Advertisement

Framing Life as Work: Navigating Dependence and Autonomy in Independent Living

  • Adrianna Bagnall Munson
Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

This paper offers an ethnographic account of the context of autonomy for participants at Moving Toward Independence in the Community (MTIC), an independent living program for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In the case at hand, staff interventions are planned around goals, frame that increases temporal distance between the staff and participants by locating the object of action in the future. Similarly, suggestions establish social distance between staff intervention and participant action by placing the responsibility to act on participants. Together, goals and suggestions make up a larger interpretive frame that I call lifework, a method of explaining action that recasts dependence as work toward future autonomy. Lifework is a neoliberal frame that recognizes obligation as a legitimate part of adult life, normalizes the force society exerts on individuals, and interprets this force in daily life as “work.” Other analyses of this neoliberal project highlight the work of institutions to remove people from dependency by changing their habits, practices, and frames of mind. This research often frames neoliberal projects of social control as a coercive force that subverts autonomy. This is not the case at MTIC, where I find that lifework is also an important symbolic mechanism for constructing autonomy. I show that autonomy is best understood as an ongoing and collaborative project to construct social and temporal distance around the individual. This project is both practical, preparing participants for action when they are alone, and ethical, a frame that is necessary for understanding autonomy amidst dependence.

Keywords

Autonomy Carework Governance Disability Ethnography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for input on this paper from Gil Eyal, Debbie Becher, Diane Vaughan, Guillermina Altomonte, and my writing group, Pierre-Christian Fink and Kathleen Griesbach. The SKAT working group in the Department of Sociology at Columbia University also read an early draft of this paper and provided invaluable feedback. Three anonymous reviewers provided thoughtful feedback, which helped me hone the final argument you see here.

Funding Information

This study was funded by a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (award #1802591) as well as a research grant from the Department of Sociology at Columbia University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, Joel, and Axel Honneth. 2005. Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition, and justice. In Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism: New essays, eds. John Christman and Joel Andersen, 127–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anscombe, Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret. 2000. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bagnall, Adrianna, and Gil Eyal. 2016. “Forever children” and autonomous citizens: comparing the deinstitutionalizations of psychiatric patients and developmentally disabled individuals in the United States. Advances in Medical Sociology 17: 27–61.  https://doi.org/10.1108/S1057-629020160000017002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barclay, Linda. 2000. Autonomy and the social self. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 52–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braddock, David. 1999. Aging and developmental disabilities: Demographic and policy issues affecting American families. Mental Retardation 37 (2): 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braddock, David, Eric Emerson, David Felce, and Roger J. Stancliffe. 2001. Living circumstances of children and adults with mental retardation or developmental disabilities in the United States, Canada, England and Wales, and Australia. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 7 (2): 115–121.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodwin, Paul. 2013. Everyday ethics: Voices from the front line of community psychiatry. Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-013-9353-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Zeng-Yin, and Howard B. Kaplan. 2003. School failure in early adolescence and status attainment in middle adulthood: A longitudinal study. Sociology of Education 76 (2): 2 110–2 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christman, John. 2004. Relational autonomy, liberal individualism, and the social constitution of selves. Philosophical studies 117: 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, John. 2007. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. Cosimo.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203361832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drinkwater, Chris. 2015. Supported living and the production of individuals. In Foucault and the government of disability, ed. Shelley Tremain, 229–244. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Durkheim, Emile. 2001. The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103 (2): 281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Estroff, Sue E. 1981. Making it crazy: An ethnography of psychiatric clients in an American community. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eyal, Gil, and Brendan Hart. 2016. Was tun autismus-therapien eigentlich (wenn sie autismus nicht heilen)? In Zu einer klinischen und kulturellen diagnose, ed. Netzwerk Entresol, 13–59. Zurich: Spheres.Google Scholar
  19. Ferguson, Philip M., and Dianne L. Ferguson. 1993. The promise of adulthood. In Instruction of students with severe disabilities, ed. M.E. Snell, 4th ed., 588–607. Columbus, OH: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Ferguson, Philip M., and Dianne L. Ferguson. 1996. Communicating adulthood: the meanings of independent living for people with significant cognitive disabilities and their families. Topics in Language Disorders 16 (3): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foucault, Michel. 1975. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  22. Friedman, Marilyn. 2000. In Autonomy, social disruption, and women. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 35–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hacking, Ian. 1999. Making up people. In Reconstructing individualism, eds. T.L. Heller, M. Sosna, and D.E. Wellberry, 161–171. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haney, Lynne. 1996. Homeboys, babies, men in suits: The state and the reproduction of male dominance. American Sociological Review 61 (5): 759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haney, Lynne. 2010. Offending women: power, punishment, and the regulation of desire. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harbers, Hans. 2010. Animal farm love stories: About care and economy. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms. In Verlag, eds. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols, 141–170. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  28. Ho, Anita. 2008. Relational autonomy or undue pressure? Family’s role in medical decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 22: 128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Korr, Wynne S., John A. Encandela, and Donald Brieland. 2005. Independence or autonomy: Which is the goal? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 28: 290–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2003.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Levinson, Jack. 2010. Making life work: Freedom and disability in a community group home. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mackenzie, Catriona and Natalie Stoljar. 2000. Autonomy refigured. In Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self, eds. Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, 3–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McCorkel, J. 2004. Criminally dependent? Gender, punishment, and the rhetoric of welfare reform. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 11 (3): 386–410.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxh042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCorkel, Jill A. 2003. Embodied surveillance and the gendering of punishment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 32 (1): 41–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241602238938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKim, Allison. 2014. Roxanne’s dress: Governing gender and marginality through addiction treatment. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 39: 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mol. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mol, Annemarie. 2008. The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. New York City: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreira, Tiago. 2010. Now or later? Individual disease and care collectives in the memory clinic. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, eds. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols, 119–140. Verlag. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  39. Osgood, D.Wayne. 2005. On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pols, Jeannette. 2010. Telecare: What patients care about. In Care in practice: On tinkering in clinics, homes and farms, eds. Annemarie Mol, Ingunn Moser, and Jeannette Pols, 171–193. Verlag, Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  41. Reindal, Solveig Magnus. 1999. Independence, dependence, interdependence: Some reflections on the subject and personal autonomy. Disability & Society 14 (3): 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rivas, Lynn May. 2011. Invisible care and the illusion of independence. In At the heart of work and family: Engaging the ideas of Arlie Hochschild, eds. Anita Ilta Garey and Karen V. Hansen, 180–190. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rose, Nikolas. 1992. Engineering the human soul: Analyzing psychological expertise. Science in context 5 (2): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schram, Sanford F., Joe Soss, Richard C. Fording, and Linda Houser. 2009. Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review 74: 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shanahan, Michael J. 2000. Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 667–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silva, Jennifer M. 2012. Constructing adulthood in an age of uncertainty. American Sociological Review 77 (4): 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soss, Joe, Richard C. Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011. Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stoljar, Natalie. 2011. Informed consent and relational conceptions of autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36: 375–384.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhr029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Willhelm, Sidney M. 1967. A reformulation of social action theory. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 26 (1): 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations