‘Every moment has potential’ … but for what?

1. ‘Every moment has potential’ … but for what? Theorizing Encounter through Freedom, not Inclusion Stacy Clifford Simplican Women’s and Gender Studies Vanderbilt University

2. Beyond inclusion • In 2011, Bigby and Wiesel proposed encounter as a new dimension of social inclusion • They suggested that encounter inhabits a space both between and beyond presence and participation • But what if encounter is beyond inclusion? • In other words, why else might we value encounter?

3. Freedom in the encounter “For Beauvoir, to encounter others is not only a fact of existence; it is the only way to produce and experience freedom.” • Marso, 2017, p. 2, original emphasis Lori Jo Marso Professor Political Science Union College

4. Outline of talk • Situate today’s talk in trajectory of work on social inclusion • Explain briefly encounter in the field of intellectual disability • Present Marso’s conceptualization of encounter • Define key concepts related to encounter: • Freedom, Ambiguity, Situation, Violence • Present Marso’s new typology of encounter • With enemies, allies, and friends • Explain why freedom—and not inclusion—in the encounter matters • Special attention to relationships marked by challenging behavior

5. Part 1: Background

6. Why inclusion?Finding common ground as a postdoctoral fellow

7. Column 1: What is it? Column 2: What is not social inclusion? Column 3: What is it for?

8. Decoupling inclusion from communitarian democracy Why do we value social inclusion? Does belonging better capture our values? Co-author Geraldine Leader

9. Radical Democracy • Power • Democracy is not the absence of conflict, but open contestation • Patterns of domination can be contested anywhere • Difference • Idealizations of harmony threaten to silence difference • Passion • Too much emphasis on consensus leads to apathy and disaffection with political participation • Inclusion should evoke passion: anger, disappointment, rage, joy, excitement

10. What makes a concept successful? A successful theory “needs to be recognizable as ‘imperative’, ‘crucial’, or ‘key’” (Davis, 2006, 70). Inclusion may be one of the most imperative goals in the field of IDD. Examples: Nothing about us without us Inclusion Ireland Inclusion (Journal) Special Olympics new campaign: Say the Word: Inclusion

11. Why did inclusion emerge as a central value, and not freedom?

12. Part 2: Encounter in the Field of Intellectual Disabilities

13. Between presence and participation • “Encounter refers to social interactions between strangers in public places, which consist of fleeting contact or longer and more convivial moments where a common purpose is shared. These are neither simply anonymous free mingling (usually seen in community presence), nor interaction based on established relationships (usually seen as community participation)” (Bigby and Wiesel 2015, 308).

14. Three Types of Convivial Encounters Bigby & Wiesel, 2019 Photos taken from the online training resource Every Moment has Potential

15. Built-in boundaries enable convivial encounters “It is relatively easy for people to engage in contact with people who are different when the rules of the situation are clear and when they do not need to negotiate boundaries because the boundaries are provided.” • Bredewold, Tonkens, & Trappenburg2016, 3384

16. Three types of less inclusive encounters Bigby & Wiesel, 2019 Photos taken from the online training resource Every Moment has Potential and from the Irish film Sanctuary.

17. To foster convivial encounters, we need: • Places with shared purpose, clear norms, and opportunities for interactions • People with experience, comfort, and confidence to engage with people with intellectual disabilities • Skilled support workers who can provide the right amount of assistance at the right moment • Bigby and Wiesel, 2018, p. 10 • But could we need something else? • Could the concept of freedom make a difference?

18. Part 3: freedom IN THE ENCOUNTER

19. Returning to Marso returning to Beauvoir • “For Beauvoir, to encounter others is not only a fact of existence; it is also the only way to produce and experience freedom. Being with others is a foundational quality of freedom. Ambiguity, contingency, situation, and nonsovereigntycharacterize encounters, and each produces, diminishes, or destroys freedom (2017, 2).

20. Life is marked by ambiguity and vulnerability; yet, inequality renders some more vulnerable than others 2. Situationcaptures how life is “structured by embodiment, consciousness, inequality, and oppression” (63). Freedom “Self chosen action,” that resists oppressing others. Meaningful acts. 3. “How we maneuver and what we do within this entanglement constitutes political freedom. Our actions here enhance or diminish freedom” (2017, 4).

21. Situation “The language of situation speaks to the fact that freedom is not best understood as ontological or ethical. … By highlighting situation and structure, we can see that freedom is linked to circumstance but that we still have agency. Structure does not eclipse our capacity to move; it situates and makes it possible.” (Marso, 3)

22. Ambiguity “While situation speaks to the constraints of structure, ambiguity highlights the lived experience of embodied subjects.” (3)

23. Encounter “To speak of encounters, we must acknowledge the social and political constraints of situation and the ethical imperative to acknowledge ambiguity, but we also see struggle and plurality. … When we foreground encounters we notice that individual subjectivity and individual or group agency do not exist prior to but rather emerge from encounters.” (4)

24. Freedom “While situation and ambiguity define the potential for individual and group autonomy, agency, and action, freedom itself is possible only within encounters. We are in the world, always acting within (unchosen) structures—within nature, historical events, class (caste or group), the shifting political meanings accorded to bodies in terms of age, ability, race, sex, and gender. Our freedom, however, is not defined or measured by how much autonomy or agency we achieve against or from these situations but rather is only ever possible in relationships to others.” (4)

25. Violence • “Because Beauvoir prioritizes encounter as the site and space of freedom, and because encounters always involve risk, she does not think violence can be completely eliminated from our lives, although she insists that we should organize politically in ways that will likely minimize it” (94). • “even intimate relationships are indelibly marked by violence, [and] violence is always lurking” (94).

26. Three types of encountersMarso, 2017

27. Concluding Marso • “we must grasp freedom to make it grow even in airless spaces” • “Carving up the world into enemies, friends, and allies…emphasizes the felt and lived intimacies of how politics happens” • “the body [is] the primary site where political freedom, as well as affect, violence, and destruction, are located and ideologies take hold”

28. Part 4: encountering challenging behavior And the promise of freedom

29. Why go beyond inclusion? It is saturated by the promise of happiness

30. Challenging behaviors challenge inclusion and its promise of happiness • According to Geraldine Leader and Arlene Mannion (2016): • “Challenging behaviors include self-injurious behavior (SIB), stereotypic or repetitive behaviors, aggressive behaviors towards others, destructive behaviors, and disruptive behaviors” (209). • They also discuss challenging behaviors around food—such as food refusal, pica (eating non-food items), and rumination (regurgitating food)—,toileting problems, and wandering and elopement (i.e. running away).

31. Embracing ambiguity • Encounter—the word itself—is ambiguous • It must be paired with affective qualifiers (exclusionary or convivial) • Marso makes ambiguity an ontological fact • It cannot be undone, only diminished • Ambiguity speaks to the reality of our experience • Relationality can lead to joy and happiness, but also bitterness, fear, and sorrow • Behaviors that challenge can amplify ambiguity • But the refusal to acknowledge ambiguity can result in unfreedom

32. Understanding the situation • Few places exist for people or relationships marked by behaviors that challenge • Situations that enable encounters: • Service transactions in which employees have become allies • With dogs • With nature

33. Acknowledging reality of violence • Marso’s theory of encounter makes violence a possibility of all relationships • Violence is also a threat to encounter and freedom • Yet, I want space in the theory and scholarship on encounter to think about violence

34. Relational necessity & porosity • Marsoargues that freedom can only be experienced in the encounter • This is particularly salient for people with IDD and challenging behavior • For Marso, the categories of enemies, allies, and friends are porous • Relationship are complex • We are not always friends or allies – we can become enemies

35. The promise of freedom • Challenging normative identities and behaviors • Finding and cultivating allies • Building solidarity

36. Conclusion

37. Some questions to consider • Can a shift to freedom from inclusion help address the lived experiences of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities? • Might we see parallel shifts in U.S. activism from disability rights to disability justice? • How do we ensure that encounter remains conceptually and affectively open? • What possibilities exist within negative or ambivalent encounters?

38. References • Ahmed, Sara.2007. Multiculturalism and the Promise of Happiness. New Formations. 63. 121-137. • Bigby, C. and Wiesel, I. 2011. “Encounter as a Dimension of Social Inclusion for People with Intellectual Disability: Beyond and Between Community Presence and Participation.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability. 36(4): 263-267. • Bigby, C, and I. Wiesel. 2015. “Mediating Community Participation: Practice of Support Workers in Initiating, Facilitating or Disrupting Encounters between People with and without Intellectual Disability.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 28(4): 307-318. • Bigby, C. and Wiesel, I. 2018. “Using the Concept of Encounter to further the Social Inlcusion of People with Intellectual Disabilities: What has been Learned?” Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. • Bredewold, F., Tonkens, E., and Trappenburg, M. 2016. “Urban Encounters Limited: The Importance of Built-In Boundaries in Contacts Between People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities and their Neighbors.” Urban Studies 53(16): 3371-3387. • Leader, Geraldine and Arlene Mannion. 2016. ‘Challenging Behaviors.’ In Handbook of Assessment and Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, ed. Johnny L. Matson. Springer: New York.

39. References • Marso, Lori Jo. 2017. Politics with Beauvoir: Freedom in the Encounter. Duke University Press: Durham and London. • Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. Verso: London and New York. • Simplican, S.C. 2018. Conceptualizing Community Participation: Measurable Outcome or Buzzword? Research and Practice in Intellectual Disability. Online early view. • Simplican, S. C., Leader, G. 2015. Counting Inclusion with Chantal Mouffe: A Radical Democratic Approach to Intellectual Disability Research. Disability & Society, 30(5): 717-730. Special Issue ‘Disability: Who Counts? What Counts?’ Co-author Geraldine Leader. • Defining Social Inclusion of People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: An Ecological Model of Interpersonal Relationships and Community Participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38: 18-29. Co-authors Geraldine Leader, John Kosciulek, and Michael Leahy.