Disability "Balkanization:” Thinking
About Communities
by Lance
H. Hegland
On October
15, Courage Center hosted a conference on “The’ Balkanization'
of Disability: Examining the Disparities" for those interested
in improving disability services. Several groups from the academic
and service communities came together for this conference, including
the Center on Aging, Minnesota Area Geriatric Education Center (MAGEC),
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, Center for Bioethics,
Institute for Community Integration, and Disability Services.
The conference gave me chance to think about issues in the disability
community. As I now see it, "Balkanization,” means the
dividing of the disability community into smaller, often competitive,
groups. Historically, the disability community has organized into
smaller groups of individuals who can relate to each other based
upon similar circumstances (e.g. geography, type of disability,
and/or age). Each of us may be a member of several groups. For
example, as a 30-something individual experiencing effects of spinal
muscular atrophy, I might participate in a local organization for
young adults with spinal muscular atrophy. I may also be a member
of a statewide organization, as well as a broader national group
addressing all ages, such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association.
On the other hand, because I experience depression, I may additionally
be a member of a mental illness group.
Each of these groups may be advocating for a particular cause, such
as transportation, housing, support services, economic assistance,
or health care coverage. For example, the local young adult spinal
muscular atrophy group may be working to ensure additional accessible
and affordable housing. At the same time, the mental illness group
may be working to expand mental health insurance coverage. Each cause
requires resources (i.e. funding) from individuals, private organizations,
community groups, or government. Unfortunately, because resources
are limited, the groups often end up competing for those resources.
Who decides how to divide resources toward each group's project?
In this case, because each would likely be a statewide initiative,
they may be funded by the state government. The division of funds
between health care and housing would be decided by the state's budgetary
process. Here, the groups would not literally be fighting over those
resources. When the state is developing its budget and deciding how
to divide resources, each group may approach their legislators or
budget committee to try to get more resources for their programs.
So, directly or indirectly, they do compete.
Generally,
each group has specific sets of needs, works to develop specific
sets of solutions, and requires resources. More groups may mean
a greater variety of needs, solutions, and more resources required.
They can become like a pack of 20 hungary wolves fighting
over two pounds of hamburger a farmer threw out! The more aggressive
wolves eat a little, the less aggressive may starve. Or, to use
another cliché, the
squeaky wheel gets the grease.
In the disability community,
countless groups exist, resources are limited, and competition
naturally results; hence, "Balkanization." Furthermore,
a fragmented community results in fragmented programs; groups with
particular needs have advocated for specific solutions. The question
addressed during the conference was: “is ‘Balkanization’ good
or bad?” Obviously, a well-organized group with a large active
membership can be more influential and will be more likely to satisfy
its needs; such groups benefit. Other groups may be able to modify
the solution to meet their needs; and may benefit as well. But what
about groups that do not have the resources or membership to become
well-organized and influential? What if they cannot adapt to larger
groups' solutions? Typically, they lose out.
What if several groups
had similar needs and worked together, bargaining, negotiating,
giving and taking, toward common solutions? For example, what if
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Muscular Dystrophy Association,
National Multiple Sclerosis Society, United Cerebral Palsy, and National
Spinal Cord Injury Association worked together to advocate for more
affordable, accessible housing? They might be able to pool enough
resources and participants to become more organized and influential,
therefore more effectively satisfying their overall needs. True,
the specific housing needs may vary from group to group, just as
they do among individuals. No matter who develops the solution, individualized
modification may be required. Nevertheless, several groups working
together more efficiently satisfies the needs of each individual
group and contributes to the greater good of society. "Balkanization," on
the other hand, discourages teamwork and therefore is undesirable
because it does not promote societal efficiency.
Maybe a better approach is to identify a particular need (e.g.,
affordable and accessible housing), identify individuals and organizations
impacted by the need (e.g., consumers, disability community groups,
and representatives plus financiers, developers, and property managers),
and work as a team to develop, implement, and maintain an overall
solution. Each sub-group could devise and suggest alterations to
meet their more specific needs.
No matter how beneficial teamwork could be, teams may be difficult
to develop and maintain. Teamwork can be scary for individual groups.
Would they have been better off working alone? More people involved
may result in a slower decision-making process, longer development
process, and more difficult maintenance. Some groups may lose power,
influence, and recognition by working as part of a larger group;
they may not feel they are reaping as many benefits. They may feel
threatened by teamwork.
The answers
are not easy or straightforward. Such topics have been discussed
and debated within sociological, political, and economic circles
for centuries. Political realities mean we must continue to give
these issues our thoughts.
