Inclusivity as an Ethical Imperative in Curating: Who We Include, Why It Matters, and What is at Stake
Author: Dawit Algerson
Introduction
In recent years, inclusivity has emerged as one of the defining questions of contemporary
curatorial practice. It is no longer sufficient to view inclusivity as a matter of representation
alone; rather, it must be understood as a structural and ethical commitment that shapes who is
visible, whose histories are recognized, and which communities are invited into dialogue.
Curators are uniquely positioned as mediators of cultural knowledge and public discourse, which
places a profound responsibility on them to ensure that exhibitions foster equity rather than
reproduce exclusion. The ethical imperative is clear: to curate inclusively is not to follow a trend
but to acknowledge the moral obligation to redress systemic gaps in representation that persist
across race, gender, class, geography, and ability.
This paper takes as its starting point both my personal experiences in curatorial practice and the
broader contradictions within the field today. Many contemporary art institutions actively preach
the importance of inclusivity, yet their implementation often falls short. The rhetoric of openness,
diversity, and access is frequently deployed in mission statements and curatorial texts, but the
lived realities of representation continue to reflect structural exclusions. Nowhere is this more
evident than in the persistent marginalization of the Global South. Artistic production from these
regions is too often dismissed as lacking relevance within dominant art historical narratives, or it
is only acknowledged when reframed through Western curatorial lenses. Such omissions are not
accidental but symptomatic of ongoing systemic inequities that deny visibility and legitimacy to
vast bodies of cultural knowledge.
The key to overcoming these inequities lies in recognizing and validating artistic practices from
the Global South on their own terms. Inclusivity, when approached ethically, must move beyond
token gestures of representation and engage with the deeper structures that determine who
participates in cultural discourse. By questioning why certain voices remain excluded and by
interrogating the mechanisms that perpetuate these omissions, curators can begin to transform
inclusivity from an aspirational slogan into a lived and sustainable practice.
Literature Review and Theoretical Grounding: Inclusivity as Ethical Practice
Inclusivity in curating cannot be reduced to representational headcounts.
It is an ethical program that must reconfigure how institutions research, platform, and share authorship. Okwui Enwezor’s
curatorial model for Documenta11 remains a foundational reference point. By structuring the
exhibition as a series of global platforms for discourse rather than a single Eurocentric display,
Enwezor shifted curating toward engagement with geopolitics, histories of oppression, and the lived
realities of marginalized communities (Enwezor 2002). His approach demonstrated that inclusivity is
not achieved by simply adding more artists from diverse backgrounds but by rethinking the very
frameworks through which art is presented and debated. This resonates with Walter Mignolo’s concept
of epistemic disobedience, which insists that genuine inclusivity requires breaking with hegemonic
knowledge systems and generating new epistemologies from those historically excluded (Mignolo
2009).
Claire Bishop complicates this discourse with her critique of participatory art in Artificial Hells. She
argues that participation itself is political because it allocates voice and power, which means projects
can reproduce exclusions even when framed as inclusive (Bishop 2012).
Nina Simon (2010) offers a practical counterweight, proposing museum models where publics
co-create content, programs, and evaluation criteria. Examples such as the Oakland Museum of
California’s co-designed exhibitions or Tate Exchange in London, where communities are given
authorship over programming, demonstrate how inclusivity can move from aspiration to practice when
institutions are willing to share power.
Jennifer Fisher’s notion of “exhibitionary affect” extends this argument by reminding us that
inclusivity is not only about who is represented but also about how exhibitions feel to audiences.
Curatorial design, interpretive tone, and spatial strategies co-produce belonging or exclusion (Fisher
2001). Sharon Heal, through the Museums Association’s Museums Change Lives framework,
advances a similar position by linking curatorial responsibility to civic outcomes. Museums, she
argues, have the capacity and responsibility to redistribute cultural power and confront inequalities
(Heal 2013). This aligns with anti-racist curatorial practice advocated by the Inclusive Historian’ s
Handbook, which urges institutions to confront colonial legacies embedded in collections and
narratives, while building structures that prevent extractive engagement (Sandell and Nightingale
2012; Inclusive Historian 2020).
Recent scholarship also points to the need for structural change in curatorial research itself. Margriet
Schavemaker, writing in Stedelijk Studies, argues that inclusivity must be integrated at the level of
research methodologies and institutional design rather than as downstream outreach (Schavemaker
2019). Independent Curators International similarly highlights that the curatorial field remains
“profoundly discriminatory by nature” and that diversity initiatives must address pipelines, networks,
and methodologies alongside representation (International Curators International 2017).]
The Association for Art History has pushed these conversations further by centering the Global South,
emphasizing how networks, activism, and embodiment challenge Euro-American frameworks of
knowledge (Association for Art History 2020; 2021). Programs such as Community and Activism in
the Global South and Intersections: Gender and Art in the Global South illustrate how curatorial work
can repair gendered and colonial exclusions by commissioning new work and reframing authorship.
At the same time, critical reflections have highlighted the difficulty of achieving inclusivity within
institutions shaped by colonial inheritances.
A participatory research project in a natural science museum showed how inclusion can be achieved in
spite of colonial contexts when students were invited as co-researchers rather than passive participants
(Weber et al. 2025). Their recommendations—co-defining research questions, crediting community
knowledge as expertise, and designing feedback mechanisms that shape institutional
policy—demonstrate that inclusivity requires systemic redistribution of power.
New directions also extend these debates to digital infrastructures. Huang et al. (2022) suggest that
curatorial strategies for inclusivity, such as facilitation protocols and iterative feedback, can inform the
design of AI systems in order to mitigate algorithmic exclusion. While outside the traditional remit of
curating, these insights demonstrate that inclusive practices developed within museums have
transferable value across other knowledge systems.
Taken together, these perspectives converge on three claims. First, inclusivity is an ethical obligation
because curating structures cultural memory and access. Second, inclusion must be embedded in
research design, authorship, interpretation, and affect, not appended as representation. Third,
perspectives from the Global South and from gendered analyses reveal where universal claims conceal
exclusions. These insights support the central position of this paper: many institutions preach
inclusivity but fail to implement it, leaving Global South voices and marginalized communities at the
periphery of cultural discourse.
Curatorial Ethics: The Obligation to Include
The ethical obligation for curators to prioritize inclusivity stems from their role as gatekeepers of
visibility and cultural legitimacy. Exhibitions do not merely present artworks; they construct
narratives that determine whose knowledge and histories are legitimized. To exclude certain
voices is not a neutral act, but one that reproduces systemic inequalities. Gender imbalance in
exhibitions, the underrepresentation of artists from the Global South, the marginalization of
disabled practitioners, and the frequent omission of working-class or indigenous voices all
highlight how inclusivity remains an unfinished project.
Curators must therefore approach inclusivity not as a symbolic gesture or tokenistic inclusion of
underrepresented figures, but as a structural reconfiguration of authorship, access, and
participation. The curator’s responsibility is to interrogate whose stories are prioritized and to
expand the discursive space of the exhibition so that those historically left out are recognized on
their own terms. Inclusivity, in this sense, is not an optional value but a fundamental ethical
stance that shapes the integrity and relevance of curatorial practice.
Representation Gaps and Case References
Despite growing awareness, significant representation gaps remain across the global art world.
Okwui Enwezor’s seminal exhibition *The Short Century* (2001) demonstrated how curating
could rewrite modern art history by foregrounding African independence and liberation
movements. This exhibition challenged Eurocentric narratives by placing African perspectives at
the center of discussions on modernity.
Similarly, Tate’s *Who Are We?* project (2017), developed in partnership with Counterpoints
Arts, explored themes of migration, belonging, and identity in the wake of Europe’s refugee
crisis. The project highlighted the importance of inclusivity not just in artist selection but in the
co-production of knowledge with migrant and diaspora communities. In Dakar, Raw Material
Company under the leadership of Koyo Kouoh has developed a model of critical inclusivity by
hosting residencies, public programs, and exhibitions that center African and diasporic voices in
dialogue with global discourses.
Yet even as inclusivity gains prominence, galleries and institutions continue to struggle with
structural inequities. Gallery 1957 in Ghana and the UK exemplifies the tension between curating
for local resonance and adapting to global expectations. While the gallery amplifies Ghanaian
voices, it also demonstrates how inclusivity can be compromised when international visibility
requires translation into globally legible formats. These examples show that inclusivity must be
continuously defended and enacted against pressures of assimilation.
Conclusion
Inclusivity in curating must be understood as an ethical imperative rather than a trend or optional
practice. The question of who is included, who is excluded, and under what conditions directly
shapes the cultural narratives that exhibitions produce. Drawing on Enwezor, Mignolo, Bishop,
Simon, Heal, and Fisher, this paper has argued that curators have an ethical responsibility to enact
inclusivity as structural justice. The stakes are high: without inclusive curatorial practices, entire
communities risk being erased from cultural memory, while dominant narratives continue
unchallenged.
To curate inclusively is therefore to engage in an act of accountability and transformation. It
requires institutions and curators alike to resist tokenism, to redistribute visibility, and to
acknowledge the epistemic value of marginalized voices. Inclusivity is not simply about
expanding representation; it is about reconfiguring the structures of cultural legitimacy
themselves. Only then can curatorial practice fulfill its ethical role as a platform for equity,
justice, and genuine cultural dialogue.
All views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Bibliography
Association for Art History (2020). Community and Activism in the Global South. Available
at: https://forarthistory.org.uk/community-and-activism-in-the-global-south/ [Accessed 10
Sept. 2025].
Association for Art History (2021). Intersections: Gender and Art in the Global South.
Available at: https://forarthistory.org.uk/intersections-gender-and-art-in-the-global-south/
[Accessed 10 Sept. 2025].
Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship.
London: Verso.
Crawshay-Hall, R. (2013). The rise of the curator: Exhibiting art from the Global South in
post-apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
Enwezor, O. (2002). ‘The Black Box’. In: Documenta11_Platform 5: Exhibition Catalogue.
Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz Verlag, pp. 42–55.
Enwezor, O. (2003). ‘The postcolonial constellation: Contemporary art in a state of
permanent transition’. Research in African Literatures, 34(4), pp. 57–82.
Ferguson, B. (1996). ‘Exhibition rhetorics: Material speech and utter sense’. In: Greenberg,
R., Ferguson, B. and Nairne, S. (eds.), Thinking About Exhibitions. London: Routledge, pp.
175–190.
Fisher, J. (2001). ‘Exhibitionary Affect’. Parachute, 103, pp. 4–11.
Heal, S. (2013). Museums Change Lives. London: Museums Association.
Huang, Y ., Fiesler, C. and Yarosh, S. (2022). ‘Curating inclusive AI: Lessons from museum
practices’. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW1), pp. 1–25.
Independent Curators International (2017). Diversity in the Curatorial Field. Available at:
https://curatorsintl.org/records/15606-diversity-in-the-curatorial-field [Accessed 10 Sept.
2025].
Inclusive Historian (2020). ‘Equity-oriented and anti-racist curatorial practice’. Inclusive
Historian’ s Handbook. Available at:
https://inclusivehistorian.com/view-from-the-field-equity-oriented-and-anti-racist-curatorial-p
ractice/ [Accessed 10 Sept. 2025].
Mignolo, W.D. (2009). ‘Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial
freedom’. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(7–8), pp. 159–181.
On Curating (2021). Decolonizing Art Institutions. Available at:
https://www.on-curating.org/issue-51.html [Accessed 17 May 2025].
Sandell, R. and Nightingale, E. (2012). Museums, Equality and Social Justice. London:
Routledge.
Schavemaker, M. (2019). ‘Changing the game: Museum research and the politics of
inclusivity’. Stedelijk Studies Journal, 9. Available at:
https://stedelijkstudies.com/journal/changing-the-game-museum-research-and-the-politics-of-
inclusivity/ [Accessed 10 Sept. 2025].
Sheikh, S. (2006). ‘Objects of study or commodification of knowledge? Remarks on artistic
research’. Art & Research, 2(2), pp. 1–8.
Sheikh, S. (2021). ‘The curator as translator’. In: Graham, B. and Cook, S. (eds.), Rethinking
Curating: Art after New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 31–47.
Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz: Museum 2.0.
Smith, T. and Enwezor, O. (2011). ‘World platforms: Curating across continents’. In:
Welchman, J.C. (ed.), Institutional Critique and After. Zurich: JRP|Ringier, pp. 154–168.
Vergès, F. (2021). A Decolonial Feminism. London: Pluto Press.
Weber, S., Baur, N. and Müller, K. (2025). ‘Inclusion despite colonial contexts: Critical
reflections through a participatory research project with students in a natural science
museum’. Museum International. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382406534 [Accessed 10 Sept. 2025].
