Overview

Given this understanding of identity as multiple and constructed, the question is how this affects people’s lives. Since individuals flourish when they are able to navigate multiple identities successfully, and they suffer when these identities are sources of marginalisation, it is necessary to understand individual life experiences by a simultaneous consideration of all the groups to which an individual belongs. This section highlights how diversity provides a richer inclusive framing than a standard norm-based approach to social development.

Key Findings

Individuals experience social exclusion on account of being regarded as ‘different’: e.g.., people with disabilities (PwDs) or due to the existence of social norms that according ‘lesser’ value to some groups, e.g., rural or indigenous people. Excluding individuals due to personal attributes or because they belong to a minority culture is antithetical to an ASEAN vision where no one gets left behind.

A social justice-based lens must become a central feature of ASEAN identity building, with a focus on dealing with distributional inequities in access to resources, education, and health outcomes for marginalised individuals and groups.

Prioritise the direct participation of PwDs in policy dialogues, with support from DPOs and CSOs, to continue the move away from a medical model and towards a human rights-based perspective of disabilities.

Policy Implications

A wider definition of the socio-psycho-biological model of disability can be an important way forward for policies to ensure the full inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities. As the demographic profile of ASEAN moves to a greater preponderance of older age groups in the population, there will be increasing unmet needs where the abilities of older individuals do not fit easily with their environments. The design and implementation of a more inclusive policy making process for older citizens would do well to consider policies that focus on bringing in the following features:

Pushing for change through collective action in the household context (e.g., through local organisations that use the convening power of the older generation such as active grandmothers). By drawing on change makers in the household policy can create an ‘insider’ advocate for change who can manage attempts in the community who are opposed to social change and react by embarking on a strategy of social ostracism

Encouraging Community Based Organisations (CBOs), which is an area where the ACWC has made considerable progress, has a democratizing process as it expands the sphere of active participation and leadership for local women (H. Khan, 2020)

The distinction between urban and rural is not simply that between sending and receiving areas. The implications for rural areas and the rural population are not simply that of a ‘remainder’. The rural sector is complex, with specific concerns that need to be addressed as distinct from those of the urban sector.

Previous ChapterCommunication, Language & Technology and How We Speak and Listen

Next ChapterWho Are We? Identity Construction and Multiplicity