The difference between an inclusive society and an integrated society

Should we be an inclusive society or an integrated society?

An inclusive society is one that adapts its systems and structures to meet the needs of individuals. An integrated society offers less adapting of the system, and more adapting on the part of the individual to be integrated. In our setting, individuals refer specifically to persons with disabilities.

Singapore is, in many ways, an inclusive society.

When it comes to accessibility and infrastructure, we have grown more inclusive by leaps and bounds. Ramps and more accessible lifts are now part of our everyday environment. Braille on packaging – though still a work in progress – marks a meaningful step for persons with visual impairments. Theatres with sound-dampening designs now offer more comfortable experiences for those on the autism spectrum. Assistive technologies are a few of the many ways we as a society have been pursuing inclusiveness. 

These visible changes give us reason to feel proud. They are tangible fruits of the thought, effort and resources invested in meeting the needs of individuals who are often overlooked.

Specialised training programmes for persons with disabilities is another area that embodies the values of an inclusive society, evident through the adapted methods and measurements of success put in place. From personalised visual cards used to communicate emotions to the emphasis placed on the transitions between activities, there is an impressively adapted form of care afforded to the teaching and training of persons with disabilities. 

This shows a profound understanding of individuals who perceive and process things in a way that is different from most, shaping the development of these systems and structures.

We have barely scratched the surface of the diverse and multi-layered ways Singapore gives form and format to being an inclusive society. But is there an area or a point where we should make room for an integrated society approach?

Might there be a context or reason to maintain a more conventional system, and teach persons with disabilities skills or methods of adapting that would suit existing structures?

To look at this from yet another perspective, in what area might it be more impactful as a whole to shift the bulk of adaptability and change from the system to the individual? 

Perhaps this is when retaining a more conventional system produces greater positive impact for the individual than the individual’s more natural way of execution.

An area that could lend weight to this perspective is the overlap between design and a retail business. On the one hand, the more conventional system could involve reverse engineering a commercially successful product and extracting a specific style or medium of design for the individual to execute. On the other hand, the individual’s more natural way of execution may be self-expressive art and emotion-driven designs. The greater impact in question here would be the commercial success and consequently the financial support the individual stands to gain in a more conventional system. In this context, taking on an integrated society approach may ultimately benefit the individual more than an inclusive society approach.

This adds to the discussion that positively impacting persons with disabilities does not always look like adapting to the ways that make them different. In fact, recognising the individual’s capacity to adapt to a more conventional system may be an additional way of honouring their abilities.

So should we be an inclusive society or an integrated society?

Perhaps we should be an intentionally curated mix of both – pursuing being an inclusive society while practising the format of an integrated society where impact calls for it.