The language of inclusion

A Guardian article today (9 October 2010) focuses on the meaning of ‘Big Society’. We are told that [the?] Big Society is about ‘passing power to the lowest possible level’, so that organisations are more responsive to the needs of those using them. One aspect of this is, the writer continues, to ‘encourage more people to play a role in society.’

A little later in the piece it is claimed that, ‘Opponents sneer that people don’t have time to attend meetings and determine local issues…’

My question here concerns the mode of dialogue required for dialogue about common interest and endeavour.

* Can commentary intended to make the case for social cohesion remain convincing, when it dismisses ‘opponents’ as simply ‘sneering’?

* Is it important in developing messages about inclusion, to acknowledge that those who disagree may be doing so out of genuine conviction, not simply because they wish to oppose?

Posted on October 9, 2010, in Media and Messages and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: