Poverty As Ideology by Andrew Martin Fischer

Author:Andrew Martin Fischer
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781786990471
Publisher: Book Network Int'l Limited trading as NBN International (NBNi)
Published: 2018-07-14T16:00:00+00:00

Relativity and relationality

The inconsistent meanings implied by the use of the terms ‘relativity’ and ‘relationality’ constitute a third problem in the literature, which in turn reinforces the ambiguity between social exclusion and poverty. Relativity is typically used in two closely related ways; relative poverty (exclusion relative to social norms) and contextual relativity (exclusion depending on societal modes of integration or incorporation). Laderchi et al. (2003, p. 258) draw a close connection between these two meanings, in that norms are determined by context.

The latter, contextual meaning of relativity owes much to the work of Hilary Silver (e.g., 1995), who proposes a threefold typology of the multiple meanings of exclusion inspired by the three models of welfare capitalism elaborated by Esping-Anderson (1990). These are situated in three different theoretical perspectives, political ideologies and national discourses (the solidarity, specialisation and monopoly paradigms). Without going into any detail on these paradigms (in part because their substantive content refers mostly to OECD countries), it suffices to note that Silver purposely avoids offering a definition of social exclusion precisely because she sees the ambiguity as offering a window of opportunity through which to view conflicting social-science paradigms and political ideologies. ‘This is because at the heart of the question “exclusion from what?” is a more basic one, the “problem of social order” under conditions of profound social change’ (Silver 1995, p. 61). Even though her three types refer mostly to European contexts, her work has nonetheless helped to extract the concept of social exclusion out of an association with a specific context and to theorise it in more generic terms.

Her stance in turn inspired the approach of the IILS, particularly considering that she was a central player in its initiatives of the 1990s. Thus, Gore argues that

a precise definition of social exclusion depends on the paradigms of social integration and citizenship and the cultural environment prevailing in a society. These structure people’s sense of belonging and membership and consequently the perception of what is exclusion and inclusion in their society. (Gore 1995, p. 8)

A similar line is taken up in the work of Atkinson (1998), who emphasises relativity as one of the three main characteristics of social exclusion, alongside agency and dynamics. Relativity in this sense refers to the fact that the meaning of exclusion is relative to a particular society, and Atkinson argues that this is an important element that differentiates social exclusion from the concept of poverty (pp. 13–14). Similarly, Laderchi et al. (2003) note that definitional problems ‘are especially great in applying the concept to developing countries because “normality” is particularly difficult to define in multipolar societies, and because there can be a conflict between what is normal and what is desirable’ (p. 259). Similar to Silver, this sense of relativity is generally seen as one of the principle strengths of the social exclusion approach.

Silver does raise some important interpretative issues, although her avoidance of definition by way of typology runs the risk of giving licence to use the concept as an ad hoc descriptor of any variety of multidimensional deprivation or disadvantage.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.