We need pro-inclusivity.
Not as a rebranding of anti-discrimination, but as a genuinely different question: not what do we want to stop, but what condition do we want to create, and how?
Because we seem to be losing touch. Not dramatically, not all at once, but steadily, in the way that parallel lives quietly become the norm. Different communities, different rhythms, different worlds; sharing a city without really sharing anything in it.
I was at a presentation at city hall recently, commissioned by the municipality to address exactly this. The research was careful, the intent was right, the alderman behind it clearly believes in making a difference. And yet the frame it reached for was the obvious one: discrimination as the problem, defined communities as the lens, policy as the answer.
And I understand why. It is the most visible starting point. I am not dismissing it, but I think it misses something fundamental about how inclusion actually works, where it comes from, and who it needs to reach.
I am sharing my perspective on that. On the paradox built into how we define the problem. On the people for whom no chair was arranged. And on what it actually takes to design a city where the encounter that hasn't happened yet becomes a little more likely.
We don't need to be best friends. We need to be good neighbours.