Propositions of dynamics of exclusion and the making of inclusion*

*School of Social Work Theory and Practice; IUC, Dubrovnik, June 2016

This blog presents a set of propositions, the conceptual framework of analysis of the dynamics exclusion and of the making of the exclusion. It is, as such, a heuristic model that can be used to explore the matter and we will use it to analyse the proceeding at the conference above, which was dedicated to the issue.

Remembering exclusion is a vehicle of inclusion

 

To understand how exclusion works and happens, but also to foster inclusion, it is important to remember occasions when we were excluded ourselves. Everybody was excluded sometime in his or her lives. The memories of basic injustice is a tool not only of understanding, at least slightly, how perpetually excluded people feel and what is happening to them, but also a weapon, ammunition to fight against their exclusion, as an advocate for inclusion. These feelings not only provide empathy for the excluded but also are one of the main motives for an affirmative action and the base of ‘social model’, which in fact is striving for inclusion of the people who have been (socially) excluded.

Working with students, staff and other audiences in order to sensitise them of the exclusion processes we often use a simple exercise asking participants to remember instances when they were excluded. People come with a variety of experiences of such incidents from their school, family, work, friendship and other settings. The experiences thus reported have their commonalities but also differ. They provide not only the wished to be forgotten feelings but also diverse situations that can be compared and analysed. In one such analysis with a group of students in Colombo, Sri Lanka, we have produced a list of momentums that can be part of exclusion process and grouped them into categories of different layers of experience.  

Propositions of exclusion

 

Exclusion can be result of structural inequalities, like poverty, it can be product of excluding social setting, resulting in the alienation from valuable and important areas of life. It needs to be done either formally (by a tribunal) or/ and informally by discrediting coalitions, which act either by persecution or by avoidance, having the excluded as an object, resulting in feeling of exclusion, like pain, injustice and paranoia. 

Figure 1: Dynamics of exclusion

Exclusion can be structural, imbedded in social structure by class, race, gender and other divisions, by (hierarchical) power structures, cultural–symbolic mechanisms of prohibition (disability, criminalisation) coupled with environmental, spatial and institutional marginalisation by architecture, distance, legislation and (total) institutions.

However, exclusion has to happen in a definite space, a setting. The setting can be formal or institutional with rules of formal exclusion supported by ceremonies of exclusion or as Garfinkel (1956) has termed ‘ceremonies of degradation’. It can also happen in the informal settings – groups, networks, gatherings and encounters with underlying ‘dynamics of exclusion’ (Lemert, 1962) which oust and scapegoat their vulnerable member.

People can be excluded diverse areas of social life. One can excluded from an activity (playing in a school basketball team), or can be denied membership of a group, club, organisation, or can be excluded from using or contributing a common good; or somebody can be excluded from knowing, hearing or discussing a topic (of taboo), like children are excluded from adult matters.

We cannot postulate a ‘Subject’ of exclusion[1], but there are agents of it. The formal agents are various tribunals, hearings, committees, etc. In informal settings, a discrediting coalition (without a verdict) is sufficient. Combination of both is a ‘moral crusade’ (Becker, 1963).

Formal action of exclusion consists usually of persecution, judgement or a verdict and a sanction – which usually is some kind of banishment or displacement from a setting, group, organisation. Informal action is not so definite and consists of gossip, avoidance of the person, frowning, pretence and making the person a taboo, something to keep away from.

The objective of this action is to deny somebody to act – the denial of action. The denial of someone’s subjectivity is therefore the intended result and is a prerequisite of being excluded. The essence of the whole process of exclusion might be precisely this: to structure the power and understanding of the situation that will suit the one who is becoming powerful through the act of exclusion.

The feelings (residual subjectivity) that we have when excluded are: that this is not just, that injustice has happened (even if the exclusion was explicitly justified and ruled). When we are excluded, we, by necessity, loose something and feel the loss. Exclusion is also felt as incompetence and is experienced as solitude. It hurts, makes us feel powerless and delivers paranoid thoughts based on the real events – makes us wonder what is the reason, why this has happened – and not seldom what our guilt (for being excluded) is.

Figure 2: Elements of exclusion

Propositions of Inclusion

In describing momentums of exclusion on diverse levels, we proceeded from the structural to the personal. In an attempt to outline the making of the inclusion, i.e. the opposite process, we shall do it in a reverse order.

 Figure 3: Making of the inclusion

In order to counter the feelings of injustice, abandonment, guilt and persecution active listening, more so witnessing, accepting and compassion is needed. People in a state of disarrayed feeling need someone that they can rely on, if not trust. Need the feeling of being understood and accepted for what they are and not for what others have made out of them.

To regain subjectivity one has to have power (be empowered) to do things and has to recover ‘common ground’ – base for doing things with others. In order to do this one has to be able and free to express desires and set personal goals (like in personal planning).

Action of inclusion is to be present, in the spot of common life, one has to be able: to form attachments to others, to identify with them (and be identified with) and to share the experience, goods and knowledge. On the formal plane, one has to get qualifications, even certificates or awards, set the path of recovery from abandonment.

For this, enablers and promoters of participation (recovery, empowerment) are needed. Either as professionals and care workers, or, even more, as circles of friends, support groups. Mentors, confidants and advocates are the viable agents of inclusion.

To be included means to be able to do things together with others. It also means becoming one of us: contributing and participating in creating common goods, values and relationships. Inclusion has to open the discourse on all the topics, requires freedom of speech – not as a formality but as an opening to address the issues of dissent.

Inclusion has to happen in a milieu that is pervaded by imperative of non-exclusion, the achievements are celebrated and people promoted. It has provide the floor for real encounters, means to be able to step into variety of social roles that are values. It also means consistent policy of open doors and no restraint in the settings where people live and work.

On the structural level, inclusion is fostered and can prosper with the social arrangements that provide equality, guarantee employment, provide (universal) income, and develop common language. The idea of universal humanity is the ground for inclusion of everyone. Inclusive is the direct democracy where people can act on the issues concerning them. Access has to be provided to any one and mobility enabled. Deinstitutionalisation and abolition of criminalisation are prerequisites of inclusion.

Table of exclusion and inclusion strata and moments

The propositions above are summarised in the following table.

Table 1: Logic of exclusion and making of the inclusion

	Exclusion	Inclusion
Structural	Poverty, Unemployment, Race, Gender, Ethnicity, Nationality, Power structure (hierachical), Representative democracy, Disability, Environment (architecture), Distance (transport), Total institutions, Criminalisation	Equality, Employment, Common language, Universal Income, Humanity, Direct democracy, Access, Travel, Mobility, Deinstitutionalisation, Abolition,
Setting	Formal: Institutional, organisational – rules of formal exclusion → ceremonies of exclusion (degradation) Informal, group – dynamics of exclusion → scapegoating	Ethics of non-exclusion Celebration of achievement – promotion Encounters Open doors and no restraint Role availabitily and valutation
Areas	Activity Membership Common good Topic (taboo)	Doing things toghether Becoming one of us Contributing and participating Open discourse
Agents	Tribunal Discrediting coaliton	Promoters, enablers, (of participation), Circles of friends, support groups, mentors, confidants, advocates
Action	Perscution, judgment, banishment – displacement Gossip, avoidance, frowning, pretence, taboo	Qualification, certification, awards, recovery Presence, attachment, identification, sharing
Objective	Denial of action, of subjectivity	Empowering to do things, recovering the common ground Setting goals, expressing desires
Feeling	Injustice, Loss, Incompetence, Loniless, Pain, Powerlessness, Paranoia (what is the reason?) Guilt	Listening, witnessing, accepting, empathy, compassion

In the future we will explore the implications of this condensed propositions in detail. We will use the contributions to the Dubrovnik Ethics of Inclusion conference as a material for doing so.

References:

Becker, H.S. (1963), Outsiders. New York: Free Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1956), Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 5: 420-424.

Lemert, E. (1962) 'Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion', Sociometry, vol. 25, no. 1 (March 1962), pp. 1–20.

---

[1] One, who plans, wills and performs exclusion.