The gorillas in the zoo are not free.

In the better zoos, their enclosures are designed to simulate key features of free environments and prompt them to behave in ways that are similar to the ways free gorillas behave.

But the gorillas are not free.

It's freedom theatre.
We do that in home and community-based services, too.

We comply with the principle of normalisation -- disabled people's patterns of life should be "as close as possible to the ... regular circumstances and ways of life in their communities."

https://mn.gov/mnddc/bengtNirje/bengt_nirje11.html
You live in the same neighborhooss as other people, in the same kind of housing, furnished similarly, in similar household sizes. You get up at the same time as your neighbours, dress similarly, spend your days doing similar things, with similar kinds of people.
Home and community-based settings are now often designed to simulate what are seen as key features of community living.

Just like gorilla enclosures.
I once read a memo on creating home-like living environments for group home residents.

It contained detailed guidance on how to decirate the living room.

If you walk through a group home living room and the next door neighbor's living room, they might look the same.
There's a difference.

The neighbor decorated their own living room.

That may not matter to you as you tour where others live, but if a social worker gave someone else a budget for redecorating your living room and a memo on how to do it, you might have a thing or two to say.
Yes, when you have people getting their suppers at 5 and being sent to bed at 7, people living in dorms in cottages on institutional grounds, people left naked in huge filthy dayrooms and only offered clothes for family visits, normalisation was a step forward.
It's also apparently better for gorillas to have zookeepers hide food in the enclosure so they will engage in foraging-like activity rather than have all the food dumped in a pile in the open.

Still doesn't mean that gorillas in zoos are free.

Also? It's not 1964 any more.
@NatCounDis has defined "institution" as "a facility of four or more people who did not choose to live together." Four seems arbitrary.

@NationalADAPT and @NCILAdvocacy have been pushing the Disability Integration Act, which is cool with 4-person group homes.
In any event, although large-scale congregation is a significant part of how people have been institutionalized, it is not the main problem with institutions.

Segregation, restriction, and loss of freedom are.
@PeopleFirstCA has defined "institution" this way: "any place in which people who have been labelled as having an intellectual disability are isolated, segregated, and/or congregated. An institution is any place in which people do not have, or are not allowed to exercise ...
... control over their lives and their day to day decisions. An institution is not defined merely by its size."

I've defined an institution as a place where the people providing the supports are in control.

@lauralovesian centers "administrative control over people's lives."
Peter Park, cofounder of @PeopleFirstCA , once said, "What was that day [when I moved into my own apartment] like? That was wonderful. I had a key to my front door. I -- that was -- I, uh -- if there were -- I don't know -- ...
... I just wanted to celebrate with everybody and their neighbor, that, 'Okay, I'm free! I have my freedom! I can do what I want. I can get up, I can sleep in if I want to, get up when I want to, make my bed or not when I want to.' ...
... Things like that, everyday things, that everybody does. So I felt marvelous, wonderful, fantastic!"

Note that the everyday thing is not making the bed or not making the bed. It's *choosing* whether to make the bed.

If we focus on the duvet rather than the choice, we err.
I worked in a program once that was big on "empowering people through choice," and I began to document what that looked like.

"Alice was woken at 6:45. She was offered a choice between a red shirt and a green shirt and she chose red. She was offered a choice ...
... between cereal with milk and cereal without milk and she chose cereal with milk. Alice did not want to go to the day hab, but she was reminded that no staff are present during the day. Alice was offered a choice between putting on her jacket before the bus came ...
... or when the bus came and she chose to put it on when the bus came. She got into an argument with her roommate, whom she says she hates. She was given a choice of taking her lunch out of the refrigerator before the bus came or when the bus came and she chose before ...."
That's the illusion of choice. It looks good, as long as you don't look too close, or if you believe certain people are unsuited to freedom.

I was singled out for my excellence in documenting my program's commitment to empowerment through choice.
But that's not empowerment through choice.

Roland Johnson used to ask, "Who's in charge?"

You know who wasn't in charge? Alice.

She had choices *within the parameters the group home -- or her family, or the state -- thought were both reasonable and feasible*.
... The problem is that in most of the service system we have barely moved away from what an institution is, at all.

An institution is not created by the shape of the building. It's created by who holds the power, and what kind of power they hold."
"Alice" had 3 roommates. NCD would have said she was in an institution, and ADAPT and NCIL would have said she wasn't. People First of Canada, Ivan, Mel, and I would have said she was, but not for the reasons NCD says.
If the zookeepers make the decision that the zoo gorillas will engage in foraging-like behavior similar to what wild gorillas do, that doesn't mean the zoo gorillas are wild rather than captive.

And if I make you do what your free neighbours do, that doesn't make you free.
You can follow @Cal__Montgomery.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: