True inclusivity is not about reflexively saying 'yes' or 'no' to appease others, but about recognizing the vital role every person plays within a shared ecosystem. Sri Krishnaji distinguishes between performative inclusion—where we operate from obligation or guilt—and genuine connection, which emerges when we understand our interdependence and honor each person's authentic place in our relational world. The question "What about me?" reveals where we confuse self-preservation with genuine belonging.
What Is the Difference Between Performative and Genuine Inclusivity?
Many modern discussions of inclusivity reduce the concept to binary decisions: include or exclude, say yes or say no. This framing misses something essential. Performative inclusivity often operates from a place of guilt, fear of judgment, or an attempt to prove one's moral standing. When we include people primarily to avoid appearing exclusive or to manage how others perceive us, we are not actually connecting with them—we are managing our image.
Genuine inclusivity, by contrast, arises from a fundamentally different place. It begins with recognition—seeing that every person in our relational sphere plays a necessary role in the larger ecosystem we all inhabit. When we operate from this understanding, inclusion is not a transaction we perform. It is a natural expression of understanding how others contribute to our world and how we contribute to theirs. This shift moves inclusivity from the realm of obligation to the realm of authentic relationship.
Why Does Constant Appeasement Undermine True Connection?
The impulse to constantly say 'yes' in the name of inclusivity often comes from a good intention: not wanting to hurt, exclude, or disappoint anyone. Yet this approach contains a hidden trap. When we are perpetually appeasers, our 'yes' becomes diluted. It loses meaning. More importantly, it prevents genuine encounter. Real connection requires the capacity to honor both others and ourselves—to say yes when it is authentic, and to say no when it is necessary.
Appeasement-driven inclusion also creates a distorted dynamic where relationships become conditional and transactional. The other person senses, often unconsciously, that they are being included out of obligation rather than genuine recognition of their worth. This breeds a kind of subtle resentment on both sides: the appeaser resents the burden of constant accommodation, and the appeased person intuitively knows their inclusion is not rooted in authentic valuation.
True inclusivity requires what might be called "clear belonging"—a sense that a person is valued not because we fear excluding them, but because we genuinely understand their role and contribution. This can only happen when we move beyond the yes/no binary into a more nuanced recognition of interdependence.
How Does Understanding Ecosystem Role Change Our Approach to Belonging?
Sri Krishnaji invites us to shift our lens from inclusion as a moral stance to inclusion as an ecological reality. In any living system—a family, a community, an organization, or even a friendship—every participant plays a role. Some roles are visible and celebrated; others are less obvious but equally vital. The infrastructure worker, the listener, the challenger, the nurturer—each serves a function in the whole.
When we truly understand this, our question shifts. Instead of "Should I include this person to avoid judgment?" we ask "What is this person's actual role in our shared space?" This question is generative. It invites observation rather than guilt. It opens us to see people more clearly, not through the lens of our anxiety about appearing inclusive.
This ecosystem perspective also reframes the questioner's burden. When someone asks "What about me?"—when they feel overlooked or unincluded—the authentic response is not automatic accommodation but genuine inquiry: "What is your role here? How do you contribute? What do you need to bring your best self?" This moves the conversation from appeasing to actualizing.
What Does "What About Me?" Reveal About Our Understanding of Belonging?
The phrase "What about me?" often signals a fundamental misunderstanding about how belonging works. When spoken from anxiety or demand, it suggests the person believes they must be singled out, emphasized, or given special recognition to be truly included. Yet genuine belonging does not operate that way. It is not about being at the center of attention; it is about being recognized as a necessary part of the whole.
When we ask "What about me?" from a place of defensiveness, we are usually asking whether we matter, whether we are safe, whether we will be abandoned. These are real and understandable questions, but they cannot be answered through inclusion practices alone. They require a deeper shift in how we relate to ourselves and others—a recognition that mattering is not something others grant us through inclusion, but something we claim through understanding our own contribution.
This does not mean dismissing someone's need to feel valued. Rather, it suggests that true inclusion cannot be built on the foundation of "making sure everyone is centered equally at all times." That approach is logically impossible and emotionally exhausting. Instead, authentic communities function because each member understands their role, recognizes others' roles, and trusts that the whole system holds them even when they are not the focus.
How Can We Move from Obligation-Based to Understanding-Based Inclusion?
The practical shift begins with honest self-examination. When we include someone, we can ask: Am I doing this from genuine recognition of their role, or from fear of judgment? Am I saying yes because it is true, or because I fear the cost of saying no? These questions are not condemning; they are clarifying. They help us distinguish between actions rooted in clarity and actions rooted in anxiety.
This also requires developing what we might call relational literacy. Instead of operating from abstract ideals about inclusivity, we can practice actually seeing people—their gifts, their limits, their authentic place in our sphere. When a friend asks for constant support, do we include them by always saying yes? Or do we include them by being honest about our capacity and inviting them to find their own strength? When a colleague is difficult, do we include them through tolerance? Or through clear communication about how collaboration works?
The goal is not to be harsh or exclusionary. It is to develop genuine relationship, which requires both openness and integrity. Genuine inclusivity asks: How can I relate to this person in a way that honors both them and myself, that sees their real role, and that invites them into authentic belonging rather than performed accommodation?
Where to go from here
Begin by noticing where you operate from appeasement in your relationships. When do you say yes when you mean something more nuanced? Where do you include people out of fear rather than recognition? These patterns are not flaws to shame yourself about—they are invitations to deepen your understanding of how genuine connection actually works. Consider reflecting on the relationships that feel most alive to you. What makes them feel alive? Often it is precisely because there is clarity, honesty, and genuine recognition rather than constant accommodation. Sri Krishnaji's teaching invites you to ask not "How do I include everyone all the time?" but "How do I create real belonging by seeing and honoring each person's actual role in our shared world?"
