Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge vs Spicer Neil - Literature review Example

In an attempt to show the similarities and differences of the following articles by Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) ‘Neither romance nor regulation: Re-evaluating community’ and the other one by Spicer Neil (2008) titled ‘Places of exclusion and inclusion: Asylum-seeker and refugee experiences of neighborhoods in the UK,’ it is imperative to summarise them and highlight the major points that are portrayed in both articles. The essay starts by identifying the similarities then followed by outlining the major differences found in the articles. In their article, Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) posit to the effect that the concept of community is of paramount importance during the cotemporary period as it plays a vital role in shaping the political, social, economic and cultural needs of the people living in those particular communities as well as any other organisation operating in them. Basically, this paper is mainly concerned with critiquing the state of contemporary theories of communities and how they shame the creation of identity as well as a sense of belonging. A community can be simply defined as a group in which people belong to each other and share something in common. In this context, more emphasis is put on the implications of homogeneity and coherence where a group of people can identify with each other and share common norms and values that often distinguish one community from the other. The community in general is seen as a site for democratic participation and another alternative to conservative state policies as well as other bureaucratic structures. From a social point of view, the community is seen as very important in filling the gap left by the state. Neo-liberalists suggest that there has been a shift from community organising to community building and development especially during the contemporary period as a result of different factors. On the other hand, Spicer (2008) posits to the effect that the concept of place is very important in exploring the asylum seekers’ and refugees’ experiences in neighborhoods in which they stay. Particular emphasis in this article is placed on social networks with people of the same ethnic and religious identity residing in the same geographical location. This can be generally referred to as a community for the sake of clarity. To be more precise, this paper is mainly focused on the concept of social exclusion and inclusion in the neighborhoods in UK. Particular attention is put on asylum seekers and refugees with regards to the places in which they stay. Compared to the first article mentioned above, it can be noted that one similarity between the two articles is that they all deal with issues that are related to the concept of the community in which people who share the same interests and a sense of belonging reside. Both articles attempt to explore the influence of the concept of community on the welfare of the people who reside in that particular community. It can be noted that a critical reading of the two articles shows that a person’s experience in a community is influenced by his experience of the place in which he is living in. These articles attempt to illustrate that communities do not exist in a vacuum but are shaped and influenced by various forces such as the state or the members who share a common understanding of something and should be living in those particular areas. The concept of community or place is seen as ideal and as the focal point for social change in many instances. Both papers seek to establish an understanding of the meanings individuals as well as groups attach to place, the way people’s identities are constituted as well as the ways people develop attachments and feelings of belonging to places linked to their everyday lived experience. Thus, individuals’ social networks are very important in promoting their sense of belonging within particular areas they live which is another similarity that can be identified after a close reading of the two articles. A human being is portrayed as a social being where interaction is very significant in the creation of a sense of belonging to a particular community or place and this is also seen as an important ingredient in the formation of relationships among the members of the community. Community is seen as oppressive according to skeptics and critics (Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge 2006). According to these critics, community is inherently oppressive to individuals in general and particularly to those that are different from or outside of the dominant social group within the community. Thus, communitarians are seen as advocates of small, homogeneous, undifferentiated social units particularly prone to intolerance, exclusivism, sexism and xenophobia. There is a tendency to exclude as well as marginalize those people who cannot identify with the members of a given community as a result of general fear or hatred. Similarly, Spicer (2008) also concurs with this notion in his article. According to this article, asylum seekers as well as refugees in industrialized countries such as UK experience many problems that are related to social exclusion such as poverty, poor housing as well as poor social services among others. These two articles attempt to outline that such a state of affairs is often created as a result of unwillingness by members of a particular community to accept other members especially immigrants as equal. In the UK in particular, bad publicity about asylum seekers and refugees in the media often make the locals reluctant to readily accept immigrants as equal social beings hence they are often looked down upon and often discriminated in different forms. This often leads to isolation and depression of the refugees and asylum seekers in particular. It can be noted that social networking is very important in the building of relationships among the members of a particular group living in an identified place. Another similarity between the two articles is the aspect of initiatives taken by the other organisations particularly on immigrant workers with regards to labour issues and how to bridge the gap between labour and community. These are grounded on the notion of globalisation which has resulted in the movement of labour from different regions. Whilst globalisation has affected all the facets of the political economy in the neoliberal set-up, there is need to focus on positive engagement of the communities so as to minimise the traumatizing effects of the xenophobic treatment that is often given to the immigrant workers. In some cases, immigrants who may not be able to identify with the dominant members of a community are vulnerable to xenophobic attacks as well as other related inhuman treatment. Both articles try to link this state of oppression to the forces that drive the existence of the community. However, evidence suggests that there is need for reorientation of the members of different communities to embrace the concept of market economies in response to the dispensation obtaining on the ground where globalisation has liberalised the movement of labour from different geographical locations to the others. Both articles attempt to show the importance of offering practical support in promoting the inclusion of the members of the society or people who are often relegated. Whilst a critical analysis of the two articles shows that there are few similarities between them, it can be noted that these articles are not closely related hence this section attempts to highlight some of the major differences characterising the two. An article by Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) particularly focuses on a critical analysis of the state of contemporary theories of the concept of community. It attempts to outline how the members of the community as well as the state influence and shape the different communities from a neo liberal point of view. It also attempts to highlight the influence of the state in the shaping of the community. On the contrary, an article by Spicer (2008) is mainly concerned with highlighting issues related to the welfare of the asylum seekers and refugees particularly in the UK neighborhoods. It mainly focuses on the concept of social inclusion and exclusion of these people through recounting their experiences as asylum seekers or refugees in UK. Another difference between the two is that Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) particularly focus on the applicability of some theories about the community to US whilst Spicer focuses on the concept of inclusion and exclusion of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It can be noted that the scope and focus of these two articles are different and they deal with different issues though they are somehow close in their appearance. The concept of community in the US is quite different from the concept of social inclusion and exclusion in UK. The first article generally focuses on the aspect of community whilst the second article puts more emphasis on a particular target group which involves asylum seekers and refugees in particular. This is one notable difference since these two articles are not directly dealing with the same subject. This other major difference between the two articles is that Spicer’s article is based on a qualitative research that was conducted in UK while the first article is particularly concerned with critiquing general theories about communities. The research methodology employed by Spicer is qualitative research that utilized the use of interviewing as a tool for gathering data from various respondents including children and parents. On the other hand, the first article is more concerned with analysing general theories about community and the information used in the essay heavily draws from academic sources. No actual research especially on physical community was done since the article mainly depends on academic literature. Spicer focused on a real life situation where he interviewed members of the neighborhoods that are affected by social exclusion and inclusion. Contrary to this, Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) pay attention on the contemporary theoretical framework of the community in the US. The first article specifically focuses on how factors such as political, social as well economic are responsible in shaping and influencing the structure of the community in the contemporary period. According to neo liberalists as well as other critics, the market economy has a bearing on the structure of the community since there would be different areas of interest involved in the running of those communities. On the contrary, Spicer seeks to outline the critical factors that cause social exclusion as well as inclusion of the asylum seekers and refugees. This seeks to go in depth and attempt to create understanding of the notion that asylum seekers and refugees are often despised and feared for various reasons. In this article, Spicer attempts to show that the neighborhoods in particular are responsible for the treatment that is given to the asylum seekers as well as refuges as a result of the government policies that are in place. Over and above, it can be concluded that the first article by Defilippis, Fisher & Shragge (2006) is mainly concerned with criticizing different theories about the community that exist and how they influence the development of the contemporary communities. On the other hand, it has also been noted that Spicer’s article is based on qualitative research that was conducted in the UK and focuses on the concept of social inclusion and exclusion of asylum seekers and refugees in that country. The major differences between these two articles therefore include the following: they deal with a different subject and the other one is purely based on qualitative research about live experiences of a particular group of people while the first article is concerned with the general theoretical framework of the concept of community. Indeed, there are some similarities that can be drawn from these articles but it can be noted that they are difference in nature as well as structure. Read More