Abstract
Organizational inclusion has become a key concept when dealing with the topic of diversity and inequality in organizations. Its core claim is to be all-embracing and to 'leave no one behind'. However, can mainstream as well as critical inclusion approaches live up to this claim? In this paper I revisit two central concepts - belongingness and recognition - of both approaches from a feminist disability lens in general and the interests and needs of autistic people in particular. The analysis shows that mainstream and critical inclusion approaches rely on implicit ableist assumptions, which results in autistic people becoming 'the other Other' of the organizational inclusion discourse. Yet, instead of judging the 'inclusion project' as failed, the paper pleads for the acknowledgement of inclusion as always partial, based on implicit boundary drawing. Such a view makes it possible to discuss the il-/legitimacy of certain boundaries and their inclusionary and exclusionary consequences.
