Ethics of Social Inclusion

In England, Mental Health Service Users are just beginning to feel the effects of the governments drive to personal empowerment. It is an 'idealogy'. In itself very commendable, but the covert objective is to get more people off of the social.

It has been said that more people from the lower echelons of society suffer from mental health problems than any other demographic group. A lot of these people are trapped by their lack of education. Lack of education due to what - bad parenting? Consensus is that single parenting leads to single parenting, Lack of instilled work ethic leads to same in offspring. It's cetainly not economics. I can vouch for that.

There are those (and I know a few) who seek a diagnosis of Mental Illness as a ticket to a life of indolence. But there are many more and it is a significant majority that are on long term (for life sometimes)maintenance medication.If you talk to service users you will hear tales of poor or no parenting, being, abandoned in childhood, fostered, abused by a parent or relative, friend or stranger.


Basic flaws in concept of social inclusion.  To empower someone to make their own decisions one must first give them the basic tools to enable a sense of self worth and empowerment.  For instance the biggest aid to social inclusion in our society is wealth. Freedom of choice in a capitalist society is largely related to disposable income.
Thus it can be seen that a person who becomes disabled and has to depend on state benefit has not only the resultant incapacities of the illness to cope with but in the majority of cases the erosion of their perception of themselves (self worth).  Independence is central to self esteem.  Choice should not be a commodity that can be bought and sold.  The basic flaw in the concepts of social inclusion and the benefits culture is that empowerment comes through self esteem only.  There are many incapacitated people who despite the degradation imposed on them by successive governments still have self esteem. (Studies need to be done on perceptions of self esteem).  In a culturally flawed society where acquisition is deemed the number one goal of life and contributions to society are evaluated through means testing, little or no value is placed on the holistics of health through the valuation of opportunities for spiritual growth. 
For instance, if an individual is given the opportunity to "grow" through education, they will first have to evaluate the opportunity from a financial and practical perspective.  I.e. is the venue from which the education is disseminated somewhere I have access to.  There may be problems relating to the illness, or symptomatic of the illness that preclude participation.  i.e. Anxiety, phobias, mobility and functional problems, safety considerations...Next comes the big one MONEY here a basically flawed, learned evaluation process takes place, and the concepts that are evaluated are the worth of spiritual, educational, mental growth against short term fixes through drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and class a drugs), or for those who live lives independent of these supports, the worth of spiritual, educational, mental growth against basic human survival needs, i.e. food, warmth and shelter.  I separate out these groups as the first group will regularly reject the survival needs in favour of the quick fixes.  Now the problems that can arise for a person seeking to implement the social inclusion ideology are that they will not be giving enough consideration to this evaluation process.  There is a basic and erroneous assumption that the wherewithal (Money) can and will be found.
People who lead impoverished lives, whether spiritual or physical, have had their decision making process impaired by
a) Accidents of birth (hereditary),
b) Serendipity and
c) Learned cultural impositions.
In a capitalist society there is a direct correlation between the acquisition of wealth and self worth evaluation.  Thus having created a culture where the acquisition of wealth is perceived to be the chief aim of effort, it naturally follows that for someone with little or no wealth, someone whose basic aims are survival, the decision making process  for evaluating self worth  may dispense with the need for spiritual growth.  This process is in the majority of people largely subconscious.  However, in an individual of reasonable intellect there is an awareness of this process.  This leads to anger, frustration, disgust and difficulty in coping with the imposed restraints.
A person who is impoverished by circumstance is seen as WORTH LESS.
In the first instance they are not able to work, therefore they cannot acquire wealth, and therefore they are dependant on the state.  They have no value in society because they are unable be it temporarily or permanently to acquire wealth (the meaning of life) therefore their lives are worth less than the life of a person who is able to acquire wealth
And thus IT BECOMES NECESSARY to take away their right to self evaluation and give it to someone who is WORTH MORE and can, using the correct capitalist assessment process, dispense the means to acquire the necessecities of survival (MONEY).  Since as they are worthless their needs become valueless.
This leads me to the conclusion that anyone dependant on state benefit has their needs assessed on the basis that they are worth less and therefore require less.  Less being, less nutrition to stay alive, less shelter from the elements, less warmth, less clothing, less money.
Survival is directly quantified as a remunerative value.  One is compensated for ones efforts by be given the means of continued survival (Money or purchasing power).
Lets look at the “Work is Good For You Philosophy”
The first basic error that is made is in not further qualifying the statement all work is good for you by adding but some work is bad for you.  For instance nobody nowadays disagrees that the once prolific asbestos industry was very bad for those handling the materials on a regular basis
Nobody would disagree that working in hospitals can lead to more than average exposure to potentially life threatening diseases.
Nobody would argue against the fact that untrained people working with high voltage electricity, gas supply, large plant or machinery are vulnerable to potentially life threatening accidents.  Unless of course it was an insurance company, employer or legal representative.
So it can be seen that we must modify the statement to read “Some but not all Work is Good For You”
Secondly we must look at the different type of work in context.
There is salaried, taxed work for a company or organization
There is untaxed work partaken for the Black Economy.
There is untaxed, unsalaried work for a Charitable Organisation.
There is taxed and salaried self employment
There is untaxed and unsalaried self employment
And last but not least there is untaxed and unsalaried home work (this includes child care, domestic work, cooking, gardening, diy)
Next we have to examine each individual's capacity to undertake work.
This will take into account the limitations imposed by disabilities, foreignness, age and infirmity, skills and physical attributes and of course I.Q and even sometimes religion.
And so we must modify the statement again to read Some but not all work is good for some but not all people.
Now taking this statement in context as to where it comes from or who validates it ergo the government we must also seek to establish from a capitalist acquisitive view point whether their ethic encompasses all types of work or just some (salaried) types of work.
First we need to look at what constitutes work in a capitalist society and how wealth is acquired.


Maslows Heirarchy of Needs


More to follow....