Abstract
Although social exclusion and inclusion are pivotal to the discipline of social work, there is not much theoretical clarity about what it actually means and its consequences. Despite recent research, current definitions are problematic. For example, exclusion is used as a deficit view and is sometimes a synonym for poverty, marginalization, unemployment, isolation, or solitude. In addition, research often ignores inclusion as a counterpart term and strength-based perspective. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap by arguing that a shift is needed from focusing on exclusion toward understanding paths of inclusion among marginalized families and that social inclusion is better conceptualized as a spectrum (not a dichotomy) and a developmental phenomenon (vs. a predetermined one). This article ends with implications for researchers and practitioners focused on immigrant/minoritized families.
During the last three decades, researchers have investigated social exclusion as a phenomenon that influences the lives of individuals, families, and communities (Ayón et al., 2017; Daly & Silver, 2008). However, there is not much theoretical clarity on what is actually meant by the term social exclusion. A review of pertinent literature in leading social work journals and textbooks (Dowling, 1999; Lavee et al., 2022) shows that the concept of exclusion is rarely underpinned by theory and is often used as a synonym for poverty and marginalization (i.e., people detached from participation in society, especially regarding employment, wealth, family, and friends.). Despite these misconceptualizations, there is a consensus that social exclusion is a multidimensional process interacting across several dimensions, often cataloged as economic, political, and cultural (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007; Levitas et al., 2007). However, as will be explained, continuing to focus on social exclusion in the social work discipline promotes an understanding of the phenomenon from a deficit view (Colley & Hodkinson, 2001), frequently concentrating solely on family vulnerabilities (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 2016) while disregarding other important family processes, such as resilience. From a macro view, although the social exclusion of families has been overlooked in several contexts, such as language development among immigrants and low technological inclusion, there are some current debates on integration that are taking place across Europe and the United States, areas that are currently experiencing numerous migrations and are confronted with inclusion challenges.
Drawing from the framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; May, 2015), I argue that exclusion and inclusion are opposite pairs of a binary distinction that play a crucial role in understanding the challenges of minoritized and underdeserved families. The aim of this article is to provide a systematic introduction to exclusion and inclusion and its relation to social work by proposing a shift from recognizing solely the struggles of families, to understanding resilience factors and opportunities that can help develop empowerment. This intersectional view provides a baseline on how multiple oppressive identities are associated with being socially excluded (Hunting et al., 2015) and how they relate to social inclusion and life opportunities.
Empowering socially excluded families (e.g., low-income, minoritized) toward social inclusion is based on the idea of providing factors that help people confront barriers that prevent full participation in their nation’s political, economic, cultural, and social life (Alzugaray et al., 2012; World Bank, 2013). For instance, minoritized families in particular are socially excluded through a number of practices based on gender, race, ethnicity, and social class (May, 2015). Such practices can rob them of dignity, security, and the opportunity to lead a better life. Importantly, although acknowledging family strengths is pivotal toward achieving social inclusion among underdeserved families, it is vital to clarify that both social exclusion and inclusion are terms based on social, political, and economic realities beyond the control of families. Therefore, in this article, inclusion is intended to be discussed as an alternative mode of conceptualization to enhance the inherent strengths of families navigating multiple dimensions of exclusion while recognizing the structural and historical forces that have shaped it. For this purpose, I provide a brief review of social exclusion and inclusion within the social work discipline. Later, a critical literature review of social exclusion, along with a brief description of its dimensions, will be explored. Then, the following aspects of social exclusion are described: its deficit view, focus on vulnerabilities, and conceptualization as a dichotomy and as a predetermined phenomenon. Finally, I distinguish social exclusion from inclusion, the latter being a strength-based view that focuses on resilience and that is fluid and developmental. Based on these sections, comprehensive definitions of social exclusion and inclusion are proposed.
Social Exclusion: A Background
Social workers often work with marginalized families who experience forms of discrimination and oppression resulting in social exclusion. According to Riva and Eck (2016), social exclusion has been defined as “. . .the experience of being kept apart from others physically (e.g., social isolation) or emotionally (e.g., being ignored or told one is not wanted)” (p. 9). This definition touches on important aspects of social exclusion such as isolation and discrimination; however, it disregards the influence of individuals’ many intersecting identities, and how it may influence the degree of exclusion (May, 2015). This is important because as a profession, social workers operate on multiple social levels, ranging from work with individuals to providing support for entire communities while developing policy, research, and knowledge (Levin & Liberman, 2019). In addition, the international definition of social work (IFSW, 2014) makes clear that the role of the profession is to promote social change through focusing practice on human well-being, human rights, and social justice, factors all closely aligned with social inclusion. Therefore, it is important to understand how to apply the theoretical frameworks of social inclusion to research methodologies that enhances family processes and well-being (e.g., participatory action research [PAR] and inclusive research methods), along with relevant interventions (e.g., financial literacy and job readiness; Cedeño et al., 2021). Family processes make up part of the psychological, social, economic, and political reality lived by families. In the case of social exclusion, poor family functioning has been linked with numerous economic and environmental stressors that influence parenting styles and resources (Ceballo et al., 2012). Other processes that emerge from social exclusion are related to the influence of parental stress on detrimental child outcomes (Miller & Csizmadia, 2022). Arditti (2012) proposes that social workers and family scientists should consider the importance of family processes, where social placement plays a key role in influencing each member’s diverse experiences and agendas.
Often, definitions of social exclusion are based on a list of characteristics that overlook the nature of linked social problems. For example, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in the United Kingdom is a government agency that defines social exclusion as “a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown” (SEU, 2004, p. 12). Although useful, this definition brings about questions on the types of exclusion that exist and how they are conceptualized both in theory and in research, and also what social problems are specifically included in the definition itself and how they may interact with one another. Similarly, the European Union (Eurostat, 2010) defines social exclusion as a process where certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society due to poverty and prevented from participating fully in society by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic resources. This official definition is somewhat inconsistent due to the ambiguity of terms and the fact that it mentions broad characteristics of social exclusion without much background on its causes. Moreover, it seems to equate social exclusion to poverty, which several authors have disputed (Reid, 2014). Other authors such as Levitas et al. (2007) explained that social exclusion is a complex and multidimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. (p. 25)
This definition goes further in that it is delineating explicit dimensions of social exclusion. However, the definition does not touch on multiple oppressed identities (gender, ethnicity, etc.), which are often characteristic of socially excluded families and important to recognize for social work research and practice. As presented, these definitions create a challenge in the understanding of each dimension and how it is reflected in the lives of minoritized families and communities, as they are often inconsistent and do not account for the systematic oppressions that vulnerable families face. Because literature has highlighted the multidimensionality of social exclusion (Mathieson et al., 2008), I will provide a brief discussion of its typical four dimensions: economic, societal, cultural, and political.
Economic Dimension
Economic exclusion refers to limited economic participation and opportunities (Renahy et al., 2012). The consequences of economic exclusion are often persistent long-term unemployment, low wages, and job insecurity (Bhalla & Lapeyre, 2016). Exclusion from economic life can be seen in inequities in assets, incomes, and employment opportunities (Spoor, 2013) as well as limited access to material resources. In other words, economic exclusion marginalizes individuals in the distribution of economic resources. Once an individual is economically excluded, it is likely to contribute to further exclusion not just from economic life, but from the other dimensions as well.
Societal Dimension
In this article, societal exclusion refers to inadequate access to government and private institutions (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007) and being subject to discriminatory practices. It also limits the opportunities to enjoy the level of social services perceived as “normal” in a particular society (e.g., access to education). In the societal dimension, social services are measured in access to educational resources, health care and medicine, social protection, basic infrastructure and transportation, water, and energy (Spoor, 2013). Exclusion from social services refers not only to whether such services are available and at what level of quality but also to accessibility and affordability by different populations.
Cultural Dimension
Cultural exclusion refers to the disconnect that a person, family, or community experiences between their own culture and the society they live in (Bauder, 2002). Cultural exclusion can take the form of lack of participation in social networks, peers, community interactions, and leisure activities. An example is when a family does not participate in a local community event because of language and cultural barriers.
Political Dimension
Political exclusion occurs when individuals or groups are denied participation in political processes (Evans & Tilley, 2017). Political exclusion may stem from law, tradition, historical contexts, intimidation, and/or discrimination, and may create barriers for minorities regarding leadership roles. Exclusion from civil life is experienced via inequalities of political opportunities and power at all levels, and unequal access to justice, liberty, and institutions (Spoor, 2013). Exclusion from civic life occurs not only through formal institutions but can also occur due to lack of access to informal structures and opportunities.
Having explained each traditional dimension of social exclusion, it is important to understand that there are various links between these existing dimensions. To make the picture even more complex, exclusion in each dimension increases the risk of exclusion in the other dimensions (Spoor, 2013). For instance, limited income may reduce access to social services if some sort of payment is required. Scarce employment opportunities, apart from affecting income, can impede participation in social networks. Inadequate education opportunities often determine lower employment opportunities, and so on.
Aspects of Social Exclusion Theory
Below I will describe important characteristics of social exclusion theory to then propose a shift toward social inclusion. These characteristics include prolonging a deficit view, an overfocus on vulnerabilities without acknowledging structural inequalities, and the problematic conceptualization of exclusion as a dichotomy and as a predetermined phenomenon.
Deficit View
After an in-depth review of academic articles, policy briefs, and government reports, a critical review of social exclusion exposed a deficit view, with a focus on what individuals and families lack within a larger socioeconomic and historic context (Eurostat, 2010; Riva & Eck, 2016). This deficit view prolongs the idea that socially excluded families lack the ability to achieve well-being because of their own backgrounds. Moreover, such a view often ignores structural limitations, such as education access or causes of unemployment, thus limiting our understanding of social exclusion as a structural phenomenon.
Focus on Vulnerabilities
A critical analysis revealed somewhat similar definitions of social exclusion, often described as a long list of shortages and challenges (Levitas et al., 2007; SEU, 2004), rather than describing a more holistic reality, one that recognized the strengths and possibilities of empowerment. Focusing on vulnerabilities often leads to an oversight of the strengths vulnerable families have the potential to develop. Moreover, it overlooks what each individual and family does well, which is vital to recognize to create more conducive conditions within the family to resolve the challenges and risks they face.
Dichotomy Conceptualization
More often than not, social exclusion implies a dichotomy, understood as partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets). Therefore, within social exclusion paradigms, individuals and families are either excluded or not excluded (Bayram et al., 2012). In other words, the social exclusion dichotomy is mutually exclusive: one cannot be both excluded and not excluded. This binary position posits several limitations, one being the oversight of multidimensionality of social exclusion and how each dimension influences another. Moreover, a dichotomy view limits the nature of understanding possibilities of being less socially excluded, thus limiting the opportunity individuals may have to develop social inclusion.
Predetermined Phenomenon
Social exclusion is a predetermined phenomenon (Van Staveren & Pervaiz, 2017) in that once exclusion is determined, there is little room to visualize actions and reflections that can provide less exclusion. Predetermined social concepts are understood as having arranged premises before starting proper analysis and research. This type of conceptualization results problematic because it is simplistic view toward the complex social phenomenon. It is minimizing the impact of a societal issue caused by structure, which often leads to misguided assumptions on individuals’ behaviors.
These premises are pivotal toward the proposed definition of social exclusion. It is important to note that even this tentative and more encompassing definition that includes these four dimensions is not regularly available, but a literature compilation specially created for this article. Therefore, I propose the following definition of social exclusion—one that is a compilation of several parts already present in the literature but never in this complete way: Social exclusion is a multidimensional process (economic, societal, political, cultural; Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007) that is characterized by a deficit view that focuses on vulnerabilities (e.g., family conflict, unemployment; SEU, 2004). It is a dichotomy, meaning individuals are either excluded or not excluded, and a predetermined phenomenon. It influences the lives of individual and families that find themselves in social disadvantage.
Although the concept of social exclusion has been widely debated (Eurostat, 2010; Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007; Levitas et al., 2007; MacInnes et al., 2014), a comprehensible definition has proven elusive. At times, the term has been related to notions of marginalization, but the contexts in which the concept appears are sometimes contradictory, in particular with regard to poverty (Sen, 2000). The above definition was achieved by an exhaustive review of all relevant literature focused on social exclusion. It incorporates important characteristics of current definitions and provides an important interpretation (e.g., focus on deficits, vulnerabilities), one which recognizes its current limitations.
A Shift Toward Social Inclusion
After completing the critical overview of social exclusion and presenting a comprehensive definition, this article proposes a shift of terminology and discourse, from a deficit to a strength perspective. This is an epistemological change because exclusion as a scientific phenomenon has proven itself inadequate in terms of definition, analysis, and findings (Øyen, 1997; Renahy et al., 2012), one that stems away from current social frames (Sciortino, 2020). In an effort to explicitly approach theory critically to create a relationship of reciprocity with research (Knapp, 2009), it is essential to be clear on the components of the shift in discourse. Social exclusion parts from deficit view where resilience and empowerment views are difficult to apply. A deficit view concentrates on developing perspectives of what is lacking instead of what could be achieved while ignoring the structural and historical forces of inequality. Moreover, the term is also used in relation to a wider range of social categories, such as deprivation and material hardship (Reid, 2014), which creates confusion among several disciplines, in addition to limiting the discussion on pathways toward inclusion from a social work perspective.
Strength-Based Perspective
In the past, social exclusion has been understood as something missing from families, a deficit. Inclusion is a better suited term as it defines the phenomenon from a strength view—we are all socially included—nobody can really be absolutely socially excluded in all dimensions. Lately, there has been support for promoting strength perspectives around different disciplines, such as education (Lopez & Louis, 2009) and family therapy (Hanna, 2018). Although social exclusion is a phenomenon that limits life opportunities, the purpose is not to erase legitimate historical and socioeconomic realities that have shaped much of the oppression of minoritized families (Farrington & Chertok, 1993). On the contrary, the shift from social exclusion to social inclusion is intended to change the focus from deficit (or what individuals lack), to the strengths individuals and families develop when confronted with larger structural inequalities. In other words, the deficit perspective disregards the resilience and opportunities families possess to achieve well-being when confronted with social exclusion. A strength-based perspective does not imply that the onus for inclusion, change, and growth is responsibility of the families affected by exclusionary practices. Rather, this perspective recognizes both oppressive systems of power that have shaped current economic, societal, and political realities, and the resilience of underdeserved families and communities.
Focus on Resilience
Recent social inclusion studies have centered on resilience and coping factors that vulnerable families (in particular women) develop to navigate the challenges of being socially excluded (Bec et al., 2019; Eck et al., 2016). Moreover, international organizations have promoted the empowerment of communities through social inclusion, which is the process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of disadvantaged people to take part in society (World Bank, 2013). Understanding that all individuals and families have different levels of inclusion has the potential to help us understand how to develop paths toward empowerment. Although this goal is a complex one, it is a much-needed change in discourse and theory from current perspectives. In this contrast, social inclusion has the potential to affect the lives of vulnerable individuals and communities in a positive way by acknowledging their strengths and their own agency in achieving well-being.
Reconceptualization as a Spectrum and as a Developmental Phenomenon
Social exclusion paradigms are understood as a dichotomy, you either are socially excluded or not (Bayram et al., 2012). In contrast, I propose social inclusion as a spectrum—from low levels of inclusion to high levels of inclusion. As a multidimensional concept, understanding social exclusion not only implies understanding its negative consequences and its dichotomy (either excluded or not excluded) but also requires contextualizing social inclusion as a spectrum, where different levels of inclusion exist and can be achieved. Moreover, the question of how families can achieve more social inclusion requires this acknowledgment of fluid processes (i.e., one or more changes in diverse dimensions of social inclusion throughout an individual’s life) to achieve more well-being within a given spectrum (low economic inclusion, high political inclusion, etc.). There are few studies that are critical of social exclusion’s rigid dichotomy. This article invites academics and researchers to focus on the developmental possibilities of achieving social inclusion in several degrees and to understand it less as a static concept and more as a fluid process.
Social exclusion has been understood as a static phenomenon, you are socially excluded or not. There was nothing you or an intervention can do about the phenomenon. I propose that social inclusion is a fluid concept; it can change depending on the experiences and the interventions that families are experiencing in their daily lives. As explained, social exclusion refers to a multidimensional process, in contrast to related terms such as poverty, which is considered a predetermined condition, relating to a given income situation or standard consumption pattern at a certain moment in time (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007). Both academics (Atkinson, 1998; Boardman et al., 2022) and global institutions (World Bank, 2013) have suggested that having a more comprehensive and dynamic view is a key element to identify and understand social inclusion. In other words, being socially excluded or included should not be a closed-ended question. Moreover, although definitions of social exclusion emphasize that it is multidimensional phenomenon (Mathieson et al., 2008), few studies go further in terms of accounting for unexplored dimensions beyond the typical four considered in literature (i.e., economic, social, cultural, political).
Therefore, social inclusion should be applied and approached as a developmental and fluid process not only because it stems from a multidimensional construct, but because its processes are unique for each individual, family, and community. The concept involves the systematic participation and use of resources and services, and the right to participate on equal terms in social relationships, which makes the phenomena develop at different paces according to many diverse factors, such as available community organizations and inherent worldviews. Inclusive processes can occur at various levels, for example, within and between individuals, households, communities, cities, states, and globally (World Bank, 2013). Redirecting our attention to social inclusion within social work is a much-needed shift because relevant literature and research has mostly focused on the deficit perspective while limiting our understanding of pathways toward inclusion.
Proposed Definition of Social Inclusion
In this section, I will provide a brief review of the existing literature of social inclusion, which has not been fully addressed academically. Instead, international organizations such as the World Bank (2013) have been the ones to propose a definition. The few authors that have explored the term either avoid a definition or rely on ones provided by diverse government and/or international organizations. Such organizations, such as the Commission of the European Communities (2003, p. 9), define social inclusion as the process which ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion gain the opportunities and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social, political and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living that is considered normal in the society in which they live. It ensures that they have greater participation in decision making which affects their lives and access to their fundamental rights.
The World Bank (2013, pp. 3–4) defines it as, “The process of improving the terms for individuals and groups to take part in society” and “The process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity to take part in society.” Although useful, these definitions do not specifically consider the multiple oppressive identities of those individuals and families and how it creates obstacles for developing socioeconomic, cultural, and political opportunities in their lives. Recognizing these multiple intersections of oppression is fundamental toward developing a comprehension of the elements of social inclusion because this is the beginning of detecting the challenges these oppressive intersectionalities bring about, and thus helps us understand how to develop paths to inclusion.
After this brief review, I will now provide the reader my working definition of social inclusion. This new definition is based on a strength-based view, includes a focus on resilience, and proposes an understanding of the term as a spectrum, within a developmental view: Social inclusion is a process of acceptance where diversity and identity are recognized. It is a state of being acknowledged and a form of social integration and incorporation. Social inclusion is a complex and multidimensional concept and involves the necessary resources and rights and the ability to participate in relationships and activities available to other members of society, whether socioeconomic, political, cultural, etc. Social inclusion implies resilience and should be understood as a process where individuals become more aware and reflective and/or act to improve their levels of well-being.
When social inclusion is described as a process of acceptance where individual identities are recognized, I highlight the fluidity of the term and the steps individuals can take to achieve more well-being. In addition, by applying intersectionality (May, 2015), I contrast the idea of one unique identity and advocate for the recognition of several identities. Social inclusion is a state of being acknowledged and a form of social integration because it is recognizing that no one can be truly excluded; we all have some form of inclusion and take part in society. The term is multidimensional and is better conceptualized as a developmental fluid phenomenon rather than predetermined because it is a process which is represented by a spectrum of levels or degrees, where individuals can find themselves in different spaces of the spectrum. Understanding social inclusion as a spectrum is to acknowledge the developmental nature of the term and intentionally recognizes resilience and empowerment; for instance, community interventions can provide the necessary tools to develop higher levels of inclusion in diverse dimensions and among vulnerable communities.
Moreover, social inclusion involves the necessary resources and rights and the ability to participate in relationships and activities available to other members of society, rather than the “inability” to do so (Levitas et al., 2007), which implies individuals taking part and sharing equality regarding a society’s customs, laws, statutes, or actions by legislatures. Finally, the term implies resilience and should be understood as a process where individuals become more aware and reflective and/or act to improve their well-being. Therefore, rather than focusing on vulnerabilities, we should create pathways for individuals to develop more capacity to recover from difficulties and challenges, following the development of awareness, deep thought, and agency.
Implications for Practice
Understanding social inclusion as a dynamic and fluid process within a spectrum provides insights not only on how families can achieve more well-being but also what type of interventions can be implemented to develop resilience and agency among vulnerable communities. From a methodological view, the opportunities of action research (Stringer, 2013) regarding social inclusion interventions among minoritized families should be explored for practical applications of this theoretical proposal. Unfortunately, there is a very limited body of research exploring community-based programs aimed at specifically building social inclusion in diverse dimensions among underdeserved families. However, by applying an intersectional view, social workers can explore how to empower clients that have several intersections of oppression (May, 2015) when focusing on social inclusion. For example, immigrant families in the United States often have language barriers regarding the English language, which influences their communication skills and their feelings of self-worth (Cedeño, 2020). Therefore, developing culturally responsive interventions focused on one or more dimensions of social inclusion (e.g., language, financial literacy, or mental health interventions) is important to consider, as they are a powerful tool to build and develop meaningful community-based programs among minoritized and underdeserved families.
A good example of the importance of language among minoritized families is seen in research by Riggs et al. (2014) among aboriginal youth in Australia. Participants identified language barriers within an education-focused intervention and expressed that communicating in English was a particular challenge for understanding instructions and general ideas. Therefore, social workers are encouraged to rethink social inclusion from an intersectional view, by focusing on culturally relevant interventions (Benito-Gomez & Flores Rojas, 2020) that recognize the determinants of social inequality while acknowledging the strengths families have to achieve well-being and the pathways toward social inclusion. One tool to accomplish this goal from a cultural relevant view is building on cultural knowledge of clients. Enabling participants of interventions to tap into and share their presettlement skills encourages a two-way exchange that develops trust. Similarly, research (Cedeño, 2020) identified that Latina immigrant woman in the United States had low technological and language inclusion, and that via feminist action research, empowerment via actions were achieved (e.g., downloading language apps, using online resources to learn pronunciation). Interestingly, in this study, older women tended to take younger participants under their wing, thus enabling empowerment and mentoring despite the challenges toward inclusion in the mentioned dimensions.
Recommendations for Practitioners
As social inclusion implies a strength-based perspective that is developmental, implementing interventions for underdeserved families provides a unique possibility to work together in partnerships with communities. Recent scholarly work has advocated for a more inclusive and intersectional framework in social work, particularly regarding the experiences of minoritized women in dimensions of race, social status, and gender stigmatization, to understand resilience and coping mechanisms (Remedios & Snyder, 2015). In this vein, methodologies such as PAR have demonstrated success (Bertrand & Demps, 2018) when providing interventions for vulnerable minoritized families. PAR involves actively including participants in achieving individual and community change while simultaneously conducting research and has been proven to have positive effects on participants because its focus is on empowering communities via inherent strengths (Mayorga & Rosales, 2019). This approach considers factors already existing, which then could be aimed to strengthen resilience in individuals and families (Herr & Anderson, 2014). Resilience for minoritized families often centers on the importance of family life and, as such, emphasizes wellness and adaptability, both factors that build up social inclusion (Bermudez & Mancini, 2013). Therefore, social workers should develop social inclusion interventions that acknowledge the two-way process of forging new connections, one that requires a deep personal reflective thought on family, privilege, and discrimination, along with recognizing the diverse structural barriers toward achieving inclusion, in particular among immigrant and minoritized clients. Such practices can create evidence for the study of family inclusion, for instance, in Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) contexts (Peterson & Gricus, 2022).
In this article, I advocate for social inclusion within social work via inclusive practices and research methodologies. Inclusive practices and research refer to a “range of approaches and methods and these may be referred to in the literature as participatory, emancipatory, partnership and user-led research, even peer research, community research, activist scholarship, decolonizing or indigenous research” (Nind, 2017; p. 1). In this sense, social work researchers are advised to critically question current conceptual dichotomies, which limits both the kinds of questions that can be asked and the kinds of answers that can be found about diverse types of phenomena. I specifically argue by applying intersectionality to social inclusion paradigms, social work as a discipline can discover further dimensions of inclusion (e.g., language, technological, cultural) by critically reconceptualizing how we view underdeserved families, and how we define social problems. This, in turn, will serve to increase the understanding of family process and the interventions that would lead to more social inclusion in society.
Conclusion
In summary, social exclusion and inclusion are concepts that have been contested, and unevenly applied, with a history that overlooks contextualization. By applying intersectionality (May, 2015), this article provided a critical overview of both terms and clarified its meaning and multiple dimensions from a social work view. As much of the body of literature on this topic has not presented the term in a clear and/or concise way, the goal was to clarify the distinction. Therefore, to understand inclusion, future efforts must apply a critical view on the theoretical development of social exclusion to empower families under vulnerable conditions while actively addressing the structural forces in society that perpetuate social inequality. This article proposes a theoretical shift from social exclusion to social inclusion within social work. This necessity arose due to the limitations of current paradigms and by questioning how experiences of social exclusion develop in the lives of individuals and families, and how it influences family processes. To say that a shift is needed from social exclusion to social inclusion is to portray a more accurate picture of vulnerable individuals and underdeserved families. Such a shift does not imply disregarding those individuals and institutions that create and sustain privilege. What is implied is a recognition of innate strengths, resilience, and opportunities of agency and empowerment.
Footnotes
Disposition editor: Cristina Mogro-Wilson
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
