ABSTRACT
The tensions between radical transformation and liberal reform mirror how the term “inclusion” is deployed within the field of Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS). Inclusion is valued as a transformative practice that promises liberation; but it is also subject to scrutiny and suspicion for how it can disguise and uphold oppressive systems while producing positive, “feel good” effects. Inclusion may thus signify a shift that has yet to come and may never arrive. Inclusion can reference exclusion through its citation and also continue exclusion because, in many instances, it’s only about citing inclusion. Criticism of superficial (additive) inclusion with the expectation of meaningful (transformative) inclusion has provided scholars a way for seeing where WGS can be challenged and a way to develop a more complete knowledge and practice around this term. Inclusion is an important analytic tool that both demonstrates and allows for the persistent critique of power that characterizes WGS.
