Universalism II: Integration and Involvement

Abstract

Richard Titmuss believed that ‘it is now (or should be) an objective of social policy to build the identity of a person around some community with which he is associated’.¹ This integrative objective ‘is an essential characteristic distinguishing social policy from economic policy’.² The market mechanism is too individualist to conceive of the organic and neglects the vital importance (both positive and normative) of harmonious community relations and a sense of involvement. It is clearly not suitable for a subject such as social administration — of which the ‘primary areas of unifying interest are centred in those social institutions that foster integration and discourage alienation’.³