Vsi smo Mijo Poslek (v spomin; 1962—2018)

To geslo izpred let[1] danes dobi globlji pomen.

Preživel je očetov napad nanj, ko je bil še v maternici, preživel je, da so ga dali v frižider, preživel je, da so ga, še kot otroka, poslali v zavod, preživel je štirideset let po zavodih, v njih je preživel vse oblike institucionalnega in neinstitucionalnega nasilja, preživel je tudi nasilje, ki si ga je iz obupa povzročal sam; preživel je številne noči v 'izolirnicah' in številne mesece na zaprtih oddelkih, doživel in preživel je Iz-hod[2] (ga tudi deloma prehodil), preživel je vse poskuse centrov za socialno delo, da ga spravijo nazaj v zavod, preživel je  tudi naše, neuspešne, poskuse, da mu omogočimo življenje, kot si ga je želel. Ni pa pre–živel  Nikine posebne ljubezni in svobode, ki jo je zadnjih deset let imel. Oboje, neločljivo povezano, si je ohranil do zadnjega diha.

Za Mija je svoboda bila uresničevanje želje brez odlašanja. V tem je bil pogumen, a tudi 'ziheraš', saj je iz svoje izkušnje vedel, da je odlaganje uresničevanja želje le institucionalni manever, ki služi le temu, da se nikoli nič ne zgodi. (Kar pa nas, pa tudi njega v zadnjih mesecih, ko je bil fizično odvisen od naše pomoči, pogosto frustriralo, spravljalo ob živce.)

En od njegovih ciljev je bil postati profesor. Fakulteta je bila namreč njegov življenjski prostor ('dnevni center' J), ki ga je želel čim bolj obvladati. In res smo se od njega veliko naučili. Učenje je bolj postavljanje ugank kot razlaganje odgovorov nanje.

Mijo je bil strasten kadilec. (Pogosto v lastnem kašljanju prepoznam tudi njegovo.) Tako strasten, da je odtrgal filter. Bil je človek, ki je sovražil filtre, hotel je užiti neposredno.

Prav zaradi neposrednosti smo ga imeli radi in se ga bomo po njej spominjali. Bil je umetnik neposrednosti. Pri tem je bil tako spreten, da smo pogosto podvomili o njegovi pristnosti, saj jo je pogosto uporabil prav v svoj prid. Izkušnje so ga namreč naučile, da prav bežni trenutki človeškosti odpirajo možnosti, ki sicer ostanejo zaprte.

Bil je tudi upornik, lahko bi rekli naključni revolucionar, a pogosto prav ključni borec, saj se je boril za pravice na podlagi svojih lastnih doživetij krivic. Vedel je zares, da se bori tudi zase. Pogosto me je s hudomušnim pogledom, pripravljenostjo na akcijo in radoživostjo spominjal na Jacka Nicholsona v Letu na kukavičjim gnezdom. Od prvega tabora v Hrastovcu[3] je bila zanj revolucija tudi rock'n'roll, žur, biti z ljudmi odprte glave in srca, beg od resnobnosti in tesnobnosti, užitek v ustvarjanju nečesa novega – boljšega in bolj pravičnega. Tudi, in predvsem, zanj. Bil je tovariš, morda ne prav zanesljiv – kakor se za tovarištvo spodobi.

Dali so mu vse možne diagnoze, a je vsem uspešno uhajal in ušel. Bil je izpostavljena tarča napadov paranoje očetovske oblasti (še predno se je rodil in kljub temu, da je bil sirota). Bil je živa provokacija njene nezmožnosti in nemoči.

Mnogi smo prišli na slovo z občutki krivde. Ne le glede tega, da bi mu lahko bolj pomagali, da smo zaradi svojih 'obveznosti' pozabili na njegove cilje, temveč tudi z občutki krivde do tistih, ki so ostali v zavodih, tam umrli. Ti občutki so resnični in se jih ni treba sramovati. Uporabiti jih moramo, da vztrajamo in se hkrati zavedati, da krivda ni naša.

To je še posebej pomembno, ko se poslavljamo od tovariša, ki je bil žrtev očetovske oblasti, ki ji je kljuboval, ušel diagnozam, ustvarjal vezi in neposrednost med nami, od strastnega kadilca in človeka, ki je mnogo preživel in od katerega se učimo, da

se svobode ne da pre—živeti, da se jo le živeti. In prav končnost življenja jo omogoča.

Zato naj Miju v slovo še enkrat rečemo:

MI VSI SMO MIJO POSLEK!

---

[1] To je bilo geslo akcije, ki smo jo pripravili aprila leta 2012 na ministrstvu, da bi z njo opozorili na to, da Mijo (in vsi drugi povratniki iz ustanov) nima urejenih možnosti, da bi zunaj ustanove preživel, pa tudi na 'blaginjo dolga', ki se je takrat uveljavljala. Potekala je na način gledališča zatiranih – Mijev osebni načrt je bil izhodišče za protest proti temu, kako smo prisiljeni živeti. Podrobnejši opis v: Flaker, V. @Boj za (2012), Direktno socialno delo. Ljubljana: Založba /*cf.; str. 323—335.

[2] Cf.: Rafaelič, A. (ur.), Flaker, V. (ur.) (2012), Iz-hod iz totalnih ustanov med ljudi. Časopis za kritiko znanosti, domišljijo in novo antropologijo, XXXIX,  250.

[3] Tabor je opisan v: Urek, M. in Flaker, V. (ur.) (1989), Hrastovški anali za leto 1987. Ljubljana: RK ZSMS. Mijev glas pa lahko slišimo v 'offu' filma Fillipa Robarja Ljudnica (1989), ko govori o načinih zatiranja v tej ustanovi.

Employment and income - an instrument to satisfy the need or needs in theri own right?

Work and employment are the basic tissue of our existence, with it we employ various fundamental functions and needs in our lives. Work provides activity (if not even creativity) which is the basis of our identity[1], it is also an instrument that enables us to provide for other needs we have – either by creating what we need or by producing means, in modern society usually income, for acquiring it. Work is through employment also the basic status that provides us with full citizenship and the basis of the contractual power in social and economic interchanges with others. It is also among the most potent ‘organisers’ of our experience – pride of what we produce, work mates as the second most important source of friendship and social contacts and timetable that organises our time and other activities. All of these functions are included in employment or more precisely work place (Flaker et al., 2015).

If and when people are not employed these needs become precarious. However, there are subsidiary and surrogate social arrangements that at least to some degree compensate the lack of employment. One is education. It provides us with activity, gives us a status of a student, pupil, organises our time and experience, to the lesser degree it provides income (grants, parental sustenance). Education can be seen also prerequisite for (a better) employment but also as an activity of its own end (e.g. University for the third life period). The employment can be compensated at least by other sources of income – social benefits, allowances, grants etc. These seldom provide more than survival, but allow more activity and opportunity for socialising and organising our life experience. These sources of income are mostly related to surrogate social statuses to the status of employment. These are statuses of pensioners, old age and disability, of sick absence, child, pupil, student… Not only these statuses provide less income they also give a kind of negative, devalued identification. Another way of compensating the absence of employment are useful activities or useful employment. In community activities or personal hobbies we maintain ourselves as active people, get into sort of ‘natural exchange’ of goods and services, acquire dignity and respect, also affiliation and status in some group, and they help us to structure time, gain pride and friends. If all these subsidiary functions fail or are unattainable there is social care that can seek to activate us, supports us in instrumental activities and provides us with possibilities to survive. The status is not determinate – a social care or work user, in some countries long-term care recipient – it becomes a very determinate one in case of institutionalisation – a resident. The social care takes care also of organisation of our time and experience, sometimes even with good results.

These registers of employment and its shadows are hierarchical by the degree of subsidiarity to employment – employment being an optimal solution others subsidiary with social care (or abandonment and banishment in case where there is not social care) as the last resort (Flaker et al., 2015).[2]

The institutions are the last resort of the last resorts and has only a few opportunities for meaningful activity (e.g. occupational therapy, physiotherapy, residents help in running institution). This on one hand means that shutting down the institution will liberate a number of potentials and on the other that there will be many obstacles to work and employment (Flaker et al., 2008).

In other words, while there are many residents in most institutions that are capable of employment, there are many more, especially in Demir Kapija that will never attain a regular employment. The same is obviously true for the old age homes. On the other hand, there will be an explosion of activities and meaningful deeds after the closure. If we take for an example, a person who spends his or her day in a bed, just taking a regular walks is over 100 % more than he or she does at the moment on all counts. He or she will be more active, his or her very basic activity of being more mobile will provide him or her with more survival potential, e.g. eating at the table, meeting people, give him or her more status (of a stroller) and make his or her schedule more full and interesting.

There are, as some personal plans show, however, people in the institutions who want and are able to work (outside). In comparison to the work therapy and other ways of working inside the institution, having a real job outside the institution could be an important contribution to someone’s life as it is for all of us. It is also very important to work for a person to become a valuable member of the community. Some will be able to get work with not much support and some will need ample support to do so. In enabling people to work in employment or elsewhere (useful unemployment) there has to be change in logic of people enrolling into work situation. While classic view on getting employment is that one has to be first qualified to do a job we need to place a person in a viable working situation and then find the way to enable him or her to be productive in it. It is safe to assume, therefore that minority of residents of institutions will need supported employment while other residents will need diverse kind of activities in the mainstream community.

The situation with people in need at large, outside institutions, is different and more complex. People of old age obviously do not need employment, but need to be active as much as possible and a number of them would need better income to retain or reacquire their dignity. Children are of course (at least up 15 years) out of employment and getting ready to it, there main issue is education, leisure activities and participation in the community. Adults in working age with disability and mental health issue have access to labour market but are discriminated against.

Moreover, people with disability are as rule employed in sheltered facilities, they are underrepresented in the public sector, and there is no proper communication between the employer and the person with disability for the purpose of accommodation in the workplace (Ombudsman’s observations quoted in Šavreski & Kočoska, 2017: 26-27).

At stake is also the employment and income of relatives. Those who work have problem with the employers since they do not have sympathy for their situation – e.g. more days off work. For those who do not work the special allowance is not enough, the life of a person with disability costs more (focus group in Kavadarci). They would need specially calibrated employment (part time, just first shift etc.) or an extra parental allowance; or to be relieved by some support (e.g. personal assistance) to be able to work and have more income.

Claimer: This blog is intended as a part of Situation Analysis and Assessment/ Evaluation Report of Implementation of National Strategy on Deinstitutionalisation 2008-2018 which will be soon presented to the public within the EU framework project Technical assistance support for the deinstitutionalization process in social sector. For this blog Andreja Rafaelič is considered to be co-author.

References:

Flaker, V., Mali, J., Urek M. and Grebenc, V. (2015) 'Work and Money: Exploring the Life-World Contingencies of Employment, Work and Income in Long-term Care'. In: Sozialpolitische interventionen – Eine festschrift  für Tom Scmid, P. Pantuček-Eisenbacher, M. Vyslouzil & J. Pflegerl (Hrsg), . Pölten: FH St. Pölten, Ilse Artl Institut fur Soziale Inklusionsforschung, 2015, pp. 217-231.

Šavreski, Z. & Kočoska, E. (2017) ANED Country report on social protection and Article 28 UNCRPD – FYR Macedonia, Academic network of European disability experts, [On line] Available at: http://www.disability-europe.net/country/fyr-macedonia?theme=social-protection

---

[1] It is also the last function of memory we lose in dementia.

[2] This short analysis does not apply to proprietors and rentiers who acquire their income, status and organisation of experience from their property and do not need to work.