Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard's recent announcement that the Rudd Government is to make tackling poverty a priority is welcome. For too long poverty has been regarded as a temporary condition that will be eradicated with increased economic growth. Even after years of economic growth, however, pockets of poverty persist.
In announcing the Government's intentions, Gillard drew upon the language of social inclusion. The concept of social inclusion gained prominence with the Blair Labour government in Britain. It was preferred to the term poverty, since it recognised that the causes of deprivation were more complex than a lack of money, and could not be fixed through simple transfers of wealth.
Social inclusion acknowledged that poverty was a consequence of a complex interplay of factors, including social isolation, geographical disadvantage, poor education, and poor access to infrastructure and services. Social inclusion suggested a better way of thinking about issues of deprivation other than poverty.
However, over the years, the meanings of social inclusion shifted. In some cases, these shifts worked against the interests of the excluded.
Professor of sociology at the University of Bristol Ruth Levitas identified three different ways of defining social inclusion.
The first defines social inclusion as the right to full social, economic and political participation. Inequalities in wealth, status and power are seen as barriers to participation. Social inclusion is to be achieved through wealth redistribution to ensure that everyone can fully exercise their rights as citizens.
The second definition sees exclusion as a moral failing of individuals and groups. Exclusion is viewed as a result of a moral decline within society, demonstrated by increasing divorce, unemployment and crime rates.
The excluded are thought of as an underclass who are mired in cultures of dependency. The stereotypical images of the excluded are those on welfare young, single mothers who manipulate welfare entitlements to fund a supposedly lavish lifestyle, and young, unemployed, men engaged in criminal activity.
On this understanding of social inclusion, redistributing wealth will perpetuate social exclusion by helping to prop up cultures of dependency. Increasing social inclusion can be achieved by withdrawing or reducing income support to those who are unemployed or fail to fit traditional family models, thereby enforcing traditional norms and values.
The third version noted by Levitas defines it in terms of social integration and cohesion. According to this view, inclusion is achieved via participation in the paid workforce. Increasing employment is the goal, even if the resulting jobs are poorly paid and the conditions basic.
A question for the Rudd Government is: what does it mean when it talks about social inclusion?
Gillard's announcement suggests that federal Labor will pursue social inclusion through the third option, by encouraging social cohesion. Part of the appeal of this approach is that it doesn't require any significant changes to the distribution of wealth. Focusing on social cohesion tends to sidestep questions about inequalities in power and wealth. For that reason, it is more palatable to the business sector with which federal Labor sorely needs to mend fences.
The problem with focusing on social cohesion while neglecting broader questions about power and wealth, though, is that it can drift into the second version of social inclusion, where the excluded are blamed for their misfortune.
This is what occurred in Britain. While the Blair government began by emphasising social cohesion, this gradually drifted into a practice of blaming the excluded, and an emphasis on authoritarian social policies. For example, in 1998, New Labour introduced Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, commonly known as ASBOs. The orders are aimed at preventing minor social infractions.
Typically, they prevent a person from entering a certain place or meeting with particular people. Breaches can be punished with a prison sentence.
Clearly, anti-social behaviour threatens social cohesion. However, the orders have been abused. There have been reports of children as young as 12 with mental-health and behavioral problems being the targets of orders. People engaging in legitimate protests have also been served with orders.
Furthermore, in Britain, the concern with social inclusion has tended to focus almost exclusively on low-income earners.
Yet, social inclusion is not just a matter for those at the bottom. Those in the top income brackets can voluntarily exclude themselves through tax havens or locking themselves away in gated communities. This is also anti-social behaviour.
There is a lesson here for Labor as it moves social inclusion to the top of its agenda. While social cohesion is part of the social inclusion package, it should not be used to demonise the excluded or to give up on policies aimed at a fairer society.
Christopher Scanlon is a lecturer in the media studies program at La Trobe University and a co-editor of Arena Magazine.