marginalization: to marginalize a marginal group to the point of being at the "margin".

Marginalization is a process whereby individuals or groups are excluded from systems, which control their rights over resources, services, or information. These systems take many forms: from the legal regulations of formal organizations to the more informal traditions or customs one finds in small groups or families. As a consequence, the dynamics of marginalization will vary significantly by context and explanations directed to specific groups are likely to require the analysis of several processes.

In sociology, marginalization is the social process of becoming or being made marginal (to relegate or confine to a lower social standing or outer limit or edge, as of social standing); "the marginalization of the underclass"; "marginalisation of literature" and many other are some examples. In its most extreme form, marginalization can exterminate groups (Mullaly, 2007).

Being marginalized refers to being separated from the rest of the society, forced to occupy the fringes and edges and not to be at the centre of things. Marginalized people are not considered to be a part of the society (Arko Koley, 2010).

Material deprivation is the most common result of marginalization when looking at how unfairly material resources (such as food and shelter) are dispersed in society. Along with material deprivation, marginalized individuals are also excluded from services, programs, and policies (Young, 2000). Ensuing poverty, psychoemotional damage, and its resulting diseases often result in catastrophic damage to lives, health, and psyche. In gay men, results of psychoemotional damage from marginalization from both heterosexual society and from within mainstream homosexual society include bug chasing (purposeful acts to acquire HIV), suicide, and drug addiction.

Marginalisation can be understood within three levels: individual, community, and global-structural / policies. Although examples are listed within these three specific levels, one must recognize the intersecting nature of marginalization and its capacity to overlap within each.

IndividualMarginalization at the individual level results in an individual’s exclusion from meaningful participation in

society. An example of marginalization at the individual level is the exclusion of single mothers from the welfare system prior to the welfare reform of the 1900s. The welfare system is based on the concept of the universal worker; entitlement to welfare is based on one’s contribution to society in the form of employment. A single mother’s contribution to society is not based on employment resulting in the mother’s ineligibility of social assistance for many decades. In modern society, caring work is devalued and motherhood is seen as a barrier to employment (Lessa, 2006). Single mothers are marginalized for their significant role in the socializing of children and due to views that an individual can only contribute meaningfully to society through employment. As a result single mothers continue to suffer from material deprivation, as well as their children (Lessa, 2006). Social well-being research into geo-normative 1st generation children, may reveal statistical social-intervention oppertunities -innocent inner-cultual exchange student oppertunities, that are valuable to civility and society.

Another example of individual marginalization is the exclusion of individuals with disabilities from the labour force. Grandz (as cited in Leslie 2003) discusses an employer viewpoint in hiring individuals living with disabilities as jeopardizing productivity, increasing the rate of absenteeism, and creating more accidents in the workplace. Cantor (as cited in Leslie 2003) also discusses employer concern of the excessive high cost of accommodating people with disabilities. The marginalization of individuals with disabilities is prevalent today despite the legislation intended to prevent it in most western countries, and the academic achievements, skills and training of many disabled people.(Leslie, 2003).

And also there is exclusions of LGBT people because of their sexual orientations and gender identities as individual marginalization. The Yogyakarta Principles require that the states and communities abolish any stereotype about LGBT people as well as stereotyped gender roles.

CommunityMany communities experience marginalization, with particular focus in this section on Aboriginal

communities and women. Marginalization of Aboriginal communities is a product of colonization. As a result of colonialism, Aboriginal communities lost their land, were forced into destitute areas, lost their sources of income, and were excluded from the labor market. Additionally, Aboriginal communities lost their culture and values through forced assimilation and lost their rights in society (Baskin, 2003). Today various communities continue to be marginalized from society due to the development of practices, policies and programs that “met the needs of white people and not the needs of the marginalized groups themselves” (Yee, 2005, p. 93). Yee

(2005) also connects marginalization to minority communities when describing the concept of whiteness as maintaining and enforcing dominant norms and discourse.

A second example of marginalization at the community level is the marginalization of women. Moosa-Mitha (as cited in Brown & Strega, 2005) discusses the feminist movement as a direct reaction to the marginalization of white women in society. Women were excluded from the labor force and their work in the home was not valued. Feminists argued that men and women should equally participate in the labor force, the public and private sector, and in the home. They also focused on labor laws to increase access to employment, as well as recognize child-rearing as a valuable form of labor. Today women are still marginalized from executive positions and continue to earn less than men in upper management positions.

Global and structuralGlobalization (global-capitalism), immigration, social welfare and policy are broader social structures

that have the potential to contribute negatively to one’s access to resources and services, resulting in marginalization of individuals and groups.information technology, company outsourcing / job insecurity, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Alphonse, George & Moffat (2007) discuss how globalization sets forth a decrease in the role of the state with an increase in support from various “corporate sectors resulting in gross inequalities, injustices and marginalization of various vulnerable groups” (p. 1). Companies are outsourcing, jobs are lost, the cost of living continues to rise, and land is being expropriated by large companies. Material goods are made in large abundances and sold at cheaper costs, while in India for example, the poverty line is lowered in order to mask the number of individuals who are actually living in poverty as a result of globalization. Globalization and structural forces aggravate poverty and continue to push individuals to the margins of society, while governments and large corporations do not address the issues (George, P, SK8101, lecture, October 9, 2007).

Certain language and the meaning attached to language can cause universalizing discourses that are influenced by the Western world, which is what Sewpaul (2006) describes as the “potential to dilute or even annihilate local cultures and traditions and to deny context specific realities” (p. 421). What Sewpaul (2006) is implying is that the effect of dominant global discourses can cause individual and cultural displacement, as well as an experience of “de-localization”, as individual notions of security and safety are jeopardized (p. 422). Insecurity and fear of an unknown future and instability can result in displacement, exclusion, and forced assimilation into the dominant group. For many, it further pushes them to the margins of society or enlists new members to the outskirts because of global-capitalism and dominant discourses (Sewpaul, 2006).

With the prevailing notion of globalization, we now see the rise of immigration as the world gets smaller and smaller with millions of individuals relocating each year. This is not without hardship and struggle of what a newcomer thought was going to be a new life with new opportunities. Ferguson, Lavalette, & Whitmore (2005) discuss how immigration has had a strong link to access of welfare support programs. Newcomers are constantly bombarded with the inability to access a country’s resources because they are seen as “undeserving foreigners” (p. 132). With this comes a denial of access to public housing, health care benefits, employment support services, and social security benefits (Ferguson et al., 2005). Newcomers are seen as undeserving, or that they must prove their entitlement in order to gain access to basic support necessities. It is clear that individuals are exploited and marginalized within the country they have emigrated (Ferguson et al., 2005).

Welfare states and social policies can also exclude individuals from basic necessities and support programs. Welfare payments were proposed to assist individuals in accessing a small amount of material wealth (Young, 2000). Young (2000) further discusses how “the provision of the welfare itself produces new injustice by depriving those dependent on it of rights and freedoms that others have…marginalization is unjust because it blocks the opportunity to exercise capacities in socially defined and recognized way” (p. 41). There is the notion that by providing a minimal amount of welfare support, an individual will be free from marginalization. In fact, welfare support programs further lead to injustices by restricting certain behaviour, as well the individual is mandated to other agencies. The individual is forced into a new system of rules while facing social stigma and stereotypes from the dominant group in society, further marginalizing and excluding individuals (Young, 2000). Thus, social policy and welfare provisions reflect the dominant notions in society by constructing and reinforcing categories of people and their needs. It ignores the unique-subjective human essence, further continuing the cycle of dominance (Wilson & Beresford, 2000).

Implications for social work practiceUpon defining and describing marginalization as well as the various levels in which it exists, one must

now explore its implications for social work practice. Mullaly (2007) describes how “the personal is political” and the need for recognizing that social problems are in deed connected with larger structures in society, causing various forms of oppression amongst individuals resulting in marginalization (p. 262). It is also important for the social worker to recognize the intersecting nature of oppression. A non-judgmental and unbiased attitude is

necessary on the part of the social worker. The worker must begin to understand oppression and marginalization as a systemic problem, not the fault of the individual (Mullaly, 2007). Working under an Anti-oppression perspective would then allow the social worker to understand the lived, subjective experiences of the individual, as well as their cultural, historical and social background. The worker should recognize the individual as political in the process of becoming a valuable member of society and the structural factors that contribute to oppression and marginalization (Mullaly, 2007). Social workers must take a firm stance on naming and labeling global forces that impact individuals and communities who are then left with no support, leading to marginalization or further marginalization from the society they once knew (George, P, SK8101, lecture, October 9, 2007).

The social worker should be constantly reflexive, work to raise the consciousness, empower, and understand the lived subjective realities of individuals living in a fast-paced world, where fear and insecurity constantly subjugate the individual from the collective whole, perpetuating the dominant forces, while silencing the oppressed (Sakamoto and Pitner, 2005).

Some individuals and groups who are not professional social workers build relationships with marginalized persons by providing relational care and support, for example, through homeless ministry. These relationships validate the individuals who are marginalized and provide them a meaningful contact with the mainstream.[2]

Conceptualizing Economic Marginalization Key-notes for the Living at the Margins Conference Cape Town, March 26, 2007

Introduction What exactly is “economic marginalization”? How should one conceptualize it, and what are the implications of such conceptualization? These notes are an attempt to address these questions and to put forward some ideas for debate and discussion. There are two basic pieces of ground clearing needed before we get specific. First, marginalization is a relational statement. A category X cannot be marginalized in and of itself. It always has to be marginalized in relation to some other category, Y. So conceptualization requires an explicit statement of both X and Y—although in many cases Y is thought of implicitly as “the rest of society”, or the “rest of economy”, or simply “the average”. Second, we need to get beyond a well worn critique of any categorization into discrete groups—that reality is more continuous. All analysis, certainly all conceptualization, uses simplified categorization of a complex reality. The real question is whether a categorization into two (the “marginalized” and “the rest”) misleads to such an extent that an expansion into three (or four, or more) categories is worth the price of added complexity relative to the benefits of greater understanding. This is something that has to be debated and decided on a case by case basis.

In what follows I will consider economic marginalization as outcome and as process (or structure). I will then consider discussions of “formality” and “informality”. I will conclude with some points on policy implications.Economic Marginalization as Outcome and as Process In the analytical literature, and certainly in the policy discourse, there are two often undifferentiated strands of thought—economic marginalization as outcome, and economic marginalization as process.

On outcomes, a static and a dynamic characterization can be discerned. One often sees statements about marginalization of X relative to Y meaning simply “X is worse off relative to Y”, where “worse off” can itself be measured in a number of ways, covering income and non-income dimensions. At other times, marginalization is taken to mean “X has got less of the increase in the pie than Y”. The first statement is related to the level of inequality, the second is about changes in inequality. Let us apply the above to income inequality between and within countries. Are poor countries of the world becoming economically marginalized, in the sense that they are getting less of the global increase in income than the rest? The answer to this question is not unambiguous. China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Vietnam, etc are all growing at rates far higher than the growth rates of OECD countries, and relative to the world average growth rate. So these poor countries are not being marginalized in this sense. The story is very different for most of Africa, and some of Latin America. The low (often

negative) growth rates of these countries relative to the world imply marginalization according to the relevant definition. Turning now to inequality within countries, there is strong evidence that growth, especially rapid growth, has been accompanied by increasing inequality. This is true of the countries mentioned above, as well as countries in Africa and Latin America. And inequality in many countries, especially in Latin America, is in any case high by global standards. The evolution of world income inequality as a whole is clearly an aggregate of these trends and there is room for disagreement depending on what weight one gives to each, and of course the data issues that plague any global assessment of this type. However, we can be relatively confident that economic marginalization within countries, defined as increasing income inequality within countries, is indeed taking place. Economic marginalization as a process relates to economic structures, in particular to the structure of markets and their integration. To the extent that the markets that some individuals or groups engage in are segmented from the economy in general, these individuals can be said to be marginalized from the rest of the economy. A possible remedy, discussed quite often, is to advance integration through, for example, building infrastructure (eg roads) linking markets, or institutions (eg microcredit) which allows some groups to participate in market activities. Segmentation and exclusion may, however, have non-economic and non-financial origins, for example in discrimination by gender, caste or ethnicity. Here integration takes on a broader meaning. 3

Alongside integration arises the issue of adverse integration. If markets were competitive, with market power evenly distributed, then integration into market structures should increase income earning opportunities for those previously excluded, and reduce process as well as outcome marginalization. But integration into a market structure with concentration of market power is marginalization operating through market structures. Monopoly or monopsony are obvious examples of market power where those at the weaker end lose out from market structures even though they are integrated into them. Formality and Informality

The discourse on marginalization is often overlaid with, or even solely identified with, the discourse on “formality” and “informality.” This distinction, which has been central in the development studies discourse for the past 60 years, is nevertheless not very clear and sharp in the literature. There is a multitude of definitions, with little in the way of consistency. However, two strands can perhaps be discerned. The first strand identifies “informal” with “chaotic”, “disorganized”, “uncertain”, “no rules of the game”, etc. This is a dangerous mindset which is empirically false and has led to policy disasters, such as the nationalization of forests because it was felt that local “informal” forest management mechanisms were not adequate. The result was even more deforestation than before. This mindset endures, and can lead to heavy handed interventions to “bring order” to sectors which are perceived as being disorderly, and unconnected to the “formal” sector which is perceived as having greater order and stability. This mindset has to be resisted firmly in analytical and policy discourse. It is to be hoped that it will be resisted in the “first and second economy” discourse in South Africa.

The second strand, which is in principle neutral on the intervention question, identifies “formal” and “informal” as tendencies along a spectrum of “more or less engagement with the state.” This matches statistical definitions often used (eg in defining formal enterprises as those that pay taxes, or those that are subject to labor regulations, etc)). It also focuses attention on policy and on intervention, its extent and its nature. However, in accepting this way of thinking about formal and informal, there should be no presumption that more, or less, intervention is necessarily better, or worse. It depends on the situation on the ground, and on the nature of the intervention. Some interventions—for example the many attempts to control, or “regulate”, street trade—end up hurting the poor more than helping them. Other interventions, for example, extending microfinance facilities to previously underserved areas, can be beneficial to the poor.

If we think therefore of “integration into state structures” as being a dimension of marginalization, similar issues arise as in the case of market integration. If the integration is neutral, for example where efforts are made to extend benefits to those who have a right to them, then this can reduce marginalization—viewed as outcome and as process. An example 4

of this is where state provision of water and sanitation services is extended o areas that were previously excluded. However, just as in market integration, there can be adverse integration into state structures. It is well understood, for example, that legal structures and processes often advantage those with education and resources to fight court cases. With such inequalities, bringing the poor into formal legal nets, for exampling through land titling or creating formal legal titles to slum properties, has to be done with great caution and with due attention to the power and resources inequalities in the system. Even with such caution, on the part of policy makers and implementers the poor need to organize so as to better navigate both market and state structures. Summary and Policy Conclusion Economic marginalization can be conceptualized as outcome or as process (or structure). On outcomes, marginalization can be a static description, or a dynamic characterization of how things are moving. On the latter, defining marginalization as the worsening position of some relative to the average, the question is whether economic inequality is on the increase. The short answer is that income inequality is indeed on the increase within countries; however, the picture on income inequality between countries, and on non-income inequality, is much less clear. On process or structure, two important dimensions are integration into market structures, and integration into state structures. While both types of integration can in principle lead to better outcomes for those previously excluded, or marginalized, adverse integration is an ever present danger. Whether it is market or state, adverse integration into structures with unequal power and resources can lead to poor outcomes for some, and thus exacerbate marginalization in terms of outcomes. What do policy makers and their analysts need to do in light of the above? *There has to be analysis of, and development of policy towards, monopolistic and monopsonistic tendencies in local and national markets *There has to be prior analysis of possible adverse integration consequences when investments (eg transport) are made to integrate markets. *The technical design of state interventions and regulations has to be looked at to ensure that those with education or resources insufficient to navigate their way through the administrative maze are not being disadvantaged. *The attitude of government officials have to change towards those who cannot easily manage state regulations and procedures. 5

*There has to be support for Membership Based Organizations of the Poor, organizations that are responsive to their poor members and who can represent the interests of the poor to the rest of society, including, especially, local and national governments