Theoretical Framework
Since reforming the criminals of
Stuartpuram, Samskar’s efforts have been directed towards reducing the “social
exclusion” of ex-criminals families by the response of “social inclusion”. In
the following section we explore the conceptual ground of the two interrelated
extremes.
Although social
exclusion discourses have had a relatively late entry into the literature, it
was already about 200 years ago gently stirred by Adam Smith, in his exposition
of social exclusion in the form of “inability
to appear in public without shame” (Smith 1776, cited in Sen 2000:11).
The
concept of social inclusion is now at the heart of political consciousness,
both in India
and around the world. It is broadly understood as the opposite of exclusion, a
process dealing with social exclusion and integrating secluded individuals and
groups into society (CESI 2002).
Social Exclusion
Social exclusion as a concept is a
broad and wide-ranging one, evading a neat definition. For instance, French
author René Lenoir identified the following of the French population as
excluded: mentally and physically handicapped, suicidal people, aged invalids,
abused children, substance abusers, delinquents, single parents, multi-problem
households, marginal, asocial persons, and other social “misfits” (Lenoir 1974, in Sen 2000). Some have defined social exclusion broadly as
“the process through which individuals or
groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society
within which they live” (de Haan 1999:8).
However,
de Haan (1999) stresses that there is not necessarily need for one central
top-definition. A social exclusion concept can provide context-specific
analyses and can allow for contesting definitions of inclusion. It starts from
its tenet of the importance of inclusion in society, but the way this is
operationalised is dependent of local circumstances.
But
some defining features of this social reality are possible to identify.
According to de Haan (1999) there are two main characteristics. First, it is a
multidimensional concept. People may be excluded, for example, from
livelihoods, employment, earnings, property, education, personal contacts or
respect and so on. But the concept focuses on the multidimensionality of
deprivation, meaning that people are often excluded from different things at
the same time. It refers to exclusion in the economic, social and political life.
Second,
social exclusion implies an emphasis on the social relations and the processes
that underlie deprivation. People can be excluded by different sorts of groups,
often at the same time. They can be excluded from access to land by landlords;
labour markets; priests in India
may exclude low castes from temples; and so on. Exclusion occurs at each level
of society. Group formation is characteristic of the human society, and this is
accompanied by exclusion of others. The notion takes the debate beyond mere
descriptions of deprivation, stressing the processes through which people are
being deprived (de Haan 1999).
Prakash (2007) offer six theoretical
aspects of social exclusion to work as a frame of analysis. First, social
exclusion is the process and outcome of excluding, casting out, depriving and
denying social interaction to some of the citizens of a country or members of a
society. Society here refers to the social order, or the set of social
structures, institutions and practices, which maintains a society, rather than
political boundaries. Social interaction is defined as a situation where the “behaviours of one actor are consciously
recognized by, and influence the behaviour of, another actor, and vice versa”
(Jary & Jary 1991:621).
Social interaction is usually
established on the basis of personal or social relations. Social relations refer to a multitude
of social interactions, regulated by social norms, between two or more people.
Social relationships is distinguished from personal relations in the sense that
people hardly know one another, while personal relations are relationships
existing over time (Jary & Jary 1991).
Social interactions can be
differentiated into accidental, repeated, regular and regulated. Accidental
social interactions are not planned and likely not repeated, for example asking
a stranger for directions. Repeated interactions are not planned, but bound to
happen from time to time. An example is accidentally meeting a neighbour now
and then when walking on your street. Regular interactions are not planned, but
very common, like meeting a doorman every workday in your workplace. Finally,
regulated interactions refer to planned and regulated interactions by law or
customs, for instance interaction in a workplace (coming to work, staff
meetings, playing a game, etc.) (Jary & Jary 1991).
Second, social exclusion is closely
associated with relative deprivation. It refers to the discontent people feel
when they compare their positions to those of similarly situated and find that
they have less than their peers. In this sense, it has been stated that rising
inequalities has contributed to the exclusion of many social groups from
opportunities (Prakash 2007).
Third, according to Prakash (2007), social
exclusion is also seen as denial of capabilities and entitlements as advanced
by economist Amartya Sen (1999). In his understanding, capabilities or human
freedoms are absolute requirements to be a full member of society. We have good
reason to value not being excluded from social relations and the inability to
interact freely with others is an important capability deprivation in itself
according to Sen (1999). Entitlements include political freedoms, economic
facilities, social opportunities, transparency and security.
Fourth, social exclusion works
against social inclusion. In this regard, it is not only the excluded but also
those excluding who are subject to social disharmony, crisis and conflict,
which arise out of disintegration. According to Prakash (2007), social harmony
is a must for society to incubate and grow. Society cannot grow in constant
violence and struggle. By violence we mean both the overt, physical violence as
well as the more hidden, structural violence built into society such as
oppression, discrimination and injustice. Social exclusion and structural
violence can set in train a dynamic that results in further exclusion, and
ultimately conflict. Excluded people become aggressive, defensive,
uncooperative, harsh and unhelpful (Green et al. 2003).
Fifth, in the long run exclusion is
detrimental to social solidarity. Social solidarity refers to the inclusion, or
degree of inclusion, shown by a society or group. It points to the ties in a
society, the social relations that bind people to one another. Since social exclusion
discriminates and deprives fellow members of society and nation there is a lack
of scope and space for solidarity among the members (Jary & Jary 1991,
Prakash 2007).
Sixth, since social exclusion denies
social inclusion, harmony and solidarity, the social relations that emerges in
an excluding society is in confliction, and hence, conflict becomes entrenched
in social life (Prakash 2007).
The solution to the problem of
exclusion is inclusion, but this cannot be a passive exercise nor can you force
it. Inclusion has to analyse the processes and outcomes of exclusion and work
out well planned mechanisms for inclusion. In this sense the role of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are important. By undertaking social
mapping, the NGOs can identify secluded sections and initiate inclusive
programs for their uplifting (Prakash 2007).
No comments:
Post a Comment