Transcript Against exclusion: the radical alternative?

Against exclusion: the radical
alternative?
‘Social exclusion’: the debate
• Public policy in Britain views ‘social exclusion’ in
the ‘weak’ sense of the term – i.e. exclusion is
caused by personal deficits and dysfunctional
places
• The solution? Exclusion can be remedied by
correcting these deficits and dysfunctions
• Byrne (2005) counters this understanding by
arguing that the excluded are excluded by the
postindustrial capitalist system and its need for a
flexible labour market – the ‘strong’ sense of the
term
• The solution? Need to reconstruct the social order
Reconstructing the social order
Requires addressing:
• the reality of low income and insecurity of
employment
• the degradation of a political system wedded
to the interests of corporate capitalism
• the consumerisation of citizenship and
restoration of political and social rights (Byrne
2005)
Freirean pedagogy
• A dialogical approach to community development with
disadvantaged people – a dialectical approach (a
process of ‘conscientization’)
• Presents an opportunity to foster what C. Wright Mills
(1959) called a ‘sociological imagination’ - the means to
perceive more clearly what is going on in the world and
what is happening to us, and to discover alternative
routes for self-development
• It allows the fatalism and internalised notions of failure
often apparent in the statements of the oppressed to
be exposed and countered (Mayo 2004)
Focus on local citywide issues
• Campaigns around school access, health-care,
housing, urban regeneration – issues that also
engage the middle masses (a universal
project)
• Built on an alliance of churches, the Green
party, labour organisations, community
groups, etc.
• Links between local level and regional,
national and European-wide movements
(Byrne 2005)
Policy recommendations
Other than ‘watering the fields with the blood
of the superclass’ (p.182):
• The proper taxation of high incomes and
accumulated wealth – using the revenues to
support sustainable global development;
• The restoration of basic organisational rights
to workers – allowing them to resist job
instability and corporate greed in the interest
of well-paid sustainable work (Byrne 2005)
Societal preconditions for wellbeing
• John Rawls’ (1971) A Theory of Justice –
stresses the need for society to support
people to gain ‘self-respect’ as a right of
citizenship (e.g. by helping them to access the
resources needed to achieve one’s ambitions)
• Introduced the notion of ‘a veil of ignorance’ –
i.e. if we didn’t know what social background
we were to be born into, what kind of social
order would we choose?
A Theory of Human Need
• Doyal & Gough (1991) – argued that it was morally
inconsistent to expect individuals to meet their
reciprocal moral responsibilities as citizens without
them having an entitlement of need-satisfaction
necessary for them to do this
• Determining how needs should be fulfilled requires
allowing people meaningful participation in policy
decision making – through informed communication
between all relevant stakeholders (Doyal & Gough
1991)
Rebuilding democracy?
• Habermas’ (1981) ‘ideal speech situations’ – i.e.
permanent channels of communication where political
dialogue and engagement occurs
• Freire’s (1996) ‘critical pedagogy’
• Andersen’s (2003) Discursive Analytical Strategies
drawing on the ideas of Foucault on the archaeology of
knowledge, Koselleck on the history of concepts, Laclau
on hegemony and Luhmann on social systems
(summarised in Cooper, C. (2008) Community, Conflict &
the State)
Andersen’s framework
• Allows dominant discourses to be scrutinised (to
appraise the ‘truths’ they stake claim to and whose
interests these serve)
• Allows counter discourses to be generated (that
expose the contradictions within dominant
discourses and convey alternative ‘truths’ in the
interest of a broader constituency)
• Allows potential sites for engaging in conflict and
pursuing counter-hegemonic projects to be identified
• Allows the selective and limited assumptions
underpinning the activities of social institutions to be
exposed and called to account (Cooper 2008)
Tackling exclusion locally
• A basic citizen’s income (BCI) – a fully integrated tax
and benefit system (Burden et al. 2000)
• A universal, unconditional, untaxed income paid to
everyone (irrespective of personal circumstances) –
for Burden et al., calculated at a level to allow a
dignified existence and real life choices
• Any income above this level taxed at a single (higher)
rate
• Other social welfare spending (e.g. on housing,
education and health care) retained
Advantages
• Paid to each adult – overcomes problems caused by
systems that pay ‘head of household’
• No means test – overcomes poverty trap/non-take up
• Reduces administrative costs and complexity of existing
dual system of tax and benefits
• No work requirement – maximising freedom to spend
time productively (e.g. caring; community involvement;
education/training; political activity - emphasising
‘society’ over the ‘economy’)
• Frees people from inhumane exploitative working
conditions
• Affordable!
Affordability of a BCI
• 1997-2002 - Britons with more than £5m in ‘liquid
assets’ rose by 13% pa (2002-2004 - rose again by 50%)
• Richest 45,000 (0.1%) own a third of all liquid assets
• 2000-2004 – pay/bonuses of top executives in Britain
more than doubled (ave remuneration being £2.5m - 113
times the average worker)
• Loss of revenue through tax avoidance estimated at
£85b pa (e.g. via tax-free offshore trusts) - about £2000
pa for every adult (c £40 per week)
• In 2002, richest fifth paid 35% of their income in tax, the
poorest fifth 37.9% (See Podmore, W., 2008, Review of Rich
Britain by Stewart Lansley, 2006, London: Politico’s Publishing at:
http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Britain-Rise-New-Superwealthy/dp/1842751476 )
Connecting with the global
• Local wellbeing increasingly dependent on
decisions made by supranational institutions –
particularly the World Bank, WTO, IMF
• Need for a global justice coalition movement
and manifesto for a new world order to
counter neo-liberal domination and its
consequences (global poverty, disease,
environmental degradation and neoimperialism) (Cooper 2008)