“Distinguish between people being socially excluded and people excluding themselves socially in societies.” (2013, 2010)
Social exclusion is the process by which people are shut out of full participation in the economic, social and political life of their society. Brian Barry (2002) argued that exclusion, strictly speaking, is involuntary: it happens whatever the excluded want. Self-exclusion is voluntary withdrawal from common institutions. The two can look alike, yet they differ in agency, in power and in what they do to society.
The distinction
| Criterion | Being socially excluded | Excluding oneself |
|---|---|---|
| Agency | Imposed by others or by institutions | Chosen by the individual or group |
| Relation to what is desired | Access denied to something wanted | Access available but declined |
| Typical position | The powerless | Often the powerful, or those withdrawing for religious reasons |
| Effect on the person | Loss of capabilities and rights | Usually no deprivation |
| Social effect | Inequality and injustice | Erodes shared institutions and solidarity |
Being socially excluded
- Untouchability kept Dalits from wells, temples and schools. In Sukhadeo Thorat and Paul Attewell’s study (2007), qualified Dalit applicants received fewer job callbacks than equally qualified upper-caste applicants.
- Amartya Sen separates active exclusion, by deliberate policy such as denying rights to migrants, from passive exclusion through impersonal processes such as a recession.
Excluding oneself
- Elite secession. The rich opt out of public schools, hospitals and transport and live in gated enclaves. Barry warns that this weakens the demand for good public services and loosens social solidarity.
- Religious or cultural withdrawal. Louis Dumont describes the Indian renouncer as an “individual-outside-the-world”. Communities such as the Amish, or the Sentinelese in the Andamans, keep themselves apart.
Why the line blurs
- Choices are shaped by constraints. After decades of being denied temple entry, some Dalits built their own temples or converted. B. R. Ambedkar and his followers embraced Buddhism in 1956. What looks like self-exclusion can be a response to earlier exclusion.
- Adaptive preferences. Jon Elster’s “sour grapes” and Sen’s work show that the deprived may stop wanting what they have long been denied. Their “choice” not to participate is therefore not truly free.
- Asymmetry. Elite self-exclusion is an exercise of power; subaltern withdrawal is usually a way of avoiding humiliation.
Conclusion
The test is not whether people are absent but whether they could take part on equal terms if they wished. Policy should remove imposed exclusion and treat apparent self-exclusion among marginalised groups as a sign of hidden exclusion. It should also recognise that elite withdrawal from common institutions has social costs of its own.