Progressing social capital: including the experiences of

young people with mind-body-emotional differences

Louise HoltUniversity of Reading, UK

L.Holt@reading.ac.uk

International Population Geography Conference, 19 July 2006

Structure

Introduction

Theorising social capital – including young people with mind-body-emotional differences

The study / methodology

Empirical results

Conclusions

Research objectives

Examine young people’s experiences and interpretations of inclusion/exclusion in school and ‘leisure’ spaces, with a focus on young people with disabilities and Social Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD)

Explore how such experiences are interconnected to other power relations, including gender, ethnicity, social ‘class’ and social and economic capital

Illuminate and prioritise young disabled people’s voices for identifying good practice for maximising the social inclusion of young disabled people in school and leisure spaces, within the wider remit of sustainable urban development

Funded by EPSRC Geographical Grant

Disability

Social capital

The concept of social capital – contradictory position within policy arena and academic debate

Seen as a panacea: ‘an impressive and growing body of research suggests that civic connections help make us healthy, wealthy and wise’ (Putnam, 2000: 228)

Conceptual confusion over the definition and assessment

And theoretical, empirical and conceptual critiques levelled at most cited exponents (Putnam)

Social capital declared (almost) dead (Radcliffe, 2004; Foley and Edwards, 2001)

(De)stabilising benign social capital

Bourdieu – context specific

Interdependent with other forms of capital (Foley and Edwards, 2001)

A different understanding of agency – embodied, not fully conscious or reflexive (habitus)

Social capital as reproducing inequalities and privilege rather than a holistic social good

Theorising social capital

‘… ‘The volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent … depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed in his own right and by each of those to whom he is connected’ (Bourdieu, 1985: 250).

‘alchemy of consecration’ (Bourdieu, 1985: 251) to transform contingent relationships into relationships of mutual obligation’.

Theorising social capital

Does not consider role of children and young people as agents (Morrow, 2001; see also Schaefer McDaniel, 2004).

Economically reductionist (economic capital at root: Bourdieu, 1985; Butler, 1993)

Doesn’t explicitly theorise differences according to other ‘axes of power relations’ (Butler, 1990) – gender/sex, sexuality, ethnicity/race, (dis)ability …

Greater sensitivity to how ‘norms’ are reproduced through social capital.

And incorporated into relational embodied identities.

A mechanism for exploring the interconnection between broader socio-spatial inequalities and embodied experiences of naturalised identities?

Theorising norms of body difference

Bodies inscribed with powerful categories, e.g. ‘child’/‘adult’ & ‘disabled’/‘non-disabled’ > entwine with corporealities – experienced as marginalised identities.

Reproduced through everyday practices and performances (Butler, 1990, 1993, 1997, 2004)

Childhood:Key focus of social reproduction.Due to ‘immaturity’ and (perception of) children as more ‘open’ to learning.As children are institutionalised. Learn ‘hidden’ notions of appropriate identity positioningsChildren’s agency > active agents in social reproduction

Theorising norms of body difference

DisabilityPresented as a ‘natural’ category which is essentially mapped on to dualistic bodies

Represented as ‘other’ than non-disability (individual tragedy model)Foreclosure from human experience (Butler, 2004; Morris, 1991).

Transforming norms of body difference?Socio-spatial processes of disablement (social models):

• Socio-spatial dialectic• Cultural encoding of space (Kitchin, 1998)

Embodied social models - non-essentialist, sensitive to differences and corporeality

Ableism (Imrie, 1996; Chouinard, 1997)

Repetitive performances that emphasise differences above multiple similarities naturalise identities as ‘disabled’ or ‘non-disabled’ (Butler, 1993, re: gender).

Mind-body and emotional differences – Special Educational Needs

The studyIn-depth qualitative research with 18 young people (aged 11-16) diagnosed as having ‘Special Educational Needs’ (SEN) >Learning, Bodily Social-Emotional and Behavioural Differences

Methodology:‘Empowering’ and ‘participatory’Adapting: self-directed photography (Aitken and Wingate, 1993)

– storyboards (Young and Ansell, 2002)

to produce cartoon caption story boards Repeated focus groups Flexible, semi-structured, young people engaging in other activities – especially story boards Focus groups as a social encounter

Disabilitydifferences’

differences’

Inclusions

Young people variously included/excluded, tied to ability/disability and other aspects of power – interconnected processes

The majority of young people had some friends (although many also experienced shifting exclusions and marginalisations)

Variously intensive or extensive

Gender difference (often, not always!)

Bonding and bridging (Warren et al., 1999)

Bonding

Bonding around disabled identity

Disability as a positive resource for inclusion:

Access to interesting activitiesDisability-specific equipment resource for games

A: We have wheelchair racesR: Who do you have wheelchair races with?A: The boys I said.N: And I usually run with them, don't I?A: Yeah (FG 5)

Bonding – disabled identity

‘P: It's usually me, Leanne and Jo. But if it's pupils it's me and

Jason and maybe a couple of others that are have been following us.

R: And are they people in your class, Leanne and Jo then?

N: They're a year younger.R: Okay, how did you get to know them?P: Leanne done physio and then I met Jo

through Leanne.’ (FG 8).

Also a response to experience of ‘othering’

Exclusions:fall outside of ‘norms’ of social participation especially some with social and emotional differences

‘No, I ain't really got friends’ (Lee)‘Yeah, because you're always bossy. That's why’(Adrian) (FG1)

‘R: What do you do at break or lunchtime?[SEVERAL SPEAK]L: I just sit on my arse and do nothing’ (FG2)

H: Because this school's crap!R: Why is that?H: Because, no because I get bullied and then no-one sorts it out and then it ends up my mum having to come to school.R: Who do you get bullied by?H: People in my class that think it's funny to take the mickey out of disabled people… (FG8)

Bonding versus bridging social capital?

Bridging – more potential for convertibility?

The importance of bonding – to provide ‘emotional capital’ Support for producing extensive social networks

Young people with only extensive networks more vulnerable

‘Trust, generosity and reciprocity’, but also living with betrayal, lack of trust and aspects of stigmatisation …

Depends upon the ‘capitals’ of who you bond or bridge with

Location within networks (not just a case of in/out of a network)

Influenced by broader socio-spatial contexts …

The normative expectations reproduced through everyday practices within social networks and through exclusions

(Dis)abling social capital(Re)producing and accepting a ‘disabled’ identity through forging exclusive disabled groups

Also through everyday socio-spatial practices within social groups

Can transform dominant representations of (dis)ability:

Holly does not embody the tragic, passive, dependent stereotype suggested through individual tragedy accounts

Actively contests the negative labelling by peers:

H: … they know that I'll retaliate and I will retaliate.R: What do you do? What do you do if you retaliate?H: I like use my mouth back, my only weapon I've got.R: And what kinds of things do you say?L: I don't think you'd like to know.H: No, don't think you would (FG8)

Different ‘value’ of social networks

Central and marginalised groups within young people’s cultures

Different ‘convertible’ value of various social networks - ‘institutional’ cultural capital

Many young people, especially with socio-emotional differences, within anti-school networks – ‘dark side’ (Putzel, 1997)

C: I had detention yesterday well funny. S: Did you go?C: Yeah!S: What a loser!C: Do you know what, right I got a double detention for

disruption.S: I got a detention for trying to get out of PE then when I

said something, I give it away! (FG3)

Low level criminal activity – health risking behaviour

Conclusions …. More nuanced understanding of social capital > re-engagement

A variety of levels:1. Providing essential support and emotional capital –

whatever the other ‘values’ - can be conflictual and hierarchical

2. (Re)produce and transform norms of identity – e.g. disability – socio-spatially shifting – connected to other axes of power and context - extremely powerful in reproducing social exclusion!

3. Variously convertible – connection with institutional cultural capital.

Cannot ignore other factors

The convertibility of social capital in this context constrained by socio-spatial context of the school, and issues of urban disinvestment and decline

Need to more fully consider socio-spatial context – specific spaces/places within broader social, economic, cultural processes to embodied inequalities