“I thought we were fighting for social inclusion?”: A critical exploration of social exclusion, the three discourses and the challenges for social work. Ashleigh Ward -2nd Year Social Work

The concept of social exclusion is often contested, as it means different things to different people (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). As a result of this, attempts to establish a typology of social exclusion have been considered reductionist (Silver, 1994, cited in Taket et al., 2009). However, one definition proposes that social exclusion is a “dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of the person in society” (Walker and Walker, 1997, cited in Sheppard, 2021: 7). This paper aims to critically examine the meaning of social exclusion, to provide an exploration of the three discourses, and a consideration of how social workers can or should respond to the realities of social exclusion within their daily practice.

With the aim to follow, the issue of operationalising social exclusion is due to the lack of a clear consensus on its meaning (Levitas, 2005). The term ‘social exclusion’ originated in France, when Socialist politicians used the term to describe individuals who were not covered by social security systems (Lenoir, 1974, cited in Taket et al., 2009). The European Commission later adopted social exclusion in the late 1980’s because government members were hesitant to admit that ‘poverty’ existed (Lister, 2004, 2011). The concept of social exclusion was introduced into UK policies following Tony Blair’s election into Labour in 1997 (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). Following this election, a Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) was established to collaborate all government departments to challenge social exclusion (Yuill and Gibson, 2011). However, the SEU was dismantled in 2010, following the election of the Coalition government.

Geddes and Benington (2001, cited in Rawal, 2008) suggest that social exclusion is a multidimensional concept that broadens the notion of material poverty and labels social problems. Levitas (2005) furthered this point by claiming it involves a lack of resources, rights, goods and services and the inability to participate in everyday relationships and activities, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. There are many other contributors for social exclusion. Some of these include but are not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, migration status, geographical location, and gender identity. If social exclusion is to be understood as multi-dimensional, “it has the potential to provide new insights into the nature, causes and consequences of poverty, deprivation, inequalities and discrimination, and give a new direction to remedial policies” (Popay et al., 2008:10). Following on the need to recognise the multi-dimensional character of social exclusion, in Northern Ireland,  the Department for Communities highlighted that “the pandemic has amplified many aspects of social exclusion, with the need to fund the projects providing support to vulnerable people, being more critical now than ever” (Department for Communities, 2022: 1).Consequently, as of February 2022, the Department for Communities announced that they were providing 1.5 million pounds of additional of additional funding into education and employment projects, showing particular focus on supporting vulnerable groups with employment opportunities.

Levitas (2005) identified three discourses of social exclusion: Redistribution (RED), Moral Underclass (MUD) and Social Integration (SID). RED provides redistribution of income through taxing the rich (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009) and takes the outlook that social exclusion is caused by the workings of capitalist economies (Davies, 2005). Levitas (2005) highlighted that the RED perspective was closely associated with left-wing democracy. Promoters of RED emphasise that “instead of focusing on the behaviour of disadvantaged groups, the social component of the term ‘social exclusion’ draws attention to the broader societal factors that create barriers to inclusion” (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014: 55). It has been argued that the RED debate was used to “refuse the moral agenda of the underclass debate” (Levitas, 2005: 20). Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) propose that RED focuses on who is excluding, whether employers, welfare agencies or governments. This is imperative when we consider how social workers will respond to the realities of social exclusion. Thus, on a structural level, social workers often feel that practice is driven by political goals rather than policy based on professional knowledge and research evidence (Smith, 2008). Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) recommend that social workers embrace the RED, recognising their progressive roles in tackling social exclusion.

A small-scale study (Fenton, 2019) demonstrated that social work students naturally sit within the left-wing, libertarian quadrant of the Political Compass, as those values are the most in keeping with social work values. This suggests social workers would be more inclined to work within the RED based on social work values of social justice and human rights (British Association for Social Workers, 2022). For example, there is evidence that social networks are instrumental for enhancing the wellbeing of older people (Wenger, 1997; McLeod 2008, cited in Pierson, 2009). Therefore, social workers embracing RED would actively listen to the life experiences of older people, which would enable them to access agencies that provide further inclusion and reduce isolation (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). However, in considering the realities of social workers tackling social exclusion, redistribution of resources poses constraints as the government provides the funding for social services. Smith (2005) emphasises that social workers must hold onto their core values with utmost importance when there are issues of financial constraint and resource allocation. However, at times social workers can be seen as becoming agents of the state that are expected to implement policies designed from a functionalist perspective (Jones and Novak, 1999).  These austerity policies and cuts to funding come at a time when those most vulnerable need access to services (Backwith, 2015). This reveals that whilst the RED provides the best framework to eradicate social exclusion, it cannot be done without the government and social services working in partnership to identify the societal contexts which need more funding.

The term, ‘underclass’, first surfaced in the USA in the 1960s, where it was closely associated with a racialised nature of poverty (Myrdal, 1963, cited in Dean and Platt, 2016). Levitas (2005) suggested that MUD is made up of strands of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. MUD treats the socially excluded as members of a culture of idleness and welfare dependency (Bowring, 2000). The MUD approach places the blame solely upon the socially excluded themselves, ignoring structural factors (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). Byrne (2005) even went so far as to suggest that MUD saw the principles of the Poor Law resurrected in a less coherent form. Furthermore, Levitas (1998, cited in Dean and Platt, 2016) states that elements of MUD were incorporated into Labour’s social exclusion policy agenda in the late 1990’s. Social workers that adopt a MUD perspective within their practice can be seen to be conflicting with core social work values. The Northern Ireland Social Work Council (2019) states that social workers must treat service users fairly and promote equal opportunities, whilst being non-judgemental and showing dignity and respect.

Advocates of MUD would place blame on lone mothers for their children being in poverty. Murray (1996) claimed that children raised by lone mothers would become involved in criminal behaviour and delinquency. However, Lister et al. (1996) emphasises that rather than providing resources to tackle structural inequalities such as childcare costs, lone mothers are still stigmatised and victim-blamed through the MUD. Under austerity, lone parents are still experiencing the highest poverty levels at 40 percent (Department of Health, 2018). These statistics imply that not much change has been made since Labour was elected over 20 years ago. As a social worker, it would be essential to advocate for lone parents as their voices have been conspicuously absent from policy debates and media representations (McDermott and Graham, 2005; Clavering, 2010, cited in Carroll, 2017). Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) claim that social workers must adopt sociological imagination, which requires them to locate service users within the bigger picture that underlies their lives. Only then will a social worker be able to advocate fully on a service user’s behalf.

The final social exclusion discourse, SID, identifies unemployment and economic inactivity as the main causes of social exclusion, with the solution then being inclusion through paid work (Levitas, 2005). Giddens (1998, cited in Davies, 2005) proposes that Labour has migrated from RED to a combination of SID and MUD. Byrne (2005) highlighted that the combination of MUD and SID represented a way in which New Labour could distance itself from uncaring and unsocial Thatcherism whilst remaining committed to neo-liberal, anti-collectivist and globalizing agendas. Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) claimed that SID had been criticised for underappreciating the complexity of structural barriers that prevent people from accessing work, such as deeply embedded prejudice and discrimination. This would insinuate that under this discourse there is no need for policies to address social inequalities on wages and working conditions on the grounds of social class, gender, ethnicity, etc.

A concern with SID is that it ignores that many excluded working-age individuals are working, although they are in low-paying jobs and zero-hour contracts (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). Thus SID takes no recognition of how the labour market impacts working families. For example, Universal Credit claimants only get to keep 37p for every extra pound they earn; some keep even less (Innes, 2020). Furthermore, SID takes little consideration for working-age individuals with low educational attainment, resulting in low-paying jobs or unemployment. This may cause intergenerational issues as children from those who are suffering from social exclusion will need more support to ensure that they will gain equal opportunities for participation (Klasen, 2001). Over the years there has been an increase in the national minimum wage, which should reduce the overall impact of social exclusion for those who are in lower-paying jobs. Despite that, economic growth in a country does not necessarily mean greater living standards for vulnerable groups, and its benefits do not always reach the poor (Muffels, 2001, cited in Loktieva, 2016).

The three discourses provide differentiating frameworks for social work practice. For example, RED infers that social workers can help to maximise the incomes of the poor by guiding them through the intricacies of the benefits system. In contrast, social workers that advocate for MUD would would blame service users for their situations and experiences and would try to ‘fix them’ (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). On the other hand, New Labour’s policies were tied to an individualised construction of the poor as needing to be pushed into work, thus reflecting a SID approach (Isaacs, 2014). It is important to remember that “neo-conservatism asserts a work ethic but cannot assert a right, precisely because full employment recasts the basis of the relationship between Labour and capital around the wage relationship” (Byrne, 2005: 29). This focus would have many ethical implications for social workers, as they would feel uncomfortable being part of a wider policy goal of pressuring people into work (Pierson, 2002). Furthermore, the pressure to work in any form of employment does not appear to take into consideration marginalised groups such as those with physical disabilities.

Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) argued that all three discourses accept the status quo as sound. Levitas (2005) suggested that the three levels of discourse are influenced by the functionalist tradition of sociology and the work of Emilie Durkheim (1964). Functionalism proposed the idea of society being held together by intertwining labour market institutions, families and the community. On the other hand, Marxists establish a strong link between macro and micro effects on the notion of conflict in society (Irmak and Güçlü, 2012). This would suggest that social workers should observe how different systems influence the individual’s behaviour. Cunningham and Cunningham (2014) claim that functionalists view capitalist societies as being characterised by solidarity, cohesion and integration whilst Marxists argue that such societies as being defined by gross inequalities in power, wealth and privilege.

A key role in social work is to work with marginalised groups. However, Barry (1998, cited in Sheppard, 2021) suggests that there is excluding potential of using the term ‘social exclusion’ itself as it places an oppressive label on individuals. Adopting the term within social work practice could be seen as agreeing with the government’s reluctance to accept that ‘poverty’ is an existing problem in society, which according to Thompson’s PCS Model (2006), would be considered oppressive on a structural level. Dominelli (1997) argues that social workers with knowledge of hardship, material poverty and emotional deprivation must become political themselves, exposing structural inequalities through systemic analysis and engaging with individuals in an empowering way. However, Hartnoll (1998) claims that social workers will have difficulty combating social exclusion where policies criticise those who are unemployed as ‘scroungers’. This is further emphasised by Marxists who believe that social workers are seen to apply policies which demoralise the poor (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). Regardless of this concern, Thompson (2006) highlights that social workers can mediate with both the state and its citizens. With this mediating power, social workers must unite in partnership to challenge the realities of social exclusion at the government level; as avoiding to do so could suggest that social workers are oppressive and a part of the problem.

Trevithick (2012) suggests that one of the challenges with the term ‘social exclusion’ is that it implies that people exclude themselves, failing to identify the structural, financial, personal, and cultural barriers to inclusion (Thompson, 2006).  For social workers to work toward social inclusion, they must strive to adopt a social model rather than placing the problem on the individual. Sayce (2001, cited in Morgan et al., 2018) integrated social determinants of mental health with the social model of disability. She suggested that social impairments are a function of societal responses. This proposes that the social inclusion of people with mental health problems can only be achieved when society changes itself. Social workers using a sociological lens within their practice will be critically conscious of exclusionary barriers that affect disabled people’s lives, such as working environments or inadequate disability benefits (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2014). Critical consciousness is essential to the ongoing training and development of social workers as it encourages them to act on oppressive conditions (Sakamoto and Pitner, 2005), and uphold values of social justice.  

Just like the concept of social exclusion, the role of a social worker is often contested and ambiguous (Dominelli, 1997). However, the global definition of social work states that social workers promote social change, social cohesion, empowerment and the liberation of people (International Federation of Social Workers, 2022). The global definition of social work influences how a social worker will carry out holistic assessments, which are key to social workers working towards eradicating social exclusion and empowering individuals. This requires social workers to become big picture practitioners (Garrett, 2013) who understand how the broader political and socio-economic context affects the lives of individuals. Thus, they can make better informed decisions on the type and level of intervention. Social workers can apply Thompson’s (2006) PCS model. This anti-oppressive framework allows social workers to recognise excluding factors (personal, cultural, and structural) limiting individuals from reaching their full potential (Taket et al., 2013), enhancing empathy skills. On a personal level, this can involve challenging personal prejudice towards marginalised groups. On a cultural level, a social worker may provide education to local areas where exclusion has been identified. Finally, on the structural level, social workers can begin to lobby to policy makers about excluding factors included in strategic planning and policy development. Dominelli (2002, cited in Walker and Beckett, 2011) summarises that a holistic assessment requires a social worker to fully empower those who are socially excluded by challenging oppression at a personal, institutional and cultural level; whilst maintaining core intervention skills such as social entrepreneurship, reflection, challenging and reframing (Smale et al., 2000, cited in Walker and Beckett, 2011).

To conclude, the term social exclusion is considered contested as it is challenging to provide a single, reliable definition (Pierson, 2009). Out of the three discourses, RED is considerably the most progressionist and radical in its approach, making it the most applicable to social work values. However, the current UK government’s position adopts a combination of MUD and SID, as today we still see systems in place where inclusion is promoted through paid work. Social workers need to use a sociological lens to understand that social exclusion can affect anyone, due to the socio-economic and political contexts which the individual does not have control over. Social workers must use an anti-oppressive framework when working with excluded people. This will allow social workers to tackle “structural components of oppression rooted in institutional practices and cultural norms alongside the interpersonal ones” (Dominelli, 2002: 33).

References:

Backwith, D. (2015). Social Work, Poverty and Social Exclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bowring, F. (2000). Social Exclusion: Limitations of the Debate. Critical Social Policy, 20(3), pp.307–330.

British Association Of Social Workers (2022). The Code of Ethics for Social Work: Statement of Principles. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers.

Byrne, D. (2005). Social Exclusion. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, p.29.

Carroll, N. (2017) Lone Mothers’ Experiences of Stigma: A Comparative Study. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield: Huddersfield.

Cunningham, J. and Cunningham, S. (2014). Sociology and Social Work. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Davies, J. (2005). The Social Exclusion Debate: Strategies, Controversies and Dilemmas. Policy Studies, 26(1), pp.3–27.

Dean, H. and Platt, L. (2016). Social Advantage and Disadvantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Department of Communities (2022). Hargey Announces £1.5M Funding to Local Employment and Education Projects. [online] Department of Communities. Available at: https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/news/hargey-announces-ps15m-funding-local-employment-and-education-projects  [Accessed 22 March 2022].

Department of Health/Office of Social Services. (2018) Anti-Poverty Practice Framework for
Social Work in NI. Available at: https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/publications/doh-anti-poverty-
framework [Accessed 15 March 2022].

Dominelli, L. (1997). Sociology for Social Work. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press LTD.

Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Durkheim, E. (1964) The Division of Labour in Society. New York: The Free Press.

Fenton, J. (2019). Social Work for Lazy Radicals: Ethics, Values and Courage in Practice. London: Red Globe Press.

Garrett, P. M. (2013) Social Work and Social Theory: Making Connections, Bristol: Policy Press.

Hartnoll, M. (1998) ‘A struggle around an ideal: Kilbrandon or the Kilkenny Cats’, in Barry, M. and Hallett, C. (eds) Social Exclusion and Social Work: Lyme Regis: Russell House.

Innes, D. (2020). What Has Driven the Rise of In-Work Poverty? York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Irmak,  F.,  Güçlü, İ. (2012). Revisiting  Marx  and  Dahrendorf  on Social  Exclusion  and  Inclusion. International  Journal  of Human Sciences[Online]. (9)2, pp1499-1509.

International Federation of Social Workers (2022). Global Definition of Social Work: International Federation of Social Workers. [online] Ifsw.org. Available at: https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/.

Isaacs, S. (2021). Social Problems in the UK: an Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge.

Jones, C. and Novak, T. (1999). Poverty, Welfare, and the Disciplinary State. London: Routledge.

Klasen, S. (2001). Social Exclusion, Children and Education: Implications of a Rights-Based Approach. European Societies, 3(4), pp.413–445.

Levitas, R. (2005). The Inclusive Society: Social Exclusion and New Labour. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E. and Patsios, D. (2007). The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion. Bristol: Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), p.10.

Lister, R. (2004/2011) Poverty. Polity, Chapter 4: Poverty and Social Exclusion, pp74-98. And Chapter 6: Poverty and Agency: From Getting by to Getting Organized, pp124-157.

Loktieva, I. (2016). Approaches to Empirical Analysis of Social Exclusion: International Comparison. Economics & Sociology, [online] 9(2), pp.148–157. Available at: https://www.economics-sociology.eu/files/ES_9_2_Loktieva.pdf [Accessed 6 Mar. 2022].

Morgan, C., Burns, T., Fitzpatrick, R., Pinfold, V. and Priebe, S. (2018). Social Exclusion and Mental Health. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(6), pp.477–483.

Murray, C. and Lister, R. (1996). Charles Murray and the Underclass: the Developing Debate. London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit in Association with the Sunday Times.

Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) (2019). Standards of Conduct for Social Work Students. NISCC: Belfast.

Pierson, J. (2002). Tackling Social Exclusion. London: Routledge.

Pierson, J. (2009). Tackling Social Exclusion. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Popay J, Escorel S, Hernández M, Johnston H, Mathieson J, Rispel L. (2008) ‘Understanding and Tackling Social Exclusion’. Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health from the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/knowledge_networks/final_reports/sekn_final%20report_042008.pdf. [Accessed 20 March 2022]

Quark, A. (2008) ‘Social Exclusion in the New Economy: Beyond the Digital Divide’. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 7.2, (2008), pp4.

Rawal, N. (2008). Social Inclusion and Exclusion: A Review. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 2, pp.161–180.

Sakamoto, I. and Pitner, R. (2005). Use of Critical Consciousness in Anti-Oppressive Social Work Practice: Disentangling Power Dynamics at Personal and Structural Levels. British Journal of Social Work, 35(4), pp.435–452.

Sheppard, M. (2021). Social Work and Social Exclusion: the Idea of Practice. London: Taylor and Francis.

Smith, R. (2008). Social Work and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Taket, A., Crisp, B., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M. and Barter-Godfrey, S. (2009). Theorising Social Exclusion. Oxon: Routledge.

Thompson, N. (2006). Anti-Discriminatory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Trevithick, P. (2012). Social Work Skills and Knowledge: a Practice Handbook. 3rd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Walker, S. and Beckett, C. (2011). Social Work Assessment and Intervention. 2nd ed. Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.

Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. London: Allen Lane.

Yuill, C. and Gibson, A. (2011). Sociology for Social Work: an Introduction. London: Sage.