Pre-Conference Interview

Social Inclusion simultaneously provides critique injustices social glue - Anver Saloojee

Featured conference participant Anver Saloojee is Professor of Politics at Ryerson University in Toronto. Dr. Saloojee, a native of South Africa, joined Ryerson in 1977. He received his BA, MA, and PhD in political science all from the University of Toronto, writing his doctoral thesis on Populism and the Struggle for National Liberation in South Africa. Dr. Saloojee is currently coordinator of the Public Administration Program and a member of Ryerson's employment equity and educational equity committees. Dr. Saloojee is known as a leading expert on educational equity and a popular advocate within his community. In this e-mail interview with journalist Ish Theilheimer he traces his roots in the Social Inclusion movement and tells why he feels it is so important.

How far back do you go with the movement for Social Inclusion? With whom have you worked, and who have been your examples? Why are you such a strong advocate?

I have been involved with issues of Social Inclusion practically all my political life. As a member of the African National Congress of South Africa I was a part of an organization that was truly inclusive in its politics as well as in its practice. The opposition to Apartheid in South Africa spearheaded by the ANC took the form of an all embracing opposition - all those who opposed Apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa were welcomed into the ANC. And the leadership of the ANC had a conception of politics that included the South African Indian Congress, the Coloured Peoples Organization and the Congress of Democrats. The Congress Alliance that was formed and that took its leadership from the African National Congress was a multi-racial political alliance steeped in the politics of inclusion.

In the Canadian context the dialogue around Social Inclusion gained momentum a few years ago when the Laidlaw Foundation decided to initiate a working paper series on Social Inclusion and that is how I got involved.

I am a strong advocate of Social Inclusion precisely because it is about inclusion and not exclusion.

The theme of the conference is Social Inclusion: "What do we know and where do we go?" Based on your own experience as an advocate for the rights of excluded people and peoples, what do YOU know of the utility of Social Inclusion as a means to advance an agenda of human rights, quality of life, and democratic participation in all aspects of citizenship and community life?

To be totally honest I am not sure I know very much. But what I do know is that it is a concept that is resonating quite powerfully with many because it is about rights and responsibilities but it also about valued respect and I will suggest at the conference it is fundamentally about the democratization of democracy.

You have written that Social Inclusion is a superior to multiculturalism as a concept for advancing rights and social cohesion. How is this so? And why is Social Inclusion more acceptable than multiculturalism to those who see rights issues as 'zero-sum' games, in which they lose when others advance?

The challenge for an official policy of multiculturalism is that it unfortunately has been unable to transcend the limits of its birth - that preservation of culture was what it was about. Though multiculturalism has, in its second iteration moved to issues of access and power, and dealing with racism etc. it actually provides no coherent no systematic alternative to exclusion felt and experienced by historically marginalized communities.

As for the issue of rights being a zero sum game, I reject that outright, first it is not a game and second rights are expansive and by advancing the rights of the most disadvantage we (as a society) are in fact advancing the rights of all.

You cite employment equity reaching deep into the private sector as the first in a list of inclusionary policies that should be pursued. Does the establishment of Social Inclusion as a discourse prevent the kind of backlash to employment equity experienced in Ontario in the early 1990s? Can you cite examples of this?

Members of minority racialized communities, and workers from racialized minority communities face barriers to entering the labour market, once in the labour market they also face the glass ceiling so the challenge in a democratic society is how to advance democratic rights to the disadvantaged. Employment Equity is about organizational change it is about assessing the employment policies, practices and systems and assessing whether they operate so as to exclude members of racialized and other minority communities. If they do, how does the exclusion unfold and what can be done to remedy the situation. The obligation then is on the employer to develop a strategy to eliminate barriers both to labour market entry as well as to upward mobility. We also need to do a great deal more about exposing the myths associated with immigrant workers. As a society we significantly undervalue the skills, education and experience that immigrant workers bring to Canada. This has huge social costs for immigrant workers and their families (racialized poverty, stress, etc.) and it also has huge implications for our society at large. By focusing on the challenges of barrier reduction, and by positioning the issues as one that our society as a whole can benefit from I am confident we can avoid the backlash.

By way of example, can you point to a few successful examples of how advocates have used Social Inclusion as a tool to promote effective policies at different levels and in different jurisdictions?

The Social Inclusion discourse is quite new in Canada and experiments are only now underway. There is significant movement in the area of health to identify the Social Indicators of health. In Ontario many organizations are in the process of developing "took kits" and developing a range of Social Inclusion indicators. Over the next few years the full potential of Social Inclusion - both an analytical too and as a normative ideal will become increasingly evident.

You have written that Social Inclusion "forces the discourse beyond the real of formal equality and into the realm of substantive equality." What creates this force? Why does it result in real change where other approaches have fallen short? Where is it working and where do you see it next working?

What creates this force is the political force of those who for a variety of reasons are excluded from full participation n our society. It has greater potential precisely because it is about rights and responsibilities; it is about the politics of solidarity it can avoid the challenges associated with narrow sectoral politics and ultimately it offers a constructive alternative to people who enraged by social injustice in all its forms and manifestation in contemporary Canadian society. The politics of rage does not offer a meaningful alternative to exclusion - it is simply rage against the system. The Social Inclusion discourse is much more meaningful because it simultaneously provides a coherent critique of social injustices and it provides the glue that binds social movements together in their common struggle to create a more just and equitable society.

I definitely see that happening. There is a growing movement in Ontario coalitions of organizations working on Social Inclusion are pooling their resources, there is also serious talk of developing a cross Canada civic network.

Ruth Levitas writes that Social Inclusion "lacks any clear definition. Its meaning differs between member states [within the EU] and shifts over time. These variations have profound implications for social and economic policies, and therefore for the lives of Europe's citizens," and as a result, "social exclusion may not help to address the problems of poverty and inequality." How can Canadians avoid this risk as they advance the arguments of Social Inclusion?

Part of the excitement generated by Social Inclusion is that definitional clarity must emerge in the context of a particular nation state. The forms of exclusion experienced by people within a country, the intensity of the exclusion, its history, its trajectory the degree to which it is institutionalized etc. all determine what needs to be done. In Canada those of us who are using the concept in a variety of different instances have a responsibility to demonstrate what Social Inclusion from that perspective looks like. I for example do not see Social Inclusion as the end point of continuum form exclusion to inclusion. I see Social Inclusion as emerging out of the critique of exclusion. Anti-racist social inclusion is the antidote to racial exclusion.

Back to Papers

For more information about the conference, contact:
 
Sarah Zgraggen
The Willow Group
Tel: (613) 722-8796;
Fax: (613) 729-6206;
e-mail: szgraggen@thewillowgroup.com