![]() This characterization mirrors the segregation of the poor into 'deserving/ undeserving' categories associated with the Elizabethan Poor Laws, a set of principles about 'deservedness' for benefits that dates from the early 1600's in England and remains the basis of much social welfare policy today (Lightman, 2003). The controversy surrounding episodic disabilities within ODSP guidelines derives from the legacy of medical model discourse that sustains biologically driven representations of bodies as either able (and employable) or disabled (and unemployable) (Cohen et al., 2008 Moss, 2000). Second, this paper unsettles the orthodoxy of "either/or" constructions of bodies as able/disabled and healthy/ill in favor of contingent, fluid identifications that more effectively reflect the embodiment of persons living with episodic disabilities and their economic security needs. ![]() First, we attempt to extend understanding of the experience of episodic disabilities within the wider scope of the lived experience of disability. Given that categorical status is an essential buffer against the deepest forms of poverty (Beatty, 2005), individuals who cycle in and out of the workforce because of fluctuations in health and who encounter challenges in getting and keeping work, 'fall through the cracks' of the social welfare system (Mayson et al., 2005 Driedger, 2003). They must continually defend the contested credibility of their volatile bodies and situations. Since persons with episodic disabilities are neither always well nor always sick, as they move between periods of health and illness, they fit in no standardized categories as they attempt to qualify for benefits. The core problem lies in the complexity of the eligibility determination process (Fraser, Wilkey, & Frenschkowski, 2003 Mayson, Vander Plaats, & Wintermute, 2005). This paper describes how persons living with episodic or fluctuating disabilities (Banks, 2003 Canadian Working Group, 2007 Vickers, 2001) frustrate statutory classification within the ODSP. Under ODSP, those categorized as 'disabled' are offered modest income security along with exemption from work expectations and many other bureaucratic harassments. Although the provincial election of 2003 introduced a new government with an ostensibly 'softer,' more caring agenda, earlier welfare reforms, including the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), the long-term disability income support program established in 1998, remain intact today (Lightman, Mitchell, & Herd, 2005). Benefits were slashed, eligibility tightened, and a new, inaccessible delivery system was introduced. In 1995, the provincial election in Ontario saw the rise of a neo-liberal government that advocated radical welfare reform in Canada based on developments in the United States. Consequently, persons whose disabilities do not conform to corporeal templates of government classification remain on the economic margins of society. ![]() While the Canadian government recognizes tensions in the ways disability has conceptually evolved beyond paradigms emphasizing bodily incapacity to an identification of the social environment as constructing and influencing the experience of disability (Canada, Office of Disability Issues, 2003), this awareness remains largely absent in practice at the provincial level. Many experts argue that given the complex nature of disability, no one definition fits across all circumstances or is even desirable and achievable. Institutional definitions of 'disability status' often conflict with the unique ways that disability is embodied in the everyday lives of individuals. ![]() For persons living with episodic disabilities who apply for long-term income assistance, this determination process is typically highly problematic. Application forms, replete with boxes to be checked and blanks to be filled in, inscriptively characterize bodies crudely as either disability eligible, or not. Bureaucracies and government programs typically require fixed categorization to determine eligibility for various benefits related to disability. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |