Social Well-Being

By Tanis Doe

For the last 40 or 50 years, people with disabilities have been collectively knocking on the door of mainstream society and asking to be let in, with only moderate success. Sometimes, to help us gain their attention, a doorbell is installed, or a wider door or even electronic doors which open at the push of a button, but sometimes there is no one home. The Roeher Institute is perhaps one of those buttons which, when used, provide the community with insight into the possibilities of passing through the doorway and living together.

In its 1993 publication Social Well-Being, the Roeher Institute proposes a different kind of model which would have mainstream society walk through that door, to our side, and welcome people with disabilities in the social, economic and political system. The model being offered is not one of co-dependency but interdependency and valuing diversity.

Marcia Rioux, the institute’s director and key author of this publication, makes it clear that this proposal is a new "paradigm for reform" and not the panacea for people with disabilities but a new way of thinking and implementing policies which would benefit all Canadians.

Through careful historical review, well-considered discussion and innovative thinking, this reform proposal deals with the very foundations of social and political society by targeting "security, citizenship and democracy." Rioux reframes the social and political system under self-determination, democratization and equality within the framework of social well-being for communities, individuals and the society at large. In particular, Social Well-Being looks at the economic and social welfare systems to understand the roots of the current paradigm of "assistance" and "independence" for people with and without disabilities.

Although critical of the current "charity"-based welfare system, Rioux is effective in describing the evolution of services from early 1930s to the post-war framework and the "revolution" of the ’60s. Despite the gains of the Charter of Rights in modern years, Rioux identifies and explores the holes in the safety net. Or, as she puts it: "Our ’sacred’ trust of social welfare is designed more like a bungee cord than a safety net. It is insecure, discretionary, restrictive, stigmatizing and inequitable."

The paradigm of reform offered by the Roeher Institute in this package is not entirely new or original. The paper itself credits the work of the Canadian Association of Community Living, and the many provincial and national groups which are part of the social movement of people with disabilities, as being instrumental in developing this "modest proposal."

Equality, a new idea? Democratization, a radical idea? Self-determination, an original concept? People with disabilities have been collectively arguing for these admirable goals for years. So what does this paradigm have that is so radical and so "modest"?

When people with disabilities ask for "special treatment" it is couched in the language of accommodation, integration, equity and rights. People with disabilities, as Rioux describes in the report, have moved away from being passive recipients of charity to being active citizens in their community. With the consciousness-raising and technological changes, expectations have risen and people with disabilities have demanded access to the community. But social and political response to these demands have been slow, fragmented and ineffective at best. The global economy, the environment, sustainable development and the "debt"are political priorities difficult to compete with.

The "modest" proposal that Social Well-Being offers is that the entire system be designed with specific goals and principles in mind, that inclusivity and sustainability are only possible if the policies and programs reflect the community and individual needs and not the demands of the government. Rioux describes this proposal:

"First, there would be a shift from policy fragmentation to policy coordination. Policies worth pursuing would be those that could be shown to contribute to social well-being. Policies and institutional arrangements would be evaluated against the social well-being framework. The economy would no longer be seen as an end in itself but as a means to social well-being. Government deficits would continue to be a concern, but a clearer focus would be placed on the deficits in social well-being, their root causes and their consequences. The environment would not be considered as some independent entity ’out there’ but as interdependent with people and their communities. Governments would not be solely judged according to indicators of size, expenditures of deficit, but more on the roles they play in enabling or diminishing social well-being."

The paradigm also proposes cooperation of communities of interest, integration of policy areas and sustainability as integral parts of a new framework for social well-being. The basis for this "radical" proposal is a transition or transformation from security to equality, from citizenship to self-determination, and from democracy to democratization.

The latter process is very familiar to many people with disabilities. The movement to self-managed services, consumer control over services, labour force development boards, coordinating groups, consumer advisory councils and community health councils are all examples of the "democratization" of society, the process by which people have a say, a right to input, a method of evaluating services or programs which affect them. But the Roeher Institute is asking that we look on a much larger scale than the 15 per cent of the population with disabilities. The radical idea is that everyone should do this -- everyone.

All communities and people, but especially those who are marginalized or disadvantaged, should be part of the decision-making and goal-setting. The idea is that the whole system should become focused on structural equality, self-determination and participation in the decision-making process. People would be supported in the pursuit of aspirations, their choice of how to reach those aspirations, and the development of their capabilities. Communities would likewise be supported in setting goals, reaching those goals and growing socially, economically and politically.

"Equality is the third essential element. A broad notion of equality is now required so that differences such as gender, race and ability can be accommodated in ways that result in equality of well-being in the context of diversity. When efforts to strengthen security, citizenship and democracy are guided by this new framework, social well-being will be closer to its realization."

The Roeher Institute is well known for its social commentary and analysis as well as its support for people labelled as having intellectual disabilities. This particular work may be an example of the efforts of Rioux and her colleagues to address the larger issues of society, beyond people with intellectual disabilities, beyond people with disabilities in general and beyond social and political analysis. The work addresses the environment and economic sustainability issues as well as the political climate of discontent that is common to most of Canadian society and not limited to the experience of people with disabilities.
Although this insightful document is well-researched and can be read almost as a "manifesto," it does contain a considerable amount of jargon and politically correct language which can confuse or intimidate even the more experienced readers. At some points the paper appears to idealize or simplify the complex nature of the problems we face in society today by "saying the right thing." The inclusion of gender issues, race relations and Aboriginal rights seemed almost perfunctory, although clearly there are intersections, connections and applications among all the issues outlined in the work.

The Roeher Institute has, again, given us something to think about, and act on.

(Tanis Doe is a freelance writer living in Victoria, BC.)