Designing for exclusion?
Following on from my last post about boundaries and the Big Society, both Mil and Tracey have got some questions which make the whole thing curiouser and curiouser. (I'm talking about this here at about the same time as the cogs in me 'ead are ticking over, so I hope that I am not about to hideously misrepresent either of them!)
Mil has a great post up about the possibility that the Big Society is designed for exclusion. It's well worth a read, and not only because he mentions my post in it (thanks chap!). He rightly asks that, if the Big Society is exclusionary, what are the reasons behind who is in or out? It's a question Tracey, in her comment to my post, reorients slightly:
"It's not just the 'who', but what aspects of human life/ action can be included." (my emphasis)
In an earlier post, Mil had brought up the spectre of the classic Tory old boys' network, arguing that we can see this in the re-(financial)elitisation (my ridiculous made-up word, not his) of the universities.
I think this pursuit of Tory vested interests is very much a part of the picture. That tells us a bit about inclusion. Not everything, but a bit.
In her comment, Tracey points out that:
"The 'dangerous' classes result in a lot of work and movement of money to keep people like me in a job"
Maybe this tells us another little bit about why some people/aspects have to be 'out'. (And I'm hoping that Tracey will come along and put the reference to Bauman on the 'dangerous classes' in the comments.) We know (thanks, Karl) that the structure of a capitalist economy requires that some people lose (although, of course, when I say "we know", we make a good fist of carrying on as though we don't). But, Tracey is I think suggesting that something similar has to happen to maintain (what I'm going to call right now) an economy of benevolence like the Big Society.
Which, to come back to Mil's point, seems to suggest that designing for exclusion must be integral to it.
I'm conscious that I haven't done Tracey's "what" as well as "who" point justice, but it probably sits very well with Mil's question about the evidence for exclusion. I've suggested in my comment to his post that if we accept the design for exclusion thesis, then a good place to be evidence hunting might be in the moments where we're being reassured/reminded of the Coalition's "best intentions". The fragments to be pulled out here will likely help with those "what" and "who" questions.
I'm sure I will be batting some of these ideas around more later on, but, in the meantime, what do you reckon?
