links to David M Howie BSc BA (Hons) PPE (open)
Introduction
I commence this series of blog posts by analysing the petition “Keep disabled people as decision-makers.” The petition relates to an internal structural debate with to whom has a seat on the national executive committee (NEC) of a UK political party. For the record, I am a member of the party in question. Therefore, I declare a conflict of interest. From a member perspective, this petition violates confidentiality as the structure of the party is an internal matter. However, this is an internal conflict which has external dependent components. Given the consequences of this internal decision on the broader societal social norm, an open debate must be a minimum requirement.
the internal matter with an external refection
In my article “why so wrong it is right?” I point out these posts will have a triple bottom line. The triple bottom line which I set out is (1) professional identity, (2) social norms, (3) laws which underpin the social norms. The triple bottom line which I developed has its foundations in academic thinking. My intention is not to overload the reader with the thoughts of scholars past. I do, however, feel the reader must have an understanding by what I mean when I talk about the three elements of the triple bottom line.
professional identity
My professional identity, anyone’s professional identity. Is dependent on how the person sees themselves as an individual. More importantly, however, is how the person perceives how society views them as an individual. David Hume had a problem with Induction, mainly because one can use deductive evidence to get a better understanding of a situation than an inductive observation can provide. The problem, though is professional identity, is based on lived experiences. The point I am trying to illustrate is if an individual faces segregation on a daily bases due to social norms. Then the person is likely to use inductive observation of a situation to create a perceived barrier even before a physical barrier is in place.
Social norms
Given that social norms are nothing more than social interactions which take place daily in society. It requires further definition to understand how social norms can shape an individual’s identity. Or an individuals understanding of “the self.” My argument is the wellbeing of the self is synaptic. How the brain subjectively understands the individuals place in society is how the individual develops a professional identity. Only when the social norms of a community fully enable an individual, to be a fully included citizen, will, wellbeing be high.
The self & law
The argument which I have put forward in this blog is social norms have a direct impact on how the self or the “synaptic self” develops a professional identity. The final part of the equation is what part laws play in creating social norms. I claim that rules are the cornerstone of social norms. For example, article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (UNCRPD) states disabled people have the right to live in the community. Despite the law now saying disabled people can now live in any local community in the UK. The practical implementations due to the local authority housing regulation make the reality more challenging. The point, social norms have discourse and time behind them. Even when the self understands the law, it can be challenging to enforce rights over social norms.
Discussion
How though, does the triple bottom line which this blog argues, govern human beings social interactions link to the petition “Keep disabled people as decision-makers.”? To answer that question, I borrow from project management (PM). In project management, there are factors which contribute to a successful project (1) time, (2), cost and (3) scope — those three-factors in project management form the iron triangle. I argue that individuals’ wellbeing within society is reliant on the societal triangle.
My claim is that if any of the three components of the societal triangle change, negatively due to institutional decisions. Then the wellbeing of the self shall reduce, resulting in the individual citizen developing ill mental health, specifically with regards to who has a seat on the NEC. What this blog is arguing is if disabled people find themselves redundant from the NEC because of legislation grounded on discourse and informed by social norms. Then the professional identity of the disabled individual shall reduce, as will the societal triangle, required for a strong sense of wellbeing. My recommendation is to keep the disabled group representatives on the NEC. I do, however, Paradoxically in the short run, see how this arrangement may only be to meet the requirements of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
No comments:
Post a Comment