Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2015, Blaðsíða 109

UPPELDI OG MENNTUN/ICELANDIC JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 24(2) 2015 109
KRISTÍN BJÖRNSDÓTTIR & STEINDÓR JÓNSSON
himself and was difficult to live with. We lived together for a couple of years until
everybody realized that this was not working anymore.
Having the freedom to choose where to live and having access to housing is among
those valuable functionings described by Sen (1992) which would lead to a person’s
well-being because the decision is based on his/her interest or values.
PARTICIPATION
Sen (2001) defines social inclusion as ‘society’s widely shared social experience and
active participation, by a broad equality of opportunities and life chances for individ-
uals and by the achievement of a basic level of well-being for all citizens’ (Sen, 2001,
p. 74). The research literature suggests that upon graduation from upper secondary
school, people with intellectual disabilities spend most of their time participating in
segregated activities organized for people with intellectual disabilities, such as Spe-
cial Olympics, sheltered workshops, and continuing education classes (Björnsdóttir
& Traustadóttir, 2010). We found no evidence that people with intellectual disabilities
are being forced to participate in segregated activities, but they do not seem to have
much control over these activities either. Also, their freedom to choose different activ-
ities is often restricted by for example limited economic resources (Björnsdóttir, 2010).
We argue that this type of participation could be identified as an unfavorable form of
inclusion.
Many problems of deprivation arise from unfavourable terms of inclusion and ad-
verse participation … [It is] very important to distinguish between the nature of a
problem where some people are being kept out (or at least left out) and the charac-
teristics of a different problem where some people are being included – may even be
forced to be included – on deeply unfavourable terms. (Sen, 2000, pp. 28–29)
Since people with intellectual disabilities have limited control over these segregated
activities we raise the question whether they would have chosen to participate if
they had been presented with different options. They are participating, but not in
mainstream society, and they might not have a realistic option to reject this form of
inclusion. While employment in sheltered workshops is often a welcome change
from the status of non-participation, it is often not the employee’s chosen vocation.
Also, the sheltered workshops are insufficient to sustain adequate livelihoods and, as
mentioned above, do not secure basic workers’ rights or access to unions. Sen (2000)
argues that unfavorable inclusion is a source of deprivation. Segregated activities and
unfavorable inclusion relate to how society and its institutions are organized which
creates obstacles for those who have been labeled with intellectual disabilities. These
obstacles are commonly associated with their impairment or limited personal func-
tionings. We claim, however, that such reasoning underestimates the complexity of
deprivation since the denial or lack of access to rights and resources can influence the
opportunities for participation.