SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Report of a Working Conference
held on 28th & 29th November 1998

An OPUS Occasional PaperOlya Khaleelee & Gaby Braun

A Sample of The Findings

Social exclusion is a product at macro-level of every individual's very basic need to be included, to belong, and corresponding fear of being excluded. Exclusion of a minority provides cohesion for the majority. The greater the diversity within the majority, the more powerfully they project into the minority the negative aspects of themselves which they want to disown: idleness, irresponsibility, immorality, criminality, craziness. The difference becomes a split, even a gulf. As carriers of these projections, the excluded are perceived as contaminated and are kept at a distance - not least because of an anxiety that they might retaliate. It is not difficult to relate to the rejected from a professional identity - a psychiatrist or social worker - but, without the armour of the professional role it feels impossible to relate to them personally.

This is an example of the insights that emerged from this conference, which was one of a series of events organised by OPUS (see Appendix 1) to promote and develop the understanding of conscious and unconscious dynamics in organisations and society. More examples are given in the main body of the report.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the conference was: "To explore the meaning, both conscious and unconscious, of the concept of 'social exclusion' within British society at the end of the 20th century". (The brochure for the conference is included as Appendix 2).

The conference operated at two levels.

1. Participants were invited to contribute and explore their own understanding and experience of social exclusion from their various social roles, be these in work, unemployed or retired; as members of political, religious, neighbourhood or voluntary organisations or as members of families and communities.

2. The conference itself could be viewed as a microcosm of society and the experience within it would, to some extent, reflect what is happening in wider
society.

The conference took place in London. There were 32 participants drawn mostly from professionals who were working in fields connected with social exclusion. This included five members of the OPUS Staff Management Group, one of whom was Convenor of the conference. This report was put together by the Staff Management Group. In addition to their role as professionals and as concerned citizens, a number of the participants brought with them other identities, in which they themselves had had painful experiences of exclusion; e.g. colour, Jewishness, lesbian/gay, gender, age.

The programme offered opportunities to explore the psychological meaning of social exclusion in plenary sessions and in self-selected groups.

PROCESS

The conference opened in plenary with opportunities for invited speakers and participants to share conceptions of and reflections on the themes of social exclusion.

Participants were then encouraged to identify areas that could be explored in smaller groups. The experience of dividing into groups was difficult and took some time. Although ideas for groups were offered and interests expressed, there seemed to be a reluctance to differentiate, as though by doing so was in itself to risk being excluded. Eventually when a woman wrote up a theme for a group, and left to go to the room where the group would meet, this act of leadership itself felt excluding to some people. It also generated anxiety which mobilised people into taking action to form other groups. The need to be included and fear of being left out was strong. The fact there were only four rooms available led to a sense of limited resources, and some people who had held back in stating their particular interests found that they now signed up to an idea which might not be a high priority for them in order to be included.

The themes chosen for the 4 groups were:

Group 1: If the government's initiatives were 'successful', what would be different about society / our experiences. 

Group 2: Power. Moving in and out of exclusion / inclusion.

Group 3: Today's experience here of exclusion / inclusion. Personal and public experiences of inclusion / exclusion.

Group 4: Investigations of notions of exclusion.

In these smaller groups, different aspects of social exclusion were explored and experienced and the groups themselves began to represent different parts of the social exclusion / inclusion spectrum.

Group 1, which was on the top floor, had members who had lived and worked in societies other than their own and the discussion was about culturaldifference and identity. The membership was changing, with people moving in and out and, in the final session, there were only two members; a South African-Asian man and an Irish woman, talking about truth and reconciliation. The group came to represent a kind of idealism.

Group 2, on the floor below, was also the plenary room. They explored ideas of partnership and appropriate difference and whether one could make choices about being included or excluded. There was also a painful discussion of identity - if the excluded try to assert their identity, this could be experienced as a violent act by the included. This group came to represent the policy makers and civil servants.

Group 3, on the next floor down, consisted mostly of managers of services for the excluded. They found themselves in a no-man's land between the excluded and the establishment, engaging with issues of tragic experience and vulnerability. There was an analogy of them acting as firedoors between the excluded and society. This was an extremely stressful experience and the group came to represent a professional support group for the managers of exclusion/inclusion.

Group 4, in the basement, which had initially formed around looking at theoretical meanings of exclusion, in fact moved into an experiential way of working. There were explorations of painful aspects of exclusion and a fear of the breakdown of the civil social system. This group came to represent the socially excluded. There was very little movement in or out of this group. Visitors felt uncomfortable and went out feeling in need of a shower to get clean.

In the final plenary sessions, members worked to understand the different experiences within the groups and the process of splitting which had taken place between the groups and to link this to their understanding of exclusion. This is reflected in the themes outlined below.

THEMES

The main themes emerged both through the explicit content of the discussion, and by trying to understand the process of the two days. These were:

• There is an uneasy relationship between the socially excluded and the professionals who work with them. Poverty and social exclusion provide employment to the caring professions and civil servants. Whilst genuinely working towards inclusion, professionals might unconsciously wish to keep the excluded dependent on them.
  
  
• There are the over-included who seem to be working increasingly long hours, being permanently busy, where is the time for reflection? The over-included are too busy, the excluded are too depressing.
  
  
• Maybe this over work is a defence against the frustration and guilt of not being able to change things.
  
  
• There seems to be a need inside all groups, including socially excluded groups, to recreate a hierarchy, creating a process of inclusion/exclusion within the group. There needs to be an external enemy for this not to happen.
  
  
• It is easy to relate to the excluded in a professional role, e.g. as a psychiatrist to a psychotic homeless person. It is almost impossible to relate to them personally - if you pass the same person begging in the street on your way home.
  
  
• The wish for partnership and "joined-up thinking" can sometimes ignore appropriate differentiation. Different agencies can have legitimately different priorities. This tension is real.
  
  
• There are widespread negative projections into the excluded of aspects of the rest of us that we want to disown; idleness, irresponsibility, immorality, criminality, craziness. Consequently, not only interpersonal but physical contact with the excluded has to be avoided. They are contaminated and best kept at a distance, not least because of an anxiety that they might attack us for our projections.
  
  
• This societal splitting makes it extraordinarily difficult for people who are both members of a socially excluded category and also have professional roles in providing services for the excluded. The pressure is to leave one or other of the identities behind. When both bubble up, the person is either silenced or in pain.
  
  
• Being respectful of people is more including than feeling that you have to rescue or save them. People who live in excluded communities are able to say what they want and it is often basic things, e.g. "I want my children to have somewhere safe to play." It is professionals who cannot believe that this is enough.
  
  
• The excluded may not think that the life style of the included is any better. They may not want to join us. The excluded are not as preoccupied with the rest of society as the rest of society is with them.
  
  
• To assert one's excluded identity can feel like a violent act to the included, whether it is meant to or not.
  
  
• There is a risk that inclusion can be a way of eradicating difference - homogenisation rather than working with and respecting difference. Does the government hold a myth that everyone can be brought "inside" - the ultimate social control?