SOCIAL EXCLUSION AS A STRUCTURAL PHENOMENON
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2026.2.27Keywords:
discursive practices, marginalization, social deviance, cultural liminality, mass man, Foucauldian analysis, network interaction, conformismAbstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of social exclusion as a structural phenomenon that limits the representation of marginalized groups and their participation in social life. Contemporary theoretical approaches to understanding the problem and mechanisms for restoring the voice of excluded subjects are considered. It is shown that, despite a significant amount of research, the problem remains unresolved due to the gap between critical theoretical models of deconstruction of power hierarchies and the real capacity of social institutions for change. As a result, there are no stable mechanisms that would ensure the visibility and voice of the excluded and contribute to the formation of an inclusive society. Particular attention is paid to institutional and mental barriers that are reproduced through dominant discursive practices and mass consciousness, which, in turn, standardize the behavior of individuals and groups, limit their autonomy, and make the subject socially “invisible.” It has been established that the spread of the information society and network interaction destroys traditional hierarchies and territorial restrictions and reveals new opportunities for horizontal interaction, self-organization, and the formation of alternative communities that will give a voice to the excluded. At the same time, it has been found that these same processes create new forms of exclusion associated with algorithmic unification, the pressure of self-presentation standards, conformism, and the formation of information bubbles. In such conditions, the visibility of excluded subjects often turns out to be conditional and dependent on compliance with dominant norms and discourses, which in fact reproduces the logic of exclusion in new, technologically mediated forms. It is emphasized that overcoming social exclusion in modern conditions requires a permanent rethinking of the very logic of social interaction, as well as a critical analysis of institutional, symbolic, and digital mechanisms of power and mental and symbolic barriers that block the independent representation of excluded subjects and thus reproduce their social invisibility. Against this backdrop, it is argued that the formation of an inclusive society requires the creation of an open, horizontal environment in which otherness ceases to be a source of alienation, and the voice of each subject acquires real social significance and the ability to influence joint decision-making processes
References
Alvisi L., Popa V., Cola G., Tardelli S., & Tesconi M. (2025). From toxicity to conformity: Adaptive user behavior to social norms in Telegram communities (arXiv:2511.17333). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.17333
Anzaldúa G. (2021). Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
Bhabha H. K. (1984). Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse. October, 28, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/778467.
Foucault M. (1961). Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique. Paris: Gallimard.
Graffius S. M. (2024). How algorithms shape the user experience on social media platforms. https://scottgraffius.com.https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29149.01767.
Guha R. (1983). Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency in colonial India. Oxford, India: Oxford University Press.
Institut Mémoires de l’édition contemporaine (n.d.). Groupe d’information sur les prisons (GIP) – fonds. IMEC
Archives. https://imec-archives.com/archives/fonds/159GIP.
Spivak G. C. (1992). Can the subaltern speak? In P. Williams & L. Chrisman (Eds.), Colonial discourse and postcolonial theory (pp. 66–111). New York: Columbia University Press.
Storozhuk S., Petraniuk A., et al. (2023). A healthy society: Social challenges of digitalization and the ways to overcome them (the Ukrainian experience). Wiadomości Lekarskie, 76(9), 2103–2111. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202309129
Wellman B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In M. Tanabe, P. van den Besselaar, &
T. Ishida (Eds.), Digital Cities II: Computational and Sociological Approaches (pp. 10–25). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Бодріяр Ж. (2004). Симулякри і симуляція (В. Ховхун, пер.). Київ: Вид-во Соломії Павличко «Основи».
Дерріда Ж. (2004). Cogito та історія божевілля. Письмо та відмінність (с. 65–131). Київ.
Казаков М. (2015, 18 вересня). Гранд-наратив у історії. Спільне. https://commons.com.ua/uk/grand-narativ-uistoriyi/.
Кубійович В. (1949). Положення, границі й територія України. Енциклопедія українознавства. Загальна частина (ЕУ-I) (т. 1, с. 17–29). Мюнхен, Нью-Йорк.
Ортега-і-Гасет Х. (1965). Бун мас. Видання ООЧСУ.
Токарева В. О. (2022). Трансформація віртуальної ідентичності: від множинності до єдиної автентичності в мережі Інтернет. Актуальні проблеми вітчизняної юриспруденції, (3), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.32782/392295.
Фуко М. (1998). Наглядати й карати: народження в'язниці (П. Таращук, Пер.). Київ: Основи.
Фуко М. (2003). Археологія знання. Київ: Видавництво Соломії Павличко «Основи».





