DISCOURSES &
SOCIAL EXCLUSION/INCLUSION
SOC607
Mgr. Ivana Rapošová
Mgr. Lenka Kissová

DEFINING SOCIAL INCLUSION
… is difficult
lMeanings vary
lMeanings are shifting
→ complex settings indicate that approaches towards social exclusion/inclusion are (country-)
specific and context-dependent (history, discourse, public policies, institutions, cultural
understanding of social relations, etc.)

VARIETY OF DEFINITIONS OF EXCLUSION
l“Social exclusion may be understood as an accumulation of confluent processes with successive
ruptures arising from the heart of the economy, politics and society, which gradually distances and
places persons, groups, communities and territories in a position of inferiority in relation to
centres of power, resources and prevailing values” (Estivill 2003, p. 19)
l“the dynamic process of being shut out ... from any of the social, economic, political and
cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in society” (Walker and Walker
1997, p. 8)
l”lack of income and productive resources to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and
malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services;
increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe
environments and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterised by lack of
participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life.” (United Nations 1995, p.
57)
l“inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life, alienation
and distance from the mainstream society” (Duffy 1995)




DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION
lEconomic activities
lSocial activities
lPolitical activities
l
...discussions might go even further…
lCommunity
lIndividual
lGroup
lSpatial

PROBLEMATIC FORMULATION OF POLICIES
lterm still quite new
lconcept is very flexible (country, context-specific)
lmissing a well-developed set of indicators
lclarifying the definition and the concept would undermine the flexibility of the concept
Any other potential problems?

IMPORTANCE OF DISCOURSES
Discourse formulates the ways we look at things, we describe them, what meanings we ascribe them
and thus how we act. (Levitas 2005)
- we (re)produce mental representations and meanings through discourses
- it offers us a certain perspective how we look at things
- it offers particular ways how we produce knowledge about things
- it influences the way we act

1. REDISTRIBUTIONIST DISCOURSE (RED)
•
•developed in British critical social policy
•prime concern is poverty
•critique of inequality
•exclusion is contrasted with a form of citizenship calling for substantial form of redistrbution
of power and wealth

2. MORAL UNDERCLASS DISCOURSE (MUD)
•
•stress on moral and behavioural delinquency of excluded people
•in the center there are criminals, unemployable youth, irresponsible single mothers → paid
emlployment is the crucial tool of disciplination
•their exclusion is a moral threat and a cultural feature
•emphasises the cultural but ignores political and economic causes of exclusion

3. SOCIAL INTEGRATIONIST DISCOURSE (SID)
•central focus is on paid employment
•inclusion is primary considered through paid work
•reduction of social to economic exclusion/inclusion + ignoring political and cultural
features/factors
•doesn’t acknowledges non-market work (they’re squeezed into market or spaces around paid
employment) – unpaid work is addressed from perspective of market

IMPORTANCE OF DISCOURSES II
Social exclusion/inclusion anchored in discourses (Levitas 2005)
→ different discourses will frame and tackle exclusion and related problems differently
They will differ in:
lWho defines the insiders/outsiders
lHow they characterise/define boundaries (what is the crucial feature of the boundary)
lHow is it possible to support inclusion
lHow they represent relation between inclusion/exclusion and inequality
l
‘In a political environment the advocates of reform need to employ strategies to overcome the
scepticism of others and persuade them of the importance of reform. In other words, they must
create a frame that changes the collective understanding of the welfare state, because doing so
‘shapes the path’ necessary to enact reform’ (Cox, 2001: 475 in Béland 2007)