The wellness industry is accessible to all and actions for inclusion have already been taken

The argument

Proponents of this view begin with a concession: the wellness industry has, in the past, been inaccessible. They do not deny that earlier barriers existed or that the industry once failed to reach and serve everyone equally. But on this view, the charge of racism cannot fairly be settled by looking backward. What matters is whether exclusion persists as a live practice today, and advocates hold that it does not, because the problem has been actively tackled by the very people with the power to change it — industry leaders and business owners themselves. The distinction at the heart of the argument is between an industry that harbours a problem and an industry that has confronted one. For an institution to be meaningfully called racist, proponents argue, exclusion would have to be an ongoing feature of how it operates: something tolerated, ignored, or perpetuated. Here, they contend, the opposite has happened. Those responsible for shaping the industry recognised its past inaccessibility as a failing and set about correcting it, which is the behaviour of an industry repudiating exclusion rather than practising it. Advocates then point to where that correction has landed: diversity and inclusivity are no longer peripheral concerns or afterthoughts but sit at the forefront of the industry's agenda — indeed, on this account, they constitute its mission. When welcoming everyone becomes the stated purpose an industry organises itself around, the argument runs, the industry is by definition oriented against racial exclusion rather than toward it. An industry that is accessible to all, led by people who have already taken concrete action on inclusion and who have made inclusivity its central mission, cannot coherently be described as racist. On this reasoning, the answer to the question is no.

Context

Wellness entrepreneurs prioritize inclusion, going as far as to provide classes on the matter. Many are making wellness practices more accessible to communities of color. In fact, many wellness brands use their platforms to advocate for equality.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Minuscule actions do not change the exclusive nature of the industry -- it is still unwelcoming towards minority communities. It is inherently elitist, and small efforts will not change that.

Rejecting the premises

Insignificant policy changes fail and maintain discrimination -- only a re-conceptualization of neoliberalism will solve structural bias.

Framing

Historical & Incremental Framework - There have been huge strides made in the past decades, and diversity has been prioritized. Additionally, we must frame this argument in an incremental fashion. There is no single solution to this, but actions taken by individual business owners HAVE made a difference.