Current conceptions of inclusion in general and within academia can paradoxically result in exclusion and exploitation. This exclusion is underpinned by academics’ own complicity and the ways in which collegiality, often celebrated as a cornerstone of inclusivity, can obscure exclusionary dynamics while reinforcing entrenched power structures. We argue that these problems stem from Western conceptions of the self as an isolated, autonomous individual, with the assumption of equal power, which relies on a problematic distinction between in-group and out-group comparisons. To address these contradictions, we bring in the alternative viewpoints of the Buddhist not-self and Confucian relational self to provide a different conceptualization of inclusion. Through these perspectives, we unpack how inclusion, particularly through in-group identification, can perpetuate exclusion, as the ‘self’ becomes a source of division. Inclusion, from these perspectives, is an interconnected, role-based dynamic prioritizing harmony and hierarchical responsibilities over individual autonomy or power. We redefine inclusion as a relational process that emphasizes mutual respect and collective good. In academia, we argue, this results in a hybrid system: hierarchical and performance-driven, yet collegiate, promoting harmony and inclusion through compassionate relationships rather than in-group/out-group distinctions. At the same time, it encourages individuals to challenge the hierarchy within this inclusive framework, rather than simply comply.
