A NEW WAY OF THINKING? TOWARDS A VISION OF SOCIAL INCLUSION

From Experiences of Exclusion to a Vision of Inclusion:
What Needs to Change?

by Christa Freiler Children’s Agenda Programme Coordinator Laidlaw Foundation

Exploring social inclusion

Almost two years ago, the Laidlaw Foundation began exploring social inclusion as the focus of a new funding program on child and family policy and as a way of re-conceptualizing the goals of public policies and community and agency practices. Social inclusion was seen as promising because it built on the Foundation’s previous work on life chances and children’s well being and because of its potential to:

• Broaden the debate about poverty, vulnerability and the well being of children and families
• Highlight that child and family poverty is not just about a lack of resources, but also about the inability to participate in society
• Link poverty and economic vulnerability with other sources of exclusion and vulnerability, such as racism, disability/rejection of difference
• Find common ground and contribute to building solidarity among families with children
• Help generate greater public and political will to act on behalf of children and families

How has this exploration of social inclusion unfolded?

First, we commissioned 14 working papers. A new publication series, called Perspectives on Social Inclusion, will be launched later this year, beginning with the first 5 or 6 papers. Many of the authors are presenters at this conference.

Next, we funded several research projects by organizations that wanted to examine how social inclusion could be applied, both practically and conceptually, to their sectors. Examples include the Canadian School Boards’ Association, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, and the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD).

We would like to acknowledge the CCSD’s contribution to both of these initiatives. From the beginning, the CCSD saw the potential of social inclusion as an important focus for their work. They have contributed by authoring a working paper, undertaking a research project on indicators and, now, co-sponsoring this conference with the Laidlaw Foundation.

Finally, we held ten roundtables in Toronto, Western Canada, and Atlantic Canada this past summer and fall to engage various sectors in discussions about social inclusion – what it means in different situations and to different people, and its application to policy and practice in various sectors.

How do we understand social inclusion?

The Laidlaw concept paper developed for discussion at the roundtables put forward this working definition of social inclusion:

The capacity and willingness of our society to keep all groups within reach of what we expect as a society – the social commitment and investments necessary to ensure that all people are within reach of [close to] our common aspirations, common life and its common wealth.

As a way of clarifying our understanding of social inclusion, the paper contended that:

• Social inclusion is about making sure that all people participate as valued members of society. It goes beyond bringing people on the outside ‘in’, or notions of the periphery vs. the centre, or ‘us’ and’ them’.
• It is a normative concept (i.e. value based) rather than a descriptive term. It is a way of ‘raising the bar’ - of understanding where we want to be and what needs to change. It helps to guide the development of forward-looking indicators, rather than merely documenting ‘what’s wrong.
• It suggests a transformative agenda that points to the changes that are necessary in public policies, attitudes, and institutional practices.
• ? Social inclusion requires more than the removal of barriers. It requires investments and action to bring about the conditions of inclusion. We know that inclusion does not ‘just happen’ when barriers are removed.

The value of the concept: What did we learn?

We asked roundtable participants to assess the value of social inclusion in terms of these questions:

• Does social inclusion resonate as a concept? (i.e. does it speak to people’s lived experiences?)
• Does it offer new perspectives? Does it help us understand a situation better?
• Is it a vision or tool for developing effective policies and programs? (i.e. does it point to what needs to change?)

Roundtable participants judged social inclusion to be a promising concept that deserved further development and promotion, but expressed their cautions and concerns as well.

Specifically, they were concerned that:

• An analysis based on social inclusion may be too ‘soft’ on the need for structural change. Social inclusion may not adequately address the historic causes of social and economic exclusion.
• Social inclusion’s ‘political flexibility’ (i.e. that it can be seen as valuable by all sides of the political spectrum) and its ‘looseness’ as a concept (i.e. lack of precision and various usages as a goal, process, outcome) may compromise its usefulness.
• There may be a conflict between the choice of ‘self-exclusion’ and the societal goal of inclusion. Some groups may choose, for a variety of reasons, to remain outside of the mainstream culture (e.g. deaf culture).
• Social inclusion is still associated with historic attempts at ‘cultural assimilation’ and ‘social integration’ and may suggest ‘sameness’ or homogeneity.
• The language and concept of inclusion and exclusion, as currently articulated, may not be accessible to those are marginalized and excluded.
• At the same time, social inclusion was recognized as a powerful concept with significant strengths, most notably:
• Social inclusion is grounded in the real life experiences of people. It has the advantage of being able to create a bond of association among people of varying identities and conditions.
• Social inclusion creates expectations for fundamental change at multiple levels of society, from public attitudes to policies to service delivery practices. To some, the vision of inclusion does more than simply ‘raising the bar’: it removes the bar.
• It promotes a multi-dimensional analysis of the causes of inequities and promotes universal approaches and solidarity among social justice causes.
• Social inclusion validates individuals or groups’ choices about how, and on whose terms, to be included (i.e. what some call ‘self-exclusion’).

What does social inclusion depend on?

From the work we have supported so far, we have learned that social inclusion depends on all of the following:

1. Place, space and proximity. Shared public spaces (parks, libraries), social and physical proximity (mixed income neighbourhoods, integrated classrooms) provide opportunities for interactions and reduce social distances.

2. Valued recognition and solidarity. Social inclusion depends on both valuing and recognizing diversity and difference (recognition) and valuing and recognizing commonalities (solidarity).

3. Human development. Inclusion depends on enhancing capabilities and nurturing talents to enable children/adults to develop their full potential, as well as recognizing different skills/capacities (i.e. in human development, one size does not fit all.)

4. Voice, participation, empowerment. Inclusion depends on being able to choose a life that you (and others?) value and, for children, on having a say in decisions that affect you.

Finally, income poverty and material deprivation cut across all of the other dimensions in limiting the social inclusion of children and families. Poverty is widely acknowledged as a source of shame and hardship, and a major obstacle to participating in community life. Social inclusion, therefore, also depends on economic inclusion and economic security.

In conclusion, what we have learned so far is that we need to ‘get real’ in our approach to social inclusion: we need to use language and concepts that are readily understandable, we need to develop examples from people’s real life experiences, and we need to be very concrete in showing ‘what needs to change’ when applying social inclusion to actual policies and practices.

[ Conference Page ][ CCSD Home Page ] [ The Laidlaw Foundation ]