This assignment will discuss utilising a sociological imagination lens to explore the concept of social exclusion. I will look at the contested concept of social exclusion and discuss how the differing interpretations then give differing solutions. I will also include the effects of social exclusion on individuals in society and explore government strategies to tackle exclusion. Finally, I will discuss how the actions of social workers can create meaningful change for service users in an unjust society.
Utilising a sociological imagination allows you to understand how personal troubles are connected to wider structural issues. In order to explore the processes that create, maintain and shape our lives and life chances we must look beneath the surface of everyday life and think critically of the society we live in. To create meaningful change for service users we must fully explore the reason the individual has become a service user, by assessing the challenges they face from structural societal issues and question whose interest socioeconomic arrangements serve.
The European commission adopted the concept of social exclusion as some government members became reluctant to use the term poverty. Social exclusion was integrated into UK policy agenda in 1997, immediately after the general election. (Lister, 2004/2015). At this time the government declared that tackling social exclusion would be a priority to create a fairer society. The difference between the concept of poverty and social exclusion is that income poverty is not the only factor to social problems. Social exclusion is seen as the denial or lack of rights, goods, services and resources. There are interlinking variables and factors such as geographical location, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, race, disability, economic status and age that can impact on the life chances of an individual. (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2014). There is an emphasis on greater acknowledgement of variable factors other than poverty and the part that they play on shaping disadvantage. John Pierson (2009) provides a summary of five main features of social exclusion. These include; low income, lack of support networks, the effects of living in deprived communities and a lack of access to good quality services. Exclusion can exert damaging effects on both individuals and society itself. Wilson and Pickett (2012) argue that the larger the gap between the richest and the poorest in society the more devastating certain social problems will be. This is evident as research shows, for example, in Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway there is a lesser gap between the richest and poorest, indicating a more equal society, and as a result of this they experience fewer social problems such as infant mortality, mental illness and imprisonment. In less equal countries such as the UK we have higher rates of these social issues.
127 our experts are availableright now
There are three dominant interpretations of the concept social exclusion. These are: redistributionist discourse, moral underclass discourse and social integrationist discourse. There are different perceptions to the root causes of social exclusion, to the extent and nature of exclusion and therefore there is differing solutions to tackle social exclusion. (Levitas, 2005).
The redistributionist discourse or RED explains social exclusion as economic, with social barriers that prevent individuals and groups from participating fully within society. This is a social democratic approach. This interpretation does not hold the individual or group personally responsible for their exclusion but looks at structural constraints beyond their control such as low income, discrimination, lack of opportunity, quality of education and work available. It is argued that exclusion is ‘’something that is done by some people to other people’’. (David Byrne, 1999). This interpretation allows us to look in depth at the culpability of those who exclude, such as, employers, welfare agencies and government, which takes the blame away from the individual. Although this discourse recognises flaws in a capitalist society, it does not call for radical transformation. Its concern for social justice and fairness calls for society to be tweaked from within, to create a fairer society with moderate levels if income redistribution, increased benefits, the removal of discriminatory barriers and improved educational opportunities. (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). A major criticism of this discourse comes from right wing politicians, who argue that the culpability of problematic individuals and the desire of some to be excluded is ignored.
The moral underclass discourse (MUD) associated with Charles Murray puts the blame for exclusion on the individuals themselves. Murray (1994) uses a behavioural explanation to define societies problems. It is viewed that poverty is not the problem but the attitudes and responses of the poor that creates the problem. MUD is overtly judgemental and blames the inadequacies of the underclass describing characteristics of those as dysfunctional with a lack of moral fibre and having patterns of behaviour such as illegitimacy, bad parenting, criminality and substance misuse. There is an expressed concern of cohabiting relationships, in comparison to marriage. Murray 1994 states that these relationships are the foundation of poor child rearing, which leads to those children growing up to partake in anti-social behaviour. Murray also linked illegitimacy to crime and unemployment and believed these relationships led to lone parent families, who would then rely on benefits from the welfare state. Alcock 1994 states that welfare benefits create ‘perverse incentives’. The theme of MUD is that of moral complicity and responsibility. The moral underclass discourse believes the solution to social exclusion should include reductions in the levels of welfare support, to reduce dependency and force individuals to take responsibility for their own lives. It is believed interventions should be designed to deter irresponsible decisions and there should be reinforcement of appropriate behaviour. (Levitas, 2005).
The Social integrationist discourse (SID) has a primary focus on participation in the labour market with similarities to MUD as it is concerned with the dependency induced effects of welfare benefits. Their inclusion strategy is to increase work participation through incentives and coercion. The idea is to create a more active welfare system that will encourage and motivate those unemployed to find work. This would involve the reformation of the welfare state to include anti-discriminatory legislation so every individual can become involved in employment. SID attempts to look desirable as it is said that employment offers many benefits other than financial, such as, socialisation, networks, self-worth and purpose. SID is criticised because it ignores the reality of the barriers that people face from accessing employment such as disability, caring responsibilities and lack of employment opportunities. Evidence suggests more than two third of children facing poverty have a parent that is employed. (CPAG, 2013).
The three discourses discussed accept the status quo, viewing society as functioning which is influenced by the functionalist perspective, and in particular the ideas of Emile Durkheim (1972). Durkheim (1972) views society as a body that functions from the structures within it, particularly the labour market, community and the family and those who choose not to participate are dysfunctional. Functionalists are concerned with social order, cohesion and solidarity. Society is seen as a well-functioning social system that benefits all groups within it, when it runs smoothly. It is believed that social breakdown is a result of temporary disturbances that can be quickly corrected, and that although social problems have negative consequences, they also serve important functions for society. Social exclusion is not viewed as a structural problem, instead a personal issue, which stems from the individualistic behaviour of a minority within society, it is deemed as the fault of the individual for not following the deviant norms of society. It is believed by functionalists that it is the excluded that need to change their behaviour and curve the choices that they make, so that they are no longer marginalised by society for disturbing the social equilibrium. The functionalist perspective attempts to adjust the individual to follow the deviant norms of society which can be viewed as an agent of control. ‘’Everyone has their place, as long as the person knows their place’’.
The Marxist approach is one that is not represented within the three dominant interpretations of social exclusion as it advocates for radical social change. The Marxist approach is seen as a conflict perspective that involves the oppressed and the oppressors. Marxist believe social problems emerge from the faults in the structure of society, that reflect and reinforce inequality based on variables such as class, race, gender and disability. The Marxist view is that society is defined by gross inequality in privilege, wealth and power, shaped by injustice and exploitation which causes conflict and exclusion. It is believed the only way to combat these inequalities would be to radically transform society, which would include income redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. It is argued that the three dominant discourses understate division by implying that society is largely well functioning, barr a minority who are to blame for their own self-exclusion. It is also believed that the embrace of the concept social exclusion in place of poverty, amongst the political elites, acts to obscure wealth inequalities, rather than draw attention to an unjust system.
Social exclusion has a devastating effect on individuals and families within society. In May 2014, The Guardians’ health editor Sarah Boselely reported that children from the poorest communities in society have a much higher chance of dying before their fifth birthday. According to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health these deaths are avoidable, and the outstanding linking factor is that these deaths rise with socio-economic deprivation. A factor that underpins many deaths in children is child poverty. Between 2014-2016, Northern Ireland accounted for the highest avoidable mortality rates of children within the UK. Another area of exclusion is race based exclusion, this deprives ethnic minority groups within society from inclusion, opportunity and quality of life. Ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland often experience racism and poverty which affects their access to work and support from key services. Many individuals from ethnic minorities have high skills and qualifications yet many are in low paid employment. This leads to child poverty, health inequality, and poor housing condition including overcrowding. Ethnic minority groups are discredited by media leading to racism by others within society. Racism is another barrier for these individuals to face within the community, through education and within the workplace. A feminist lens would view the treatment or expectation of women as problematic.
Gender is not just experienced at an individual level but occurs structurally. For example, women still face inequality of wages, their access to higher positions within the workplace and the expectation of women to carry out domestic responsibilities. The expectation of childcare and caring responsibilities, domestic labour and paid employment creates a triple shift for women within society. There are many areas of social exclusion within society which are largely ignored by the three main discourses. Little or no reference is given to reason for exclusion and the difficulty this creates for people on an individual basis. The five strands of hate crime monitored by police in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland are: gender identity, race ethnicity or nationality, religion, faith of belief, disability and sexual orientation. Statistics for 2014 show that 44,480 hate crimes were recorded by police in England and Wales alone. A hate crime is motivated by hostility towards someone based on any aspect of their identity. It is important for Social workers to have a broad understanding of the exclusion that people face as they are centrally involved in providing services to those excluded.
After the general election in 1997 Labour created a social exclusion unit aimed at creating a fairer society. The term social exclusion came to permeate social policy documents across the UK. Although Labour government made a strategy to tackle social exclusion, criticism is made, as much of the strategy involved moral underclass and social integrationist ideas rather than redistributionist. (Levitas, 2001). It is argued that Labour sought to give the impression that social exclusion only effected a minority within society and those who are effected fail to take up opportunities available to them. Initiatives that where created were aimed at those in society that were deemed a threat to social and moral order, implementing a blaming culture.
The moral underclass discourse was implemented to tackle ‘dysfunctional’ patterns of behaviour amongst the poor whilst the social integrationist discourse implemented a work first approach to push people into employment. Through these initiatives the structural causes such as discrimination, lack of work opportunities, economic decline, and inadequate benefits are largely ignored. (Levitas, 2001). After the election of a coalition government in 2010 far fewer references have been made to social exclusion, however, the approach to social exclusion has remained a concern. The coalition government decided to abolish SET and replaced it with a Behavioural Insight Team (BIT). The aim of this team was to ‘coerce’ people to change ‘harmful’ patterns of behaviour. It is argued that the coalitions message from the appointment of BIT is to reinforce the idea that social exclusion derives from behavioural problems rather than stemming from structural causes.
Social workers often work with individuals and groups within society that face social exclusion. It is relevant to understand the sociological perspectives of issues within society, this allows for an understanding of how policy is created and the effects of such policies on individuals and groups within society. Anti-poverty practice framework for Northern Ireland has detailed the desired response from social workers to tackle poverty in a multi-layered strategy. Evidence from the Joseph Roundtree foundation found that: 20%/ 370,000 people in Northern Ireland live in relative poverty. Social workers should work in partnership with service users to tackle poverty with anti-oppressive practice that challenges views at a personal, cultural and structural level. It is important to have knowledge of services and resources, and the benefits system to maximise service user’s income, this includes supporting service users to complete necessary paperwork needed to access these entitlements. Social workers should use a community development approach to work to promote participation, strengthen networks, facilitate inclusion and joint action to challenge oppression within society.
The NISSC and BASW state that social workers have a responsibility to promote social justice. Social workers should treat and advocate for fair and equal treatment for all individuals which includes a fair distribution of resources. Passion and commitment to tackle social exclusion should be shown in daily practice. Relationships should be built on honesty and trust appreciating the value of all individuals from all walks of life. Social workers should be warm, respectful and supportive, listening to the service users’ and drawing upon their qualities and strengths. It is important to appreciate service users’ efforts to cope in difficult circumstances and realise that what could be seen as a choice, may not be a choice at all. Every individual should be provided with the appropriate support and services, so they can access an equal opportunity within society. Importantly, Social workers should “resist the ever increasing political and organisational pressure to embrace behavioural, pathological solutions to disadvantage” (Cunningham and Cunningham 2014, p85).
This essay has discussed the sociological imagination lens used to explore the contested concept of social exclusion. I have explained the three main discourses and have critically examined these through a Marxist and Feminist lens. I have also discussed the policies put in place to tackle social exclusion and how these have largely ignored the redistributionist discourse. I have looked into the structural causes of exclusion and how these impact on the lives of individuals and families within society. I have included recommendations from Anti-poverty practice framework for Northern Ireland and discussed how social workers should work in partnership with service users. To advocate and create hope and empowerment to collectively challenge social exclusion on a personal, cultural and structural level.
