Between ideology and utopia
The book explores the discourse constructed around the process of deinstitutionalization of social services for people with disabilities. The main perspective is the sociology of knowledge as formulated by Karl Mannheim in his work Ideology and Utopia. In this perspective, the assumptions of the med...
Uloženo v:
| Hlavní autor: | |
|---|---|
| Médium: | Online |
| Jazyk: | polština |
| Vydáno: |
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
2025
|
| Témata: | |
| On-line přístup: | ONIX_20250307_9788383315584_727 |
| Tagy: |
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Shrnutí: | The book explores the discourse constructed around the process of deinstitutionalization of social services for people with disabilities. The main perspective is the sociology of knowledge as formulated by Karl Mannheim in his work Ideology and Utopia. In this perspective, the assumptions of the medical model of disability are identified as the dominant ideology, while the contesting utopia represents the approach of the social and human-rights model. The parties using ideology and utopia were conventionally named conservative and reformist, respectively. Among the parties creating the discourses of deinstitutionalization, groups with specific experiences of disability constituting their socio-behavioral situation were identified: people with disabilities, their families, employees of support institutions, decision-makers building and implementing social policy and allies of people with disabilities. An additional factor, taken into account, is access to power understood as the ability to influence the formulation and implementation of social policy. The analysis is based on texts which reflect the discourses created by various experts between 2012 (ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Poland) and 2022 (adoption of the Strategy for the Development of Social Services). The parties' conflictual functioning, “talking past one another” and making ad hoc alliances leads to the conclusion that deinstitutionalization is an endeavor that will never be finally concluded. The parties' separate sets of thoughts, based on different understandings of the same concepts, do not allow them to communicate effectively and thus to work towards a common deinstitutionalization project. |
|---|