The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the structural deficiencies of residential care homes. In this context, living arrangements based on the independent living paradigm emerged as more resilient care infrastructures in terms of preserving life. But what kind of lives have they preserved, and who has decided what forms those lives took? Drawing on an ethnographic study of two care infrastructures for people with physical and intellectual disabilities living independently in Barcelona, the present study illustrates how the pandemic tensioned and unleashed escapes within these two services, revealing them as postinstitutions working under logics of bureaucratization and hospitalization. This in-depth study allows us to delve deeper into the constraints that these postinstitutionalization models present, at the time that explores the possibilities these projects present for continuing to work toward the promotion of self-organization and full participation of people with disabilities in the becoming of their life projects.
AgambenG. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Ed. Stanford University Press.
2.
AkrichM. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In BijkerW. E.LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.
3.
AltermarkN. (2017). The post-institutional era: Visions of history in research on intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 32(9), 1315–1332.
4.
AltermarkN. (2018). Citizenship inclusion and intellectual disability: Biopolitics post-institutionalisation. Routledge.
5.
ArmstrongD. (1998). Decline of the hospital: Reconstructing institutional dangers. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(4), 445–457.
6.
BeresfordP.FarrM.HickeyG.KaurM.OclooJ.TemboD. (2021). Co-production in emergency responses and the ‘new normal’: An Afterword. In BeresfordP.FarrM.HickeyG.KaurM.OclooJ.TemboD. (Eds.), COVID-19 and co-production in health and social care research, policy, and practice (pp. 155–165). Policy Press.
7.
BigbyC.BouldE.Beadle-BrownJ. (2017). Conundrums of supported living: The experiences of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 42(4), 309–319.
8.
BjörnsdóttirK.StefánsdóttirG. V.StefánsdóttirÁ. (2015). ‘It’s my life’ Autonomy and people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 19(1), 5–21.
9.
BuseC.MartinD.NettletonS. (2018). Conceptualising «materialities of care»: Making visible mundane material culture in health and social care contexts. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(2), 243–255.
10.
CallonM. (2008). Economic markets and the rise of interactive agencements: From prosthetic agencies to habilitated agencies. In PinchT.SwedbergR. (Eds.), Living in a material world: Economic sociology meets science and technology studies (pp. 29–56). MIT press.
11.
ClementT.BigbyC. (2010). Group homes for people with intellectual disabilities: Encouraging inclusion and participation. Jessica Kingsley.
EricssonK.MansellJ. (1996). Introduction: Towards deinstitutionalization. In MansellJ.EricssonK. (Eds.), Deinstitutionalization and community living (pp. 1–16). Springer.
14.
FoucaultM. (1976). Vigilar y castigar: Nacimiento de la prisión [Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison]. Siglo XXI.
15.
GalisV. (2011). Enacting disability: How can science and technology studies inform disability studies?Disability & Society, 26(7), 825–838.
16.
García-SantesmasesA.Sanmiquel-MolineroL. (2022). Embodying disabled liminality: A matter of mal/adjustment to dis/ableism. Sociology of Health & Illness, 44, 377–394.
17.
García-Santesmases FernándezA.Moyà-KöhlerJ.Farré MontalàL.Boyo AriasA. (2022). De la emergencia sanitaria a la reivindicación política, la Vida Independiente en tiempos de pandemia [Care infrastructures in pandemic times: From health crisis to social emergency]. Revista Española de Discapacidad (REDIS), 10(1), 231–240.
18.
GeertzC. (2000). La interpretación de las culturas [The Interpretation of Cultures]. Gedisa.
19.
GoffmanE. (1961). Asylums Essays on the social situation of mental patient and other inmates. Anchor Books.
20.
HagnerD.KleinJ. (2005). Home ownership for individuals with disabilities: Factors in mortgage decisions. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(4), 194–200.
21.
IngelsböckJ.SchüßlerE. (2019). New directions for the concept of the institutional script (Nano-papers: Institution—Organization—Society, Paper No. 9). Technische Universität München.
KnoblauchH. (2005). Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(3).
24.
LatourB. (2001). La esperanza de Pandora: ensayos sobre la realidad de los estudios de la ciencia [Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies]. Gedisa Editorial.
LawJ.MoserI. (1999). Managing, subjectivities and desires. Concepts and Transformation, 4(3), 249–279.
28.
López-GómezD. (2015). Little arrangements that matter. Rethinking autonomy-enabling innovations for later life. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 93, 91–101.
29.
LydahlD.Hansen LöfstrandC. (2020). Doing good: Autonomy in the margins of welfare. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(4), 892–906.
30.
MladenovT. (2013). The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and its interpretation. Alter, 7(1), 69–82.
31.
MladenovT.DimitrovaI. (2022). Epistemic injustice as a bridge between medical sociology and disability studies. Sociology of Health & Illness, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13479
32.
MoserI. (2005). On becoming disabled and articulating alternatives: The multiple modes of ordering disability and their interferences. Cultural Studies, 19(6), 667–700.
33.
Moyà-KöhlerJ. (2018). Sincronitzant autonomies: estudi d’un servei de vida independent per a persones amb la síndrome de Down [Synchronizing autonomies: study on an independent living service for people with Down syndrome]. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
34.
Moyà-KöhlerJ.DomènechM. (2021). Autonomías precarias: Un análisis sobre las tecnologías para personas con diversidad funcional intelectual [Precarious autonomies: an analysis of technologies for people with intellectual disabilities]. Teknokultura, 18(2), 127–135.
35.
Moyà-KöhlerJ.DomènechM. (2022). Challenging “the hands of technology”: An analysis of independent living for people with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1701.
36.
NordC. (2011). Architectural space as a moulding factor of care practices and resident privacy in assisted living. Ageing & Society, 31(6), 934–952.
37.
OliverM.BarnesC. (2012). The new politics of disablement. Macmillan International Higher Education.
38.
PolsJ. (2003). Enforcing patient rights or improving care? The interference of two modes of doing good in mental health care. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 4320–4347.
39.
PowerA. (2009). ‘It’s the system working for the system’: Carers’ experiences of learning disability services in Ireland. Health & Social Care in the Community, 17(1), 92–98.
40.
RodríguezC.GarcíaI.BarguesÁ.MartínR. (2022). ¿Cómo vivieron las personas con discapacidad la crisis de la covid-19? El caso de las personas apoyadas por entidades tutelares en España [How Did People with Disabilities Experience the COVID-19 Crisis? Situation of People Supportedby Guardianship Organizations in Spain]. Siglo Cero Revista Española sobre Discapacidad Intelectual, 53(2), 41–60.
41.
Rodríguez-GiraltI.ArenasM.García-SantesmasesA.Moyà-KöhlerJ. (2022). Mapeando la vida independiente [Mapping independent living]. https://carenet.in3.uoc.edu/
42.
Sánchez-CriadoT.LópezD. (2009). La traducción del cuidado: la teoría del actor-red y el estudio de la interdependencia en la teleasistencia para personas mayores [Translating care: Actor-network theory and the study of interdependence in telecare for the elderly]. Estudios de Psicología, 30(2), 199–213.
43.
Sánchez-CriadoT.Rodríguez-GiraltI.MencaroniA. (2016). Care in the (critical) making. Open prototyping, or the radicalisation of independent-living politics. ALTER. European Journal of Disability Research, 10(1).
44.
SchillmeierM. (2007). Dis/abling spaces of calculation: Blindness and money in everyday life. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(4), 594–609.
45.
SchillmeierM. (2010). Rethinking disability: Bodies, senses, and things. Routledge.
ShakespeareT. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
48.
SmullM.DaneheyA. (1994). Increasing quality while reducing costs: The challenge of the 1990’s. In BradleyV.AshbaughJBlaneyB. (Eds.), Creating 37 individual supports for people with developmental disabilities (pp. 59–78). Paul H. Brookes.
49.
StarS. L.BowkerG. C. (2006). How to infrastructure. In LievrouwL.LivingstoneS. (Eds.), Handbook of new media: Social shaping and social consequences of ICTs (pp. 230–245). SAGE.
50.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
51.
WinanceM. (2006). Trying out the wheelchair: The mutual shaping of people and devices through adjustment. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(1), 52–72.
52.
WinanceM. (2016). Rethinking disability: Lessons from the past, questions for the future. Contributions and limits of the social model, the sociology of science and technology, and the ethics of care. Alter, 10(2), 99–110.
