The first, redistributionist discourse (RED), whose chief concern is with poverty, is identified by Pete Townsend. He believed that of utmost importance was not whether people had enough money to fulfil their primary needs, but whether they had available resources to play a full role in the society in which they lived.
‘Individuals families and groups can be said to be in poverty when they lack the recourses to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least are widely encouraged and accepted, in the society in which they belong. Their recourses are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities’ (Townsend, 1979, Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth; Penguin)
The second is a moral underclass discourse (MUD) with an unsympathetic focus on the delinquency and moral abnormalities of those socially excluded. Supported by Frank Field and American commentator Charles Murray, amongst others, it is a gendered discourse focusing on the cultural, behavioural and dependency differences of the excluded and their conscious choices of crime, unemployment and illegitimate child bearing.
The final discourse I shall mention, the social integrationist discourse (SID) places its emphasis on the importance of paid work in social integration, limiting the understanding of social activity to economic activity. In doing this SID obscures inequalities between paid workers, many of which, regardless of full time employment are still suffering the effects of poverty and social exclusion. As John Westerguard (1992; About and Beyond the Underclass; Sociology; Vol 26) argues that the concept of the underclass ‘presents a dichotomous division between insiders and outsiders, and thereby presents an overly homogeneous picture of mainstream society’ and as the Rowntree poverty study (2000) comments:
‘Even if full employment were achieved, poverty and exclusion would not disappear. Earnings can be too low unless there are minimally adequate child benefit and other allowances to complement them and unless minimally adequate benefits are available for all pensioners and all disabled people. People who cannot work require adequate incomes to meet their needs. High quality, affordable services in every part of the country will also be needed if poverty and social exclusion are to be eliminated.’
Its focus on the paid labour market also serves to obscure the unpaid domestic labour (mainly of women) and therefore has the implication of an increase in women’s workload.
To put this in the simple terms of Ruth Levitas (1998) ‘In RED they have no money, in SID they have no work and in MUD they have no morals.’
In Tony Blair’s belief social exclusion is a ‘very modern problem, and one that is more harmful to the individual, more damaging to self esteem, more corrosive for society as a whole, more likely to be passed down from generation to generation than material poverty’ Blair (1997).
In the next section I will look at the definitions of social exclusion as put forward by the present government in an attempt to unearth the differences between poverty and social exclusion from our leaderships perspective. According to the Government's Social Exclusion Unit social exclusion is, ‘A shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown’ In 1999 the Department of Social Security published a Report 'Opportunity for all - Tackling poverty and social exclusion'. It sets out what the government believes are key feature of poverty and social exclusion. They are: lack of opportunities to work; lack of opportunities to acquire education and skills; childhood deprivation; disrupted families; barriers to older people living active, fulfilling lives; inequalities in health; poor housing, poor neighbourhoods; fear of crime; disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities, women, impaired). Concluding, the report states that ‘lifelong effects’ and ‘reinforcement’ link those features outlined above, which, again, is essentially a catch-22 situation. For example, if a child has a poor start in life it will have a greater chance of educational underachievement, be closer to crime, and face a higher risk of unemployment, poor housing and so the cycle of disadvantage is maintained.
Definitions of poverty are broad ranging with many conflicts of opinion as to what actually constitutes it. Understandings of poverty in the last century have centered on means of subsidence, if a person was without the means to maintain bodily health, they were said to be impoverished. The major surveys conducted by Rountree in 1899, 1936 and 1951 attempting to define and measure poverty and need were critisised by Townsend who thought it was unreasonable to expect the poor were skilled dieticians who could identify (or indeed prepare) the most cost effective nutritious meals. Another point brought forward by Townsend before the phrase ‘social exclusion’ was first coined was that how poverty was experienced was inevitably relative to the prevailing standards in society
Many dismiss the notion of social exclusion believing it is basically the old debate about poverty but dressed up in fancy language. In a way they are right, it is a concept from the past. At the same time, it would be deceptive to view it as an old problem with a new façade.
Changes in social and economic life cannot be underestimated in contemporary society and the term ‘social exclusion’ serves to emphasize the lack of effectiveness in using old responses to deal with a variety of new problems. Changes in the structure of society have brought different forms of poverties and inequalities requiring innovative solutions.
It can be possible then to experience poverty without social exclusion for a brief space of time, for instance a well paid person recently made redundant may have very little or no income, making them statistically poor while still enjoying inclusion in society. It can also be seen that a person can experience social exclusion while not statistically poor, for example, the person who has recently acquired well paid employment may still the carry burden of debt, poor housing, material impoverishment and it can take many months or years to gain full inclusion into society. A wife of a well-paid husband may still be in poverty and/or socially excluded due to the assumptions that income is equally distributed within a household and that she is free to participate fully in society.
Bibliography
Alcock, 1993, Understanding Poverty, London, Macmillian Press
Cohen et al, 1992, Hardship Britain, London, CPAG
Hills, Le Grand, Piachaud, 2002, Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Levitas, 1998, The Inclusive Society, London, Macmillian Press
Lister et al, 1996, Charles Murray and the Underclass, The Developing Debate, London, IEA Health and Welfare Unit.
Townsend, 1979, Poverty in the United Kingdom, Harmondsworth, Penguin
John Westerguard, 1992, About and Beyond the Underclass, Sociology; Vol 26
Robin Wilson, 1995,Social Exclusion, Social Inclusion Report No. 2 Democratic Dialogue
Department of Social Security, 1999, Opportunity for all - Tackling poverty and social exclusion.
