‘Do You Think I’m Stupid?’: Urban Encounters between People with and without Intellectual Disability

Introduction

Being amongst strangers is a definitive aspect of life in the modern city. Encounters, social interactions between strangers in the urban public realm, are moments where differences and boundaries of inclusion and exclusion are negotiated between individuals, contested or reaffirmed. New visions of urbanism valorise the transformative potential of the encounter between strangers as an alternative to more traditional visions idealising community that is based on familiarity and likeness (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). However, in studies concerning the inclusion or exclusion of people with intellectual disability, the ideal of ‘community participation’ (as relationships between people with and without intellectual disability) that is central to scholarly and policy debate is still entrenched to a large extent with the more traditional vision of community. The concept of encounter challenges this way of thinking and the policies and practices that are associated with it, by emphasising interactions between strangers which may not always fall within what is typically considered as ‘community participation’ (Bigby and Wiesel, 2011). However, the unique and extreme forms of social exclusion experienced by people with intellectual disability raise some important conceptual challenges in the theorisation of encounter. An emerging body of research has studied urban encounters between people from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds (Valentine, 2008; Fincher and Iveson, 2008; Watson, 2006; Ahmed, 2000). This work has highlighted the significance of even fleeting exchanges between strangers in shaping boundaries of social inclusion and exclusion in cities. In this paper, the focus on encounters which involve people with intellectual disability, many of whom have very limited social networks (Bigby, 2008), offers a unique case study of urban encounters involving an extremely marginalised social group, raising the question as to whether fleeting encounters with strangers are significant in light of far deeper forms of isolation and exclusion.

Encounters between strangers in the city in general, and those involving people with intellectual disability in particular, can take diverse forms. Some encounters can reflect—and reinforce—exclusionary practices, while other types of encounter may serve to promote greater social inclusion of people with intellectual disability, particularly when considered cumulatively. The principal aim of this paper is therefore to develop a better understanding of the nature and variety of encounters between people with and without intellectual disability in a suburban environment. We do so by presenting and discussing findings from a study concerning encounters between people with and without intellectual disability in one inner suburb in Melbourne, Australia. The study is based, primarily, on field observations in a variety of settings in the public realm, including the street, shops, public transport, a bowling club as well as some activities that were organised specifically for people with intellectual disability. The aim of our analysis is to identify the different types of encounter and the key factors that influence encounters in such places, as well as the potential positive or negative contribution of each to the wider objective of social inclusion.

From Community Presence and Participation to Encounter

Deinstitutionalisation and the community care movement advocated rehousing people with intellectual and other disabilities, moving them out of secluded institutions into geographically dispersed and much smaller residential settings ‘in the community’ (Mansell and Beadle-Brown, 2010, p. 104). Community care was argued to improve the quality of services and minimise restrictions on individual liberties, and also to “promote the re-integration of dependent peoples into the broader community” (Gleeson, 1999, p. 153). Since deinstitutionalisation began to unfold, a wealth of research has demonstrated that community care has indeed significantly improved the quality of services in many ways (Noonan Walsh et al., 2008). However, the extent to which people with intellectual disability have ‘re-integrated’ in the broader community as hoped is still in question. It has been argued that deinstitutionalisation, rather than heralding a new era of community inclusion and participation, resulted in a new forms of exclusion where people with intellectual disability are still not a part of the community despite their presence there (O’Brien and Lyle, 1987).

The notion of ‘re-integration’, or the more commonly used term ‘social inclusion’, has typically been interpreted using O’Brien and Lyle’s (1987) distinction between ‘community presence’ and ‘community participation’. Whereas community presence entails the use of facilities or services in the community available to everyone, community participation suggests being part of a growing network of relationships that includes people with and without intellectual disability (Clement and Bigby, 2009; Kozma et al., 2009). It has generally been agreed by researchers in the field—in Australia and elsewhere—that, while deinstitutionalisation has increased community presence for people with intellectual disability, few inroads have been made into increasing their community participation. People with intellectual disability continue to inhabit a ‘distinct social space’ made up of family, co-residents with disabilities and support staff (Clement and Bigby, 2010; Forrester-Jones et al., 2006). Many adults and elderly people with intellectual disability, years after moving out of institutions, are still not well known in the community (Bigby, 2008).

Metzel (2005, p. 102) describes the failure to progress from community presence towards community participation as an expression of “how place failed people with intellectual disabilities”. Indeed, the expectation that community presence will eventually lead to community participation reflects, to a large extent, a tendency to identify community and place as the same thing, communities imagined as geographical places where people live, work, play and have strong social ties. From this perspective, being present in a place inevitably involves a range of opportunities for individuals to become part of its community.

Yet, this conception of community and place has been criticised in academic research, particularly in the field of urban studies, on both empirical and normative grounds. Empirically, a wealth of evidence has been produced to show that communities are not necessarily tied to any particular place in a world of flows and mobility (Castells, 1996; Urry, 2000). From a normative perspective, the ideal of a place-based community was also criticised as reflecting a desire for an exclusionary and homogeneous social order, that inevitably privileges the values of some groups over others (Young 1990, p. 235).

Following such critiques, urban studies offer a different way to think about the social life of cities as characterised by estrangement and difference rather than familiarity and homogeneity (Sennett, 1994; Young, 1990). Much of the recent literature on encounters between strangers derives from such a vision of the city. The concept of encounter was originally described by Goffman (1961, p. 298) as a situation “where people effectively agree to sustain for a time a single focus of cognitive and visual attention” and is well suited to describe the type of interactions which unfold on a daily basis in urban spaces. Exchanges that are fleeting or more sustained, between neighbours, participants with a shared purpose in a public place, consumers and shopkeepers, passengers and taxi drivers, strangers standing in a queue or sitting at the bar, beggars and passers-by are all examples of the range of encounters which are central to life in the city (Fincher and Iveson, 2008; Laurier et al., 2002; Valentine, 2008; Young, 1990). Several decades ago, Jane Jacobs described the value of fleeting exchanges between residents in urban neighbourhoods as follows

Most of it is ostensibly utterly trivial but the sum is not trivial at all. The sum of such casual, public contact at a local level—most of it fortuitous, most of it associated with errands, all of it metered by the person concerned and not thrust upon him by anyone—is a feeling for the public identity of people, a web of public respect and trust, and a resource in time of personal or neighbourhood need (Jacobs, 1962, p. 56).

While Jacobs considered encounters between individuals as an inherent part of a communal public identity, the notion of encounter in more recent urban literature reflects a move away from communal interpretations, following a relational rather than an affirmative model of group recognition (Fincher and Iveson, 2008). In an affirmative model of recognition, individuals are identified by their belonging to a particular social group, such as women, the elderly or people with intellectual disability. The differences between these groups are seen as natural and fixed boundaries between them are often protected even by those who are oppressed, as they call for recognition of their identities. In contrast, in a relational model of recognition, identities and ‘social groups’ are understood to be socially constructed through the politics of identity, rather than natural. In a relational model, certain group identities are recognised, but this recognition is not essential and universal; rather, it emerges in relation to a specific political issue in specific circumstances. It is also acknowledged that no individual should be identified solely by their belonging to a certain group (Fincher and Iveson, 2008, p. 90).

From the perspective of a relational model of recognition, each encounter between strangers in a city involves a unique opportunity for individuals to be identified in ways that are different from their more fixed identities. Fincher and Iveson (2008, p. 145) use the term “conviviality” to describe encounters that allow people to step outside a fixed identity and explore more transient shared identifications with those they meet, but which do not repress the differences between them. Such encounters typically occur when strangers are involved in a shared activity with a common purpose. At their best, encounters can provide an individual with the “pleasure and excitement of being drawn out of one’s secure routine to encounter the novel, the strange, the surprising” (Young, 1990, p. 239) and an opportunity to “explore different sides of ourselves” (Fincher and Iveson, 2008, p. 145). Meeting strangers exposes one to different opinions and different ways of life, contesting “enclave consciousness” (Tajbakhsh, 2001, p. 182).

However, encounters between strangers in the city can take diverse forms and, while some allow individuals an opportunity to step outside their fixed identity, others serve to further establish prejudice and an essentialist model of recognition. Further to nuance the distinction between different types of encounter, the analysis presented in the second part of the paper offers a typology of the encounters we observed between people with and without intellectual disability in a suburban environment.

Observing Encounters in the Public Realm

This paper presents findings from a study concerning encounters between people with and without intellectual disability in one inner suburb in Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne is the second-largest city in Australia and the capital of the state of Victoria which is located on the east coast of Australia. Two of Melbourne’s defining characteristics are the dominance of low-density suburban form and significant cultural diversity. The suburb under examination in this study is located approximately 10 kilometres from Melbourne’s central business district. It is a well-established residential area with a mix of residents from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and overall relatively high socioeconomic status (ABS, 2010). Over 80 000 people live within the suburb, with 2 per cent identified as living on a Disability Support Pension (ABS, 2010), including a small number of people with intellectual disability, some of whom are living in a small number of group homes and an independent living facility ¹ dispersed across the suburb, from which participants in our study were selected.

The primary method of data collection for each case study was observations in which a member of our research team (Rachel Carling-Jenkins) joined research participants with an intellectual disability when going out to a variety of settings. The participants were well aware of the researcher’s presence and the aim of the observation and, while the researcher did not seek to disguise her presence, she aimed to avoid any involvement in the social interactions occurring and to remain as passive as possible, taking notes from the utmost distance that would allow her to hear conversations. Nevertheless, both participants and the strangers they encountered occasionally initiated a conversation with the researcher and these interactions too were acknowledged and addressed in our analysis.

Previous studies (such as Hall, 2005) used interviews with people with intellectual disability to develop deep insight, based on firsthand accounts, about their subjective lived experiences of social interactions with others. Yet the subjective experience of belonging or rejection—the psycho-emotional dimension of disablism (Reeve, 2012)—is only one aspect of inclusion and exclusion. In our study, the method of observation did not provide insight into the psycho-emotional aspects of encounters, but helped to shed light on other dimensions, providing an external perspective as to the factors shaping the encounter. Furthermore, the method of observation allowed us to include in the study people with more severe intellectual disability or complex communication needs who would have difficulty communicating their experiences in an interview.

Over 50 hours of observations took place in the case study area, with five participants. Recruitment of participants was carried out with the assistance of our partner organisation, particularly by introducing us to their clients in the initial recruitment and consent process, and in some cases by assisting us to schedule time for observations. Most observations involved note-taking of a qualitative nature, seeking to provide a ‘rich description’ (Geertz, 1973) of the social interactions observed. Transcripts from these observation notes are presented in this paper as a primary source of data for analysis. Close to a quarter of the observations were recorded using an alternative quantitative approach, but the findings reported in this paper are based primarily on the qualitative data. The paper does not include analysis of data collected through other means including a focus group with support workers, a survey of and interviews with local residents and interviews with staff in local community services. These will be reported elsewhere.

We included in our study participants with different levels of intellectual disability and support requirements, in order to be able to examine how this factor influences encounters (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participants

Participant (pseudonym)	Description of disability based on assessment by support workers
Dean	Male in early 20s; moved to Melbourne from overseas one year ago; mild intellectual disability; lives independently with limited support for money management, motivation and relationship advice
Ella	Female in middle age; lived in Melbourne most of her life; physical disability and mild intellectual disability; lives in a group home; support required for money management, including banking; independently accesses day placement
Francis	Male in 40s. lived in this suburb of Melbourne most of his life and has regular contact with family; mild intellectual disability; lives in group home; limited support required for banking, but otherwise carries out most activities within and outside the home independently
Kate	Female in 30s; lived in this suburb of Melbourne most of her life and has regular contact with family; moderate intellectual disability; lives in group home; active levels of support required for most activities within and outside the home
Carla	Female in late 20s; lived in this suburb of Melbourne most of her life; moderate intellectual disability, repetitive speech pattern; lives in group home; active levels of support required for most activities within and outside the home

Findings

In this section, we present detailed analysis of transcripts from some of our qualitative observation notes. Through this analysis, we developed a typology of encounters that involve people with and without intellectual disability. The following types of encounter were identified through observation: convivial encounters, fleeting exchanges, exclusionary encounters, service transactions, encounters within a distinct social space and unfulfilled encounters.

Discussion

The analysis in this paper points to some of the key factors that influence the nature and outcomes of an encounter in terms of social inclusion and conviviality. First, the environment in which the encounter takes place is a primary factor influencing its nature and outcomes. For example, the loud music played at the disco, restricted conversation, but encouraged other types of encounter based on non-verbal communication such as dancing and physical contact. Similarly, the internal design of grocery shops and supermarkets influenced the encounters within them: the free movement of people along aisles creates a range of opportunities for encounters between them, at the same time as it creates space for more intimate conversations in the relative privacy of a semi-open space. Furthermore, this design allows people intentionally to avoid an encounter (as in the supermarket example) or to bring a convivial but awkward encounter to a swift ending by simply walking away (as in the grocery shopping example). As noted by Jacobs (1962, p. 56), a positive encounter is never ‘thrust upon’ a person, but is experienced as a choice; hence, spaces that allow people to experience encounter, but as a choice rather than an obligation, can be seen as more conducive environments for convivial encounters.

Secondly, the nature of activity in which participants were involved had a major influence on the types of encounter they experienced. Our observation at the gym suggested that the shared-purpose activity (training) allowed some degree of conviviality between Kate and her trainer. What initially began as an encounter between strangers—a client and a service user—over time developed into an on-going relationship that extends beyond these formal roles. Yet, we have also witnessed some very structured activities where encounters were far from convivial, as well as some degree of conviviality that occurred in more fleeting encounters with no particular purpose. These findings suggest that, while shared-purpose activity does involve a potential for conviviality—as noted by Fincher and Iveson (2008, p. 154)—this is not always the case and other important factors need to be considered as well.

A third factor concerning the nature of activity is whether or not it is exclusively for people with intellectual disability. Group-based activities for people with intellectual disability are not conducive to social interactions beyond the distinct social space of people with intellectual disability, their families and support staff (Clement and Bigby, 2010; Forrester-Jones et al., 2006). Indeed, encounters we observed in group-based activities for people with intellectual disability typically remained within this ‘distinct social space’, regardless of whether they occurred in mainstream public spaces (bowling) or in specialised disability services settings (the disco). In one case, an encounter between a group of people with intellectual disability and a person without a disability in the street was interpreted as an exclusionary encounter.

The value of encounters that occur within this ‘distinct social space’ should not be dismissed. In fact, it is precisely in this space where encounters can be experienced as convivial, in an environment where having an intellectual disability is not exceptional, allowing other aspects of people’s identity to be recognised. Yet, the range of identifications that can be explored in such a ‘distinct social space’ is limited by the fact that it is a very closed environment. Perhaps a mix of encounters within and outside this distinct social space may prove most useful: encounters outside this distinct space will allow individuals to explore a far greater range of identifications (often at the risk of being singled out as ‘people with intellectual disability’); then, they will be able to share these new identifications with other people with intellectual disability in a safer environment where they are not singled out. To some extent, this can also be seen as a mix of what Fincher and Iveson (2008) define as planning for encounter and planning for community. While the first is focused on creating the conditions for convivial encounters between strangers, the latter is focused on creating conditions for the strengthening of longer-lasting relationships, networks and shared identities.

Fourthly, disability support staff play an important role in facilitating encounters for people with intellectual disability. Disability support staff often plan where and when their clients go out. They often accompany people with more severe disability when they are out in the public realm and can intervene in encounters as they occur. In the bank encounter described in the paper, a disability support staff member negotiated what was essentially an exclusionary encounter, in attempt to turn it into a positive learning experience for both the bank teller and Kate. At the same time, to some degree, some practices of support can have an exclusionary effect limiting opportunities for a person with an intellectual disability to explore other aspects of their identities. There is much scope for further research on the potential role of support workers in training for encounters, planning activities and supporting people with intellectual disability through the different types of encounters that they experience.

Lastly, the individual personality of a person with an intellectual disability and the personality of those they encounter will have a major influence on the interaction between them. For example, an outgoing person may be able to initiate encounters, whereas a shy person might need more time or a very secure environment in order to initiate or even respond to an opportunity for encounter. Encounters between individuals take place within the constraints of broader social structures, yet are moments where individuals actively challenge these structures. In this sense, the concept of encounter brings individual agency back to theoretical debates about disability, social structure and the city.

Conclusion

While each encounter on its own may seem as having a marginal significance in the broader sense of social inclusion, as noted by Jacobs (1962, p. 156) the sum of all encounters is meaningful, as they constitute an important dimension of the social life of cities. What, then, is the sum of the encounters we have observed in this study? Overall, the study demonstrates that the interactions of people with intellectual disability cannot be simply described in a passive term such as ‘community presence’. Rather, they actively interact with other members of the public in a variety of ways. At their best, in moments of conviviality, encounters allow a person to step outside a fixed identity, explore other aspects of their own hybridity and challenge exclusionary social and spatial boundaries. At their worst, encounters can serve further to exclude individuals, signalling to them that they are unwelcome in certain places, while reinforcing existing fixed identities. Yet within this spectrum, nearly each and every encounter we observed reflected what Hall (2005) described as the entanglement of inclusion/exclusion. However, we did not observe encounters that could be described as genuinely convivial, in the same way that this concept has been understood in other contexts. This is yet another example of the extreme marginalisation of people with intellectual disability in society. Nevertheless, we did identify some limited forms of conviviality in other types of encounter suggesting that the potential is there. Further, we have also identified some of the factors that can allow fulfilling this potential and we argue that much can be done to actively prepare for and support more positive encounters and, in doing so, to promote the social inclusion of people with intellectual disability.