Introduction
In order to engender social integration , profound changes in attitude
and behaviour are required, both with disabled and mainstream society,
each tackling their own stereotypes, assumptions and fears. This is even
more pertinent today with increasing emphasis placed on disabled people
exercising choice and control in living a good life (Van Eden, 2013).
Factors underlying social
exclusion
The World Bank (2011) ‘Inclusion Matters’ reported on research that
stressed the importance of participation, suggesting that cultural
choices are partly responsible for the way in which some groups take
advantage of, or reject policies and programs. People with disabilities
are one such group, but by no means the only one, at risk for making
“self-exclusion” choices. Self-exclusion often results from negative
past trauma. People may feel excluded because of stigma, and in turn,
may internalize stigma to the extent that it prevents them from
re-engaging with the mainstream. Exclusion, often conflated with
discrimination, can affect the performance of excluded groups: In the
labour market for instance, perceived discrimination can alter both the
expectations of jobseekers and their future labour supply decisions, and
may result in members of excluded groups to drop out of the labour force
of their own volition. These experiences may equate social devaluation
experiences where people feel rejected, subjected to degrading
stereotypes (Kendrick, 2011) and generally excluded from community
(Abbott & McConkey, 2006). The same phenomenon of renouncing engagement
is constantly reported in education, where past discrimination
experiences cause drops in learning ability or decreases in motivation
to engage in further education. Elmslie and Sedo (1996) apply the
concept of learned helplessness to demonstrate how negative events, such
as an episode of discrimination, can result in the exclusion of the
individual or group, with their ‘resignation’ to their ‘fate’, in turn
diminishing human capital, constraining effort, and becoming somewhat of
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Social integration does not naturally unfold from protecting
against
exclusion
Whilst in years gone by, disabled people have been specifically excluded
from life in their communities, this is not the case anymore as most
organisations communicate, and sometimes boast of inclusive values.
Conversely, social inclusion is often defined by its apparent semantic
opposite - social exclusion (Craig et al., 2007). Sherwin (2010) has
shown on the other hand that social exclusion and inclusion are
generally seen as having a binary and exclusive relationship - if people
are not excluded, then by inference, they are included. This could lead
organisational leaders to assume that when ‘protective’ mechanisms
against exclusiveness are put in place, inclusive outcomes naturally
follow. Most organisations fail to offer any processes to specifically
include marginalised people or indeed put in place mechanisms to
systematically identify and facilitate social inclusion, even when they
do have high level disability strategies (Cobigo et al, 2012). This
leaves matters of inclusion to the personal interpretation, or lack
thereof, of individual frontline staff, often resulting in latent
exclusion (World Bank, 2011). Statements that are not backed up with
specific systems or protocols to implement inclusiveness are therefore,
to a large extent ineffective, compounding the lack of effective tools
to understand or measure inclusion (Lemay, 2006). Kendrick and Sullivan
(2010) warn that the complex issue of social inclusion represents a
substantial leadership challenge because it involves multi-faceted
perspectives and concepts that elude straightforward measurement.
The current ‘Arts2Gether’ research, explored potential shifts in
attitudes and behaviours of people, both disabled and mainstream,
through participatory art: Artists of varied backgrounds gathered to
create together and through these encounters, new experiences of
togetherness fostered community integration. Following Rhodes’ call
(2010) to take intentional steps to place relationships at the center of
our social change agenda (Duffy & Murray, 2013), we were interested in
finding out what elements of human relations may be at work in new
encounters, that could, in turn impact relationship formation. Beyond
impacting on the participants themselves, the Arts2Gether project sought
to create a ripple effect transcending these encounters, generating
knowledge to build change capacity for the long term. The intervention
was underpinned by the Social Change model (Field et al, 2012, p.35)
that seeks to “Increase the willingness of the community to engage with
disabled people, Increase the willingness of disabled people to engage
in the community and Increase the direct exposure of people with
disabilities in the community”.