SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Learning Objectives

1. To understand what social exclusion means.

2. To be able to recognise different types and forms of discrimination.

3. To gain awareness of whether built environment interventions enable individuals and communities to overcome discriminatory practices and regulations.

CHALLENGING PRACTICE: MODULE HANDBOOK

Defining Social Exclusion

Social exclusion can be understood as the “process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society within which they live” (Deakin et al., 1995, p.4). Social exclusion is linked to poverty, but has some conceptual differences from classic definitions of poverty. Firstly, poverty is often understood as a ‘characteristic of the poor’ (i.e. linked to their lack of assets or capacity to generate assets), while social exclusion describes the relationships and processes of discrimination between social groups, a ‘characteristic of society’. This involves the behaviours and attributes of both those who are excluded, and of those who are excluding them. Secondly, while the analysis of poverty traditionally focuses on lack of income, social exclusion is a multidimensional concept which “refers to exclusion (deprivation) in the economic, social and political sphere” (de Haan, 2000, p.26).

While processes of exclusion may be linked to groups facing similar life circumstances (such as the homeless), social exclusion often concerns the treatment of people with a shared social identity, for example race, religion, ability or sexuality, which is socially stigmatised and becomes a basis for discrimination. Social exclusion is therefore a key concern for those engaged with issues of social justice in relation to diversity and social identity.

Thinking about how discrimination based on identity operates, Iris Marion Young identified five facets of oppression: exploitation; marginalisation; powerlessness; cultural domination; and violence. (Young, 1990) While some of these clearly relate to processes of social exclusion (e.g. marginalisation), others (such as exploitation or cultural domination) are not about how subaltern groups are excluded from wider society, but rather about how they are included. Social exclusion, for example not being given access to key urban decision-making spaces like neighbourhood committees, is only one aspect of discrimination. [see module 10.

Ethics in Built Environment Practice] Other aspects, such as employment based on exploitative or devalued terms – the experience, for example, of waste pickers in many contexts – are not about exclusion so much as how such groups are included in structures like the labour market. In addition to looking at social exclusion, the analysis of discrimination and the relational nature of poverty has increasingly also explored processes of ‘adverse incorporation’ (Hickey and du Toit, 2013): the means by which disadvantaged groups are an integral part of society, but included only in subordinate, dependent, and/or exploitative terms.

Social Exclusion and Cities

Social exclusion can be related to cities on two broad scales. The first is the city scale. Regarding inequalities in the built environment, many cities in the Global South can be characterised by a division between formal and informal urban spaces; although, in practice, this distinction tends to be more of a continuum than a clear dichotomy.

Residents of informal settlements are subject to mechanisms which exclude them from the infrastructure, processes and opportunities of the wider city. For example, in social terms residents are often stigmatised by their association with the informal settlements in which they live, and thus lose access to public services and employment opportunities. In physical terms, the concept of ‘splintering urbanism’ (Graham and Marvin, 2001) has been used to explore the ways in which infrastructure development creates pockets of spatial exclusion from key urban services, such as water, sanitation, electricity and transport infrastructure. These can also be delivered in forms which create physical barriers that demarcate settlements of the poor, and render them physically inaccessible. On the other hand, where informal settlements are ‘upgraded’ and better integrated into the fabric and processes of the wider city, this frequently gives rise to gentrification. (Lees et al., 2016) Rising costs and other processes can then result in poor urban citizens being driven away from their homes, communities and livelihoods, often to the urban peripheries [see module 7. Informal Settlements].

The second scale is of informal settlements. These are sites of social inequality that are often characterised by the exclusion of disadvantaged groups (often people with disabilities, and ethnic, sexual or occupational minorities) from economic and social opportunities, as well as from participation in decision-making about the development of the wider region. (Walker and Butcher, 2016).

Addressing Social Exclusion through Spatial Planning

Efforts to address social exclusion through spatial planning can take a number of forms. Planning processes can be used to promote spatial integration, and the provision of public resources and goods that are widely relevant to different social groups. A classic example of such planning is based around the concept of ‘universal design’. This aims to ensure that infrastructure is designed in a way that meets everyone’s needs, including people with disabilities and older people. Planning approaches based on Lefebvre’s concept of the Right to the City (Harvey, 2008) also emphasize that for cities to be inclusive, they should be designed so they focus on their social, rather than investment, value. This helps avoid the processes of gentrification and displacement discussed previously.

The view that planning should be an explicitly normative exercise, which directly addresses issues of equity, democracy and diversity, (Fainstein, 2010) indicates that planning should create opportunities for social inclusion. Planning events should raise awareness of inequality and critically explore social stigma. They can provide avenues to raise support for processes of inclusion and equality in the wider population. They can also promote awareness amongst socially excluded groups about their rights.

Finally, a key concern of spatial planning is that socially excluded groups should have a voice in planning processes. A range of approaches, including participatory urban budgeting, inclusive neighbourhood planning, and the ASF-UK Change By Design method, aim to ensure that groups of different backgrounds, genders and ages can participate in city planning and governance processes [see module 11. Participation]. However, this remains a complicated objective and needs to be approached critically to avoid inadvertently reinforcing processes of exclusion. For example, using quotas to ensure the inclusion of ‘vulnerable groups’ (women, renters, youths, people with disabilities) in neighbourhood planning can perversely result in processes of labelling (Moncrieffe and Eyben, 2013), which reinforce stigma without providing real avenues for the engagement of such groups.

Efforts to engage with diversity planning (Walker and Butcher, 2016) and to promote the inclusion of diverse and previously excluded social groups must therefore address a number of key issues: the integration of diverse voices in the decision-making process without falling into the trap of ‘labelling’; critically engaging with power relations that are ever-present in planning processes, perhaps even excluding certain voices (Cornwall, 2002); and recognising and making visible dissent that results from working with diverse groups, rather than pursuing a (usually false) consensus of the ideal planning outcome. Practical implications for planners could include: encouraging participants to engage with planning to represent aspects of their identities (e.g. age, gender, disability, race, sexuality) that they find important and relevant, rather than asking them to participate within predetermined categories (woman, or youth groups, for example); providing data and material inputs that document patterns of identity-based inequality to foster critical engagement with patterns of exclusion; using planning tools and spaces that unsettle established hierarchies; and documenting minority voices and views that are not reflected in the final, agreed planning output [see module 15. Participatory Design Tools].