Key
note speech, Tuula Helne 9. 5. 2003
III
Baltic Sea NGO Forum
Turku
8. 5. – 10. 5. 2003
From
Social Exclusion to Participation
tuula.helne@kela.fi
Including the Excluded: whom, where and why?
A critical comment on
the concept of exclusion
I have always had the strongest doubts about the concept of exclusion,
and in this writing I shall briefly try to explain why. The discussion is
divided into four parts, which are: first, the image we convey of the excluded;
second, the question of inclusion; third, the hidden reasons behind the
discourse on exclusion and fourth, connections.
1 The portrait of the
excluded
In Finland at least, one hears more talk about the excluded than about
exclusion as a social phenomenon. This may be a typical feature of the media
culture and the political culture of our day: things are personified; issues
have to have a face. The reason behind this is perhaps the fact that our
society is so complex that it is difficult or even impossible to understand the
interconnectedness of many processes; it is easier to talk about people instead
– or about victims, as in the case of exclusion. Faces sell, too.
The excluded are indeed victims of many current economic developments,
for example the tightened economic competition and the corresponding demand for
efficiency both at the level of the economic structures and at the level of
individuals. However, the excluded are not always represented as victims, but
as persons who are at least partly to blame for their situation. These kinds of
usages or insinuations can be found for example in journalistic language, in
which the excluded may be described as depressed persons who lack self-esteem
and initiative. Unfortunately characterizations such as these are not uncommon
in research either. To make my case, I shall give some examples that I have
come across in the French research literature on which my doctoral thesis on
exclusion was largely based. One French researcher has written that the
excluded are bound by the immediate needs of their existence. This makes them
culturally blind, which means that they are incapable of seeing the reasons for
their situation or its consequences and incapable of changing it or acting
solidarily. (Clavel 1998, 232–233.) Another researcher has stated that the excluded
are weakly integrated citizens who do not use all their rights and are not
politically oriented (Thomas 1997, 96). A third researcher has claimed that the
typical attitudes of the excluded are resignation and addiction to alcohol as
well as watching TV and propensity for AIDS and psychic disorders (Lamarque
1996, 51, 54). In the Finnish research, too, exclusion has been characterized
as a state of hopelessness, pathology, immobility and lack of perspective.
I do not disagree with the fact that the processes of exclusion can
indeed have these kinds of consequences. It is not uncommon for the unemployed,
for example, to get depressed. What I fear is the inverse logic, which means
that the consequences of exclusion are conceived of as its causes. Exclusion
can then begin to appear as something that is caused by character flaws, be
they innate or learned. There isn’t much that can be done about exclusion in
this case. We start blaming the excluded for their difficulties, and in the
extreme case they begin to carry the blame for many social problems – if only
for the rising welfare costs. When this happens, we could borrow the words of
the German sociologist Ulrich Beck (1992, 75) and say that we are living in a scapegoat society.
I also fear that this kind of language can have harmful effects among
those who are referred to as the excluded. The power of language is terrific
and terrifying; descriptions and definitions can become self-fulfilling
prophecies. If the excluded are claimed to be apathetic over and over again,
they may end up believing it themselves and start behaving accordingly. Even
when this does not happen, they carry the stigma that the discourse on
exclusion attaches to them. In this way, they become somehow less than they are
or less than they could be.
In short, what I want to say here is that the discourse on exclusion may
in itself become an exclusive factor. What happens here could be called double exclusion (c.f. Rahkonen 1990), which means that exclusion is not caused
only by social mechanisms but also by the discourse on exclusion itself. Who
wants to be called excluded?
When speaking about the excluded we make a distinction between them –
the excluded – and ourselves – the included. This is an oversimplification,
because one can be excluded in one arena, but included in many other arenas.
Even the so called included people can be excluded from some arenas or
subcultures – one may just not think of this as exclusion, because those arenas
are not necessarily highly valued socially.
The excluded are, then, seen as a rather homogeneous group, and this is
also true of the included as a group. In reality we are all different in many
ways. The discourse on exclusion is frightfully good at hiding these
differences while bringing just one single difference into the limelight.
2 Inclusion, but
where?
When one says that someone is excluded, one is at the same time making
the assumption that he or she is outside our community and our society. This
assumption can be questioned from two directions. Firstly one might ask whether
anyone can ever really be outside society. Aren’t we all to a very great extent
subject to its politics and policies, its developments, its norms and
regulations? Is it possible to get outside society even if you want to?
Secondly, and on the other hand: how strong are the ties of the
community that the excluded are expelled from? We live in an individualized
age, and one often comes across worried statements about the loss of community,
loss of family values and common values, and even claims purporting the end of
society. The most famous example of this kind of thinking is former British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s utterance “There is no such thing as
society”. What are the excluded excluded from, if all this is true? And where
are they to be included? The discourse on exclusion is yet another way of
talking about diminishing community. It shows how fragile our community is, and
in doing so it does even more: it shows how fragile our assumption of community
is.
When one says the word exclusion, one should, then, always add the
question “exclusion from what?” What is the society like whose bliss the
excluded are denied? Is all well in the best of worlds? Are the included happy?
Why do so many studies tell of depression and stress? Exclusion is often
exclusion from work, but many of those who work suffer from work-related
illnesses and from the consequences of too much overtime. Even schoolchildren
and high school students suffer from stress and mental problems. All this is
caused by our societies’ drive towards economic growth and higher productivity.
This is also the goal of the European union. Globally this competition widens
the gulf between rich and poor nations. Also the ecological consequences of
this drive can be disastrous. It has been said that the two main problems of
our time are exclusion and ecological problems. Could it be that the two
phenomena are related?
3 The hidden reasons
behind the discourse on exclusion
The French sociologist Yves Barel once wrote that marginalized people
are the enemies of society. He drew a parallel with the former heretics and
suggested that the marginalized persons of our time could be described as
secularized heretics. (Barel 1984, 31, 33.) By this he meant that the excluded
are potentially dangerous: their way of life can be seen as an alternative to
the prevailing way of life if there is any chance that it could be presented in
a positive light. So it is better to beware of doing so, and paint a sombre
picture.
By bringing up this comparison I am not saying that the life of the
“excluded” is something we should be jealous of. What I am saying is that the
current way of life needs a counter model which is so negative that it makes
the present way of life appear as the only possible one. Should anybody want to
question it and think of leaving the rat race, he or she will risk becoming an
excluded person or being called one, which can be almost as bad. To avoid this
situation and this label, it is best to keep struggling, keep working overtime,
keep trying to find the hero inside you, to use a fashionable Finnish
expression.
The point here is that the discourse on exclusion can be very useful in
governing society. It seems especially well suited for neo-liberal governance,
in which individuals carry both the blame and the credit for their life
situation. One has to be competitive and disciplined, one has to be a winner,
and one has to be – to use a fitting expression I have seen – the entrepreneur
of one’s own life. In the words of Ulrich Beck (1992, 137) this all means that
how people live their life becomes the biographical solution of systemic
contradictions. In short: the discourse on exclusion does not discipline only
the excluded, but the included as well.
Has, then, anything good come out of the concept of exclusion?
4 Connections
It has been said that the excluded see something that we don’t see. It
is often said that one sees society better if one is at its margins. This may
be true. There has also lately been talk in Finland about the hidden or tacit
knowledge of the excluded. This knowledge can be supremely important when
looking for ways to a more equal society. NGOs, for example, have a big role in
making this knowledge heard.
On the other hand,
saying that the excluded see something we don’t can also be a way of
romanticizing their life and their potential. It can be yet another way of
assigning to them qualities they do not have or essentializing them. Faced with
problems of everyday living, coping from one day to the next, one may be
prevented from seeing anything else or having the energy to think about greater
social or societal problems. – On the other hand, maybe I shouldn’t be saying
this, because (as I mentioned earlier) this is exactly what is usually said
about the excluded. One further example: “Because the excluded have no future
whatsoever, they live in the realm of senses and in the world of immediacy.
Numb to logical reasoning, they are like the animals of the jungle: they react,
they show their teeth and escape.” (Emmanuelli 1998, 136–137, former state
secretary for humanitarian aid in France.)
It may be, then, that the excluded either see or do not see something we
don’t. I am, however, quite ready to say that the excluded and the discourse on
exclusion can help us see something we haven’t seen before. What is this
unseen? Partly it is the existence of persons in need that our society ignores
when focusing its attention on success and winners. Thus the discourse on
exclusion reminds us of the necessity to help the needy and of the necessity to
try to make our society a better place for all. In short, the discourse on
exclusion reminds us of the need of a universalist social policy and of the
welfare state, a project that in the affluent countries has lost some of its
momentum and attractiveness but that in the less affluent counties has not even
properly begun. On a more global level, the talk about exclusion reminds us of
the urgency of global solidarity and sustainable development both in social,
ecological and economic terms. In doing so, it urges us to question the goals
of our societies.
However hard we try to make a difference between the included and the
excluded, the dividing line is always arbitrary. Our destinies – and I am
referring to all the destinies on this planet – are bound together, even though
the binding rope may be invisible. I’d like to describe this by saying that
exclusion is a relational phenomenon.
This means among other things that we should avoid speaking about the excluded
or exclusion in itself, and focus our attention on society and the social
relations that produce it. There is nothing new in this, but as far as
exclusion is concerned, I think that it is necessary to make this reminder – so
often is exclusion abstracted from its larger context.
This
writing is based partly on Tuula Helne’s doctoral thesis “Syrjäytymisen
yhteiskunta” (The society of exclusion) (2002). Research Reports 123. Helsinki:
STAKES. A shortened version of one of its articles has been published in
Swedish: Innanför, på gränsen, utanför – mot en relationell granskning av
marginalisering (2001). Nordisk
Sosialt Arbeid 21 (4), 210–220.
Barel, Yves (1984) La dissidence sociale.
Action et recherches sociales (3), 29–50.
Beck, Ulrich
(1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi:
Sage.
Clavel, Gilbert (1998) La société
d’exclusion. Comprendre pour en sortir. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Emmanuelli, Xavier (1998) L’homme n’est pas la mesure de l’homme. Paris: Presses de la Renaissance.
Lamarque, Gilles (1996) L’exclusion. Que sais-je? 3077. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Rahkonen, Keijo (1990) ’Double-exclusion’: A Case of
Drunkenness Arrests in Finland. In Gordon, Douglas & Riihinen, Olavi
(eds.) Exclusion in Cities in
Britain and in Finland. University of Helsinki, Department of Social Policy:
Research Reports 3, 45–50.
Thomas, Hélène (1997) La production des
exclus. Politiques sociales
et processus de désocialisation socio-politique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.