Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Development Sociology - World System and Dependency Theory


World-Systems Theory



One of the primary historical-sociological perspectives is that of the worldsystems
analysis, a neo-Marxian approach built around analyses of modes of
production. This approach developed from an analysis of the economic and
material world, specifically capitalism as it emerged and developed in Europe
beginning in the 1500s. The world-systems analysis generally argues that this
new economic and social system broke the power of earlier political and
economic empires and systems, and developed towards a dominant world
system. While originating in Europe, the world system that has emerged over
the last five hundred years is without limits and extends for its reach throughout
the globe. In contrast to some Marxian approaches, this world system is not
always progressive in its effects, it encompasses a variety of modes of
production, and could ultimately be replaced by a socialist world system.


The world-systems analysis was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein (1930-)
who has been a professor at Columbia University, McGill University, and currently
the State University of New York at Binghamton. Wallerstein is best known for
his The Modern World-System, published in 1974. In this work he analyses the
origins of the modern system, beginning around 1500, where there began a
shift from political and military forms of dominance to economic influences
and power. In later volumes, Wallerstein traces the development of this new
system, showing how it is creating core, periphery, and semi-periphery regions
of the world. While political structures are connected to economic ones,
Wallerstein argues that a variety of political structures are compatible with the
capitalist world system.


The world-systems theory abandons national economies and the nation state
as the unit of analysis. Marxian theory generally works within the framework
of national social structures, with a capitalist and a working class being rooted
in the organisation of production and distribution on a national scale. The
world-systems theory considers the division of labour, exploitation, and
inequality on a world rather than a national level. That is, capitalism is not just
organised on a national level, it develops and uses resources, labour, production,
and markets on a world scale.


The development of Canada could easily be interpreted within a world-systems
approach. European expansion led to the development of Atlantic fisheries to
supply food for Europe. Later the development of the fur trade made Canada
supply furs for European consumption. These were connected to the
development of industry and consumer markets in Europe – with an emerging
bourgeoisie and working class. The development of trade and European
expansion across North America destroyed many of the aboriginal economies
that existed earlier. Agricultural and industrial changes in Europe led to export
of dispossessed and poor Europeans to settle in North America. Forest, mining,
and agricultural products were exported to Europe, thereby assisting in the
growth of European and North American capitalism. While some areas benefited,
others became disadvantaged as a result of these developments. Social and
class structures have a connection to this international division of labour and
the forms of development of production and markets on a world scale.
In world-systems analysis there are three types of regions. The core areas of
the world system are the wealthy countries of Europe and North America that
dominate and exploit much of the rest of the world. These countries tend to
have relatively free labour markets with relatively well paid skilled workers. In
contrast, the periphery is poor and exploited, exporting raw materials to the
core economies. Conditions for workers in the periphery tend to be very poor,
and workers in these countries are often coerced through slavery or threat of
starvation. The core countries benefit by maintaining the peripheral countries
in a backward state.


Semi-peripheral countries combine aspects of the core and periphery, being
exploited and exploiting. Examples might include some of the poorer parts of
Europe (Portugal or Greece) or some of the better off South American countries
such as Argentina. The key to the division, however, is not so much the
countries but the position any area occupies within the international division
of labour. For example, there may be peripheral areas of core countries (some
parts of northern Saskatchewan or the Maritimes) and core areas in primarily
peripheral countries.






Implications of World-System Analysis


In terms of sociological analysis, there appear to be at least three implications
of the world-systems analysis.


a) Expansion: Unlike earlier empires, which had limits to expansion prescribed References
by the ability to politically govern a wide area, there appears to be little
limit to the capitalist world system, especially today. It has expanded over
the last five hundred years and shows no signs of ending the domination
of the world economy. Wallerstein argues that this is one difference of the
current world system from earlier ones – there was a decisive break around
the period 1500, whereby capitalism, technology, and science combined to
create an expansive and global system.


b) International scope: Social structure has an international basis. Any analysis
of the social structure must consider the international aspect of this. That
is, the particular place any group occupies in an international division of
labour may be more important than the seeming place within the national
economy and society.


c) Difference and Inequality: In contrast to theories of modernisation or
globalisation that argue that there may be a single, more uniform world in
the future, the thrust of world-systems analysis is that continued
inequalities and backwardness are furthered at the same time that wealth
and progress occur in the core. This world system does not require similar
culture, politics, or even modes of production in different regions. Rather,
the capitalist world system can accommodate many different political forms
(democracy, totalitarianism, monarchies, military rule) and different forms
of production (slavery, semi-feudal forms of large estates and impoverished
peasants, market-oriented agriculture). While the economic power of
capitalism makes its effects felt on a world wide scale, this system creates
wealth in some places and takes wealth away from others. As a result,
poverty and inequality are essential aspects of such a system. This creates
strains and can lead to redistribution of power and wealth on a world wide
scale.


d) Study of Change: The world-systems analysis provides a useful way of
examining changes that have occurred and continue to occur across the
globe. For example, the migration of large numbers of people from poor to
richer countries is a result of the developments on the world system —
destroying traditional ways of life and livelihood in the sending countries
and filling labour supply needs in receiving countries. At the same time,
this approach may be overly economistic in much the same manner as
much Marxian analysis. That is, the world-systems analysis does not pay
much attention to culture and does not appear to consider it as an
independent aspect. Further, the assumption of dominance of European
and North American capitalist forces may be somewhat ethnocentric.





Dependency Theory of Underdevelopment
Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of the external influences—political, economic, and cultural— on national development policies (Sunkel 1969: 23). Theotonio Dos Santos emphasises the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his definition:
[Dependency is]...a historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected (Dos Santos 1971: 226).
There are three common features to these definitions which most dependency theorists share:
First, dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two sets of states, variously described as dominant/dependent, center/periphery or metropolitan/satellite. The dominant states are the advanced industrial References nations in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The dependent states are those states of Latin America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity, or a few commodities, for foreign exchange earnings.
Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that external forces are of singular importance to the economic activities within the dependent states. These external forces include multinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreign assistance, communications, and any other means by which the advanced industrialised countries can represent their economic interests abroad.
Third, all the definitions of dependency indicate that the relations between dominant and dependent states are dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states tend to not only reinforce but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a very deep-seated historical process, rooted in the internationalisation of capitalism.


The Central Propositions of Dependency Theory
There are a number of propositions, all of contestable, which form the core of the dependency theory. These propositions include:
1) “Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different from “undevelopment. The latter term simply refers to a condition in which resources are not being used. For example, the European colonists viewed the North American continent as an undeveloped area: the land was not actively cultivated on a scale consistent with its potential. Underdevelopment refers to a situation in which resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found.
2) The distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment places the poorer countries of the world in a profoundly different historical context. These countries are not “behind” or “catching up” with the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they lagged behind the scientific transformations or the Enlightenment values of the European states. They are poor because they were coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to market their resources in any way that competed with dominant states.
3) Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are preferable to the resource usage patterns imposed by dominant states. There is no clear definition of what these preferred patterns might be, but some criteria are invoked. For example, one of the dominant state practices most often criticised by dependency theorists is export agriculture. The criticism is that many poor economies experience rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce great amounts of food for export. Many dependency theorists would argue that those agricultural lands should be used for domestic food production in order to reduce the rates of malnutrition.
4) The preceding proposition can be amplified as follows: dependency theorists rely upon a belief that there exists a clear “national” economic interest which can and should be articulated for each country. What distinguishes the dependency perspective is that its proponents believe that this national interest can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor within a society, rather than the satisfaction of corporate or governmental needs. Trying to determine what is the “best” for the poor is a difficult analytical problem. Dependency theorists have not yet articulated an operational definition of the national economic interest.


5) The diversion of resources over time (and one must remember that dependent relationships have persisted since the European expansion beginning in the fifteenth century) is maintained not only by the power of dominant States, but also through the power of elites in the dependent States. Dependency theorists argue that these elites maintain a dependent relationship because their own private interests coincide with the interests of the dominant States. These elites are typically trained in the dominant States and share similar values and culture with the elites in dominant States. Thus, in a very real sense, a dependency relationship is a “voluntary” relationship. One need not argue that the elites in a dependent State are consciously betraying the interests of their poor; the elites sincerely believe that the key to economic development lies in following the prescriptions of liberal economic doctrine.


The Policy Implications of Dependency Analysis




If one accepts the analysis of dependency theory, then the question of how poor economies’ development becomes quite different from the traditional questions concerning comparative advantage, capital accumulation, and import/ export strategies. Some of the most important new issues include:


1) The success of the advanced industrial economies does not serve as a model for the currently developing economies. When economic development became a focused area of study, the analytical strategy (and ideological preference) was quite clear: all nations need to emulate the patterns used by the rich countries (see Unit 10 for more details on growth theories and its critics).


2) Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s there was a paradigmatic consensus that growth strategies were universally applicable, a consensus best articulated by Walt Rostow in his book, The Stages of Economic Growth. Dependency theory suggests that the success of the richer countries was a highly contingent and specific episode in global economic history, one dominated by the highly exploitative colonial relationships of the European powers. A repeat of those relationships is not now highly likely for the poor countries of the world.


3) Dependency theory repudiates the central distributive mechanism of the neoclassical model, what is usually called “trickle-down” economics. The neoclassical model of economic growth pays relatively little attention to the question of distribution of wealth. Its primary concern is on efficient production, and assumes that the market will allocate the rewards of efficient production in a rational and unbiased manner. This assumption may be valid for a well-integrated, economically fluid economy where people can quickly adjust to economic changes and where consumption patterns are not distorted by non-economic forces such as racial, ethnic, or gender bias. These conditions are not pervasive in the developing economies, and dependency theorists argue that economic activity is not easily disseminated in poor economies. For these structural reasons, dependency theorists argue that the market alone is not a sufficient distributive mechanism.
4) Since the market only rewards productivity, dependency theorists discount 
aggregate measures of economic growth such as the GDP or trade indices. Dependency theorists do not deny that economic activity occurs withina dependent state. They do make a very important distinction, however,between economic growth and economic development. For example,there is a greater concern within the dependency framework for whether the economic activity is actually benefiting the nation as a whole.


Therefore, far greater attention is paid to indices such as life expectancy,literacy, infant mortality, education, and the like. Dependency theorists clearly emphasize social indicators far more than economic indicators.


5) Dependent states, therefore, should attempt to pursue policies of self-reliance. Contrary to the neo-classical models endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, greater integration into the global economy is not necessarily a good choice for poor countries. Often this policy perspective is viewed as an endorsement of a policy of autarky, and there have been some experiments with such a policy such as China’s Great Leap Forward or Tanzania’s policy of Ujamaa. The failures of these policies are clear, and the failures suggest that autarky is not a good choice. Rather a policy of self-reliance should be interpreted as endorsing a policy of controlled interactions with the world economy: poor countries should only endorse interactions on terms that promise to improve the social and economic welfare of the larger citizenry. 

Monday, January 4, 2010

Check my webpage!!!

I have created a webpage http://sites.google.com/site/kumaranolagam/. You may find more information about courses and other activities such as Film Club and Documentary Show etc.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Sociology of Marginalised Communities

SECTION 1: SOCIAL MARGINALISATION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

Introduction

The first sub-section seeks understandings of the concepts of social inclusion and social exclusion. Various definitions are discussed and observations made. The second sub-section deals in greater detail with discussion of the concept of social marginalisation mainly, with social inclusion being considered to a limited extent. This sub-section considers primary issues pertinent to the South such as social marginalisation in relation to poverty, equality and equity. A discussion is also undertaken of how social marginalisation operates through group dynamics. The third sub-section focuses on the interface of race, class and gender. A number of ways of approaching these attributes in relation to social marginalisation are considered. Finally, policy development for the eradication of social marginalisation is briefly discussed.

Seeking understandings of inclusion and marginalisation

A literature review of the field suggests an absence of singular understandings or definitions of inclusion and exclusion. Indeed, it is argued that such understandings are or ought to be socially constructed and rooted (de Haan, 2000). Instead, there appears to be a rich debate surrounding the nature of the concept and its usefulness to the South. Before approaching this discussion, it is perhaps instructive to consider the dictionary definitions of the concepts as a means of orientation.

The Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary defines the concepts of inclusion and marginalisation as follows:

Inclusion: 1. The act of including or the state of being included. 2. Something included. Include: 1. To have as a part or member; be made up of, at least in part; contain. 2. To contain as a minor or secondary element. 3. To cause to be a part of something; consider with or put into a group, class, or total. Exclusion: 1. The act of excluding; reject. 2. the state of being excluded. Exclude: 1. To prevent or keep from entering a place, group , or the like; bar; reject. 2. To avoid noticing or consider; leave out; disregard. 3. To eject; expel.

Such definitions do not identify who is being included or excluded, who is doing the including or excluding, into what and from what are people being included and excluded, and who declares or decides that people are branded ‘excluded’. All of these questions arise in the literature (Anderson & Collins, 1998; Betts, 2001; de Haan, 2000; McCarthy, 1997; O’Brein et al 1997; and Slee, 2001) and will be dealt with in the course of following discussion.

While the definitions suggest that inclusion and marginalisation are counter-posed terms, the sub­section on conceptual coupling specifically and the following discussion generally argue against such hasty assumptions. As will be seen, the concepts are multi-layered, referring as much to processes of inclusion and marginalisation as to the acts themselves. Thus the process of social inclusion may mean that the included still experience a sense of exclusion.

Conceptual Coupling

It is interesting to note that some of the literature casts the discussion largely in terms of inclusion (Slee, 2001; OFSTED, 2000), others in terms of marginalisation (de Haan, 2000) and yet others in terms of both inclusion and marginalisation (Betts, 2001).

The concepts clearly are juxtaposed in that social inclusion of certain persons or groups implies marginalisation of others. Yet it is simplistic to assume that social inclusion and social marginalisation are merely opposing terms. Such usage would fail to account for the processes through which people become either marginalised or included, nor does it explain who determines the status of inclusion and exclusion. As Kabeer explains:

The intersecting nature of different forms of marginalisation and inclusion results in the segmentation of society, and in clusters of advantage and disadvantage, rather than in a simple dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. There are various ways in which these segments can be characterised. For instance, we can think in terms of privileged inclusion, secondary inclusion, adverse incorporation or problematic inclusion, self-marginalisation and ‘hard-core’ marginalisation (Kabeer, 2000: 87).

This notion of ‘shades’ of inclusion allows for an understanding of how ‘social inclusion’ can in fact further perpetuate or underline disadvantage. There are various examples of this. For instance, historical research in Africa has shown that processes of inclusion are often problematic: “individuals and communities in Africa had been incorporated into the broader economy and society ... what was problematic was their terms of incorporation” (ILO, 1994:PAGE).

Furthermore, gender studies have shown that women’s inclusion in programmes often reproduce gender inequalities in the form of a gendered division of labour, lower pay etc. (Zhang in O’Brein, 1997: 14). A further example is present in the way in which people and countries gain access to the Internet and ICTs4: often poorer countries are further disadvantaged in becoming part of global markets. While the hyperbole of globalisation offers improved access, ICTs have served to widen the gap between developed and lesser developed economies (Mansell & Wehn, 1998).

It would appear that inclusion and marginalisation are not simply bipolar concepts. The concept of inclusion in itself presents problems of co-option and control and does not imply that people are not excluded. The act of inclusion begs the question of what the included have become included in, on whose terms, and what new exclusions the act of inclusion presents for them.

Views on social marginalisation

There are numerous understandings of social marginalisation offered in the literature. A number, composed from different perspectives, are presented as a way into discussing the value of the concept.

Jo Sparkes undertook a literature review on education and social exclusion. She offers the following definition of social exclusion, recognising that some view the concept merely as a new way of referring to existing concepts such as poverty and unemployment:

social marginalisation is a process of long term non-participation in the economic, civic and social norms that integrate and govern the society in which an individual resides (Burchardt et al., 1998). It is conceptually differentiated from poverty and deprivation, primarily by having a focus on the process of disengagement. Indeed, tracing this process from source to outcome emerges as a key issue (Room, 1995), and as a result social marginalisation perspectives recognise the dynamism of individuals’ trajectories over time. In addition, the term moves the unit of analysis from the individual to socially structured disadvantage5 (Sparkes, 1999: 1).

This definition, located in an educational context, reverberates with the thrust of others below. It recognises social marginalisation as a process, as linked to but differentiated from poverty, and as a concept affecting groups of people. Another view of social marginalisation states:

It is a multi-dimensional concept. It refers to marginalisation (deprivation) in the economic, social and political sphere. It goes beyond the analysis of resource allocation mechanisms and includes power relations, agency, culture and social identity. Social marginalisation can refer to a state or situation, but often refers to a process, to the mechanism by which people are excluded. The focus is often on the institutions that enable and constrain human interaction (de Haan, 2000: 2).

Again, the importance of process, mechanisms, power relations, agency, culture and social identity are amplified. While the term is believed to have originated in France where it referred to a rupturing of social bonds for which the state was seen as responsible, it was later adopted by the European Union which defined the concept as “the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially marginalised from full participation in the society in which they live” (de Haan, 2000: 4).

The United Kingdom’s Office for Standards in Education adds to this understanding by declaring that society at large is responsible for generating processes, systems and institutions

premised on equal opportunity which it views as a counterpoise to exclusion. As Gillborn and Mirza argue on OFSTED’s behalf, any view:

which assumes that minority ethnic performance is only of relevance to the minorities themselves, is out of date in the context of the wider economic and social trends towards global diversity and the necessity for a sustainable multi-culturalism. If any individual is denied the opportunity to fulfill their potential because of their racial, ethnic, class or gendered status it is now widely understood that society as a whole bears a social and economic cost by being deprived the fruits of their enterprise, energy and imagination (Gillborn & Mirza, 2000: 6).

While some may argue that this final contribution detracts from the other two and embraces the rhetoric of a normative model (see below), it is cast precisely because it indicates a society’s effort at practicalising redress of the concept of social exclusion. If indeed it presents limited appreciation of the concept, it makes the important point that issues of deprivation, marginalisation, poverty, discrimination and marginalisation are societal concerns. The instruments of state have to be used to right them.

The following contribution helps convey the diverse nature and application of the concept of social exclusion. Silver’s three paradigms of social marginalisation offer a framework through which to view the varied interpretations of the concept in different contexts.

a. The Solidarity Paradigm This is dominant in France and influenced by the work of Rousseau. “marginalisation is the rupture of a social bond between the individual and society that is cultural and moral ... the poor, unemployed and ethnic minorities are defined as outsiders”.

b. The Specialisation Paradigm This is dominant in the United States, contested in the United Kingdom and is based on the work of Hobbes. Informed by individual liberalism, it is proposed that: “individuals are able to move across boundaries of social differentiation and economic division of labour. Liberal models of citizenship emphasise the contractual exchange of rights and obligations ... marginalisation reflects discrimination, the drawing of group distinctions that denies individuals full access to or participation in exchange or interaction. Causes of marginalisation are often seen in unenforced rights and market failures”.

c. The Monopoly Paradigm This is dominant in the United Kingdom and Northern European countries and is influenced by Weber’s work. “the social order is coercive, imposed through hierarchical power relations. Marginalisation is defined as a consequence of the formation of group monopolies [which] restrict access of outsiders through social closure. Labour market segmentation draws boundaries of exclusion” (Silver, 1994, cited in de Haan: 2000: 6).

Whether these alternative views are ideologically grounded or whether they simply offer different perspectives, theorists, policy makers and practitioners need to decide. Of importance here is to note the discrepancy and to question whether the categorisation assists in an understanding of social relations in the South. While the paradigms may prove useful, researchers in the South are urged to apply the concepts cautiously lest they simply:

relabel long-standing and locally developed approaches to social problems or, alternatively ... promote a tendency to assess southern realities in terms of the extent to which they converge, or diverge from some ‘standard’ northern model (Kabeer, 2000: 83) .

Social marginalisation is seen as an unfolding process, as a social pattern whereby social, economic and political struggle is waged to reproduce or challenge dominant relations of power. This view asserts that any research into social marginalisation should focus on the processes of these institutions and indeed the rules through which deprivation occurs.

This returns us to the concern that the discourses of inclusion and marginalisation often obscure or mask the agendas of cooperation and control. Jackson (quoted in de Haan) states that social marginalisation tends to ‘not see’ the problematic aspects of inclusion (de Haan, 2000: 10). She questions the basis on which people are included in programmes and processes arguing that women are ‘assimilated’ in disadvantageous ways. Her plea is that instead of viewing inclusion as a panacea to marginalisation and marginalisation, the terms of inclusion be carefully analysed. In an abstract of an article entitled Social marginalisation and gender: does one size fit all?, Jackson questions whether:

an integrated approach works for gender, and argues that feminist research and gender analysis offers both better situated understandings of the character and experience of marginality, and useful insights for the emerging applications of social marginalisation frameworks to developing countries (Jackson, 1999).

Furthermore, as citizens are included in programmes, are they not incorporated in ways that subject them to the status quo, or in ways that expect them to comply with and meet standards predetermined by authorities without their cooperation? Or even in those contexts which offer complementary albeit integrated, progressive processes of inclusion, are these sufficient means of empowerment to help students re-shape the contexts of their educational experience so that these contexts are enriched by new perspectives? As Jansen argues, while black students are being ‘included’ in formerly white schools in South Africa, they encounter a hostile, anti-cultural environment in which assumptions are fixed about what constitutes good schooling, appropriate language policy, etc. Such schools inflict damage to self-esteem and the confidence of children. Children often learn that English has status while Zulu doesn’t; that good teachers and role models are white; that appropriate history is European; and that failure is something that happens to non-white children (Jansen, 1998).

Accordingly, de Haan argues that the one of the main critiques of social marginalisation has been the “one size fits all” approach (de Haan, 2000: 10). This approach assumes that social inequality can be overcome by providing the same opportunities equally for all citizens. While this would go a long way towards correcting historic imbalances and injustices, it is short-sighted. A discussion below on social exclusion, equality and equity shows the challenge of dealing with many varied requirements. One size does not fit all because citizens do not arise from positions of social, economic and political equality. This approach also tends to lump inequalities together so that gender problems are dealt with in the same way as racial problems. Slee (2001:117) takes this further, “most complex of all is the tension between the rejection of the ‘one size fits all’ approach to schooling (i.e. differentiation) and a potential drift into new segregations”. In other words, in an attempt to afford communities of learners the opportunity to explore and celebrate their common denominators6, do differential programmes not in fact foster new forms of segregation and consequently new discriminations. Or according to Soudien (1998:127) “schools share many generic features, they are marked by differences and tensions emanating from a variety of social causes”.

It appears that 'common denominators' alone may not allow for easy categorisation of schools. Schools which apparently share many common features, may equally, and will inevitably, be significantly different. This implies that educational policy which by its nature is generic, needs to provide an architecture which can be applied and made practicable in a variety of settings and contexts.

A further assumption embedded in the dichotomisation of society is the belief that people feel deprived and that they wish to be included. This is not a simple area either. As Kell’s work in South Africa shows, citizens may wish to acquire certain commodified skills, but they remain uncomfortable about the institutions and processes through which they need to “become skilled” (Betts, 2001: 5-6). In other words, citizens may consciously choose to exclude themselves from certain processes and opt to occupy alternative spaces (Robinson Pant, 2000). Rogers supports this view by arguing that the dichotomous discourse of inclusion and marginalisation tends to create the marginalised as ‘other’ and sees the only movement occurring from marginalised to included (Rogers, 2000). Nivedita Monga’s example of ‘deprived’ women in India participating in the system echoes this point:

people without the commodified ‘skills’ advocated by the state are still participating socially, they themselves are subverting the dominant discourses, rather than being co­opted by them, whether these be the discourses of social inclusion/exclusion, oppression or liberation, or the formalisation/informalisation of the South African case (Betts, 2001:10).

This view also holds that while the inclusion, marginalisation debate may hold for the north in which researchers are focusing on ‘minorities’, a theory which views the vast majority of society as marginalised from its structures, is unacceptable.

Discussing Social Inclusion And Social Exclusion: Discourses of Social Exclusion

Social exclusion, irrespective of definitions that lend understanding, is “…a theoretical concept, a lens through which people look at reality, and not reality itself. ... social marginalisation remains a concept and the discourse emphasises that it is a way of looking at society” (de Haan, n.d.: 28, see also Betts, 2001:2). As noted earlier, the concept is historically rooted in the North with specific agendas which may or may not be useful to development programmes. De Haan (2001:1) argues that, “It has been a case of a Northern concept introduced into a field of poverty and development studies that was already filled with notions of deprivation, poverty, basic needs, etc., and heated debates about the right way of representing and measuring issues of deprivation”.

As Kabeer (2000:83) notes, “the transferability of the concept is not at all clear”. Rogers, somewhat more vociferously, argues that the concepts of social inclusion and social marginalisation create a ‘discourse community’ with common interests who wield or assume sufficient power to declare some to be socially excluded. Rogers says that “the discourses dichotomise reality, it disenfranchises those it calls the marginalised and privileges those it describes as the included. It suggests that our view is the right one and any other view is wrong” (Rogers, 2000). It is evident that usage will have to take account of all these issues to arrive at instructive ways of applying the concepts. Thus Brian Street’s framework offered at the Uppingham Seminar, 2001, for analysing the discourses, appears helpful:

A normative model: which takes a universalist, individualistic, deficit and compensatory view, which carries attendant dangers of co-option and control. An analytical model: which takes a relational, holistic perspective, with the emphasis on social processes and explanation; this frame emphasises questions of agency and power (Betts, 2001: 3).

Street’s contribution seems to imply that the concept of social marginalisation necessarily forms part of the normative model. The analytical model, by contrast, seems to promote greater rigor in investigating social relations of power and structures and systems of inequality. Another way of viewing this is to use the concept of social marginalisation within an analytical framework. To view the power of relational thinking within the analytical frame allows for an understanding of social marginalisation which takes account of the social systems “that shape the experiences of different people and groups” (Anderson & Collins, 1998: 6). Relational thinking:

… involves seeing the inter-relationships among diverse group experiences. When you think relationally, you see the social structures that simultaneously generate unique group histories and link them together in society ... you move beyond just comparing (for example) gender oppression with race oppression, or the oppression of gays and lesbians with that of racial groups. When you recognise the systems of power that mark different groups experiences, you possess the conceptual apparatus to think about changing the

While the following section does at times refer to social inclusion, it deals mainly with problems with the discourse of social exclusion.

system, not just about documenting the effects of that system on different people (Anderson & Collins, 1998: 6).

Using relational thinking within an analytical frame appears to be a significant means of advancing the concept of social marginalisation not merely for want of a new concept but because of the emphasis authors say it places on processes of social injustice, groups of people, and disengaging from yet linking to poverty.

It appears then that cautious and conscious application of the concepts are possible. Researchers, activists and policy makers need to remain mindful of using Street’s analytical frame and of not slipping into the normative model.

Application of the concept of social marginalisation to social policy

While there has, in certain contexts, been guarded engagement with the concept of social marginalisation in the South as evidenced at the Uppingham Conference of 2001, there has also been a readiness to relate the concept to research into poverty in the South. This is seen in the work of the ILLS and UNDP8, and the sentiments expressed at the ‘Poverty and Social Marginalisation in the North and South’ workshop of 1997. As reported at the Uppingham Seminar, 2001, views from Central and Latin America asserted:

the discourses of marginalisation and inclusion as it stands in current usage do not fit the Central and Latin America contexts described here; these places are not oversimplified loci of oppression but rather echo the multidimensionality of poverty ... Dichotomised discourses of ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ cannot capture the tensions and complexities of these contexts; analysis needs more relational and holistic models, particularly in the light of increasing globalisation (Betts, 2001: 8).

These comments are grounded in educational experiences in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and El Salvador where it is felt that normative discourses are used in ways that do not engage with issues of heterogeneity and diversity, or the fact that innovations are simply being co-opted by dominant forces. States and those wielding power are often using the discourses to perpetuate their interests. This terrain of struggle places researchers and those interested in transformation in a position of either appropriating and salvaging what they chose to of the discourses (cf. Street’s Analytical Model) or developing further existing, alternative or new ways of seeing.

On the contrary, as reported from the afore-mentioned workshop of 1997:

there was no real dissent from the proposition that the new social marginalisation discourse in the North closely mirrored the evolving poverty discourse in the South ... The emphasis

The International Institute for Labour Studies and the United Nations Development Programme initiated a project on “Patterns and causes of social marginalisation and the design of policies to promote social integration”. It started out as a contribution to the Social Summit of 1995 and produced a report in 1994 entitled “Social marginalisation and African south of the Sahara: a review of the literature”. The project intended “to lead to increased understanding of the factors causing individuals and groups to be marginalised from the goods, services, rights and activities which, in any given society, form the basis of citizenship (ILO, 1994; de Haan, 2000: 7).

Discussion Paper One 15

Yusuf Sayed

of social marginalisation theory on process, and on multi-dimensional disadvantage, were both considered valuable additions. ... Social marginalisation ... should always be seen as a process, not an end-state (O’Brein et al, 1997: 5).

The view that the concept of social marginalisation could be usefully adopted in the South was further echoed by Kabeer premised on her caution that it had to add real value to debates in the South. She writes:

I would be in favour of retaining the concept for social policy analysis for a number of reasons. First, it captures an important dimension of the experience of certain groups of beings somehow ‘set apart’ or ‘locked out’ of participation in social life. Secondly, a focus on processes of marginalisation is a useful way to think about social policy because it draws attention to the production of disadvantage through the active dynamics of social interaction, rather than through anonymous processes of impoverishment and marginalisation (Kabeer, 2000: 84).

It would appear that close attention to the processes of marginalisation of groups could help develop policy which is informed by and aims to redress these dynamics. However, much of the above discussion has shown that the processes of deprivation and disadvantage are multi­dimensional. Any engagement with the concepts of social inclusion and marginalisation in the South must surely take account of the ways in which these various dimensions inter-relate. Furthermore, studies have to engage not merely with understanding these inter-relationships, but more importantly with how to respond to them effectively. Redress has long been on the agenda in the South, but the mere presence of the intention has not always meant that it has manifested in transformation that has benefited groups and society as a whole.

It may be the case that while projects and research such as that presented at the Uppingham Conference (2001) continue to develop an understanding of how people define themselves in relation to society and help theorise issues of access and transformation based on real experiences, it is equally important to promote the social marginalisation agenda to make governments more accountable economically, politically and structurally for the role they play in instituting and perpetuating divides.

The following sub-sections consider the concept of social marginalisation in relation to other concepts such as poverty, equity and equality and group formation. These are discussed in the literature and appear crucial to assessing the appropriateness of the concepts to the South.

Social marginalisation and poverty

Much of the debate in questioning the value of the concept of social marginalisation in the South has centred around its relation to the concept of poverty. Researchers have questioned whether social marginalisation is congruent with, leads to or is caused by poverty.

In contrast to those who define poverty as alternative to or an aspect of social exclusion, de Haan draws on the work of Jordan to posit the view that social marginalisation is responsible for poverty. Social marginalisation causes poverty by excluding persons and groups from the means of livelihood. “Drawing on public choice and institutional theories, he defines social marginalisation

THE DISABLED

In every village and town across the length and breadth of the country, frequently hidden away behind the walls of homes and institutions, are unsuspectedly large numbers of the disabled. As they struggle to achieve their potential of a fulfilled, dignified and useful life, they are most frequently victims of extreme social prejudice and ostracism.

Definition : In accordance with the WHO definition, we may understand 'impairment' as the loss or reduction of normal functioning of any physiological function. When such impairment results in partial or total inability to perform any bodily or mental function in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being, it is described as a 'disability'. The sum-total of separate disabilities, that limit or prevent the fulfillment of a role that is normal (depending on age, sex, social and cultural factors) for the individual, is 'disablement' or 'handicap'.

It would be clear that this definition hinges critically on the word 'normal' with its vast and problematic normative baggage. David Werner, himself a disabled person, objects in his seminal work 'Disabled Village Children'(1994) to the tendency to treat disabled persons 'as objects to be worked upon to be "normalised" or made as normal as possible'. Instead he sees that struggle for a better life for the disabled as part of a 'larger effort to create a world where more value is placed on being human than on being "normal" - a world where war and poverty and despair no longer disable the children of today, who are leaders of tomorrow'.

Disabilities are variously classified as locomotor, visual, speech and hearing, mental (mental retardation, mental illness, autism, other emotional disorders), specific learning disabilities, cerebral palsy etc. Another set of classifications are based on diseases which cause these disabilities, such as polio, leprosy, cancer, multiple sclerosis etc. These disabilities may further be classified as mild, moderate, severe and profound, depending on their severity.

In this part of the book, we have concentrated on the following disabilities, selected on the basis of the scale of their incidence and social impact in rural areas :

The physically disabled

The visually disabled

Hearing and speech impaired

The mentally retarded

Mentally ill persons.

Leprosy patients

Incidence : Estimates of the incidence of disability in India vary greatly, even in official reports, depending on definitions used and mode of survey. WHO estimates that as many as 10 per cent of world population is disabled, which in the Indian context would mean as many as 9 crore persons. However, Dr. E. Helander who had arrived at this 10 per cent estimate in 1974, writes in 1990 that the moderate and severe disability which calls for rehabilitation efforts is 5.2 per cent which in the Indian context would mean around 4.6 crore persons. This is likely to be a more accurate estimation of the magnitude of the problem.

The National Sample Survey (NSS) in 1991 estimated that 1.62 crore people suffered from visual, speech & hearing or locomotor disabilities, constituting 1.9 per cent of the population. More than half (0.89 crores) were suffering from locomotor disability. In addition, 2.3 per cent of the population suffer from mental handicap and about 1 per cent from severe psychiatric disorder.

Philosophy of Our Interventions :

It is important first of all to remember that people with disabilities are full individual human beings just like anyone else with independent personalities, dreams, aspirations, interests, skills and potential. They have the right, as well as the potential, to lead fulfilled, productive and happy lives with dignity and relative self-reliance, just as much as any one else.

The reason why they are very often are denied this potential of achieving a full life of dignity, is not related so much to the limitations of their disabilities, as to the way that society views and treats the disabled. We tend to look only at the inabilities of the disabled, but not their abilities. We see only what they cannot do, not what they can do and even more importantly what they might be able to do.

What is worse, we tend to respond to the disabled with ignorance, prejudice, revulsion and rejection, consciously or tacitly placing insurmountable economic, social, architectural, educational, legal, transport, cultural, health and other barriers to their achieving a fulfilled life with their full potential. Most disabled people therefore experience humiliation, segregation and indignity in many ways throughout their lives. For disabled persons who also belong to traditionally socially discriminated categories such as females, backward castes, tribals, minorities, social ostracism is likely to be further greatly enhanced.

Traditionally, the most positive response that society has been able to muster towards the disabled has been pity, reducing them to passive objects of our charity. However, interventions based on a philosophy of charity, however well-meaning, would not only rob the disabled of their dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence, but would perpetuate their dependence and obstruct the possibilities of their achieving a life of dignity and relative self-reliance. It also reinforces further prejudice in society about disability and the disabled.

Our interventions should consciously steer clear of the charity mode, to adopt one which recognises and respects their basic right to dignity and self-respect. The principles (as beautifully enunciated by Ali Baquer in a monograph for VHAI) are :

Respect, not Pity

Rights, not Charity

Equality, not Dependence

Participation, not Segregation.

In concrete terms, this would mean that our intervention would recognise that the disabled have significant potentials and talents. The success of our interventions would be judged by the yardstick by which these potentials are actually achieved and reinforced, to enable the disabled to live with independence and self-reliance.

Further, whereas institutions are important as specialised resource centres, they should not be instruments to confine or segregate the disabled instead the striving should be for the full social, economic, educational and cultural integration of the disabled in the wider society.

INTERVENTIONS

It was 49 years after Independence that the Government of India passed an act protecting the equal rights of disabled people - The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. This is a progressive Act, but it regretfully contains no teeth - no penal provisions for the infringement. However, most of its provisions are unexceptionable as statements of interest and the majority of our interventions are in consonance with the provisions of the Act.

Interventions not only for each category of the disabled, but even for each specific disabled individual, must be based on a deeply sensitive understanding of their special problems, aspirations and potentials. However, there are some general common principles that we would like to recommend at the outset:

We have already suggested that there is of limited information regarding the actual extent and range of prevalence of the disability in the area one may wish to comprehensively cover, possibly a district or some administrative segment of a district. It would therefore be useful to commence with a detailed house-to-house survey of disability at the outset.

In such a survey, it is important only to include those persons who are actually considered disabled by the community, without superimposing our own medically or cultural preoccupied definitions. As pointed out by David Werner, in rural areas children who are slow learners but physically strong, often fit into the life and work of a village without special notice. A study in India found that only 1 in 7 recorded as mentally retarded by screening tests were seen as retarded by the community. As Werner cautions : 'If the community does not consider a child disabled, and the child manages well, it may be wiser not to bring attention to her condition. To do so might actually "disable" the child more in the eyes of the community, and make life harder for her.'