Discussion
The Table Talk format generated much discussion about experiences of exclusion and inclusion. Perspectives were shared, problems were identified, assets were celebrated, and ideas were presented. ‘Excluded’ groups could identify with the negative issues raised in the narratives. Some believed the narratives were more accurate than others; some questioned who wrote the narrative, and didn’t think that the author was from the so-called excluded group. With regard to these results, the Table Talks were successful.
Elgin County’s Table Talks give issues of social inclusion an explicitly rural context. In this regard this research provides a basis for further examination of spatial inequalities based on rural-urban differences. For example, matters of transportation, access to health services, and mobility of youth are relevant concerns that can be discussed in relation to the results of the regional and provincial projects on social inclusion. Such discussions will answer the question: Does rural make a difference?
Overall, the people who participated in the Table Talks did not feel excluded. They had both positive and negative things to say about the places they lived. There was identification of problem issues for seniors: transportation, health concerns, councils not recognising senior concerns, lack of rural physicians, disabled seniors having more problems, getting funding for senior projects, being heard and having a local voice, and feeling disenchantment towards the youth. At the same time there were many positive issues identified: feeling connected, being proud of contributions (volunteering, fundraising), participating in the many fun activities (walking groups, festivals, barbecues), personal satisfaction with being able to help those less fortunate (Meals on Wheels, Donation Box), and strength in being able to have and participate in senior-run clubs and groups. It could be argued, therefore, that the groups interviewed were not representative of the ‘excluded’ groups described in the Central West narrative.
The success of the Table Talks can be questioned if the explicit goal was to engage those most excluded from local decision-making processes. This was not the goal, however. The goals of SEII-EC were to create a more inclusive environment through networking and by pooling resources. The format of the Table Talks fulfilled these goals.
The Table Talks highlight and give context to the inherent challenges of integrating principles of ‘social inclusion’ into public policy. Engaging in any form of collective discussion is a positive aspect of improving quality of life, building local capacity, and incorporating divergent views within decision-making processes. The outcomes of these processes, however, depend upon where one draws the line between who is included and who is excluded. Determining who should be included because they are excluded is particularly difficult. Furthermore, where the line between those who are included and those who are excluded is drawn is inseparable from who draws the line.
Attempts to reconcile the appeal of social inclusion with the obligation to define the concept surfaced throughout the SEII project. At the regional level, much effort in the early stages was directed at collecting information to substantiate the narratives. The more members of the Central West project looked, the more material they found. The task appeared endless. To resolve this apparent problem, the Central West group decided that it was best not to define social inclusion but to allow an understanding of social inclusion to emerge from the Table Talks. Deferring the matter of defining social inclusion to session participants, however, merely highlights the nature of the problem. Namely, the meaning of social inclusion depends upon who draws the line between inclusion and exclusion.
As the literature notes, the notion of adopting social inclusion as a principle of public policy is appealing, yet problematic. It holds out a promise of a just and equitable society. As a social value, the idea of social inclusion is a positive force that unites people in a common pursuit - it brings people together. Difficulties arise when one tries to move from upholding social inclusion as a principle of healthy social policy to operationalising the concept in a plan of action, or in other words, of moving from principles of process to the demands of content.
In Elgin County, the narratives generated about inclusion and exclusion captured from the Table Talk sessions depended upon who participated in the sessions. And who participated depended upon the prior decisions of project leaders and the host organisations who recruited participants. Each step in the process influenced the outcome, including the location of the meetings, facilitators, and recorders.
In Elgin County, participants of the Table Talks talked mostly about being included, referring to other people who are excluded. By general standards, these participants can be viewed as socially and economically excluded because they are nonwage earners, that is, youth soon to start careers and seniors who have retired from careers. In many other ways, the participants were included as members among their peers. Many of the seniors interviewed are actively involved in clubs; many of the youth interviewed are involved in school activities or recently employed.
The experience in Elgin County illustrates how differing assumptions and agendas can influence the value of social inclusion. As Levitas (2003) argues, the proper question about the idea of social inclusion is not what does it mean, but what do we mean by it. In the end, an explicit definition is necessary to guide decisions and actions. In the context of understanding the results of the SEII-EC project, we must ask who defines social inclusion - who observes the line between inclusion and exclusion. Most importantly, if one defers to the participants of the sessions, then who is invited to the sessions becomes the observer, i.e., the people sitting around the table are the ones who observe the distinction between inclusion and exclusion.
Notions of social inclusion raise many questions about its appropriate uses. By necessity, in the process of defining social inclusion one must also define what people are excluded from. In the literature, as well as within the Central West project, issues of social inclusion are related to ‘the system’: people are excluded from the structures and institutions of the system. However, we must still ask: What is ‘the system’?
It is in regard for the ‘observer’ that we can understand the possibility of multiple narratives of social inclusion. The Central West narratives focus upon negative aspects of being excluded. Participants in Elgin County Table Talks focussed on positive aspects of being included. These participants, generally, were active members of local activities, whether seniors involved in the recreation centre or youth involved in school councils. Their narratives reflect how they observe the distinction between who is included and who is excluded.