reproducing inequalities in a device of participatory democracy

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!