欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

客服信息

我们支持 澳洲论文代写 Assignment代写、加拿大论文代写 Assignment代写、新西兰论文代写 Assignment代写、美国论文代写 Assignment代写、英国论文代写 Assignment代写、及其他国家的英语文书润色修改代写方案.论文写作指导服务

唯一联系方式Q微:7878393

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > Social Policy

Modern approaches to social policy

发布时间:2017-03-24
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

Within the bastions of social policy a new and progressive force has emerged over recent years that has challenged many previously deemed fundamental premises. This challenge has not only been of an academic nature but has also impacted upon actual policy prescriptions and political processes. Above all, these new forces are concerned with the celebration of difference within society and setting in motion a process which not only aims to legislate against indifference and inequality but also transform deep seated attitudes at the basic societal level.

What is pivotal at the outset is to establish what we actually mean by ‘difference’. If we conceptualize the term from a preliminary standpoint, we can say that we are referring to a form of classification into which social groups, comprised of individuals can be characterized. Such groups can then be said to have been classified on the basis of similarities that exist between them, which can be seen to make them distinct from other groups of individuals within society. Over recent decades, ‘difference’ has supplanted traditional class based contours and can now (at least in the West) be argued to represent the most desirable method of societal classification (Lewis, 2003; p.93). The primary driving forces behind this development are the ‘New Social Movements’ (NSM), which have propelled difference and its celebration to the forefront of social policy and thought. In addition, New Social Movements have also given an added dimension to the question of difference, which has been largely centered on issues such as gender, sexuality, disability and race/ethnicity. Obviously, for the purposes of the question at hand the focus will be placed on the later two. What is offered below is a through appraisal of the arguments proffered by the leading proponents of New Social Movements, and how they propose to change the inequality that exists in society.

Above all, New Social Movements have been primarily concerned with changing the manner in which social policy conceptualizes and envisages the human body. What this means in actual terms is that disabled and black and Asian people have systematically attempted to question the historical preconditions that have been placed upon their bodies. Thus, they have come to challenge the orthodox conceptions of the body and as a consequence have highlighted the inequality that exists in the nature of welfare provision for those who occupy such subordinated bodies (Melucci, 1980; p.2). Bodily autonomy and inequality of welfare provision based on bodily differences is therefore their primary concern. Such focus and the attempt on the part of various disabled and race groups to reevaluate conceptions of the body has had profound implications, not only for political processes, policy proposition and implementation but also for the underlying tenets of social welfare provision (Melucci, 1980; p.3).

Furthermore, such efforts have also significantly moved the welfare provision debate away from Marxian economic forces and means of production. Thus, it has widened the debate on where inclusion and social equality should be fought, moving beyond the traditional domain of the workplace and wider general community. With particular reference to the provision of welfare services the onus of the debate has been moved from questions about the redistribution of available resources, to issues of front line care and the relationship between those who require welfare services and the professionals that provide it. Questions have been raised by racial and disabled groups about institutionalized welfare inequality at the point of delivery, and such developments although not mutually exclusive, are largely a result of the efforts of the New Social Movements (Lewis, 2003; p. 93).

What then are to barriers that the New Social Movements argue thwart the celebration and institutionalization of difference? They argue that there exist structural limitations that inhibit development and inclusion within societal functions. Thus these structural constraints certainly impact upon the individual, and possibly the collective agency of marginal groups within society. Agency in this sense being a person’s ability to impact upon their surroundings and influence their own destiny and development. A number of issues are highlighted to give credence to this assessment. What follows will focus on the question of refugees and asylum seekers, as it is one that rouses the souls of many members of the New Social Movements.

Immigration control, given its basic aims is naturally and necessarily exclusionary. However, there are strong arguments that suggest such exclusion is racially motivated. Since the inauguration of the Treaty of Rome (1957), every British Home Secretary has adopted the approach that vigorous immigration checks should stay in place. What this means in practice is that ‘suspicious’ looking people are stopped at British boarder controls. However, according to Peter Ratcliffe (a leading voice amongst those calling for greater celebration of difference in society) people of non-European appearance are far more likely to be stopped than those of European appearance (Ratcliffe, 2004; p.55).

Furthermore, government legislation in the form of the Immigration and Asylum Acts (1996 and 1999) has drastically cut the level of funding for those seeking asylum within the United Kingdom. The 1999 Act in particular transferred the financial and logistical responsibility for providing housing and welfare provision to asylum seekers into the auspices of the Home Office, to which Ratcliffe highlights an obvious conclusion. Social provision for asylum seekers is now placed within the remit of the very government department charged with controlling and often reducing immigration (Ratcliffe, 2004; p.55). There can be little doubt then, that legislative and executive forces have not only been positioned to reduce the attractiveness of immigration into the United Kingdom, but as Ratcliffe suggests to do so with an inbuilt prejudice against non Europeans, i.e. black and Asian people. Something of further interest that Ratcliffe surprisingly fails to mention is the fact that the two parliamentary acts mentioned above were passed by two different and competing governments. It could therefore be effectively argued that inherent racial inequality within the area of immigration is something that transcends British party politics and is far more institutionalized than it at first appears.

Issues of education, housing and the labor market are offered by many to further illustrate and validate the assertion that severe structural limitations exist in Britain, which then constrain black and Asian people from social welfare and social and economic advancement. The removal of such barriers is argued to be the vital prerequisite for establishing and maintaining a system where the celebration of difference allows equal opportunities, in a free and equal society (Ratcliffe, 2004; p.162).

Similar dilemmas and concerns are proffered by members of New Social Movements who focus and concentrate on the advancement of disabled rights. However, in their attempt to bring about a celebration of difference, New Social Movements of disabled orientation have gone even further than their racial counterparts in reversing the perception of the human body. Obviously, it could clearly be argued that such perceptions have greater relevance and importance for disabled people than for other minority groups who feel they are excluded from society.

As Gordon Hughes has suggested, in recent years disabled groups have attempted to move away from conceptualizing disability in terms of its physical and mental manifestations (Hughes, 1998; p.77). These are of course the traditional and in their view (disabled groups) unfortunate manner in which viewpoints on disability have been formed and social welfare and care initiatives based. As prominent disability researcher Jenny Morris has proffered, “it is not the inability to walk which disables someone but the steps into the building” (Morris, 1991; p.10). Thus, just as with inequality and subjugation within black and Asian communities, it is structural limitations that are impeding and thwarting the individual and even collective agency of disabled people. Furthermore, once again it is such structural barriers, whether they are legislated or not that are stopping the celebration of difference, even if in the majority of cases such barriers are not intentional on the part of policy makers and service providers.

What this transformation in the approach and attitude towards disability has meant is that the agenda for disabled people has been distanced from calls to improve ‘charity’, to instead focusing on improving ‘rights’. In this venture, disabled groups have achieved relative success in changing the onus of their impairments, whether they are physical or mental away from conceptions of individuals in need. Instead, such foundations of thought have been altered to refer to individuals and larger groups of disabled people that suffer systematic oppression in terms of social, educational, employment and housing issues (Hughes, 1998; p. 79). Furthermore, another overriding (mis) conception that New Social Movements have attempted to address within conceptions of disability is that of dependence. It is a natural progression in traditional thought to assume that disabled dependence is a necessary evil, as the “opposite of dependency is no assistance from anyone” (Hughes, 1998; p. 80). But as another commentator has suggested, it is not dependence that should be promoted but mutual interdependence between disabled people and non disabled people, in exactly the same way as mutual interdependence is an ever growing necessity for all human beings (Oliver, 1996; p. 64-67).

Ultimately, what we all have to cede is that celebrating difference in society is advantageous for all its members, not only those who feel let down or repressed by a system that is geared towards their exclusion. The above highlighted case of disabled and black and Asian people is but one point of reference within an issue that encompasses many excluded groups, who are unable to reap the benefits of social inclusion and progression. The central point here is not whether the celebration of difference is desirable, but how to overcome deep seated and often innocent misgivings and misinterpretations that not only uphold the current imbalance within society but also perpetuate and exacerbate it. If we consider this issue from the basic foundation, that the celebration of difference is indeed a goal that society, political legislators and front line care and community providers should aim for, then we require detailed assessment of the defects of the current system and how they can be dealt with. Thus, comprehensive and thorough examination of the key actors and issues that underpin societal foundations is necessary, and in this respect the New Social Movements have equipped commentators and decision makers alike with a useful starting point to begin such a process.

There are some that assert the difficulties of this process. Among these is the renowned academic Samuel P Huntington in his celebrated book, The Clash of Civilizations. Although the main thesis of his work has a clearly international tone to it, it nonetheless goes to extreme lengths to highlight the differences that exist between people around the world and within individual nation states. It is such writings that give an academic cover to ignorance and when it is shown that it is possible to integrate all aspects of society through the celebration of difference, such arguments with unravel and reveal their inadequacy. Disabled, black and Asian people are as good a place to begin as any. We all have al role to play.

Blakemore, K (2003) Social Policy: An Introduction, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Della Porta, D and Diani, M. (1999) Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Hughes, G. (1998) A Suitable Case for Treatment? Constructions of Disability. In E. Saraga, (Ed) Embodying the Social: Constructions of Difference (pp. 43-91). London: Routledge.

Huntington, S. (2002) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, G (2003) Difference and Social Policy. In N.Ellison and C.Pierson (Ed) Developments in British Social Policy 2 (pp. 90-106). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Melucci, A. (1980) ‘The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach’, Social Science Information, 19, 2 41-56.

Morris, J. (1991) Pride Against Prejudice: A Personal Politics of Disability, London, Women’s Press.

Oliver, M. (1996) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice, London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Ratcliffe, P. (2004) Race, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining the Inclusive Society, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

上一篇:Policies towards the prevention of childhood obesity 下一篇:Inequalities in health