I believe that one of the most significant questions for the twenty-first century for those concerned with “the disadvantaged” has to be whether and to what extent this equality/antidiscrimination logic has lost its effectiveness as a critical tool and what, if anything, should be the foundation of the rationale that supplements or even replaces it. To raise questions about the current dominant paradigm is not to argue that equality and antidiscrimination are not important or necessary concepts. Equality and antidiscrimination were unarguably essential steps in the evolution of a just society. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, formal rules, as well as functioning norms, were built on assertions of fundamental differences among groups defined by gender, race, and other characteristics. These distinctive group categories also established a world of hierarchical, legalized identities in which some were susceptible to different, often demeaning treatment. However, with the formal distinctions now removed and equal access the norm, it becomes apparent that the problems in society often transcend discrimination and exclusion from social institutions. Indeed, there may be substantial problems with those institutions and their organization not revealed by the jurisprudential logic that flows from an equality/antidiscrimination paradigm, which may place obstacles on the ability to remedy (or even address) existing inequalities.

Beyond Equality and Discrimination

Voor veel mensen met een functiebeperking geldt dat zij op wettelijk geregelde voorzieningen moeten vertrouwen voor hun basale levensbehoeften. De aannames van de wetgever betreffende welke noden van deze groep tot de verantwoordelijkheid van de maatschappij behoren, bepalen dus de mate waarin zij in deze behoeften kunnen voorzien en hoe zij – en hun omgeving – hun leven kunnen inrichten. In dit artikel wordt onderbouwd waarom de huidige aannames van de wetgever een grote groep mensen met een functiebeperking in de steek laten. In de participatiemaatschappij staan deelname aan de reguliere arbeidsmarkt en vertrouwen op het eigen netwerk namelijk centraal. Dientengevolge schiet de huidige sociale zekerheid voor mensen die niet of niet gedeeltelijk kunnen werken en geen daadkrachtig netwerk te hebben, veelal tekort. Een begin van de oplossing van dit probleem, zo wordt voorgesteld, is het opnieuw waarderen van bijdragen buiten de reguliere arbeidsmarkt en het uitbreiden en bestendigen van de voorzieningen voor mensen met een functiebeperking.

/pdf/wanneer-je-leven-bepaald-wordt-door-de-wet-over-handicap-uv763chthx.pdf

Wanneer je leven bepaald wordt door de wet: over handicap, regelgeving en identiteit

De grote golf van het sociale stelsel

It is perhaps a truism to state that the world, as it is presently furnished, is ill-suited to the needs of those with mental and physical impairments.1 Such impairments, whether they are caused by accident or by age, are a manifestation of our universally shared vulnerability. As such, these needs concern us all.2 But if we consider one of the most important rights questions engendered by these needs – namely the access to care and support for those who care for others – we can observe that this concern seems not to have been translated towards proper institutional arrangements.3 When we take the goals and obligations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as a benchmark, the public health systems of liberal states, including those states within the tradition of social liberalism, demonstrably fall short.4 As a result, persons who experience impairments – and their caretakers – are often bereft of proper participation in society

/pdf/addressing-problems-instead-of-diagnoses-39o1u95z3u.pdf

Erwin Dijkstra

Papers

Addressing Problems Instead of Diagnoses