|
Marginalisation and mobilisation
Abstracts (english)
Kai-Uwe
Hellmann opens his contribution on „marginalisation and
mobilisation" with the simple statement „who protests, has
problems". The author analyses protest using the concept of relative
deprivation and arrives at the conclusion that usually those who have
the most reasons to protest, are the least likely to articulate it.
Replacing the common distinction between centre and periphery by that
between inclusion and exclusion enables one to see marginalisation both
as a process and as a state of exclusion. From this one can further
derive a differentiation between structural marginalisation, which is
neither intended nor attributable, and strategic marginalisation, which
results from the decisions of other actors. Structural marginalisation
may inhibit successful protest mobilisation as a result of insufficient
resources, a lack of generally acceptable frames of meaning, or unfavourable
political opportunity structures. Even if movements succeed in passing
these barriers, strategic marginalisation may prevent them from realising
their mobilisation potential. As a result, Hellmann arrives at a pessimistic
conclusion regarding the future chances of mobilisation.
In
his article „The return of the social", Roland Roth
combines three theoretical strands: social movements, poor people’s
movements, and the struggle for civil rights. According to Roth, the
common conceptualisations of „new social movements" fail to
take into account resource-poor groups and their social problems and
demands. Drawing on the American discussion on poor people’s movements
he sketches the success chances of spontaneous, disruptive, and radical
protest forms. Through them, access can be gained to resourceful actors
and established organisations and to the moral, material, informational
and integrative support that these may offer. In the Federal Republic,
as well, Roth sees new actors arising that may bring some „movement"
into the stifling corporatist traditions of the social-political arena.
The concept of citizenship, that has become prominent in recent debates,
offers itself as a leading principle to guide political mobilisation
for the recognition of the demands of marginalised groups. The struggle
for social citizenship rights has substantive, normative, and theoretical
implications: research on social movements that incorporates marginalised
groups and neglected demands may provide a counterweight against the
increasing exclusiveness of social citizenship rights and democratic
participation.
Stefan
Pabst investigates actors, aims, and strategies of „interest
mediation through social advocacy" on the basis of an empirical
analyses of the coverage of poverty in the journals of private welfare
organisations (particularly the „Partitätischer Wohlfahrtsverband"
and „Caritas"). This coverage is a function of strategic and
political considerations. From the internal perspective of the organisations,
its function is to take the edge off the criticism of member organisations
and professionals. At the same time, the coverage in the journals should
improve the organisation’s public image and secure funding revenues.
Political considerations lead to relatively moderate demands, not least
in order not to endanger co-operative relations with the state. Recent
(personnel) developments, however, show that the welfare organisations
tend to develop a more conflict-oriented approach towards the federal
government, which among other things is expressed in public criticism
of the dismantling of the welfare state and in the organisations’
participation in the „Social and Employment Summit". Pabst
draws the conclusion that private welfare organisations may succeed
in making poverty a topic of attention among the wider public. However,
in doing so they also instrumentalise the poor for organisational interests
and reduce them to the status of a clientele that is deemed incapable
of independent political action.
Friedhelm
Wolski-Prenger and Harald Rein discuss current developments and future
perspectives of protest by the unemployed. Friedhelm Wolski-Prenger
sketches the mobilisation problems of unemployed people’s movements.
Only a small part of the mass of unemployed participate in the movement’s
activities. Wolski-Prenger investigates the contextual constraints and
the internal organisational, ideological, and strategic differences
among the various (religious, independent, unionist, and welfare-corporatist)
„currents" within the movement of the unemployed. These actors
share a commitment to alleviate the material, psychological, and social
burdens of the unemployed. However, inadequate co-ordination, demarcation
tendencies, as well as insufficient mutual interest, have resulted in
the present lack of influence of the movement. The author therefore
draws a pessimistic conclusion for the future: the movement of the unemployed
can only gain more influence if it succeeds in developing practicable
strategic concepts. These should include renewed attempts at co-ordination,
a rapprochement among the various currents as well as a new alliance
politics.
Harald
Rein, on the contrary, arrives at a more positive assessment
of the potential of the unemployed people’s movement. Although
he acknowledges that a broad movement of the unemployed has thus far
not developed, the author emphasises the underlying mobilisation potential
and dismisses forms of social worker paternalism in mobilising the unemployed.
The history of the emergence of the „Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft
der Initiativen gegen Arbeitslosigkeit und Armut" (National Association
of Initiatives against Unemployment and Poverty) shows that the political
action of the unemployed conforms neither to the model of organised
political lobbying, nor to the illusionary imagery of mass protest.
Instead, one sees a multitude of patterns of resistance, rooted in the
practices of daily life and evolving along social, economic and historical
lines. The common fixation on the spectacular has thus far obscured
these developments from view.
Drawing
on the example of the „Verein zur Förderung der Integration Behinderter"
(Association for the Integration of Disabled People) Eric Hammann
argues for a „culture of equality-in-diversity". Self-organised
outpatient services, which have to strike a balance among the sectoral
logics of market, state, and private sphere, can be seen as institutional
components of civil society. Traditional services for the disabled are
characterised by problem partitioning according to the logic of bureaucratic
rationality. Self-organised outpatient services, on the contrary, offer
a democratic and humane alternative, which creates room for individual
development as well as for new forms of (family) independent solidarity.
Their aim is to enable disabled people to make their own decisions on
the aims, actors and timing of the service relation. However, to achieve
this aim a changed understanding of institutionalised care and a democratic
perspective on care relations are necessary. Only then can the social
construct of „disability" and the concomitant marginalisation
of those involved be transgressed.
|