Some food for thought based on my experience that "democratic" is commonly
used as a word of value, i.e. democratic = good, undemocratic = bad. So
undemocratic becomes everything you don't agree with. (Compare this to the
Mirror's headline were vote for Bush= stupid.) Very much in the same way as
"pure social model thinking" = good is in some cases. Neither of these words
carries within themselves these values.
Democracy can in essence be seen, just as the Social Model, as a heuristic
tool. Thus the ultimate Democracy is a theoretic concept, something to
strive for. And what shape this, ultimate version of what the democratic
concept should be, is something debated within research and theory formation
on Democracy. There is no single Truth but maybe some minor truths, basic
common denominators agreed upon within the arena of democracy studies.
Theorists seem to "agree" that a democracy should provide its citizens with
access to:
A democratic dialogue before decision making.
An equitable voting process.
Information and knowledge on the political issues.
The political agenda.
Now these are all demands for institutional structures a democratic
state/organisation/etc. should enact. So "democratic outcome" of the US
election only says something about the way the institutions behind the
election process work. Now we can argue that they are more or less
fulfilling the democratic denominators, but in real it says very little
about whether the country fulfils the ideals within the concept of the
Social Model. And basically it is very much connected to how we define and
limit the group/"DEMOS"/the people. In some US states prisoners or
ex-convicts are excluded from the group. Are disabled people living in
institutions included? A theory of democracy based on the basic common
denominators above will conclude this as being democratic. Democracy's
cradle, the old Athenian city state, excluded all except free Athenian men.
In fact when we measure how many countries worldwide could be viewed as
democratic we still look at male suffrage. Disabled people are, based on a
qualified guess, excluded in more places than they are included. How many
countries provide access for persons with learning difficulties? There are
as many versions of this as there are versions of
disability/disablement/social model thinking.
There are theorists, for example Robert A Dahl who claim that there should
be a fifth criteria for democracy:
Inclusion/participation - the citizenship of a democratic state must include
all individuals living under its laws.(For example this list would be
democratic if it allowed all its members to have a say on which subjects
should be on the agenda. After all its definition of our "demos" is open to
all interested. But then we don't vote on decisions so maybe we don't need
to address the other criterias.)
Now "inclusion/participation" can be seen from a limited perspective as
right to participate in the institutions created after the ideal of the four
basic common denominators, i.e. limiting the concept of democracy to the
actual election process. Or, it can be seen as a demand on a society based
on equal opportunities, i.e. extending the concept of democracy to social
life in general. Whichever you prefer could be claimed as democratic. Isn't
this one of the dividing points between Bush and Kerry - to what extent they
want the institutions to intervene in the life of citizens. I'm not saying
they are at opposite ends of the scale, just that they seem to be on
somewhat different positions on it. This of course depends on whether you
define equal opportunities as including health care. Democracy is not the
same as social model.
As far as I know, Social Model theorists have not really taken on and
analysed the model in connection with the concept of democracy. Garland
Thomson wrote about the view of the citizen in American democracy in
connection to the view of the disabled person (autonomy vs dependency?), if
I remember correctly, in Extraordinary Bodies. But I haven't come across
anything on the structural level.
If any of you have references to books or articles on this subject I would
very much like to know.
Warning :-) before going overboard and claiming that the social model is
ultimate democracy, know that democracy is connected to market economy. Now
from a certain social model perspective market economy would be capitalism
and capitalistic structuring of labour market the chief disabling mechanism.
It's not an easy marriage, is it?
Susanne
-------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Berg
Luntmakargatan 86 A
113 51 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
telephone/fax +46 (0)8 15 73 54mobile phone +46 (0)70 515 73 56
e-mail [log in to unmask]
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|