• Indigenous Knowledge Systems (Cajete, 2000) emphasize interconnectedness, relational accountability, and communal healing. These principles challenge Western individualistic frameworks and suggest alternative ways to foster inclusivity by recognizing the interdependence of all beings and the environment. IFS draws on these insights to propose collective approaches to healing exclusionary dynamics.

• Spiritual Traditions like Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and others promote non-dual awareness and mindfulness practices (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Tolle, 2005). They challenge the separation between self and others, helping to break down the illusion of separateness that fuels exclusion. In IFS, these practices are integrated to cultivate compassion, empathy, and awareness of interconnectedness.

4. Developing Reflexive Co-Creation and Honoring Diverse Lineages

IFS emphasizes reflexive co-creation, a process where theory and practice evolve dynamically through dialogue, reflection, and mutual engagement. This approach recognizes that:

• Honoring Lineages of Knowledge is crucial. IFS builds on Black feminist thought, Indigenous knowledge, trauma-informed practices, and systems thinking to develop a holistic, inclusive framework. Scholars like Kimberlé Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, Gregory Cajete, and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson provide foundational insights into understanding the complex intersections of exclusion and the need for inclusive frameworks (Crenshaw, 1989; Collins, 2000; Cajete, 2000; Simpson, 2017).

• Commitment to Action means recognizing that creating inclusionary loops requires both internal work (self-reflection, emotional regulation) and external actions (advocating for systemic changes, fostering inclusive communities).

5. Applying IFS in Different Contexts

Inclusion Feedback Synpraxis can be applied across various domains to foster inclusion by creating environments that honor the diverse perspectives and needs within individuals and communities. Here’s how this can look in different settings:

• Educational Systems:
  Implementing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014) and trauma-informed practices (Craig, 2016) helps create learning environments where all students feel seen, heard, and supported. These approaches accommodate diverse learning needs, fostering an inclusive atmosphere.

• Organizations and Workplaces:
  Utilizing governance models like Holacracy and Sociocracy promotes shared leadership, transparency, and inclusive decision-making (Robertson, 2015; Rau & Koch-Gonzalez, 2018). Incorporating trauma awareness into workplace policies and practices ensures that organizational cultures support all employees, particularly those with lived experiences of marginalization.

• Community Building:
  Methods like consensus decision-making and relational accountability (Alfred, 2005; Wilson, 2008) can create more inclusive social structures by prioritizing collective input, mutual respect, and understanding. These frameworks foster a sense of belonging and shared responsibility.

• Digital Spaces:
  Promoting algorithmic transparency and inclusive content moderation is crucial to prevent exclusionary dynamics online (Noble, 2018). AI can be harnessed to create inclusionary feedback loops by using machine learning algorithms that continuously learn from diverse inputs to ensure equitable content delivery and representation (Benjamin, 2019; Binns, 2018). Developing ethical AI systems that prioritize fairness and accountability is essential to building a more inclusive digital environment (Crawford, 2021).

• Media and Communications Research:
  In media and communications, AI technologies can be used to analyze and address representation biases in content. Studies have shown that media content is often shaped by algorithmic processes that reflect and reinforce existing social biases (Gillespie, 2018). AI has the potential to create inclusionary feedback loops by identifying patterns of exclusion or misrepresentation and adjusting content distribution to better reflect diverse voices and perspectives (Noble, 2018; Benjamin, 2019). As Crawford (2021) notes, the ethical design and deployment of AI are critical to ensuring that these technologies support equity rather than perpetuate existing inequalities. This can enhance equitable representation and contribute to a more inclusive media landscape.

• The Potential of AI in Creating Inclusionary Feedback Loops:
  AI technology can play a transformative role in fostering inclusion across various domains. By designing algorithms that are sensitive to diverse needs and perspectives, AI can help create dynamic, inclusionary feedback loops. For instance, AI-driven platforms can analyze user behavior and feedback to identify patterns of exclusion and automatically adjust content or interactions to promote inclusivity (Benjamin, 2019; Crawford, 2021). Furthermore, integrating AI with trauma-informed and culturally responsive frameworks can enhance its ability to serve diverse populations equitably. This aligns with a vision of digital spaces that reflect and respect the rich diversity of human experience.

6. Conclusion: Toward a Living, Evolving Synpraxis

IFS is not a static or final theory; it is a living, evolving framework that grows through engagement, reflection, and collaboration. It draws from diverse fields—such as game theory, Indigenous knowledge, trauma psychology, complexity theory, and spiritual practices—to dismantle exclusionary dynamics and foster inclusion. The Compassion Collective serves as a laboratory for experimenting with these ideas, testing new approaches, and refining the synpraxis in real time.

By understanding exclusion as a feedback loop, IFS challenges us to rethink how we interact with ourselves, our communities, and our institutions. It invites us to co-create environments that are not only inclusive but actively resist exclusion, recognizing that true transformation requires ongoing dialogue, reflexivity, and a commitment to action.

References:

• Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.

• Benjamin, R. (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity Press.

• Binns, R. (2018). "Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy." Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT).

• Bowen, B. (2022). From the Boardroom to the Bedroom: Sexual Ecologies in the Algorithmic Age.

• Cajete, G. (2000). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishers.

• Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.Routledge.

• Crenshaw, K. (1989). “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

• Craig, S. E. (2016). Trauma-Sensitive Schools: Learning Communities Transforming Children’s Lives, K-5. Teachers College Press.

• Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.

• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press.

• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. Delacorte.

• Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.

• Nowak, M. A. (2006). Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. Harvard University Press.

• Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. Henry Holt and Company.

• Rau, T., & Koch-Gonzalez, J. (2018). Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy. Sociocracy For All.

• Simpson, L. B. (2017). As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance. University of Minnesota Press.

• Tolle, E. (2005). A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose. Penguin Group.