‘I'm Alright, Thanks’: Non-Conformity and the Media Framing of Social Inclusion

Abstract

The concept of social inclusion generally is discussed as an ideal to which there is no opposition, and to which policy and practices in society necessarily must be directed. This article discusses how current notions of social inclusion in policy, academic and media discourses are related to historical representations of social disadvantage. It also discusses how social inclusion policies and ideas in Australia accord with cultural values and ideals of egalitarianism, but conflict with the values of non-conformity and anti-authoritarianism celebrated in the national identity. It examines how the media framing of social inclusion is influenced by the received understanding and historic representation of social inclusion, as well as how media representations of non-conformity in Australia are framed by a mythology of Australian journalists and journalism as larrikins and non-conformist. It argues that while media framing of social inclusion frequently reflects and promotes the dominant perspective as constructed by government and academic discourses, Australian media reporting is able at times to provide a positive alternative to the homogenising and bureaucratic view of social inclusion by championing and celebrating non-conformity and anti-authoritarianism.

Exploring Hugo Chávez’s use of mimetisation to build a populist hegemony in Venezuela

“…Colette Snowden (2012) argued that it is difficult to explain the notion of inclusion without explaining "social exclusion", a concept that has been broadly defined as "the lack of participation in society" (McLean & McMillan, 2009, para. 1).…”

“…1). Snowden (2012) employed the definition of the United Kingdom's Social Exclusion Unit (1997) to explain exclusion as the "short hand label" situation in which individuals or groups "suffer from a poor combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor environment, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown" (p. 65).…”