Points of Departure in Exploring Migrant Social Inclusion

My theoretical discussion will center on the concept of social inclusion informed by critical perspectives derived from anti-oppressive theories in social work and education, and the fields of critical whiteness studies and critical migration studies within sociology. The designation “critical” here implies calling up for scrutiny, whether through embodied action or discursive practice, the rules of exchange within a social field. This requires a move to cognitively and analytically position oneself as Other from the dominant text(s) and discourse (Luke 2004, p.26). “Critical” demands that theory has a practical intent, as in not simply revealing present societal injustices – and leaving it at that – but in advocating changing society by linking social theory and political practice. As Stephen Leonard (1990, p.3) argues, without a practical dimension critical theory would be bankrupt on its own terms. He contends that critical theory must fulfill three requirements. It must locate the sources of oppression in actual social practices, it must present an alternative vision beyond oppression and, it must translate these tasks in a form that is intelligible to those who are

“othered” in society. Such an approach has also underpinned the methodological and empirical components of my study.

In selecting a theoretical framework composed of critical perspectives drawn from AOP, CWS and CMS, I recognize that these more embedded within the course syllabi of social work and pedagogical education in Anglo-American countries such as Canada, Australia and the U.K. than in their Scandinavian counterparts. This may partially be attributed to the fact that different and at times competing discourses on the nature of society

predominate the theory and practice of social welfare in these countries.

Scandinavian social democratic welfare states – despite national and regional variations – are said to incorporate social order or structuralist views of society (Mullaly 1997). These entail a cooperative view of social institutions that are claimed to function much like an organism, with each interdependent part contributing to the purported benefit of the whole.

Social order perspectives promote a consensual view of practice where inequalities are ameliorated through high levels of social engineering within political and organizational givens. Watchwords are equilibrium, stability, maintenance, integration and social control (Davis 1991). Peter Kivisto (2015) posits that Social Democratic welfare models are biased by the working assumption that members of a society who share an identifiable condition of need should be satisfied with a similar choice and level of services. However, this standardization neglects differences arising from divergent personal or cultural backgrounds or social values.

It is this “difference-centeredness”, which distinguishes conflict theories’

view of the nature of society. Represented in anti-oppressive practices, critical migration studies and critical whiteness studies, conflict perspectives hold that society emerges from a contested struggle for power and resources among groups with opposing aims and ideologies, rather than the cooperative symbiosis suggested by social order rationales (Mullaly 1997).

The state is seen as an instrument utilized by more dominant groups – either knowingly or “coincidentally” – for their own benefit. Its institutions serve to justify and normalize the oppression of weaker or othered groups who are defined by differences in race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age or disability. It is this “created inequality” which is claimed to constitute the prime source of social conflict. Thus, conflict-based theories argue for radical changes to existing social structures which perpetuate inequalities (Adams, Dominelli & Payne 2002). Indeed, even statutory social work itself, as an element of state control, is indicted as being complicit (Davis 1991). This “structural shift” in understanding social problems and disadvantage repositions the focus of social work from individualist psychological and behavioral models to critical practices aimed at dismantling institutional oppression, informed by the voices emanating from vulnerable communities (Graham & Schiele 2010). Given the divergent visions of society inherent in social order versus conflict

perspectives, with their attendant social interventions, this may help to explain why care and maintenance practice models such as psycho-social and social pedagogical methodologies still comprise the norm in Scandinavian countries, while more socially-critical, adversarial approaches are less well established.

A further point of departure in grounding views on migrant inclusion are the integration regimes of Finland and Canada within which my case studies are entrenched. While an exhaustive immigration policy comparison is outside the purview of this study, a short description of differences may be warranted⁵. Thomas Huddleston, (2012, p.247) in his comparative assessment of Canadian and European integration practices, argues that migrants in the EU have very different starting points than migrants in Canada. He cites structural labour market barriers, narrow definitions of the family, and extended temporary migration statuses as impediments to social inclusion within the European Union. In addition, member states are censured for failing to appreciate migrant contributions to society and neglecting their naturalization. This extends to how policies of anti-discrimination are implemented, where complaints mechanisms in the courts are not reinforced in society by positive actions encouraging civic organizations to diversify. In the case of Finland, this gap between legislation and integration practice is echoed, among others, by Saukkonen (2013), and Martikainen, Valtonen & Wahlbeck (2012).

Biles and Frideres (2012) developed a broad comparative typology of migrant settlement and integration policies of nation states from around the world. While in this framework Finland and Canada are both subsumed under the proactive policy orientation, characterized by the presence of programs, such as settlement schemes, language training, and refugee initiatives, the authors do outline a number of cogent differences. Finland is distinguished by its relatively short recent immigration history – being an emigration country until the 1950’s – which is evaluated as more homogenous than that of Canada. In fact, until 1999, Finland did not have an officially defined immigration policy (Blomberg-Kroll et. al 2008). It is

5 For a more in-depth analysis of Canadian and Finnish immigration policies and integration regimes please consult Frideres and Biles (2012), Kivisto and Wahlbeck (2013), Kraus and Kivisto (2015), Kymlicka (2010), Ugland (2014) and Vad Jønsson et al. (2013).

also described as promoting a more static, essentialist narrative of national identity. In addition, definitions of “integration,” are said to focus more narrowly on economic priorities at the expense of cultural or social factors, and the role played by host society in the espoused “two-way” reciprocity of integration is judged to be minimal. In contrast, Canada’s national identity is described as dynamic, resting on policy directions promoting multiculturalist objectives. There is also the recognition that a greater variety of actors from civil society, such as private sponsors, are involved in migration and settlement schemes. Moreover, Canada is distinguished by a long history of immigration measures and heterogenous migrant flows (Ibid 2012). In fact, Canadian immigration policy has evolved from the racial discrimination of the 1960’s to the assessment of prospective migrants on a “points system”, which, in recent times, has meant the active recruitment of highly skilled foreign professionals for “designated”

occupations to meet Canada’s present and future economic needs (Boyd &

Alboim 2012). However, such a system has also been critiqued for not guaranteeing migrants’ successful settlement and integration (Kaushik &

Drolet 2018). This is a point echoed in Biles and Frideres (2012, p.295) assessment of Canada’s integration policies which – on paper – they judge to be strong in framing the reciprocal role society must play, yet weak in their implementation.

In the following chapter, I will explore the key concepts of social inclusion as juxtaposed against integration and interrogate their critical contestations.

I will further seek to illuminate the inclusion-exclusion nexus by examining how the various incarnations of social inclusion serve to reconfigure the interdependent relations of exclusion and inclusion on a fluid continuum.

This protean interdependency will become clearer in my employment of a theoretical framework where competing conceptions of inclusion are arranged under the headings of Participation Inclusion, Transformation Inclusion and Transposition Inclusion. Such a framework acts as a rhetorical device. It functions as an analytical construct in which the divisions between integration and the different conceptualizations of inclusion may appear artificially sharper than they are for the sake of analysis. For example, owing to the concepts’ malleability in local or national interpretations there may be few differences between Integration and Participation Inclusion when these are explained and practically implemented. The rhetorical framework is

largely informed by theoretical positionalities derived from critical migration studies and critical whiteness studies. In addition, I will delve more deeply into the theory of anti-oppressive practice as envisaged in social work and pedagogy as it underpins and drives my research design and methodology. Conceived as a critical, multidimensional, utilitarian theory, AOP is especially suitable to the examination of institutional environments such as schools as it is a structural approach at heart (Mullaly 2010). Furthermore, AOP was specifically developed for educators and workers in social welfare service who engage daily with “difference” in their students or clients. As these represent the bulk of participants in my study, my selection of this perspective in informing social inclusion seemed ideal.