Something
about problem
The problem of social exclusion and excluded is very
old and very young. This problem is very old, because always were included and excluded
people (and animals too: there are animals with high status and animals with
low status).
Really,
every society has some form of class system, and although most of them are made
up of a complicated mass of subgroups there are three fundamental classes,
which are universal: the elite (the leaders of state, government, business,
science, etc.); the middle classes; and the underclass, outsiders, otherwise
known as the “socially excluded”.
This
problem is very young, because contemporary understanding began from the works
of
R.
Lenoir (1974) and S. Paugam (1996),
Included – it is a person, which included in economic, political,
social, educative, cultural and another spheres of human activity. Excluded individual has not possibility
to take an active part in different spheres of social life.
The central notion of “late” conception “inclusion/exclusion” is “break
of social connections”. The feeling of waste, lose of place in society give
rise to such dissatisfaction as traditional poverty (Paugam).
This is the most interesting: the
member of the
I think the process
inclusion/exclusion exists between
countries (globally inclusion/exclusion) and between people inside some countries (local, national
inclusion/exclusion).
M. Wolf suggests one classification of
social exclusive situation (Wolf, 1994):
·
Exclusive
from means of existence;
·
Exclusive
from social service and nets of security;
·
Exclusive
from culture of consumption;
·
Exclusive
from political choice;
·
Exclusive
from mass social organizations and solidarity;
·
Exclusive
from possibility to understanding of contemporary reality (it is result of very
swift changes in contemporary “information society”).
What
are consequences of this process (inclusion/exclusion)?
·
First,
opposition, contradiction between included/excluded countries are increasing
and possibility of war conflicts and terrorism increasing too. Remember, that terrorism is a fight of poor men or groups
against rich men and powerful (while terror
is fight of rich and powerful countries or regimes against poor men).
Manifestations of this are from
·
Second,
the excluded people constitute the social basis of criminality, drug-addiction,
alcoholism, suicide and other deviations (Paugam,
1996; Finer, Nellis, 1998; Young, 1999).
·
Third,
the excluded people are in need of social help, support, psychological and medical
assistance and so on. They are “humiliated and insulted” (F. Dostojevsky) and are need of help but no punishment.
Who is excluded?
Many, many people are excluded in contemporary
world, including Russia: homeless and unemployed, poor men and beggars,
refugees and ethnic minority, drug-addicts and alcoholics, orphans and old
single people, prisoners and different “the failures”, etc.
Some scientists spoke 40-50 years ago about these people - “dangerous
class”. I think it is no quite right. They are rather “unlucky class”.
It is necessary to add that while the "struggle" is conducted
(with doubtful success) mainly against "street crimes" (or, in the
expression of A. Liazos: "nuts, sluts and
perverts"), the huge layer of "respectable crime" still remains
outside the "fields of fight". When it is dealt with by the police
and condemned by the court it functions as a "scapegoat" to
demonstrating successful "struggle against criminality". It is known
as the global problem of selection in
police and criminal justice.
In my opinion an important integrative “criminogenic” (in general “delictogenic”)
factor is the fundamental contradiction between the relatively even
distribution of human demands and the inequality
in the existing opportunities to satisfy these demands, depending first of
all on a person’s position in the social structure; the more significant this
rupture, the lower the responsiveness of society (its capacity to meet people’s
demands, as understood by A. Etzioni), the higher of
deviance level, including crime.
From our point of view social and economic inequality is one of the
biggest criminogenic factors. People have real
opportunities to satisfy their needs depending on their belongings to one or
other social class, stratum, group or depending on their social and economic
status. Inequality of opportunity generates social conflict, dissatisfaction,
envy and finally, various forms of deviation. The processes of
inclusion/exclusion are acquiring more and more criminogenic
and deviantogenic significance both for the
contemporary world and for the future. It is clear that the "excluded
people" are becoming a mass reserve, a social basis of social deviation
(Gilinskiy, 1998). This is a fact.
Repressive social control is the best means of exclusion. It is
especially through the problem of selection
in the police and criminal justice. This
is a fact.
Social-economic
inequality is a main cause of poverty.
Poverty is the first main
cause for social exclusion.
Personal disorder is the
second main cause for exclusion.
The waste of social
connection (as result poverty or personal disorder) is the third cause for
exclusion.
It is a pity, but social distinctions,
social-economic inequality were, are and will be. It is the objective social
natural phenomenon, conformity to natural laws. Moreover the social-economic
inequality is source of social progress. And there is only one problem: how
diminish negative consequences of exclusion. The developed, civilized countries
created the system of social guarantees and help for excluded. Many NGO work
with social excluded and include them in social life. Situation in the
developing countries is more complicated. But there is sad paradox: the fact of
help, assistance stigmatized to excluded, give birth to social dependency… It
is a vicious circle.
It is clear that the communist regime was
absolutely terrible. As a result of the unique experiment to establish a social
utopia (the slogan on the gate of the Solovki camp of
GULAG read: ”Happiness for Everyone through Violence”), the country was thrown
onto the path of civilization.
Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” was a necessary
attempt to save the power structures by way of reform. With all due credit to
Gorbachev, his reforms turned out to be the most radical (freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, the multi-party system, the right to hold private
property, the lifting of the Iron Curtain, the release of those states occupied
by Stalin – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc.). However this reforms did not
bring to the end. May be it is not guilt but it is a misfortune of Gorbachev.
But it is a fact.
The disintegration of production and economy
continuing; power was still returned to the ruling nomenclature (may be with
new “oligarchs” and criminals); corruption, usual to Russia, has taken on a
monumental, total scale in all organs of power, establishment and
law-enforcement bodies; crisis of the health, education, transport and other
social services, crises of spirituality and morality continuing; the
militarization of economics and politics continues. We show now the growth of
the role (importance) of the so-called “power structures”: FSB (former KGB),
MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs), and other. The criminal war in Chechen is a
terrifying evidence of the neo-totalitarianism. Many people from Chechen become
“excluded”. The country permits also human rights abuses on a massive scale.
Particularly in the army and the penal institutions, where tyranny and torture
dominate (Abramkin, 1998; Christie, 2000: 79-90;
Index on Censorship, 1999; Walmsley, 1996: 358-386).
The
ever-growing economic polarization of the population – visible in the stark
contrast between the poverty majority and the nouveau rich minority (the “New
Russian”) – is a guaranteed source of continuing social conflict. The
differentiation between the incomes of the 10% least prosperous and the 10%
most prosperous increased from 1:4.5 in 1991 up to 1:15.1 in 1994, 1999 -
1:15.0, Index Gini increased from 0.289 in 1992 to
0.409 in 1994, 1998 - 0.380. It is the official data, but the opinion of
experts is: the real difference of the incomes mount up to 23-25 (Human
Development Report in the Russian Federation, 1999: 46, 152), in
Death
rate (per 1000 population) was in 1986 - 10.4, in 1994 - 15.7, in 1998 – 13.6,
in 2001 – 15.6 (in
Technological backwardness and the incompetence of the domestic
production and service sectors have manifested themselves in the course of the
reforms. A consequence of this is the inferiority complex of employees, their
de-qualification, marginalization and lumpenization.
The social policy of the Russian government is very
bad[1].
For example, the pension of our pensioners is 1300-1800 roubles
(about $42-58), but official living wage is 2200-2700 roubles
(about $71-87) and it is minimum wage,
only for existence, not for life… More than 50% of the Russian population is
excluded (Borodkin, 2000: 15).
The
care to disabled persons is minimum.
In
Official structures, Mass media confirm that drug-addicts are criminals and many drug-addicts are under trial
and in prison.
The State shelters for homeless
are not enough or absent. Only NGO’s help to homeless.
The
conditions for prisoner are terrible:
nourishment is very bad, cells are overcrowded, there are tortures,
tuberculosis. Moreover, while petty criminals such as hooligans, thieves and
pickpockets remain in the underclass, “excluded”; the leaders of Russian
criminal groups are moving upwards into the social elite.
The conditions for refugees are very terrible too.
The situation
concerning of all types of excluded in
Borodkin, F. (2000) Social Exclusives // Sociological Journal. N 3/4. P. 5-17
(Russian).
Christie,
N. (2000) Crime Control as Industry:
Towards GULAG, Western Style.
Third Edition. Routledge.
Gilinskiy, Y. (1998) The Underclass in Today's
Finer C., Nellis M. (Eds.) (1998) Crime and Social Exclusion. Blackwell
Publishers
Ltd.
Human
Development Report:
Kanfler, J. (1965) L’exclusion sociale: Etude de la marginalité dans les sociétés
occidentales.
Paris: Bureau de Recherches sociales.
Lenoir, R. (1974) Les exclus, un francais sur dix. Paris: Seuil.
Luhmann, N. (1992) Beobachtungen der Moderne. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Luhmann, N. (1994) Sociological
Reflections: Professor Luhmann's Interview. In: The Problems of Theoretical Sociology.
Luhmann, N. (1998) Globalization of the World Community: the
Way Contemporary Society should be Understood Systematically. In: Sociology on the Threshold of the XXI
Century: New Trends of Study.
Moiseev,
N. (1998) Part with Simplicity.
Paugam, S. (Ed.) (1996) L'exclusion, 1'etat des savoirs.
Vishnevski, A. (Ed.) (2002) Population of
Demography and Ecology of Men (Russian).
Wolf, M. (1994) Globalization and
Social Exclusion: Some Paradoxes // Social
Exclusion: Rhetoric
Reality Responses /
International Institute for labor
Studies. UN Development Program.
Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in
Late
Modernity. SAGE Publications.
Table 1
Basic
demographic data in
Rate per 1.000 population (1987 – 1999)
|
|
1987 |
1989 |
1990 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1999 |
|
Death
rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
10.5 |
10.7 |
11.2 |
12.2 |
14.5 |
15.7 |
14.9 |
14.2 |
13.8 |
14.7 |
|
- St.Petersburg |
11.7 |
11.6 |
12.2 |
13.5 |
17.4 |
17.2 |
15.9 |
14.2 |
13.4 |
15.4 |
|
Birth
rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
* |
14.6 |
* |
10.7 |
9.4 |
9.6 |
* |
8.9 |
8.6 |
9.0 |
|
- St.Petersburg |
14.7 |
12.3 |
10.8 |
7.6 |
6.6 |
7.1 |
7.0 |
6.6 |
6.6 |
6.2 |
|
Natural increase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
* |
3.9 |
* |
-1.7 |
-5.1 |
-6.1 |
* |
-5.3 |
-5.2 |
-5.7 |
|
- St.Petersburg |
3.0 |
0.7 |
-1.5 |
-5.9 |
-10.8 |
-10.1 |
-8.9 |
-7.6 |
-6.8 |
-9.2 |
|
Marriage
(rate) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- |
* |
9.4 |
* |
7.1 |
7.5 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
* |
|
- St.Petersburg |
11.8 |
* |
10.3 |
7.7 |
8.0 |
8.1 |
8.2 |
6.9 |
6.9 |
6.7 |
* - no data
Table 2
Life expectancy in
|
|
1988 |
1990 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
|
|
69.8 |
69.2 |
67.9 |
65.2 |
63.9 |
64.6 |
65.9 |
66.6 |
67.0 |
* |
|
- males |
64.6 |
63.8 |
62.0 |
58.9 |
57.5 |
58.3 |
59.7 |
60.8 |
61.3 |
59.9 |
|
- females |
74.3 |
77.3 |
73.8 |
71.9 |
71.0 |
71.7 |
72.5 |
72.9 |
72.9 |
72.4 |
|
St.Petersburg |
70.5 |
70.1 |
68.3 |
64.3 |
64.5 |
66.1 |
68.4 |
69.4 |
69.3 |
67.5 |
|
- males |
65.8 |
65.2 |
62.6 |
58.1 |
58.1 |
59.9 |
62.6 |
64.2 |
63.8 |
61.6 |
|
- females |
74.1 |
74.3 |
73.6 |
70.7 |
71.2 |
72.3 |
73.8 |
77.1 |
74.4 |
73.1 |
* - no data
Table 3
Some causes of death in St.Petersburg, 1987 –
1999 (rate per 100,000 population)
|
|
1987 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
|
Homicide |
4.6 |
8.2 |
10.7 |
18.2 |
27.8 |
28.7 |
26.7 |
22.3 |
18.5 |
18.9 |
19.8 |
|
Suicide |
16.1 |
18.4 |
20.0 |
22.4 |
24.0 |
23.0 |
23.3 |
19.9 |
19.3 |
17.0 |
19.8 |
|
Accident,
poisoning, trauma |
|
113.6 |
127.4 |
|
256.8 |
252.5 |
210.2 |
170.5 |
149.4 |
160.1 |
184.8 |
|
Poisoning
by alcohol |
6.2 |
11.6 |
11.2 |
28.0 |
49.1 |
46.3 |
28.3 |
21.5 |
15.7 |
19.0 |
23.0 |
|
Tuberculosis |
5.2 |
6.1 |
6.8 |
9.0 |
15.8 |
16.2 |
12.6 |
11.5 |
9.7 |
9.4 |
12.2 |
Table 4
Criminals: share of persons without permanent occupation and income
(Russia, 1987 – 2001)
|
|
1987 |
1989 |
1991 |
1993 |
1995 |
1997 |
1999 |
2001 |
|
Total |
11.8 |
16.5 |
20.2 |
35.9 |
47.2 |
54.2 |
57.3 |
55.1 |
|
Homicide |
15.3 |
21.0 |
25.5 |
39.8 |
54.2 |
61.0 |
66.0 |
66.8 |
|
Robbery |
33.1 |
44.8 |
47.3 |
57.9 |
63.4 |
68.1 |
71.2 |
70.6 |
|
Theft |
23.6 |
30.9 |
36.0 |
42.3 |
49.4 |
57.3 |
62.5 |
64.4 |
|
Drug-related
crime |
23.4 |
30.7 |
37.0 |
48.3 |
58.7 |
64.2 |
69.7 |
73.1 |
[1] See in detail: