The Contested meaning of “Community” in Discourses of Deinstitutionalization and Community Living in the Field of Developmental Disability

Abstract

Purpose – This chapter focuses on notions of community as related to the discourse around “community living” for people with labels of developmental disabilities, especially as they emerged during and after deinstitutionalization. Following Foucault, this chapter asks whether institutionalization and community living should be conceived of as two separate epochs or as governed by similar logic. The second focus of the chapter is in the ways notions of “community” were evoked by various stakeholders such as parents of children with labels of mental retardation, professionals in the field of developmental disability, and those of formerly institutionalized peoples themselves.

Methodology/approach – This chapter employs the methodological aspects of the work of Michel Foucault and constructs a genealogy of notions of community in relation to deinstitutionalization and the field of developmental disabilities.

Findings – “Community” has been discursively produced in several forms: as a binary opposite of “institution,” as a set of human relationships, and as a paradigm shift in relation to the way developmental disabilities should be conceptualized. It remains unclear whether we have truly moved from an institutional model to a “community-based” model for those with developmental disabilities.

Originality/value of the chapter – Reconceptualizing deinstitutionalization and community living as discursive formations aids in the understanding of the difference between abolition of institutionalization as a mindset and other formulations of the concept of “community” in the field of developmental disabilities.

Citation

Ben-Moshe, L. (2011), "The Contested meaning of “Community” in Discourses of Deinstitutionalization and Community Living in the Field of Developmental Disability", Carey, A.C. and Scotch, R.K. (Ed.) Disability and Community (Research in Social Science and Disability, Vol. 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 241-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3547(2011)0000006013