保護或支配？身心障礙保護工作中的象徵角力

Protection or Domination? Symbolic Struggle in the Work of Disabled Persons Protection

蕭信彬(Hsiao, Hsin Pin)

指導教授 ： 李丁讚

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/社會學研究所/博士(2016年)

摘要

隨著台灣社會福利體制的發展，國家對身心障礙者的保護，已逐漸被制度化，然而與此並行的卻是在實作中一直存在的多元價值衝突。本研究欲探問：身心障礙保護工作，背後隱含了哪些特定價值？在實際運作中遭遇怎樣的衝突角力？保護制度又是依靠什麼機制來在象徵衝突中維持運作？衝突或調解的可能圖像為何？本研究以社工員的日常工作經驗為核心，結合文獻檔案分析、參與觀察及訪談，分析身心障礙保護工作中的象徵衝突與調解的可能性。

第二章我先由身心障礙保護制度本身的歷史形構及其在實作中牽連的相關法律切入，我將揭露對身心障礙者的福利想像是個歷史變量，「保護」的內涵既有歷史發生的特定性，在形構上也繼受了先行制度的架構。但更重要的是，我將指出這些圍繞著身心障礙者的法律其實背後都帶有特定的價值投射，但我們也在法律的實踐中發現，由於制度帶有特定偏見，因此在介入社會時就會因與常民認知框架的落差，而遭遇執行困境。這是制度本身所沒預料到的。

第三章我們由制度層次轉向社工員的日常工作內容，我們發現保護工作其實需要複雜的象徵工作來修補制度與現實的落差，這是透過社工員的道德評價與裁量彈性來運作的。「象徵工作」的出現，源於社工員一方面比制度「更社會」一些，更加從「家庭系統」的維繫與保護，做通盤考量，另一方面又比常民更加清楚制度可能對民眾帶來的社會傷害。最後，我們總評了社工員的工作所產生的象徵效應，探討其是否再製或收束了制度背後的專斷價值、重新編寫出了保護制度的另一種「在地版本」？

第四章指出，社工員其實自身也要面對另一種支配力量。另有一群專家學者對於保護工作正在形成一套指導觀點，成為績效監測、政策建議、工作流程設計等方面具規範與指導的「跨在地（trans-local）」力量。但由於這種管理者視角與社工員的實務工作內涵有一定程度的差距與失焦，為了滿足績效監督的支配性框架，社工員象徵工作的勞動必須被壓抑與淡化，重新揀選符合管理者認定績效的工作經驗，以供管理者視角再生產其所欲認識與持續修補的另一種「保護工作」。除了這些來自跨在地的挑戰，社工的工作現場仍無法迴避來自跨單位的多重角力網絡，他們也構成各種在地工作中的阻礙與挑戰。

最後，第五章總結本研究的發現，並對象徵支配理論、建制民族誌、法律人類學提出一點反省。

關鍵字

身心障礙保護 ； 社工員 ； 裁量 ； 象徵支配 ； 文化專斷

並列摘要

With the development of social welfare system in Taiwan, the government gradually has institutionalized the protection of persons with disabilities. Paralleled such institutionalization, however, value conflicts among practice appear. This dissertation attempt to inquire: what are the values behind the institution of disabled persons protection? What are the symbolic conflicts evoked among the work of protection? How can an institution work with such conflicts and what are the mechanisms of reconciliation? By focusing on and gathering materials through the everyday work experience of social workers, this research deploy mixed-methods approach consisted of document analysis, participant observation, and in-depth interviews.

In chapter 2, I exposed the historical variation of the image of disability behind the emergence of the protection services for people with disabilities. More importantly, due to the fact that there were always specific values or cultural prejudice carried and imposed by the law and institution of protection services, symbolic conflicts and difficulties often occur in the practice of such services.

In chapter 3, my analysis turned to and focused on the micro level. The gap or symbolic conflicts between institution and laity were partly and possibly reconciled by social workers’ “symbolic labor”, which is what I called “moral evaluations and the flexibility of discretion”. The appearance of the symbolic labor was on account of the fact that social workers consider the social impact or the harm to clients’ families, which was hardly taken into account by the institutional viewpoint. Finally, I evaluated the symbolic effect of such symbolic labor, and hence investigated whether the arbitrary values were reproduced or not.

In chapter 4, I examined symbolic domination in different dimensions. There were some professional views about what ideal protection service should be. Those professional emphasized issues differing from social workers’ “symbolic labor”, but attempted to guide and supervise social workers in their everyday work. In order to meet the supervision and maintain the real operation of protection service simultaneously, social workers have to keep on their symbolic labor in their daily experience on the one hand, but repress or modify their experience to fit in the view of supervision on the other. Furthermore, even at the local level, social workers would face various kinds of challenges from other organizations. These challenges also limited the space of social workers’ discretion.

Lastly, in chapter 5, I provided the summery of my findings and offered some reflections on the theme such as “symbolic dominance”, “Institutional Ethnography”, and “Anthropology of Law”.

並列關鍵字

protection of persons with disabilities ； social worker ； discretion ； symbolic dominance ； cultural arbitraries

參考文獻

王振寰. (1993). 臺灣新政商關係的形成與政治轉型. 臺灣社會研究(14), 123-163.

李瑞金. (2015). 老人保護服務現況與策略. 長期照護雜誌, 19(3), 237-249. doi: 10.6317/ltc.19.237

黃志忠. (2010). 社區老人受虐風險檢測之研究：以中部地區居家服務老人爲例. 社會政策與社會工作學刊, 14(1), 1-37.

廖婉君、蔡明岳（2006）。老人虐待。基層醫學， 21（7），頁 183-186。

潘淑滿. (2006). 身心障礙者家庭暴力與性侵害之研究. 臺灣社會工作學刊(5), 128-159.