by Myra Margolin
“Development for all is central to the United Nations’ mission. Together with security, and respect for human rights, it represents our core aspirations for a peaceful and better world.” Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations
“In the process of social integration we should eradicate privilege and stereotype; all should have access to rights and freedoms as part of a community, irrespective of their personal attributes or geographic origin.” (Expert Group Meeting)
DEFINITIONS (quoted from an “expert group meeting” document)
Social integration:
The process of promoting the values, relations, and institutions that enables all people to participate in social economic and political life on the basis of equality of rights, equity and dignity. In a socially integrated society all belong and all feel that they belong and have a stake in society.
Social integration is a multidimensional, systemic and transformative concept with economic, physical, natural, economic, human, social, democratic, and cultural components.
Social inclusion:
An action governments can take to create more integrated societies. Social inclusion should be regarded as both an objective and a process.
Social cohesion:
The existence of a harmonious society or a societal capacity to ensure the welfare of all its citizens. Alternately/additionally, a willingness of individuals to cooperate and work together at all levels of society to achieve collective goals. In a socially cohesive society there is also a clear consensus on what creates a social compact with acknowledged rights and responsibilities for all citizens.
Cultural democracy:
Not only invites marginalized people to participate but also creates a new and equal space for marginalized cultures or newcomers to society, to introduce their own cultural practices to society not just joining the existing system but bringing their own contribution to the system. (Expert Group Meeting, p. 14)
Report on the 47th Session of the Commission on Social Development
By Myra Margolin
The 2001 Subud US National Congress took place a few weeks after September 11. It was midway through the Congress when the United States began bombing Afghanistan. The entire Congress paused when the bombings were announced and we did a large special latihan. At the end of this latihan, the women (and maybe the men?) tested, “What can I do to help the current world situation?” I received so clearly, in words, “Have compassion.” This receiving surprised me. I had never given a lot of thought to compassion, in and of itself. I had certainly never considered that compassion alone (rather than action motivated by compassion) could play any role in global affairs. I was reminded of this receiving several times during the recent meeting of the UN Commission on Social Development.
The emphasis of this meeting was on “social integration.” Social integration, a key element of the 1995 Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development (http://www.visionoffice.com/socdev/wssdco-0.htm), refers to “the process of promoting the values, relations, and institutions that enable all people to participate in social economic and political life on the basis of equality of rights, equity and dignity. In a socially integrated society all belong and all feel that they belong and have a stake in society.” The goal of social integration is to create “a society for all.”
It was extremely powerful to hear representatives of the 46 member states speak frankly and explicitly about creating societies in which individual differences are valued and respected and in which no one is marginalized or denied access to resources based on these differences (e.g., gender, race, age, disability, etc…). Ideas such as these are often dismissed as naïve or idealistic. It has been my experience in academia that such idealism is often not taken seriously or is seen as unrealistic or unscientific. I rarely hear politicians speak openly about the need to eradicate poverty (in the United States we seem to focus on “the middle class”), address discrimination, empower those who are marginalized, or provide health care as a basic human right. It was extremely refreshing and heartening to hear people in positions of power speaking directly and urgently about these matters.
The issue of social integration is by no means a simple one. One tension that arose often throughout the meeting was the tension between inclusion and diversity. It was emphasized that social inclusion does not mean assimilation. In other words, a “society for all” does not mean a homogenous society but a heterogeneous one in which every citizen’s individuality is respected. Different individuals will have different needs (e.g., a society for all would include wheelchair-accessible facilities even though not everyone uses a wheelchair). The dual-language school movement is an example of programming geared toward social inclusion. Rather than the “English as a second language” model in which education for children of immigrants was oriented towards assimilation, dual-language schools respect immigrant and non-immigrant language and culture by equally valuing and emphasizing each.
A related tension focused on whether policies geared towards social integration should be targeted or “mainstream”. A targeted approach is oriented towards the needs of a particular group (e.g., affirmative action). A mainstream approach promotes equity broadly and is oriented towards everyone (e.g., universal healthcare). The report of the expert group meeting that preceded this session of the Commission on Social Development reflected this tension and concluded that “we must address the needs of specific groups without stigmatizing them or over-emphasizing their problems.”
Other key components related to social integration included:
- The need for locally-determined strategies for social inclusion: every context will have a unique social history, a unique pattern of marginalization and power structures, and a unique set of social norms. Therefore, strategies for social integration must be developed by considering needs determined within a local context. For instance, the representative from Vietnam spent much of his statement discussing the rights of people with disabilities, contextualizing his statement in a post-war context in which many people were left disabled in the aftermath of war. The representative from Jamaica, on the other time, devoted a good deal of attention to the issue of youth unemployment as this is a core challenge in contemporary Jamaica.
- Increasing participation of those who are marginalized in decisions and matters that impact their lives.
- An acknowledgement of the interconnected nature of social and economic policy.
- Tying social integration in with the other central goals of the Copenhagen Declaration: work opportunities for all and the eradication of poverty.
This meeting was oriented towards the macro-level: national and international policy. Nonetheless, I was stuck by the multi-level nature of the construct of social integration. Although there is a level at which policy can promote social integration, it is hard for me to imagine a truly just, kind, and equitable society that was not made up of individuals committed to the same goals. It was in thinking about the interconnection of individuals with broader society that I returned to the 2001 testing about compassion. It strikes me that individuals truly committed to living compassionately will, almost by default, form a more just and socially integrated society. This principle impacts those shaping policy, those running and working for non-profit organizations, as well as those voting in elections, interacting with co-workers, raising children, forming friendships and serving on committees. Social integration, a goal which may seem idealistic and almost impossible to attain, seems to hinge on compassion at every level of analysis from the individual to the organizational to the macro (policy) level.
So many of the principles that accompany the concept of social integration seem in line with what I have experienced in Subud and in the latihan. I think, for example, of how Bapak described having a heart as big as the ocean. A Susila Dharma board member once shared a receiving with me that Susila Dharma was broader than the member organizations of SDIA. The Board member had received that Susila Dharma was each and every one of us, that every individual embodied (or had the potential to embody) Susila Dharma. Therefore, there was relevance in this meeting not only for SDIA member organizations but for every member of Subud. The question that was raised for me was: what role does each of us play in the Social Commission’s broad goal of social integration and a “society for all”?
A note on process and the difference between rhetoric and action:
Writer Doris Lessing titled her 2007 Nobel Prize acceptance speech “On not winning the Nobel Prize.” She uses the speech as a platform to discuss the inequitable distribution of educational resources and the way in which prestigious prizes honor and amplify the voices of those who have been privileged enough to have access to these resources. That is, these prizes reinforce systems of inequity by valuing certain classes, cultures, and groups of people over others. In many ways, the meeting on Social Integration was an example of the phenomena Lessing described. There was a great irony in the repetition of state representatives of the need for social inclusion when, clearly, these representatives were all well-educated and occupied positions of reasonable power. There was some attempt to incorporate the voices of youth. A handful of youth representatives (who appeared to be in their early twenties) delivered prepared statements emphasizing the need for youth participation and an emphasis on youth rights. These statements, though, were not radical and did not step outside the parameters of what non-youth representatives were saying. Therefore, the incorporation of young people, though important, also felt tokenistic.
The issue of the exclusion of a range of voices was highlighted during the Civil Society forum which occurred prior to the official meeting. In this forum, representatives from various NGOs spoke about on-the-ground experiences of social integration. One NGO was an enterprise run by people who were homeless. Two representatives from this organization spoke: a nun who has chosen to live on the streets and a homeless man (who is not homeless by choice). After their presentation, I overheard a conversation between two NGO representatives attending the Forum: A man said, “I guessed that (the man who presented) was homeless. I know people like that because I’ve worked in New York City. The nun spoke very well.” A woman replied, “Yes, she’s educated.”
The class difference between the homeless man and the other presenters was clear from his presentation style. The participation of this man highlighted the unspoken rules about which voices were legitimate in this meeting. There are a lot of cultural barriers present within the format and norms of this meeting that would make it difficult for the voices of those who were not highly educated to be heard. In fact, I was struck by the irony of having to swipe a badge that rotated a revolving door half a rotation in order access the room where this meeting was held. For all of the rhetoric of inclusion, this was a very exclusive event. While some might be inclined to attempt to justify this format (e.g., it is important for security reasons that attendance is carefully monitored, it is not practical for these meetings to be open, etc…), I have been struck each time I have attended the UN by the closed nature of these meetings and discussions. If the goal is truly one of social integration, it seems intuitive that that goal would be modeled by the body promoting that agenda. The larger lesson for me and, more broadly, for SDIA is to be attuned to ways in which rhetoric and practice are not aligned and to alter practices so that they more closely reflect purported goals and missions.
A last, tiny, note:
I heard about two lovely projects: neighborhood parliaments and a program of peace education. I have information on both of these if anyone is interested…
Some Quotes on Key Themes
Economic and social policy are intimately connected. – United Nations’ Research Institute for Social Development
“Continual social and demographic changes such as increasing urbanization and changes to traditional family structures pos new challenges to social exclusion. And the current global financial crisis is presenting new challenges – which will require global solutions. Economic and social policies and responses need to be aligned.” (Statement by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Item 34a, General Discussion on Promoting Social Integration, February 5, 2009).
“The labor market is consistently regarded as the defining link between excluded individuals and the mainstream of society… Increasing access to employment is not just about income, it is also a route to social inclusion.” (Statement by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
Targeted approach vs. mainstreaming approach
"Some experts felt that some groups may be exclusive of others, lobbying governments to promote their own interests only. They noted that, overemphasizing the specific needs of groups may reinforce the fault lines in a society; instead we need to find ways of bringing to the society people who do not exercise their right of citizenship. Others asserted that in the context of exclusion and fragmentation we should be careful not to ignore specificities of exclusion for certain groups. We must address the needs of specific groups without stigmatizing them or over-emphasizing their problems. (Report of the Expert Group Meeting, “Promoting Social Integration”, July 8-10, 2008, Helsinki, Finland)
Participation: “The challenge that I am stressing here is: what will constitute meaningful participation of individuals and groups in efforts for social integration or social cohesion? How can we give content and deeper meaning to Copenhagen’s call for greater involvement of community organizations in the design and implementation of local development?”* (Stamatopoulou)
Locally determined definitions:
“To know therefore what the ‘local’ is about, the state, the main responsible actor for social inclusion, has to have its ear on the ground, create a public space for popular dialogue, for full and effective participation of the people in the definition of what social inclusion should consist of, and to pursue a culturally sensitive development. The local, in other words, is given meaning through the effective participation of people, as agents of development and not as passive recipients.” (Stamatopoulou)
“In different countries, different groups may be excluded. In some cases people may be excluded from society in some respects while being included in others. Certain social groups may be internally cohesive within a society which as a whole is fragmented. And certain groups may see integration into wider society as a threat to their identities.” (Statement by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
The Copenhagen Conference: “The seminal document of the Copenhagen Conference has to be used as a living document, an instrument to be read and used in the light of times and to be kept alive.” (Stamatopoulou)
Dynamic nature / embrace diversity: “If we accept peoples’ right to determine their fates, if we accept cultural and other diversity, social integration should not be viewed as a linear concept, as a mandatory specific recipe that will eventually turn all societies into one homogenous whole.” (Stamatopoulou)
Some experts noted difficulty of creating unity within diversity in many societies… Sometimes discrimination and rejection may be rooted in (people’s) beliefs. (Expert Group Meeting)
Global financial crisis:
Move beyond a focus on exclusion to strategies for inclusion:
Multi-level, multi-dimensional approach:
Policies promoting employment creation and poverty reduction alone do not force out of place factors that inhibit social inclusion of particular groups not included in the mainstream of society. That is why we need to put in place policies taking into account social, political, and cultural aspects of inclusion. Social integration can only be addressed in a holistic manner and investment in physical, social and cultural capital must be made to achieve it. (Expert Group Meeting, p. 14)