1 / 11

reproducing inequalities in a device of participatory democracy

reproducing inequalities in a device of participatory democracy. The users ’ committee of a " Centre communal d’ACTION SOCIALE " (CCAS). Julie Voldoire – PhD in political science, Research Associate at the Centre Emile Durkheim (Sciences Po Bordeaux).

rianna
Télécharger la présentation

reproducing inequalities in a device of participatory democracy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. reproducinginequalities in a device of participatorydemocracy The users’ committee of a "Centre communal d’ACTION SOCIALE" (CCAS) Julie Voldoire – PhD in political science, ResearchAssociateat the Centre Emile Durkheim (Sciences Po Bordeaux).

  2. INTRODUCTION. THREE STRUCTURING CONTRADICTIONS OF THE USER’S COMMITTEE. • Case studydealingwith : • a"Communal Center for Social Action"( in a townof 283 000 inhabitants in the region Pays de la Loire) ; • andmore specifically a deviceof participatorydemocracycreated by the CCAS and calledUsers’ Committee(CU). Formerly, welfare offices, the CCAS got in 1986 (decentralizationlaws) global competence in social and medico-social assistance. They are an important tool for local social action. • The analysiswill show how the device of participatorydemocracy established by the institution isendangered by the institution itself. • Genesis of this work : • A Postdoctoral researchconductedwithin the OUEST project(Offre, Usage et Expertise des Services au profit du Territoire) whichfocused on the "non take-up"of social benefits and services. • Axis # 3 of the project: "Access to emergency municipal benefits" or voluntarybenefits.

  3. Short description of the Users’ Committee : • Referring to the 1998 orientation lawon "prevention and the fightagainstexclusion", the CCAS creates the Users’ Committee in 2002. • Extract of the Charter of the Users’ Committee : "It means, collects the needs, problems, social realitiesfromwhichitcanimplementexperimentalactivities. The results of these actions may lead to changes in social intervention". • Mandate of 2 yearsduringwhichworking groups are setting up aroundspecificthemes. Example of created group : "Facilitating the access to social benefitsand services"alsocalled"non take-up group". • "Non take- up group"iscomposed of : 20 members (beneficiaries, volunteers and leaders of local associations), 2 professionnals and 1 towncouncillor.

  4. Central questions : • How do participants consider the Users’ Committeeand more particularlythe issue of access to social benefitsand services (or "non-take-up")? • How far itprovidesan understanding of the device of participatorydemocracythatthe Users’ Committeerepresents? • Which are the constraints of the participation? • Hypothesis: • The role of "representative" whichisgiven to the participants and the shape of social requalification convenientlyattached to this roleisjeopardized by the institution itself and reproduces : • the previousinequalities ; • and more generally the social but alsopolitical and administrative order. • Empiricalmaterial: • 6 sessions (2 hours) of focus groups ; • 8 individual interviews with participants ; • 2 participative observations during the plenary of the Users’ Committee. • Plan - 3 parts, 3 contradictions whichquestion the initial aimsof the device and particularly the implication of citizens in the discussion of local public affairs.

  5. 1. Motivations for participation contradicted by the institutionalorganization • Justifications of participants • Only3 justifications are accepted** or tolereted* by the institution. Individualism Monetaryincomesobtained by the multiplication of social benefits ** Attachmentto the place of life and sense of belonging Value or belieforientedrationality Instrumental or purposiverationality ** Senseof duty and sense of beinginvested of a "mission" *Improvesocial relationshipsand break isolation Holism

  6. The course of the Users’ Committee • The"coaching" - The case of the working groups of the Users’ Committee Threeparametersdefine the "coaching" : • Location : solemncharacterconferred by the "bigrooms of the former city hall building", waiting in the marriage hall etc. • Time : atregularintervals, upon notice, necessity to justify the absences etc. • Purposes : sessions dealingwithcommonthemes and serving the public interest. • The "scripting"(Loïc Blondiaux, 2007) - The case of plenaries sessions • Establishinga code of conduct, modelingthe individuals, infantilization, controlingpublic speeches etc. • Stagingcangeneratehumiliation for participants. •  "Coaching "and "scripting" endanger the initial motivations of participants resulting in disappointment and progressive divestmentsdespite of material and symbolicrewards. • If the Users’ Committeeis a system of participatorydemocracy and not a deliberativemuchless a decision-makingpublic body, professionals and towncouncillorsplay on the ambiguity.

  7. 2. THE NON TAKE-UP ISSUE : A FREE OR UNDER DURESS REFLECTION • Reasonsof "non take-up"of optionalbenefitswhich are lived, perceived or supposedby the participants:lack of awareness, fear of stigmatization, discouragingsteps etc. • According to the participants: "Ideallyweshouldgetbenefitswithoutbeingrequired to claim them". • But this proposalis dissonant withthe principlesof deliveringbenefits in France: • Access to the benefitsmust berequested by the person, • and resultsfrom the collaboration betweenbeneficiaries and professionnals. • Administrative violence appearswhenthis implicitcontractisbroken or aborted.

  8. The institution considersthe reasonsmentionedabout "nontake-up" but the "solutions" are blacklisted. • Indeed, theseproposalschallenge the basis of accessto social benefits and services : • The benefitnecessarilyproceedsfrom a voluntaryact; • the granting of social benefitsisbasedon eligibilitycriteria ; • Regulation of social benefitsdoes not followinvariant mathematicalrules. • The CCAS created a "non take-up group" within the CU to obtainthe consent of participants to legitimize the agenda setting of a public policycalled"fightagainstnon take-up". • The contradiction between the proposals of the participants and the basis of the welfareendangersthe device of participatorydemocracy. Therefore this initiative appears as a "governmentstrategy" (John Clarke, 2013).

  9. 3. Politicalsubjectsversus homo administraticus • If participants claim the possibility of beingpoliticalsubjectstheinstitution reducesthem to the role ofhomo administraticus. • In this way, weobserv a process of an institutional acculturation whichcanbedefined as the internalization by all participants of the values​and patterns promoted by the institution. • Two seeminglycontradictoryways: • Domestication • Empowerment- Example: Promoting the principles of populareducation. • The main objective of the Users’ Committeewould not be to gather the profane’sspeakabout non take-upbut to publicizethe norms and the rulesof the institution. However, the institution promotes the ordinary speech and considersit as beingdepoliticized.

  10. Conclusion. Denial of citizenshipskills. • If taking part in the Users’ Committeeis the result of a multiplicity of motivations, ideallythe aimis to transcendindividualinterests, to provetheir goodwill and finally to serve the public interest. • However, the institution itselfhinders the idealfunctioning of the Users’ Committee. • Despite of the empowerment(mobilizationof principlesof populareducation for example), the User’sCommitteereproduces the inequalities. • Example of the reproduction of inequalities : the "ability to politicallyconsent" (Yves Déloye, 2007) of the participants isnot estimated. • In thisway, the User’sCommitteisa simulacrum of participative democracy.

  11. BibliographY • Baillergeau e., 2008, "Intention formative, éducation populaire et intervention sociale au Québec", Savoirs, 18, 3, 11-35. • Blondiaux l., 2007, "La démocratie participative sous conditions et malgré tout. Un plaidoyer paradoxal en faveur de l’innovation démocratique", Mouvements, 50, 2, 2007, 118-129. • Clarke j., 2013, "L’enrôlement des gens ordinaires. L’évitement du politique au cœur des nouvelles stratégies gouvernementales ? ", Participations, 2, 6, 167-189. • Déloye Y., 2007, "Pour une sociologie historique de la compétence à opiner politiquement. Quelques hypothèses de travail à partir de l’histoire électorale française", Revue Française de Science Politique, 6, 57, 775-788. • Duchesne S. Ethaegel F., 2008 (2004), L’entretien collectif, Armand Colin, Paris. • Simmel G., 1999 (1908), Sociologie. Études sur les formes de socialisation, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 404-452 (Chapter 6 : « Le croisement des cercles sociaux »). • Warin P., 1999, "Les ressortissants dans l’analyse des politiques publiques", Revue Française de Science Politique, 49, 1, 103-121. • Warin P., "Le non-recours : définitions et typologies », June 2010, URL : https://odenore.Msh-alpes.Fr/documents/wp1definition_typologies_non_recours.Pdf (accessed May 3, 2014). • Weber M., L’éthique protestante ou l’esprit du capitalisme, URL: http://classiques.Uqac.Ca/classiques/weber/ethique_protestante/ethique_protestante.Pdf, (accessedJune 25, 2014). Thankyou for your attention!

More Related