CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

Email: cpecs@phoenixtn.net
Deadline: December 22th 2003

BACKGROUND

Processes of marginalisation, exclusion and vulnerability of population groups are, directly or indirectly, strongly linked to inequalities in health. These processes are products of complex and inter-related causes and systems of categorisations. Poverty is probably the most commonly found and strong discriminator in time and space. Race as a biological/genetic concept has, scientifically and for ethical reasons, been abandoned as a social mode of classification in most societies. By its devastating historical misuse in social contexts and its legacies, it still has an impact on factual social exclusion or inclusion in today’s world. Ethnicity is a softer term in the modern discourse. At best, it reflects the cultural self-definition of a specific group, sometimes including its perceptions of health, lifestyles, etc. Ethnical groups have, however, also been defined, categorised and treated according to the perception of outsiders with far-reaching consequences for those who are categorised, also influencing their share of communal goods, health services, etc. Nor is the definition of specific cultures without complications, simplifications or stigmatising effects. As a matter of fact, even material inequalities have been used in order to distinguish cultures of poverty, which may lead to patronising and discriminating effects.

Consciousness of the stigmatising processes is an argument for the abandonment of such categories in the public discourse, especially when used in official registrations of populations. Still, however, the fact that these concepts have been used and made their impact on the conditions on those who have been members of these groups, is an impetus for an observation of its consequences for the welfare and health of those affected in order to put the attention to inequalities and inequities in social services.

Governments and minorities in Central and Eastern European countries do for instance not accept race registration and the organisation of systematic research, whilst discrimination based on connotations of race has a long history with a surviving negative legacy. The most evident example is the situation for the Romany populations. Other countries have met similar situations with different policies, for instance the disappearance of race in post-apartheid South Africa, the later use of the term formally disadvantaged groups and the present discussion on how to observe the remaining effects of a socially (and legally) created segregation on groups sorted out by the previous system. In the United States, the legacy of slavery on social conditions and health is still a problem that is observed and striking, which has legitimised the attempts to keep track of ethnic categories. Another example can be found in Western Europe, where there is a tendency to abandon even ethnicity and similar terms and instead discuss the situation of immigrants versus non-immigrants.

OBJECTIVES

This conflict between the dangers of stigmatisation and intrusion on the privacy on individuals versus the dangers of unawareness of negative consequences of socially constructed categories, verifies the need to stimulate a sensitive examination of this problem with examples drawn from different historical times and contexts. This aims at the identification of both general and context-bound problems of understanding and the need for knowledge for the elimination of social exclusion and inequity. Special attention will be paid to population registration motivations, legislations and practises. The working process will also need to establish a dialogue between social research and representatives of socially constructed minority populations.

The key element during the working year consists of the preparation and realisation of a workshop with:

1. empirical examples of the complex problem of social construction of categories of vulnerable populations in different societal contexts – origins, discourses, modes, consequences, attempts to handle conflicting goals, etc.
2. an analysis and discussion of conflicting goals and options for solutions that are acceptable for those who are in danger of being stigmatised

METHODOLOGY

We proposed a two tiers working scheme: preparatory meeting and general conference. The first scheduled steps will lead to a preparatory meeting for the general conference on Monitoring health status and vulnerable groups in Europe: past and present to be held within the fourth PHOENIX TN year if it is approved.

Establishment of a network covering (December 2003)...

• Eastern European countries with a significant Romany population not participating in PHOENIX TN (Bulgaria, Romania).
• Central-Eastern European countries with significant Romany population (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland).
• European Union member states with similar or other examples of the handling of potential dilemmas.
• Eventually inviting interested scholars with non-European experiences (for instance U.S.A. and South Africa) and examples for a wider understanding.

Preparation of work already in progress, or initiating new case studies, aiming at case/national reports on the monitoring of health status and vulnerable groups (January 2004-May 2004), for instance with...

• Historical background.
• Motivations and status of legislation/activities.
• Health status of vulnerable or marginalized key groups.
• Policy implications.

Preparatory meeting (May 2004)...

• 3 days meeting (1 person per 1 participating country).
• To present the results.
• To discuss the theoretical and methodological issues.
• To harmonize the methodology and focus of the cases.

Following this discussion, PHOENIX TN calls for network participants to show their interest in participating in the task to be accomplished. If you are interested in this field and methodology and you think you can contribute to the project, please, send a brief statement explaining your background and a draft for your contribution to cpecs@phoenixtn.net. (DEADLINE, December 22th 2003)