I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Laidlaw Foundation for the opportunity to once more participate in a substantive process. Through the dedication of its resources to address the critical issue of social inclusion, and through the initiation of this conference in collaboration with the Canadian Council on Social Development, the foundation confirms that it remains on the cutting edge of public interest work in Canada.
The theme of this session is to explore social inclusion as the foundation of a national policy agenda. I propose to examine the theme in three ways:
a) highlight the structural dilemmas of inclusion;
b) contend that democratic development become the foundation for a policy agenda to advance social inclusion in Canada;
c) and time permitting, I would like to outline a structural agenda for universal inclusion.
Social inclusion is a compelling, complex, and contested concept. What appears to have self-evident meaning to its advocates, can conceal layers of differing assumptions and agendas. Inclusion holds out the promise of a more just set of relationships within society. But until we know what kind of inclusion is intended, and for whom, then the promise remains unclear.
To discuss social inclusion as the foundation of a national policy agenda requires us to explore both the structural and contextual dimensions of the concept. The current interest in social inclusion draws from European initiatives over the last three decades, beginning in France and then extending itself across the European community. The initial and continuing focus in Europe is on marginalization, identifying populations and sub-groups living in states of chronic hardship outside of conventional economic and social settings.
The marginalized are the living negations of the universal promises of prosperity and well-being upon which the legitimacy of European structural arrangements have rested since World War Two. The structural foundations of universalism were based on commitments to full employment, rising incomes, and comprehensive systems of social care through a generous welfare state. There are two forms of exclusion inherent in marginalization: a) social exclusion of the marginalized as the diminished outsiders; and b) political exclusion of structural legitimacy to the dominant insiders.
Herein lies the structural dilemma of social inclusion. Does the presence of the marginalized reveal deficiencies in prevailing structural arrangements and the need for an agenda of national reconstruction, or does the presence of the marginalized reveal deficiencies in processes of national integration into what are basically sound structural arrangements. Even the first question about structural deficiencies can lead in two directions: a) a contention that prevailing structural arrangements induce attitudes and behaviors [passivity, dependence] which directly contribute to the marginalized marginalizing themselves; or b) that the prevailing structural arrangements are incapable of providing universal conditions of inclusion for diverse life circumstances.
These are not new dilemmas. Social exclusion was the earlier focus of the American War on Poverty in the sixties. Drawing from the research on delinquency, contentions emerged which suggested that poverty was fundamentally a function of denied opportunity to participate in the economic abundance of America. Poverty was located in what Michael Harrington called "The Other America", the racially and rurally excluded populations of the country. The War on Poverty became a strategy of national integration through targeted programs to enhance the participation of the marginalized- capacity development through community action and model cities initiatives, work incentive programs for people on social assistance, head start for early development, youth corps for skill development and job preparation, the mobilization of voluntary action through a domestic peace corps, legal challenges to promote the rights of the excluded, and heavily funded research on the dynamics of poverty and on the outcomes of demonstration programs.
Nowhere did the War on Poverty address structural deficiencies in American society. There were no universal initiatives on health care, family income security, public education, early childhood learning and care, recreation, public transit, mixed social housing. When the War on Poverty became mired in political conflict, and was terminated in 1968, the focus on the marginalized turned to "law and order" [not the TV program, but the political strategy]. The marginalized were once more defined as deviant, not to be integrated but to be contained through policing and incarceration. There are few enduring legacies of the War on Poverty other than continuing targeted initiatives and extensive research. American social outcomes in key areas of well-being remain the worst in the industrialized world. The marginalized persist in their exclusion - racially concentrated, economically depleted, and socially dislocated.
The Canadian context for addressing social inclusion has historically been less stark than that in the United States. The Canadian welfare state which emerged in the late sixties through the mid-seventies had more structural content. A strong social security system for seniors was developed, medicare was introduced, major investments were made in urban infrastructure and social housing, public education and the arts were strongly supported, opportunities for post secondary education and training were extended, unemployment insurance coverage was the broadest in the industrialized world, the creation of a social economy through community employment and core funding of community-based agencies was a Canadian innovation, and bilingualism and multiculturalism became defining features of Canadian life. It was also a time when the federal government assumed direct political responsibility to support people in poverty through the Canada Assistance Plan.
Canadian strategies of social inclusion benefited the dominant cultural majorities of the country- able bodied male provided families of European origin. The strategies of inclusion did not fully address the life circumstances of women, young children, First Nations, immigrants and refugees of racial diversity, people with disabilities, and former patients with mental health difficulties discharged into communities. During the nineties, the stratification of the labour market accompanied by significant reductions in public provision have led to growing states of social polarization and civic decline in Canadian life. Vulnerability, insecurity, and marginalization have spread to draw in increasing numbers of the historically included.
Social inclusion has become a subject of national significance because there is growing apprehension that Canadian life is becoming permanently recast into moulds of privilege and disadvantage. Homelessness, child poverty, aboriginal despair, a decaying urban infrastructure, congested classrooms, crowded emergency rooms, student debts, patterns of racial apartheid in large cities are all leading indicators of a social fabric that is fraying rapidly. A national conference on social inclusion is a time to reflect on perspectives and strategies to preserve the vision of a common Canada.
The conference poses the question of whether the concept of social inclusion presents us with a new way of thinking. If the primary focus of inclusion is on bringing marginalized populations into the prevailing mainstream, then the answer is no.
Strategies of normative integration of the marginals go back more than 150 years to the origins of the scientific charity movement when friendly visitors were expected to become moral bridges, guiding the marginals into mainstream life. The structural dilemmas of those times was that mainstream life was incapable of furnishing conditions of security and well-being for a majority of people. Integration meant having the marginals accept the legitimacy of prevailing structural arrangements and develop appropriate moral behaviors to compete for limited opportunities. Inclusion as normative integration of the marginals rests on strategies of modifying behaviors and building bridges for those on the outside to become participants on the inside. The subjects and beneficiaries of inclusion are "them", the residuals, whose absence from mainstream locations and practices is the target of public initiatives. Inclusion as normative integration is what defined the American War on Poverty, and now defines current targeted initiatives in Europe and Canada. The focus of residual strategies is on risk, intervention, and enforced insertion if necessary as evident in workfare programs.
There is another understanding of social inclusion in which the focus is on the structural capacity of a society to provide conditions of security and well-being for all of its people. This approach also has an historical tradition, as reflected in the social justice struggles which led to the formation of the welfare state as a project of universal inclusion. Programs such as medicare, public education, social housing, a social security system for seniors are secular expressions of equal worth. They translate rights as principles into conditions of life.
Universalism has generally been presented as a fiscal concept of redistribution in which some people pay more so that everyone may receive an essential benefit. But there is a moral meaning to universalism, in which every person is deemed worthy of a dignified presence by virtue of their membership in a national community committed to principles of democratic development. Inclusion through universalism is a strategy of mutual accommodation in which the mainstream transforms itself to create conditions which reduce social distances in the relative status and public worth of people. There are two critical co-requisites to mutual accommodation- a) the recognition and respect of differences; and b) the discovery and affirmation of commonalities. These are the foundations of collective solidarities. Inclusion through mutual accommodation is what contributes to states of social cohesion.
Societies of normative integration can tolerate significant social disparities so long as participants adhere to prescribed standards of behavior in their respective social worlds. The democratic commitment in normative integration can be limited to processes of accountability and equity - collective sovereignty and fair treatment. The development of valued capabilities and the availability of valued locations are left to the social opportunities provided by the prevailing structural order. If the prevailing order is limited in its opportunities, then life chances are also limited and competitive. This perspective gets expressed in the metaphor that "life is a race that everyone faces" and that public initiatives can serve to "improve the odds." [In a mutual accommodation perspective, the metaphor would be reframed to state that "life is a journey that everyone experiences" and that public initiatives can serve to "endow the paths."]
The vision of social inclusion which one pursues [whether residual or universal] basically reflects differences in understandings and commitments to democratic development. These differences are evident in four critical areas:
a) whether social rights are claims to be defended and observed, or whether social rights are responsibilities to be recognized and affirmed;
b) whether freedom is the liberty to acquire or the capability to pursue a meaningful life;
c) whether life chances should be conferred through a fair process of competition, or through just conditions of endowment;
d) whether states of social well-being are better advanced through more wealth, or through better states of social cohesion.
Permit me to offer some brief comments in each of the four areas.
a) Universal systems of social provision reflect the recognition and affirmation of responsibility. A fully funded medicare system does not require citizens to claim rights for primary care [as with the proposed bill of patient rights in the United States], nor demonstrate financial need as a condition of eligibility [as with the U.S. medicaid program]. In fully funded medicare, the assumption of responsibility precedes the claim for care. Everyone is included by virtue of their membership in Canadian society.
b) The seminal work of the Nobel Laureate philosopher-economist Amartya Sen on inequality deals with the nature of human freedom. He questions whether the ability to secure and derive pleasure from goods is the highest expression of human freedom. Sen contends that well-being comes from a broad set of capabilities to realize states of agency and levels of functioning consistent with what carries meaning for people. The foundation of freedom therefore rests in capabilities to pursue, and inequalities are most evident in diminished states of human development. Sen's work has been most influential in the development of a human poverty index by the United Nations in which poverty is defined along four dimensions- health states, levels of education, stability of employment, as well as relative income. Democratic development that values human freedom must assure people of the conditions to develop their capabilities.
c) The great Canadian political philosopher C B Macpherson directed much of his thinking to the theory and practice of democracy. In one of his later works, he contended that democracy is more than a mechanism for selecting and authorizing governments to regulate private interests and the private pursuit of advantages. The egalitarian principle in democracy went beyond 'one person, one vote' but must also ensure each person the right to live as fully humanly as they may wish. Macpherson concluded that any modern theory of democracy must "treat democracy as a kind of society and must treat the individual members as at least potential doers rather than mere consumers, must assert an equal effective right of the members to use and develop their human capacities; each must be enabled to do so, whether or not each actually does so." Macpherson goes somewhat further than Sen in his assertion that the universal endowment of life chances is at the core of democratic development. Moreover, for people to be doers and active contributors there must be conditions of social cohesion. As Macpherson observes "The case for a democratic society fails without the assumption of potential substantial harmony. For what would be the use of trying to provide that everyone should be able to make the most of himself, which is the idea of a democratic society, if that were bound to lead to more destructive contention."
d) There is now compelling evidence that conditions of universal inclusion and social cohesion lead to higher states of collective and personal well-being. Population health studies have revealed that societies with lower levels of disparity have longer life expectancies, less homicide and crime, stronger patterns of civic engagement, and even more robust economic vitality. Richard Wilkinson, a leading British population health researcher, is quite definitive in his conclusions. He states that "What matters to health is not absolute income and living standards, but relative income and social status." Universal inclusion through mutual accommodation is a common good which benefits 'us'. But mutual accommodation rests on states of collective intelligence which recognize the social foundations of well-being. As Wilkinson so aptly states: "Do people see other members of the public as fellow citizens with whom their welfare is interdependent, or do they see each other merely as obstacles in each other's way?"
The structural implications of population health findings raise profound issues around priorities for national development. A primary focus on economic growth and more wealth does not lead to higher states of common well-being if the social results are more polarization and greater disparities in relative circumstances and prospects. Democratic development through commitments to universal inclusion is a fundamental public good with its own imperatives, in which the social uses of wealth become the primary focus of governance.
An agenda for universal inclusion founded on mutual accommodation is a societal project, pursued at both the national level and in local communities. It is at the heart of the historical project called Canada. It will require unusual intelligence and determination to create common conditions of dignity for peoples of diverse global origins and social circumstances dispersed in a country that spans a continent.
I am well aware that throughout his conference there will be a host of proposals on how to advance social inclusion in Canada. There are three fundamental priorities that I wish to outline for a structural agenda.
a) Human Development Policies
If the development of each person's capabilities are at the core of human freedom and democratic development, then strong public systems of universal endowment are essential. We are now more aware of the life cycle dynamics of learning. We must find the wealth to finally create a public system of early learning and care in every community across Canada which assures every child at birth of an equal chance to enhance their cognitive and social capabilities. The time has come to recognize that recreation and the arts are significant domains for learning and expression and should be provided as essential human development services in every community across Canada. Above all, we need to project the kind of public education system we want to build for the twenty-first century. Will the commitment to public education provide the wealth required to create learning environments that go beyond testing for standardized competencies to discover and nurture the special talents and skills that reside in each child. Will the concept of public education be extended to reflect the importance of learning opportunities from junior kindergarten through to undergraduate studies and training.
b) Civic Vitality
It is in our large cities and municipalities across Canada that states of social inclusion and cohesion are first experienced. The civic capacity of Canadian cities to sustain urban communities of social diversity living in relative states of dignity and harmony is a fundamental challenge to the democratic development of Canada. Homelessness is a leading indicator of both human despair and of democratic decline. The regeneration of civic vitality requires national policies of investments in infrastructures and institutions, and local practices that foster inclusive environments in neighbourhoods and public settings. National investments are urgently required in core infrastructure areas such as social housing and public transit. Cities and municipalities must be assured of the fiscal capacities to sustain essential institutions and services such as schools, libraries, recreation centres, and public works. Core public funding for a strong network of community-based agencies, both neighbourhood and culturally specific, creates primary places for mutual engagement and accommodation in civic life. Beyond the investments that are required, we need public interest support for projects which expand our knowledge of best civic practices in different public settings that foster social inclusion.
c) Living Standards
Social security systems remain important contributors to the reduction of economic and social disparities. As population health research has demonstrated, relative income is a key determinant of relative status and well-being. Income is a critical source of capability, in that the freedom to pursue requires resources that contribute to the realization of pursuits. More research on the impacts of economic stress on the exercise of capabilities would provide much needed insight on the psycho-social impacts of deprivation and disparities. The Canadian social security system remains basically sound for seniors. However, there is an urgent need to repair the social security system for the unemployed, and to finally build strong social security systems for families with children and for people with disabilities. Countries in Europe with the lowest rates of child poverty have strong systems of social security for families with providers both in and out of the labour market.
This conference gave participants permission to articulate a vision of social inclusion. The vision which I have outlined is unthinkable and unachievable under prevailing conditions of national governance in Canada. We are currently living through the fiscal legacies of the nineties in which the federal government disinvested in national social programs and then divested itself of a public revenue base for new national investments. This was pursued to stimulate market driven economic growth. The collapse of the internet bubble and the destruction of September 11th demonstrated how fragile market driven strategies can be. We are in a deep recession, with less to fall back upon in hard times, and limited abilities to regenerate national development.
A structural agenda for universal inclusion will require a return to the recognition that high quality public goods are critical contributors to collective and personal states of well-being and vitality. It will require a new fiscal climate based on a structural intelligence that countries have corridors of options in the use of national wealth for public purposes. To paraphrase a political saying of recent years - "it's about margins, stupid." There is no hard empirical evidence on the negative impacts of marginal increases in public revenue on national economic performance. There is significant variation in public revenue levels among states south of the border, and among countries in the European community.
The structural significance of a vision is that it can help generate a focus for mobilization and transformation. Of the three priority areas that I outlined, the most promise area for advancing a structural agenda of universal inclusion is in the area of civic vitality. This is where the evidence of disparity and decline is directly experienced. This is where strong community, public interest, and political voices have emerged to become the social conscience of Canada. Many of those voices are here today, and I hope we can leave tomorrow more enlightened, committed, and determined for what will be a long journey.
Marvyn Novick is a Professor of Social Work at Ryerson University. Since 1970, he has been an active contributor to the social policy field in Canada and to social development initiatives in Toronto. The focus of his work is on the social well-being of children, families, and communities.
Professor Novick is a co-founder of Campaign 2000 and the author of major policy reports on child poverty in Canada. His current publications address the social determinants of life chances, a life cycle approach to strategies for children, community systems of social support, and the structural dimensions of social inclusion.
Professor Novick has consulted to national organizations and local government in Toronto. He coordinated the policy unit of the Laidlaw Foundation’s Children at Risk Program, chaired a national demonstration project on work and family life for the Canadian Mental Health Association, contributed to public consultations on a social development strategy for the City of Toronto, and now serves on the expert advisory group to the Toronto Commission on Early Learning and Care.
[ Conference Page ][ CCSD Home Page ] [ The Laidlaw Foundation ]