Achieving citizenship and inclusion
We often talk about ‘inclusion’ and ‘citizenship’ but what do they mean in practice, how are they related to each other and how can they be achieved? Tim Stainton reflects on his experiences as a father and in his professional life in Canada to find some answers.
My son, who lives with a learning disability, likes to play a game when we are driving. The game involves reading the letters off licence plates and finding words that match the letter.
With great enthusiasm, he will shout out his name for one letter, the dog’s name for another but, when we come to F, he often becomes quieter and more introspective. He will quietly say ‘friends’.
He is an extremely likeable, engaging young man, loved by all who get to know him, greeted at school by students as he races from the car to the classroom, and very involved in school and outside activities, mostly designed specifically for people with disabilities.
But on weekends or holidays, when not involved in organised pursuits or out with the family or support workers, he sits alone playing Wii or watching YouTube. Nobody drops by to hang out. Nobody calls to see if he wants to do whatever teens do when not formally occupied. In short, while certainly part of his community, well liked and well supported, he does not have the kinds of informal, casual and caring relationships that provide the bedrock of community inclusion.
My son is also preparing for the transition from high school. We are fortunate to live in a jurisdiction that has reasonably well-developed support, individualised options and relatively strong protections for his rights. He also has two parents who are very familiar with how the system works and how to advocate on his behalf.
Despite this, it is clear that getting the support he needs to fully pursue his goals and dreams will not be easy. It is unlikely he will get the level of support he requires to easily and effectively pursue post-secondary education or find meaningful work. He is fortunate that, as a reasonably economically secure family, we can fill in the gaps – but should we have to? What of those without the options we have as a family?
If the fundamental goal of a true citizenship-based system of support is to provide people with the means to pursue their goals and dreams on a relatively equal footing with others, then the system, even one as developed as ours, seems to fall short of fully recognizing his citizenship.
Distinct and connected
So what do these two stories of our life tell us? I use them to illustrate the necessity and distinctiveness of the two concepts with regards to: our aspirations for a world where everyone’s citizenship is valued and recognised; and the idea of inclusion, a world where everyone feels a part of something, connected to a community and loved and cared for by others.
“The idea of a citizenship based on people having a type or degree of reason is no longer universally accepted”
Citizenship and inclusion are often used in tandem in discussions around learning disabilities and are frequently conflated into a single concept. It is, however, useful to consider each independently and the relationship between them to fully grasp their implications for people with learning (and other) disabilities.
I will review the two concepts independently then consider how they relate to one another and what each brings to our understanding of how to make a more inclusive world.
Citizenship: legal evolution
Citizenship generally concerns being a member of a political community and enjoying the rights and assuming the duties that come with membership.
Leydet (2017) sees citizenship as composed of three main dimensions: legal status, defined by civil, political and social rights; citizens actively participating in a society’s political institutions; and citizenship in a political community that furnishes a distinct source of identity.While all are relevant, we are mainly concerned with the first dimension here – legal status.
It is this legal status as citizens that has been denied to people with learning disabilities based on the view that they lacked the capacity for full citizenship. Recently, however, arguments have been made against this view on a number of grounds (Leydet, 2017).
The notion that citizenship stems solely from an individual’s capacity and autonomy has been challenged. It is argued that a person’s autonomy is in fact ‘relational’ (about their connections with other people) and that, similarly, capacity is a function not of a person’s independence but of their interdependence. Others have argued that we do not need the concept of moral capacity at all, as it is neither helpful nor necessary when deciding who should enjoy rights and protections (Silvers, 2012).
The idea of an exclusive citizenship based on people being required to possess a perceived type or degree of reason is no longer universally accepted. This idea is directly rejected in documents such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as in many national and other legal systems as a basis for policy and practice.
Finally, there is the question of the nature of the rights that come with citizenship. In general, rights in western legal systems are those things necessary to allow an equal pursuit of one’s own purposes and goals, but which are also consistent with a similar right for all. In more common terms, rights are those things that allow and support the exercise of one’s autonomy or self-determination. (Stainton 1994; 2005). Here I take citizenship to mean the range of formal recognition (in laws, policies, rights etc) and the instruments needed to effectively implement them (programmes, supports, interventions etc).
Inclusion and attitudes
Inclusion, on the other hand, is a less formal concept and is defined more by practice and attitudes than by laws. A general concept of inclusion applies to all aspects of social life.
Jordan (2011), writing in the context of general workplace inclusion, offers a succinct definition that can easily be applied to the disability realm: ‘Diversity means all the ways we differ. Some of these differences we are born with and cannot change. Anything that makes us unique is part of this definition of diversity…. Inclusion puts the concept and practice of diversity into action by creating an environment of involvement, respect and connection.’
At its heart, inclusion speaks to the way of being and belonging in community; it is about our connections and relationships to others, mutual respect and a deep sense of equality that goes beyond a formal equality that may or may not be present (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Inclusion is about being and belonging in a community that goes beyond formal equality
While formal citizenship can be achieved through lobbying, advocacy and political action, inclusion cannot be put into law or mandated. While it can be fostered, promoted and celebrated through a host of programmes, projects and campaigns, it is ultimately something that must be felt rather than enforced.
Focusing on citizenship alone may simply result in a formal equality where one is recognised as a citizen; however, the value of that citizenship is minimal if it does not result in valued participation, belonging and relationships in lives. On the other hand, simply focusing on inclusion without the formal rights and entitlements of citizenship risks at best a sympathetic paternalism; at worst, it risks the kinds of exclusion, abuse and marginalisation that have occurred in the past and still occur in the present.
Bach (2017) outlines how community connections are both a protection against exclusion and a means to achieve formal recognition of citizenship. Duffy (2017) also addresses the ways in which citizenship as a primary goal of social policy can contribute to the full inclusion of people with learning disabilities. He notes: “A community of citizens is not organised around narrow measures of human value; instead, it enables multiple forms of human value to be expressed.”
Both Duffy and Bach help explain how ideas of citizenship and inclusion interplay and are mutually reinforcing. Taken together, the two concepts provide a robust framework for moving forward towards a full and inclusive citizenship for people with learning disabilities (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Together, citizenship and inclusion provide a framework for moving forward towards a full and inclusive citizenship for people with learning disabilities
From a foundation in rights, we build towards a true sense of belonging and relationship, which is the ultimate goal of inclusion. The rights and support that come with citizenship provide the necessary foundation but are not sufficient to achieve full citizenship and inclusion (Figure 3).
Figure 3 The rights and support that come from citizenship provide a foundation but are not enough for full citizenship and inclusion
There has been much progress on the citizenship front over recent decades, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities coming into effect in 2008, which contains themes of both inclusion and citizenship. We have learned much about what kind of structures and policies support full citizenship for people with disabilities; individualised or direct funding, planning and facilitation, and a strong regime of supports to enable choices through mechanisms such as supported decision making (Stainton, 2005).
On the inclusion side, we have again seen much progress with the closure of institutions, improved access to inclusive education and greater public visibility and acceptance of people with disabilities. We have also learned a lot about the importance of personal connections and how to foster and sustain them.
But, on both the inclusion and citizenship fronts, much is left to be done. Many people are denied full rights of citizenship, while still more struggle to find true relationships and belonging – the keys to meaningful inclusion.
By attending to both citizenship and inclusion as distinct but mutually reinforcing concepts, we can perhaps move closer to our vision of a world where everyone’s citizenship is respected, and where everyone belongs.
Tim Stainton is the director and professor at the School of Social Work and director of the Centre for Inclusion and Citizenship, University of British Columbia, Canada. He has four children, one of whom lives with a learning disability
References
Bach M (2017) Inclusive citizenship: refusing the construction of ‘cognitive foreigners’ in neo- liberal times.
Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 4(1): 4-25
Duffy S (2017) The value of citizenship. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 4(1): 26-34
Jordan T (2011) Moving From diversity to inclusion. Profiles in Diversity Journal. 22 March
Leydet D (2017) Citizenship. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2017 edn. Zalta EN, ed. http://tinyurl.com/yyo3z44j
Silvers A (2012) Moral status. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 56: 1014-25.
Stainton T (2005) Empowerment and the architecture of rights based social policy. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 9(4): 287-96
Stainton T (1994) Autonomy and Social Policy. Aldershot: Avebury, 1994
Further reading
Stainton T (1998) Rights and rhetoric in practice: contradictions for practitioners. In: Symonds A,
Kelly A, eds. The Social Construction of Community Care. London: Macmillan: 135-144
