“I Am Human Too!” ‘Probeerruimte’ as Liminal Spaces in Search of Recognition

Abstract

This paper explores the Dutch concept 'probeerruimte' 1 in relation to the statement 'human as a contested concept', a highly relevant topic in disability studies. Probeerruimte encompasses the idea that people need space to 'try things out', a liminal space that facilitates personal development. It was conceived in a context where institutional practices exerted restrictive control over the lives of people with learning difficulties, denying them rights to self-determination and personal growth, rights that are integral to experiences of 'being human'. The concept emerged about 20 years ago, and was revived during two studies conducted in 2014 and 2015. The studies, commissioned by Disability Studies in Nederland (DSiN), explored perceptions of social inclusion. Study findings reveal the significance of associated concepts, inclusive of connectivity, citizenship, liminal spaces, and 'risk taking'. Of critical importance is the need to challenge hegemonic practices that all too often disempower people with learning difficulties, remove their rights and, relegate their status to below citizenship. This paper addresses the relevance of probeerruimte for people with learning difficulties, from their perspectives, and examines how institutions can facilitate this process. Opinions from 'all people' involved in the conversation are used as data so as not to 'label' or make too strict a distinction between people with or without learning difficulties. The authors affirm the need to create probeerruimte to facilitate varied ways of existing. Ideally these ways of existing will promote opportunities for people with learning difficulties to engage in meaningful spaces, affirm their rights to citizenship and recognise their humanity.

COVID-19 as a Crisis of Confinement: What We Can Learn From the Lived Experiences of People With Intellectual Disabilities in Care Institutions

“…Scholars have noted that domestic settings in group homes are often “highly regulated with conduct rules concerning curfews, visitations, chores, and pets” ( Reiter & Bendov, 1996 ). These regulations generally seek to allow for freedoms, as these are important for the development and well-being of clients ( MacLeod Budge & Wels, 2016 ). Yet, restriction and confinement are always a possibility, especially if residents expose problem behaviors.…”

“…During the pandemic, living in a care institution became a ground for being subjected to far-reaching restrictions, which stood in stark contrast to the fact that care in group homes for people with a mild ID seeks to create space and opportunities for clients to try out new things and thereby extend their abilities ( MacLeod Budge & Wels, 2016 ). For clients who were close to acquiring the competencies needed to live independently, the swift transition toward greater confinement entailed a significant drawback.…”

“…As the caregiving aspect took center stage, particularly during the early phases of the pandemic, the nature of the care provided in group homes also changed, as the experiences of clients, relatives, and care providers testify. While care in group homes usually focuses on providing space for clients to develop their competencies by trying out new things and taking managed risks, the crisis foregrounded caution and restraint, foreclosing important opportunities for people with a (mild) ID to learn and develop ( MacLeod Budge & Wels, 2016 ).…”