Spatial and Psychological Approaches to Social Exclusion - Essay Example

? Spatial and Psychological Approaches to Social Exclusion Introduction             Social exclusion is a problem in today’s society. What social exclusion means is, basically, that there are marginalized people in society. This marginalization may be psychological or spatial. Everybody has a need to belong to a group, and this marginalization can be very painful. One example of social exclusion, that is psychological, is discrimination and racism. The in group may, intentionally or unintentionally, make the out group feel victimized and excluded. The person or the group feels separated from the mainstream of society because of it. There is a stigma and a shame sometimes, such as with individuals who are on welfare, and this is another psychological process that might cause social exclusion. Or, alternatively, the psychological processes that lead to social exclusion may that of fear – if an individual lives in fear, and does not even want to leave the house because of this fear, this, too, can lead to social exclusion. Related to this, and interrelated as well, is that of spatial processes that cause social exclusion. Spatial reasons for social exclusion may have to do with lack of transportation, which means that the individual has less access to goods and services that would help them live in the world. For instance, if an individual lives in an underprivileged area that does not have supermarkets, is far away from hospitals and courts, and does not have decent employment opportunities in the area, this might lead to social exclusion, because this inevitably means that the person cannot participate in society completely. If they do not have transportation, or are afraid of public transportation, then this compounds the problem.  The reason why these two problems are interrelated is because one sometimes causes the other. Prejudice and racism may lead to ghettoisation, which, in turn, leads to spatial issues with social exclusion. Living in a ghetto may lead to fear, which leads to social exclusion. There is really no way to separate one from the other – both go hand in hand in making citizens feel excluded. This paper will further explore these two processes, and show further how they work together in making individuals feel socially excluded. What Is Social Exclusion?             Social exclusion, according to Silver (2010),  means that there is a breakage of social relations or these relations never formed in the first place. The rupture of these social ties can either be interpersonal or institutional (Atkinson &  Marlier, 2010).  In other words, one may be socially excluded because he or she is not a part of a social group, and one may also be socially excluded because he or she does not have access to social institutions. The victims of social exclusion might not seek these social ties because of past rejections make them believe that seeking these ties would be pointless. These victims of social exclusion thus may become isolated and live in a protective environment of their own making (Silver, 2010).  Silver (2010) maintains that social exclusion is difficult to define, as there are so many different aspects regarding it. Social exclusion might mean that there are cumulative disadvantages, in which case, social exclusion would be narrower and implicate fewer people than if there were a broader definition for the term. It also might affect social policy, as the government might decide to target a specific group of people with multiple challenges, as opposed to casting a broader net (Silver, 2010). Marsh & Mullins (1998) state that social exclusion has gotten worse since the advent of the 21st Century, and the changes which have been brought on by globalisation, and the restructuring of communities, markets and the state that has come with this. Similarly, Somerville (1998) states that the restructuring of the processes of economics has led to long-term unemployment and exploitation of labour, which has led to increasing social exclusion.             Church et al. (2000), note that social exclusion may occur if a person is not just poor, but also have lost the ability to metaphorically and literally connect with jobs, services and facilities. Therefore, social exclusion is different from poverty, because poverty simply means the person is poor and does not have access to material welfare. Furthermore, Burchardt et al. (1999) note that those who are socially excluded are in this situation not by choice- they want to participate in society and services, but they cannot. Room (1995) states that social exclusion focuses not upon the characteristics of the groups who are socially excluded, but, rather, on the relationship between the individuals and society, and their ability to participate in society.             Ratcliffe (1998) looks upon social exclusion by examining three different paradigms for it. One is that social exclusion is related to a fixed social location, which means that there is a separation from mainstream society for those excluded. Another interpretation is that the socially excluded choose their social exclusion. This means that certain “deviant” groups choose to separate from mainstream values, which ensures their own social exclusion. Alternatively, those socially excluded may be socially excluded because they are not welcome in the mainstream – such as an African American might be hesitant to live in a “white” neighborhood that is considered to be “mainstream” because of racism in that neighborhood. This means that there are invisible “walls” between urban ghettos and the mainstream (Blauner, 1972). This also means, essentially, that entire neighborhoods may be excluded (Gilroy, 1996). Psychological Approach for Social Exclusion             There is a basic need to belong, according to Gardner et al. (2000). This is because human beings are inherently social creatures. Therefore, social exclusion may be seen as a form of punishment, and social exclusion has been associated with both a decline in emotional and physical well-being. Gardner et al. (2000), thus states that “our need to belong…is so universally powerful that it has been proposed to be as basic to our psychological makeup as hunger or thirst is to our physical well-being” (p. 486).             Therefore, the psychological approach for social exclusion is that we, as a human species, have a psychological need to belong, and our evolution favours individuals who monitor their social-acceptance, according to Brewer & Caporael (1995).  This would be because our ancestors depended upon one another in groups, and to be expelled from the group had particularly dire consequences for these early humans (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). What this would mean, according to Gardner et al. (2000), is that information that is socially relevant would be information that is preferentially processed by the individual, and that this processing of information would be changed as there is an increased need to belong.         There is also a concept known as psychoanalytic geography, which is the study on how geography and space affects a person’s psyche and identity. Callard (2003) states that psychoanalytic geography describes “how the social enters, constitutes and positions the individual,” (p. 301), and psychoanalytic geography is also involved with how people form identities. For instance, Noy (2004) studied backpackers, and their stories on how their trips changed them. These backpackers were able to establish themselves as a part of a subculture, which gave them the right to claim that they are a part of a collective identity. The backpackers also emerged from their experiences with a transformed identity. This suggests that seeking new adventures in different lands is capable of transforming identity, and this is concurred by Cremin (2007), who states that seeing the world during a person’s “gap year” – a year that is a break from school and work – is “an important stage in self-development” (p. 531). Hook (2011) states that individuals may establish a group identity by sharing the symbolic ideal, and this symbolic ideal is often intertwined with the concepts of nation and country. Mitchell (2007) talks about how cosmopolitanism affects social and economic exclusion, states that marginalized individuals have expanded cosmopolitan subjectivity “as a result of their own travels among the privileged and underprivileged of the world, and they act in small and large ways to contest the injustices they have seen and experienced along the way” (p. 713). What all this suggests is that individuals’ identities are associated with a certain place, and identities can also change and transform when a person explores places outside his or her own slice of geographical space. Hopkins and Dixon (2006) concurs that there is a psychological dimension with regard to place identification, and that place can hold symbolic and emotional attachment. Places may also be symbolic of values and history. Such was the case with the Serbians who had emotional and cultural attachments to places that no longer contain large numbers of Serbs, such as Raska and Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia. It is the attachment to the place that forms out social identity, which is what gives us our sense of who we are, and gives a sense of being a member of a social group (Hopkins and Dixon, 2006). This is also how an individual may get a sense that he or she is an insider or an outsider, which can lead to stigma and prejudice, as explained below.             Psychoanalytic theory contributes to the understanding of exclusion , in that it explains how people may be psychologically excluded, because they are involved in a spatial environment that contribute to the exclusion, and, since their spatial environment becomes a part of their identity, their exclusion becomes deeply ingrained and also a part of their environment. Alternatively, the psychological approach to social exclusion may center upon stigma and shame, which is the reason why some excluded groups may not avail themselves of institutions or interpersonal groups. For instance, as Silver (2010) notes, welfare recipients have the right to equal citizenships and access to basic resources. Yet, they face stigma, which might keep them from forming interpersonal bonds, and may make them too shameful to access the institutions that might help them. Other groups are too shamed to have a voice in society – these are groups which have been historically oppressed, such as former slaves. George Simmel (1976) sees that when those who were on the inside become a part of the group on the outside, that these insiders can have new perspectives and insights on those who have been historically excluded. That said, there are spatial challenges, which are described below, in that certain neighborhoods stigmatize all who live there (Silver, 2010). This is a psychological barrier to inclusion as well, as people who live in poor areas are excluded because they are shamed into being excluded. And, sometimes, the psychological exclusion is because the outside groups are disgusting to the inside groups – the insiders feels such hostility towards the out groups, that they attempt to distance themselves so that they do not become contaminated, dishonoured or stigmatized from associating with those in the out group (Goodin, 1996).             Ratcliffe (1998) looks at this type of exclusion from the perspective of racial and minorities. In Britain, these minorities may come from Africa, the Caribbean and South Asia. These are groups which are the most likely to be victimized by social exclusive practices. Skellington (1996) notes that minorities are more likely to be excluded because of harassment, and spatial segregation, which is explored further in the next section. In London, there is a high concentration of Bangladeshis pushed into the poorest local authority housing. The reason for this, according to Phillips (1986), is that the Bangladeshis were the subject of racially motivated attacks, which prompted a policy of putting individuals of Bangladeshi descent into hard-to-let blocks of flats, which ostensibly isolated the Bangladeshis from the perpetrators of these attacks, but, in reality, succeeded in punishing the victim, as opposed to the perpetrator.             There also might be psychological reasons why an individual might not want to use public transportation, which is where spatial issues and psychological issues might intersect. Church et al.  (2010) states that some people are excluded because of fear of their environment. This is especially true for women and people who have other characteristics that might make them vulnerable – such as the disabled or the elderly. Thus, the way to address this problem, according to Oc & Tiesdell (1997), is to reduce fear in the taking of public transportation. That said, there also might be purely psychological reasons why some groups are socially excluded, that have nothing to do with spatial issues – such is the case with underprivileged  groups who are living in areas which are in the mainstream, yet still fail to thrive (Holterman, 1975). Spatial Approach to Social Exclusion             Social exclusion does not only have psychological components. It also has spatial components. This is because social exclusion does not just encompass the feeling that one is left out of social situations, but it also encompasses such social problems that come from not having access to important aspects of society. For instance, in the spatial approach regarding transportation and exclusion in the UK, there is a focus upon how distant socially excluded people are from suburban labour markets, especially for non-white workers and the young (Ihlanfeldt, 1993). This is particularly a problem in London, according to Church et al. (2000), because of London’s size, ethnic mix and urban structure.  Thus, the spatial approach to social exclusion is focused around social exclusion as a lack of access to opportunities (Sen, 1981).             Therefore, much of social exclusion has to do with mobility  - are those who are socially marginalised able to get services and other institutional necessities, or are they excluded because of lack of transportation or other reasons? There are different spatial reasons why socially excluded individuals cannot access these services and institutions, and Church et al. (2000) names a few. One is that there might be issues with time-space organisation within households, and there are time-space budget issues that affect travelling or travel choices. This might be, for example, the breadwinner in the household works during the day, which is when institutions might be open, and this means that the other person in the household, who does not work, cannot access these institutions, because of lack of transportation. Another issue is with lack of public transportation because of cost, network and service patterns, personal security and public space. For instance, an individual might be reluctant to use public transportation because of safety issues, if that public transportation goes through crime-ridden neighborhoods. Or public transportation might not serve that person’s area. Or that person simply doesn’t have the money to use public transportation. The third aspect of spatial reasons that affect accessing services is that nature of the services which are sought (Church, 2000). For instance, some services might be accessible in the neighborhood, while other services might be in a place that is remote for the individual. The services which are remote will necessarily be more inaccessible to that person than the services which are close by (Preston & Raje, 2007).             Cass et al. (2005) state that social exclusion which is based upon lack of access has to do with not only space, but time. There is a breakdown, according to Cass et al. (2005), in modern life, in that there is no longer fixed meal times, specific times for social interactions and set times for work. This means that sometimes people have to rely upon others who also have indiosyncratic schedules, while searching for flexi-time. There is, therefore, more pressue to co-ordinate and re-coordinate. Because of this, it is short-sighted to conceive of spatial challenges only in terms of whether certain pre-defined social groups, such as single parent families, can get to hospitals, work, courts and so forth (Cass, et al., 2003). Cass et al. (2005) states that social exclusion is not just the inability to get to institutions such as hospitals, work and courts, but also the inability to maintain social ties, such as friendships and family, because of the lack of transportation. At the same time, spatial approaches might also encompass practices that implicate excluded people and target them for further disadvantages. One example of this, according to Silver (2010), is that some minority neighborhoods are the site for undesirable or hazardous land uses. In these same neighborhoods, the spatial causes of social exclusion might be that these neighborhoods are the targets of criminals, drug addicts and drug dealers. This, in turn, makes the residents fearful, which, in turn, makes them less likely to socialize with one another, let alone organize to attempt to improve these conditions (Hickey, 2007). Schonfelder & Axhausen (2003) see social exclusion in terms of activity spaces, which means the part of the environment that one uses for his or her daily activities (Golledge &  Stimson, 1997).  Included in the activity space are the routes that people travel, the locations where people have visited, and the places which are seen, but have not yet been visited (Schonfelder & Axhausen, 2003). These are also areas which are difficult to navigate when one is far from them, and does not have access to transportation to get to them. There are other issues with these types of housing, which are magnets for low income individuals, and often are marked by economic inactivity (Lee & Murie, 1997). These housing complexes are often isolated from employment opportunities, and other facilities, such as hospitals (Taylor, 1998). The people who live in these housing projects are the people who do not have a choice, as these dwellings often are difficult to heat and cool, in environments which are bleak, and on the edge of the cities and towns (Power, 1994). These dwellings and neighborhoods are pockets where there are high unemployment rates and low school achievement, which means that, in addition to psychological reasons for social exclusion, in that the people are stigmatized, they are the victims of social exclusion because they are so far away from everything (Buck, 2001). This is shown by the services and goods which are in their neighborhoods – the shops that are there sell over-priced goods, the schools that are in the neighborhood are failing, the public services in the neighborhood are underfunded and devalued (Power & Turnstall, 1995).  Because of the lack of access to employment opportunities, the residents of these projects tend to drop out of the primary job market, and turn to other means of support – crime, drugs and prostitution. This, in turn, completes the cycle of fear, which is one of the other primary spatial reasons why people are socially excluded, as residents are afraid to leave their homes (Taylor, 1998).   Ratcliffe (1998) states that the issue of housing and non-repair is associated with race, in that non-white populations, where non-whites are concentrated, have the greatest degree of unfitness and disrepair with regards to their dwellings, in comparison with areas that have a high concentration of whites. The non-white neighborhoods also tend to be more crowded than other neighborhoods, and that, in London, these neighborhoods not only tend to house individuals who are black, but also individuals from Pakistan or Bangladesh (Ratcliffe, 1998). However, with individuals who are of African or Caribbean origin, those considered “black,” the social exclusion is compounded by the fact that these groups tend to have a higher than average rate of children out of wedlock, which explains the difference between these groups and other socially excluded groups (Peach & Byron, 1993). Intersection of Spatial and Psychological Approaches             What is clear is that there is a conjunction of spatial and psychological approaches, and that this conjunction can better explain why social exclusion occurs. For instance, as noted above, the place where one lives may lead to psychological isolation. If a person is afraid to leave the house because of the neighborhood is filled with criminal activity, than that person will be socially excluded. Likewise discrimination and prejudice – these are psychological processes, in that they are processes that damage the psyche and lead to social exclusion in this way. It may lead people to not seek social contact, for fear of being discriminated against, and it may lead to anger that also might lead to social exclusion. At the same time, the exact same processes will lead to spatial social exclusion. This is because sometimes groups are put into certain housing projects in an effort to “protect” them from racial harassment. Unfortunately, these places are often ghettos which are separated from mainstream society, which means that the harassment (psychological) leads to ghettoization (spatial), which means, in turn, that both psychological and spatial processes are at work in this particular scenario regarding social exclusion. Or fear may lead individuals to not want to use public transportation. This, too, means that the person is marginalized because of psychology and spatial reasons.             What this means is that any attempt to understand social exclusion must focus not only on spatial matters but also psychological ones. It is not enough simply to give people access to services and mainstream society, if the person who is in the mainstream is still subjected to psychological harassment. This would be the case of a minority who moves to a well to do neighborhood, only to see their house vandalized by people who want them out of the neighborhood. Likewise, a member who is of the mainstream society, a white person in the UK, who would not otherwise be subjected to social exclusion, might still be subjected to social exclusion if that person is living in an area where there is not ready access to services. And, it is clear that being separated from social groups is difficult psychologically, all on its own, as shown by the study regarding this, conducted by Gardner et al. (2000).    Conclusion             Since social exclusion is complex, with many different factors, any kind of policy that is geared towards making people feel less excluded must deal with this complexity. Policies may be geared towards revitalizing depressed areas by giving money to these areas so that businesses are attracted, which gives employment opportunities, or funding a hospital that is in the middle of a depressed area. This provides more employment opportunities and access to necessary services. Or, there might be funding that makes public transportation more accessible and safer. Money may be spent ensuring that there are shopping areas in these depressed neighborhoods. Funds may be used to hire more police for underserved areas, which would make the residents feel safer, and better able to organize to combat crime themselves. However, this is only combating one half of the problem. The other part of the problem, which is psychological, is much more difficult to address. There will always be stigma surrounding certain groups, and there will probably always be racism and prejudice. People need to be better educated regarding this, and this is one way of addressing the issue of exclusion. Everybody needs to feel that they belong, and not belonging is psychologically painful. It goes back to evolutionary genes, where, if a person was expelled from the group, that person was at the mercy of nature and the elements. Racism and prejudice has the same type of effect, as the victim feels that they are not a part of the mainstream, and feels that they are excluded from society. This leads some to intentionally exclude themselves from society, feeling that there isn’t a point to try to fit in to the mainstream, and this means that the social exclusion perpetuates.   References 1. Atkinson, A. & Marlier, E. (2010) Analysing and Measuring Social Inclusion in a Global Context, New York: United Nations. 2. Baumeister, R. & Leary, M. (1995) The need to belong: Desire for interpresonal attachments as a  fundamental human motive, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 117, pp. 497-529. 3. Blauner, R. (1972) Racial Oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row. 4. Brewer, M. & Caporeal, L. (1995) Hierarchical evolutionary theory: There is an alternative and its not creationism, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 6, pp. 31-34. 5. Buck, N. (2001) Identifying neighborhood effects on social exclusion, Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 2251-2275. 6. Burchardt, T., LeGrand, J. & Piachaud, D. (1999) Social exclusion in Britain 1991-1995, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 224-227. 7. Callard, F. (2003) The taming of psychoanalysis in geography, Social and Cultural Geography, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 295-311. 8. Cass, N., Shove, E. & Urry, J. (2003) Changing Infrastructures: Measuring Socio-Spatial Inclusion/Exclusion, report for DfT, Lancaster University: Department of Sociology. 9. Cass, N., Shove, E. & Urry, J. (2005) Social exclusion, mobility and access, The Sociological Review, 33, pp. 539-555. 10. Church, A. & Frost, M. (1998) Trickle down or trickle out: Job creation and work-travel impacts of Docklands regeneration, Rising East: The Journal of East London Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 73-103. 11. Church, A., Frost, M. & Sullivan, K. (2000) Transport and social exclusion in London, Transport Policy, vol. 7, pp. 195-205. 12. Cremin, C. (2007) Living and really living: The gap year and the commodification of the contingent, Ephemera, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 526-542. 13. Devine, P., Sedikides, C. & Fuhrman, R. (1989) Goals in social information processing: The case of anticipated interaction, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 56, pp. 680-690. 14. Gardner, W., Pickett, C. & Brewer, M. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 26, pp. 486-496. 15. Gilroy, R. (1996) Building routes to power: Lessons from Cruddas Park, Local Economy, November, pp. 248-258. 16. Golledge, R. & Stimson, R. (1997) Spatial Behavior. New York: The Guilford Press. 17. Goodin, R. (1996) Inclusion and exclusion, European Journal of Sociology, vol. 37, ppl. 343-371. 18. Hickey, S. & du Toit, A. (2007) Adverse incorporation, social exclusion and chronic poverty, CPRC Working Paper 81, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Manchester. 19. Holterman, S. (1975) Areas of Urban Deprivation in Great Britain: An Analysis of the 1971 Census Data, London: HMSO. 20. Hook, D. (2011) Psychoanalytic contributions to the political analysis of affect and identification, Ethnicities, vol. 11: 107-123. 21. Hopkins, N. & Dixon, J. (2006) Space, place and identity: Issues for political psychology, Political Psychology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 173-185. 22. Ihlanfeldt, K. (1993) Intra-urban job accessibility and Hispanic youth employment rates, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 254-271. 23. Lee, P. & Murie, A. (1997) Poverty, Housing Tenure, and Social Exclusion. Bristol: The Policy Press. 24. Marsh, A. & Mullins, D. (1998) The social exclusion perspective and housing studies: Origins, applications and limitations, Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 749-759. 25. Mitchell, K. (2007) Geographies of identity: The intimate cosmopolitan, Progress in Human Geography, 31, pp. 706-723. 26. Noy, C. (2004) This trip really changed me: Backpackers’ narratives of self-change, Annals of Tourism Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 78-102. 27. Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. (1997) Safer City Centres – Reviving the Public Realm. London: Paul Chapman. 28. Peach, C. & Byron, M. (1993) Caribbean tenants in council housing: Race, class and gender,  New Community, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 407-423. 29. Phillips, D. (1986) What Price Equality? GLC Housing Policy Report 9 (London, GLC). 30. Power, A. (1994) Area-Based Poverty, Social  Problems and Resident Empowerment. London: London School of Economics. 31. Power, A. & Turnstall, R. (1995) Swimming Against the Tide. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 32. Preston, J. & Raje, F. (2007) Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 15, pp. 151-160. 33. Ratcliffe, P. (1998) “Race,” housing and social exclusion, Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 807-818. 34. Room, G. (1995) Poverty in Europe: Competing Paradigms of Analysis, Policy and Politics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 103-113. 35. Schonfelder, S. & Axhausen, K. (2003) Activity spaces: Measures of social exclusion? Transport Policy, vol. 10, pp. 273-286. 36. Sen, A. (2000) Social exclusion: Concept, application and scrutiny. Social Development Papers No. 1. 37. Silver, H. (2010) Understanding social inclusion and its meaning for Australia, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 184-211. 38. Simmel, G. (1976) The Stranger: The Sociology of Georg Simmel, New York: Free Press. 39. Skellington, R. (1996) Race in Britain Today. (London: Sage/Open University Press). 40. Somerville, P. (1998) Explanations of social exclusion: Where does housing fit in? Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 761-770. 41. Taylor, M. (1998) Combating the social exclusion of housing estates, Housing Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 819-832. 42. Read More