Marginalisation: Concept and Definitions

Marginalization is a process whereby something or someone is

pushed to the edge of a group and accorded lesser importance. This
is predominantly a social phenomenon by which a minority or sub-
group is excluded and their needs to ignored. For example some
products will undergo marginalization when they longer have the
need to fill that they used to have in the part.

Marginality is an experience that affects millions of people

throughout the world. People who are marginalized have relatively
little control over their lives, and the resources available to them.
This results in making them handicapped in delving contribution to
society. A vicious circle is set up whereby their lack of positive and
supportive relationships means that they are prevented from
participating in local life, which in turn leads to further isolation. This
has a tremendous impact on development of human beings, as well
as on society at large.

The concept of marginality was first introduced by Robert Park

(1928). Marginalization is a symbol that refers to processes by
which individuals beyond groups are kept at or pushed beyond the
edges of society. The term outsides may be used to refer to those
individuals or groups who are marginalized.

In general, the term ‘marginalization’ describes the overt actions or

tendencies of human societies, where people who they perceive to
undesirable or without useful function, are excluded, i.e.,
marginalized. These people, who are marginalized, from a group or
community for their protection and integration and are known as
‘marginalized groups’. This limits their opportunities and means for
survival.

Furthermore, the term marginalization refers to individual on groups

who live at the margin of society. Their situations may be historical
on cultural as they suspend between social classes or cultural
groups without being fully integrated to it. The term has different
connotations and nuances in the modern era of postcolonial, post-
modern period and in world that is pre-dominantly driven by market
forces. In cultural anthropology marginalization is a major subject of
study in which ethnic groups and their social situations are studied.
It may have various forms like class, caste, gender, community and
so on at one level and at the other level groups who are subjected to
economic and social hardships. There groups may still be
marginalized at multiple levels in a country like India which has
witnessed tremendous socio-political changes in both pre-
independence and post-independence period.

Marginalisation is both a historical reality and a context specific

phenomenon. Structure and variants of marginality indicate a
common character of domination of some groups and individuals
and weakness and ineffectiveness of a large number of people at a
same time. In other words, it shows dominance of a minority of
people and subjugation of a large majority in specific societies.
Patterns of injustice and inequality characterize the phenomenon of
marginalisation in all over the world. In the Indian subcontinent and
especially within the broad fold of Hindu social orders, the
marginalised are designated to be the out- castes represented by
the antyajas and the shudras belonging to the social categories of
untouchables and others practising unclean ascribed occupations
and extra- mural manual activities of various sorts. Within the
conventional cultural framework of the varna system they are
provided with stigmatised existence and are considered to be
impure and are kept away from varieties of social and cultural
interactions with the higher varnas, like the Brahmins, Kshatriyas
and Vaishyas. They are conditioned to survive at the margin of society –
socially, culturally, politically, economically and even geographically.
Traditionally they have remained associated to ascribed occupations
compelling them to concentrate on low – paying jobs, or ‘unclean’
occupations to accept exploitative terms and conditions of work and to
remain insecure socially and politically. Many of these social and cultural
stigmas are also extended to women, tribal and religious minority groups.
There is continuous exclusion of women towards men.

In society certain communities are ignored and excluded because they

speak a different language, follow different customers or belong to a
different religious group from the majority community. This is called
marginalization. Marginalization is the social process of being confined to
a lower social standing. Marginalization involves people being denied their
fundamental rights which results in lowering their economic and social
status. They experience inequality and discrimination.

Peter Leonard defines marginality as, “. . . being outside the

mainstream of productive activity and/or social reproductive activity”.

The Encyclopedia of Public Health defines marginalized groups as, ‘To

be marginalized is to be placed in the margins, and thus excluded from
the privilege and power found at the center”.

Latin observes that, “‘Marginality’ is so thoroughly demeaning, for

economic well- being, for human dignity, as well as for physical security.
Marginal groups can always be identified by members of dominant
society, and will face irrevocable discrimination.”
According to Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary ‘to put or keep
(someone) in a powerless or unimportant position within a society or
group’.

Ghana S. Gurung and Michael Kollmair mention that the concept of

marginality is generally used to analyse socioeconomic, political, and
cultural spheres, where disadvantaged people struggle to gain access to
resources and full participation in social life. In other words, marginalized
people might be socially, economically, politically and legally ignored,
excluded, or neglected, and, therefore vulnerable to livelihood change.
According to Sommers et. al., "Socio-economic marginality is a
condition of socio-spatial structure and process in which components of
society and space in a territorial unit are observed to lag behind an
expected level of performance in economic, political and social well-
being, compared with average conditions in the territory as a whole"

These definitions are mentioned in different contexts, and show that

marginalization is a slippery and multilayered concept. Marginalization
has aspects in sociological, economic, and political debates.
Marginalization may manifest itself in forms varying from genocide/ethnic-
cleansing and other xenophobic acts/activities at one end of the spectrum,
to more basic economic and social hardships at the unitary
(individual/family) level.

Marginalization is often described as a social process where people are

relegated to the fringes or `margins of the society. It is defined as a
process, in which individuals or communities are socially excluded,
systematically blocked from, or are denied access to participate in social
and political processes which are basic to integrate with the society.
Marginalization inhibits a person, a group, a section or a community to
enjoy rights, privileges, opportunities and resources that are normally
available to members of a society. It may therefore be considered as a
discordant relationship between those who marginalize as compared to
those who are being marginalized. Then possibly the term `marginalized’
may be used synonymously with the term `oppressed’ in comparison to
an `oppressor’ as Paolo Freire used in his famous `Pedagogy of
Oppressed’, `proletariat’ as used by Karl Marx, `subaltern’ used by
Gramsci, `powerless’ as elaborated by Michel Foucault, or exploited,
vulnerable, discriminated, disadvantaged, subjugated, socially excluded,
alienated or downtrodden as used elsewhere in the available literature.

Social exclusion

“Exclusion consists of dynamic, multi-dimensional processes driven by unequal power

relationships interacting across four main dimensions—economic, political, social and
cultural—and at different levels including individual, household, group, community, country
and global levels. It results in a continuum of inclusion/exclusion characterized by unequal
access to resources, capabilities and rights which leads to health inequalities”, (Popay and
others, 2008, p. 2).
“Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack or denial
of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal
relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in
economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals
and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole”. Social exclusion is what can happen
when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment,
poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, poor health and family breakdown.

Stereotype

The first use of the term “stereotype” was in the late 1700s. At that time, it referred to a
printing process in which metal plates were used to create reproductions of images and prints.
It was not until the early 1920s that the term became common parlance when journalist
Walter Lippmann likened stereotypes to “pictures in the head,” or mental reproductions of
reality. Since then the term has evolved into its current usage—cognitive schemas or beliefs
used by people to process information about or guide behavior toward individuals or social
groups.

The term “prejudice” has had a somewhat shorter history. Prejudice was not widely used in
the research literature until the early 1930s when researchers linked stereotypes with attitudes
and prejudice (Katz & Braly, 1933). They further associated the negative aspect of
stereotypes to prejudice.

Stereotypes refer to both positive and negative overgeneralizations or beliefs about the
attributes and behaviors of individuals and/or groups. For instance, stereotypes about women
include both negative (e.g., overly emotional, unassertive) and positive (e.g., nurturing,
empathetic) attributes. Prejudice typically refers to the negative aspects of the stereotype.
In this case, associating women with the attributes overly emotional and unassertive would be
considered prejudice. Prejudice is also captured by the negative affective reactions one feels
toward a group in the absence of any concrete thoughts or beliefs about that group, such as a
generalized fear or dislike of Muslims. In other words, prejudice can be just a “bad feeling”
that arises without the need for any associated thoughts or beliefs.

Stereotypes are not fundamentally harmful or even inaccurate in some cases (e.g., the Dutch
are tall, Germans make good cars, Canadians are polite); they are often considered part of a
normal cognitive process that allows for the preservation of scarce cognitive resources (e.g.,
Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000).

Stereotypes simply occur through the act of categorization. It is how individuals act on those
stereotypes that can make them “harmful.” Prejudice and stereotyping often go together, yet
it is possible to have one without the other. On the one hand, a person may be aware of the
stereotypes about a group but not endorse or act upon those stereotypes. On the other hand,
following a young African American male around a clothing store without offering to assist
him could be viewed as acting in a prejudicial manner. However, the person enacting these
behaviors may not necessarily be thinking about or even be aware of the stereotypes
associated as African Americans (e.g., criminal)

Otherness
Othering is discursive process by which a dominant in-group (“Us,” the Self) constructs one
or many dominated out-groups (“Them,” Other) by stigmatizing a difference – real or
imagined – presented as a negation of identity and thus a motive for potential discrimination.
To state it naïvely, difference belongs to the realm of fact and otherness belongs to the realm
of discourse. Thus, biological sex is difference, whereas gender is otherness. The creation of
otherness (also called othering) consists of applying a principle that allows individuals to be
classified into two hierarchical groups: them and us. The out-group is only coherent as a
group as a result of its opposition to the in-group and its lack of identity. This lack is based
upon stereotypes that are largely stigmatizing and obviously simplistic. The ingroup
constructs one or more others, setting itself apart and giving itself an identity. Otherness and
identity are two inseparable sides of the same coin. The Other only exists relative to the Self,
and vice versa.

Subaltern

The term ‘subaltern’ was coined by Antonio Gramsci. Initially it was widely used to denote
inferior rank in army, but nowadays, the term subaltern implies people of inferior rank for
his/her various attributes such as economic condition, race, ethnicity, gender, caste, sexual
orientation and people are marginalised for such attributes. Thus subaltern perspective is the
way to understand society from the below. The people who are marginalized for various
reasons in a stratified society produce knowledge and have politics of their own.
The dominant historiography or writing of history and study however excludes them from
their concerns. Subaltern perspective looks into those who are neglected and marginalized
and contrasts it with the elite perspective. Italian Neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci initiated the
concept of subaltern in his Prison Notebooks to signify marginalised people. In general,
subaltern implies people who are of inferior ranks, but, Gramsci uses the term in much
broader sense than its general meaning.
By subaltern, he meant all kinds of non-hegemonic those who did not occupy powerful and
upper class status groups in a class divided society. As such, subaltern implies group or
individuals who are outside the power structure. They are made subaltern or subordinated by
the dominant hegemonic power structures and they suffer under dominant power relations.
The term subaltern came into popular academic debate after a group of scholars started
publishing series of essays and volumes under the title Subaltern Studies on the tribal
movement and peasant insurgencies and rebellions of colonial India. It is evident that apart
from the mainstream nationalist movement the colonial power faced various tribal uprisings
and peasants insurgencies in India. Such resistance and movements were ignored by the
mainstream historiography or the study of writing histories’.

History of Subaltern studies in India

Ranajit Guha and Subaltern Studies

The subaltern studies which emerged in India as a post-colonial theory is about re-writing
history of the people. This project is mostly credited to Ranajit Guha and his colleagues such
as Partha Chatterjee, David Hardiman, Shahid Amin, Gyanendra Pandey, David Arnold,
Sumit Sarkar and Dipesh Chakrabarty. The subaltern historiography i.e. the methods of
studying history is concerned with the “history of the subaltern people”. The basic premise of
the subaltern history was to look at the history from below or the history of the subaltern
people as opposed to the elitist perspective in history which ignores their contributions in
making of history. Dhanagare (1988) has pointed out that the subaltern historiography
approach seeks to restore a balance by highlighting the role of politics of the people as
against elite politics played in Indian history. According to Guha, the subaltern
historiography focuses on the peasants and tribal movements during colonial period in India
as it has been overlooked by the dominant mainstream elitist historiography. To him, the
neglect of the politics of the people – and the contributions of the subaltern classes in the
nationalist.
movement makes Indian history incomplete. Further, according to him, the elitist
historiography has the tendency to analyse Indian nationalism and freedom struggle as an
idealist venture of the indigenous elites who led people from subjugation to freedom. Such
historiography emphasises the role of the individual leaders or of organisations and
institutions as the major force during the freedom struggle. Dhanagare (1988) asserts that ‘the
followers of this approach argue that elitist historiography, whether of the neo-colonialist or
of the neo-nationalist variety, has always overstated the part the elite played in building
Indian nationalism but it has failed to acknowledge and less properly interpret the
contributions made by the people (masses) on their own, independently’.

Guha (2013) in his article entitled “Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India,”
argues that the historiography of the Indian nationalism was dominated by these elitists who
were the colonial and bourgeois nationalist. This type of historical writing gives the
impression that the Indian nation and the consciousness of nationalism was an achievement
of only the elites. The contributions made by the people in this regard has no relevance.
Although they have made their contribution during the freedom struggle ‘independent of the
elite’ in making and development of the Indian nationalism. On the other hand, the elitist
perspective of history writing portrays their articulation and uprising as the law and order
problem. The one sided perspective considers Indian nationalism as the response of the
charisma of certain elite leaders. Thus, the subaltern historiography overlooks the politics of
the people. The subaltern historiographers argue that there was politics of the subaltern
classes in the nationalist movement parallel to the politics of the dominant elites. Their
politics did not originate from the elite politics and did not depend on their elite politics. For
them the subaltern is an autonomous domain. Thus, subaltern approach in studying the
peasants and tribal movements in India is an important milestone because it examines the
politics of the people and in opposition to the politics of the elites.

Dhanagare (1988) argues for and constructed a twofold division between the ‘people’ and the
‘elite’. Both are viewed as two domains of the nationalist movement. He constructs structural
dichotomy or the divisions in the structure of society. The politics of the people did not come
from the politics of the dominant groups. They are the indigenous people, marginalised
groups and classes of the laboring population and the intermediate strata in town and country.
They are diverse groups of people who do not share common or uniform ideology but the
interesting common feature among them was a notion of resistance to elite domination.

David Hardiman’s Study of the Devi Movement

Like Ranajit Guha David Hardiman is also one of the core members of the subaltern
historiography movement in India. He focused mainly on the history of South Asia during the
colonial period. In his works, he emphasises on the impact of colonial rule on the rural
society and their assertions. His analysis of Indian nationalism and independence movement
has given new insights in understanding the local power structure and nationalism. He
examined the role of local peasants’ activities and Adivasi (tribal) assertions during the
colonial time especially in western India. He has used ethnographic and archival sources to
analyze movements of western India to promote the subaltern studies in India. He has studied
the Devi movement which took place in Gujarat during 1922-23.

It was Adivasi tribal movement by tribal peasants against the moneylenders, landlords and
liquor shop owners Hardiman in his article titled “Adivasi Assertion in South Gujarat: The
Devi Movement” (Subaltern studies Vol. 3) discusses about the assertion of the Adivasis
against the liquor dealers for the harmful effects of liquor on the people of their community.
The colonial Abkari Act of 1878 banned all local manufacture of liquor and permitted a
central distillery at the headquarter town of the district. The liquor dealers used to pay large
amount of money to the government to run the distilleries in addition to the license to sell the
liquor in the tribal villages. The distribution of liquor badly affected the lower caste people,
especially the Adivasis. Hardiman narrates the adverse effects in his article. Inspite of certain
control over liquor sellers they continued to have a monopoly on the sale of factory-made
alcohol and its distribution amongst the clusters of villages of Adivasis. The excise officials
were being bribed for distribution of factory made liquor and illicit distillation (Hardiman
2013: 203-4). The profit made by the money lending and liquor selling by them was huge
being and was invested by them in land. The Adivasi community was affected and got
addicted to drinking. Their lands were mortgaged or sold to the liquor shop owners.