Revisiting the Nordic Welfare Model; Museums and Disability in the Nordic Countries

ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 31

PUBLIKUM OG MÅLGRUPPER ● NORDISK MUSEOLOGI 2009 ● 1, S. 31-43

Revisiting the Nordic welfare model; museums and disability in the Nordic countries

DIANA WALTERS* AND SARI SALOVAARA*

Abstract: This article considers the position of deaf and disabled people within the museum and heritage sectors of the Nordic countries. Recent approaches to access for deaf and disabled people have been rooted in models from the USA and the UK, and less attention has been given to countries with a welfare model approach. The article outlines the features of the welfare approach and the position of deaf and disabled people. It considers approaches to disability and access issues through both case studies and through official policy publications. It argues that although the economic position of disabled people is relatively good, access to cultural heritage remains patchy and uninteresting. Museums approach this as a question of physical access rather than engaging in more creative responses based on dialogue and partnership. It concludes that museums have some way to go before they will be truly accessible for deaf and disabled people. Key words: Disability, welfare model, access, museums, heritage.

INTRODUCTION: A QUESTION OF DEFINITION solidarity, risk sharing, integration and normalization. The primary one of these is the There is some debate over the definition of a notion of security, underpinned by ‘collective Nordic welfare model. The Nordic countries risk sharing’ (Anderson et al 2007: 14), which are defined here as Denmark, Finland, Ice- means that individuals (whether disabled or land, Norway and Sweden. Differences betwe- not) are protected by the state against poverty, en their welfare models exist, in terms of legis- ill health and homelessness. The notion of a lation, application and procedures, and where social contract, whereby payment of high tax- these are relevant to disability and culture, es during employment secures a ‘cradle to the they will be considered here. However, it is grave’ welfare system is, according to Ander- possible to identify the main characteristics of son et al (ibid: 38), the key feature of the mo- a generic Nordic model and the core values del. that make it distinct. Nordic disability policies have been included within the principles of The Nordic countries are indeed well-known for their ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 32

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

32 big welfare states and high tax rates. Social insurance veloped since the 1990s. People who are capa- and protection systems have a broad coverage and are ble of working to some extent are guaranteed highly inclusive or ‘universal’ in the sense that all citi- the chance to work as their working capacity zens have, as a matter of legal right, certain entitle- allows, on public support. However, Cooper ments in the case of eventualities like sickness, disabi- (2006: 29) argues that the generous benefits lity or unemployment. of the system are often exploited and that the use of disability and sickness pay as perma- Anderson et al (ibid) also explore the view nent income is high, and Hytti (2008: 10) ob- that the origin of the egalitarianism of the serves that the over-usage of the system of Nordic model lies in the relative homogeneity disability benefits and job creation schemes is and small size of the populations of the coun- called the ´Swedish disease´. tries, leading to favourable conditions for This chapter will consider the Nordic mo- trust in community and government. Equal- del as it relates to deaf and disabled people ly, the competitive international advantage of and access to cultural heritage, predominantly the Nordic countries is often explained with defined here as access to museums and art gal- glossy arguments that are grounded in truth leries. The definition of a Nordic model used but tend to show things in the best possible here is that of a system based on the core valu- light. es outlined earlier; notably solidarity, risk sharing, integration and normalization, but with The shared Nordic values are equality, trust, proximi- the understanding that this is also a model ty to power, inclusion, flexibility, respect for nature, that is in various states of flux. Pressure on the Protestant work ethic and aesthetics. These values both welfare systems and museums mean that are connected with our social system and contribute a static definition of a Nordic model is not to many fundamental institutional similarities betwe- possible. en the countries, with the balance between the com- The chapter will have an emphasis on Fin- munity and the individual being of central importan- land and Sweden as these are the two countri- ce. (Norden som global vinderregion 2005: 92). es that the authors work in, and this will be re- flected in the examples used throughout. Threats to the Nordic model and its possible dissolution are the subject of increasing dis- DISABILITY AND THE NORDIC MODEL cussion, especially the challenges produced by population aging, immigration, climate change The main characteristics of the Nordic model and changing competitive settings. One of the outlined above would lead to an assumption proffered solutions has been “flexicurity”, a that in terms of benefit levels deaf and concept that has emerged in European Union disabled people in the Nordic countries are employment and social policy (European treated more favourably compared to other Commission: 2007a). Flexicurity means a ba- western nations. The disability friendly envi- lance of flexibility and security in the labour ronment in the Nordic countries is apparent market, with the objective of upholding com- even to a passing traveller; the Scandinavian petitiveness, employment and work satisfac- Europe section of the Lonely Planet travel gui- tion. In Denmark this approach has been de- de states that ‘Scandinavia, apart from Green- ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 33

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

land, leads the world in terms of facilities for inclusion and equality are achieved through 33 disabled people’ (Cornwallis et al 2003: 28). deaf and disabled people becoming part of the This is in sharp contrast to Hvinden (2004: mainstream of society. Application of this can 174) who states that evidence from Nordic go- affect freedom of choice and arguably reduces vernment reports and organisations for disabled deaf and disabled people’s rights to self expres- people show that the Nordic countries are ‘lag- sion and empowerment. In Sweden, levels of ging behind’ other Western countries in terms assistive technology are high, and the country of accessibility and universal design. Hvinden is often used as an example of excellence in (ibid: 171) also argues that the Nordic appro- this area (Provision of assistive technology in ach has relative success in economic terms, but Sweden: 2008). For example, there is free pro- this is not extended to employment or equal vision of walking frames to all who need participation generally. European Union (EU) them. However, some researchers argue that statistics demonstrate benefits to be of a high the law governing assistive technology in Swe- comparative level; for example, a recent study den1 does not aid empowerment. showed that disabled people in Denmark had the highest number of hours of personal assis- As a researcher in the field of social aspects of techni- tance in the home across the EU (European cal aids, I have come across more hindrances than Commission 2007b: 107). The Eu-ropean empowerment. For instance, if you need a wheel- Commission report also cites differences bet- chair, you do not have any influence on the type of ween the Nordic countries, for example in the wheelchair, or the colour of the wheelchair, and the ratio between cash benefits (supporting inde- decision on which wheelchair you are supplied can- pendent living) and benefits in kind (ibid: 114) not be appealed. (O Krantz 2008, pers. comm. 8 Sep- demonstrating different approaches to provi- tember). sion, which may have relevance for the position of deaf and disabled people within society and The Nordic Centre of Excellence (2008) has a questions of empowerment. The same report research strand reassessing the Nordic welfare also states that Denmark is the only EU mem- model which includes a consideration of ex- ber state that does not allow personal budgets clusion of deaf and disabled people. They rai- to people with ‘mental disabilities’ (ibid: 110). se the question of whether the Nordic model Traustadóttir (2004) argues that the Nordic in fact masks exclusion, referring to low levels model is more accurately a ‘family of ideas’. of employment. Certainly the power of the She states that there is a tradition amongst ‘expert professional’ (doctor, service provider) Nordic researchers to adopt a variety of appro- in determining levels of disablement and need aches to disability and not be tied doctrinally coupled with weak anti-discrimination legisla- to orthodoxy. Taking a pragmatic approach to tion reduces the power of redress. Trends such disability can be problematic, particularly as a move back towards segregated education when aligned to normalization, as it potential- lead to a questioning of the central normaliza- ly reduces disability to levels of provision rat- tion principle. Historically, normalization had her than a broader, more individual approach, a far more sinister impact in the policy of ste- based on identity, rights and diversity. Nor- rilization within the Nordic countries. Bro- malization is defined simply as the belief that berg and Roll-Hansen’s (1997) exposure of ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 34

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

34 the widespread use of eugenics led the Swe- TOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; DISABILITY, dish government to begin a process of com- CULTURE AND HERITAGE IN THE NORDIC pensation for many of the victims. Accounts COUNTRIES make for harrowing reading, including sterili- zation of visually impaired children deemed to Nordic operating models are closely related be ‘mentally retarded’. and subject to active interaction. Geographic However, the pragmatism of the Nordic ap- closeness and similarities in social structures proach is often regarded as a better way than a have created traditions for cooperation and fi- system based on litigation as the politicisation nancing models that enable collaborative pro- of access can also lead to segregation. A cultu- jects among Nordic countries. Applicants for re of dialogue is more prevalent with deaf and Nordic grants are usually asked in what way disabled people active in their pursuit of civil their project benefits Nordic cooperation and rights, and although direct action (for examp- they are used to listing such aspects as a com- le) takes place, there is an overall impression mon set of values based on equality, which the that deaf and disabled people are more passive cooperation can build on. In practice, Nordic in the Nordic countries compared to the US grants that support projects carried out and the UK. Others argue that the consensus among a number of countries are important basis of the Nordic model is in fact a manife- enablers also for cultural heritage initiatives. station of compromise, and that as a consequ- The participants benefit from interaction sin- ence, activism dies (S Berg, 2008, pers. comm., ce there are differences even between the fami- 25 September). In Berg’s view the existence of liar neighbouring countries. The networking organisations like Handisam2 the Swedish a- also requires face-to-face interaction and joint gency for disability policy coordination are projects bring people to the same table. there to prevent litigation and as government There are however problems concerning funded agencies their role is to protect the sta- everyday practice. For example, the lack of a tus quo. common language can create problems in The emphasis within the Nordic model is communication. It is part of the Nordic tradi- on improvement in the material aspects of tion to favour the use of the Scandinavian deaf and disabled people’s lives. That benefits languages, but in practice the differences bet- are comparatively high is clear, and the system ween the languages and the exceptionality of is often defended on that basis alone. Howe- the Finnish language cause some friction. Eve- ver, the view of deaf and disabled people as ryone could of course communicate in Eng- individuals with preferences and life style lish, but an outside language is not easily con- choices is limited. This has important ramifi- sented to which can lead to a situation where cations for culture and heritage generally, as people are not able to understand each other. the quality of life debate rarely extends to this Representatives from different countries may arena. Nordic and national heritage based ini- get together, for example, in a project promo- tiatives exist, but the basic level of service deli- ting equality, but can at the same time fail to very within the cultural heritage sector re- reach equality in their mutual communica- mains largely an aspect of choice and priority tion. for individual institutions. The Nordic Council on Disability Policy3 ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 35

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

and its sector network for culture has played a cessibility to discrimination, representing a 35 significant role in initiating projects. The potentially significant shift in priority and council is a policy-shaping and advisory body understanding (Olsen 2008: 3). appointed by the Ministers for Nordic Coop- In Sweden, the national initiative in access eration. It has done much useful work in ren- for disabled people contains an action plan dering the aspect of disability visible, acting as that requires implementation by 2010 (Rege- a mediator between cultural administration ringskansliet: 2000). Entitled ‘From Patient to and cultural operators, applying for finance, Citizen – a national action plan for disability and compiling comparative information on policies’5 the plan extends to museums and the Nordic countries. The work of the Coun- cultural organisations. Both the National He- cil can, however, be criticized for the fact that ritage Board and the National Council for very few of its employees or representatives of Cultural Affairs have been given ‘special secto- the different countries in its member network ral responsibilities for disability issues’ (ibid: are deaf or disabled people. The positive im- 10). However, the overall approach is built on pression of work well done is dented when the the notion of devolved responsibility, thus principle launched by the disability movement ‘nothing about us without us’ is often Each institution makes its own decisions about the left unrealised. orientation its activities should follow. Cultural insti- The data that the Council has published in- tutions in the state sphere and institutions that receive cludes information on disability policy actions government grants, however, bear particular responsi- in different Nordic countries in the field of art bility for seeking new ways of reaching categories of and culture. The 2004 publication entitled people who do not currently share in the cultural acti- ‘Nordic News – From project policy to an in- vities on offer in the country. Government grants are clusive cultural policy?’4 states that the indivi- therefore an important factor in enabling the disabled dual countries have put in variable performan- to benefit from cultural activities in the public sphere. ces but the clear trend is towards ‘culture for Studies have shown that accessibility has increased in all’ (Nordic Cooperation on Disability – recent years but much progress remains to be made NSH: 2004). Yet there still has been an em- before the goals are achieved. (ibid: 21). phasis on project work as opposed to a remo- delling of the infrastructures to produce inclu- The ability of culture to combat prejudice is sive cultural policy and actions in a consistent also recognised although there are no clear ob- or sustainable way. Equally, there is no consis- jectives relating to this (ibid: 20). The princip- tency between the various policies of the le of anti-discrimination for deaf and disabled Nordic countries or their level of enforce- people does not extend to a discreet law in ment. Some key developments are outlined Sweden. Disability appears in three other laws below. which established rights for deaf and disabled In Norway, existing building law will be re- people in the area of independent living, plan- placed by a new act in 2009 which will requi- ning, buildings and social services (Swedish re a universal design approach and a far higher Institute: 2006). Ineland (2005: 749) descri- level of access to museums. The Discrimina- bes disability policy in Sweden as ‘ambitious tion and Accessibility Act equates lack of ac- and supported by the principles of influence, ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 36

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

36 participation, independence and self determi- ting their levels of access and the National nation’. Ironically this can lead to complacen- Museum dedicated 2008 to resolving ques- cy. A government document stated that ‘in tions of accessibility. The focus has been on comparison with other countries Sweden has practical improvements such as audio guides, high demands on accessibility and usability Braille and access information. Accessibility is for persons with disabilities – maybe even the quite new on the museums’ agenda and there highest in the world when it comes to hou- is a general worry that funds will not be forth- sing’ (SOU 1994: 36). However, the docu- coming to support any sustainable changes in ment states that buildings can be regarded as provision. accessible that have ‘easy obstacles’, defined as In Finland, the year 2000 signalled an awa- a maximum of two steps; difficult to accept if kening in the cultural administration to ex- you are a wheelchair user. tend and accommodate the principles of equ- Denmark is unique in its implementation ality to the field of cultural services. The work of an ‘accessibility label’ that guarantees a mi- of the Ministry of Education and Culture pro- nimum level of access to public buildings. ceeded in three stages: firstly, a working group However, the approach adopted is based on was appointed to evaluate cultural participa- seven ‘categories’ of disability, each one of tion among deaf and disabled people and sup- which can be awarded a label6. The effect of portive administrative measures. Secondly, the this could be that segregation is unwittingly Disabled People and Culture Committee was reinforced, as certain groups of deaf and appointed to prepare an action plan (Ministry disabled people may receive a higher level of of Education: 2004) to support operators so access leading to a disability hierarchy. The la- that deaf and disabled people were better ta- bels distinguish between impairment and ken into consideration as producers and con- disability is viewed in broadly medical terms. sumers of culture. The committee comprised This is in opposition to a social model appro- representatives from the state administration, ach that would start with the definition of the municipal sector, cultural institutions and barriers within the environment. On the web- organizations for deaf and disabled people. site,7 museums are listed under ‘attractions in The third stage centred on the ‘Access to Arts buildings’, which make them a little difficult and Culture for All’ programme in which the to locate (libraries, for example, have a separa- Ministry of Education outlined its measures te listing). However, the available fact sheet for the five-year period of 2006-2010 (Minis- for each museum is extremely detailed and has try of Education: 2006). The suggested mea- an excellent level of practical information; sures primarily concerned resource allocation, making no assumptions about levels of access information-based guidance and performance and allowing visitors to exercise informed management. For example, state allowances choice. In terms of law, the Danish Museums have been directed to making audits and for- Act (2001) includes the clause ’the museum ming strategies in order to encourage strategic shall aim to ensure the greatest possible acces- approaches instead of delivering short term sibility for the disabled’, although no enforce- projects. In the programme, the perspective ment exists relating to this. on accessibility was extended to cover not In Iceland, the museums are currently audi- only that of deaf and disabled people but also ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 37

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

the views of other groups including immi- museums, an international ‘Museums for All’ 37 grants, language and cultural minorities and conference and a touring exhibition. older people. It remains to be seen if this leads Nordic museum professionals have contin- to a diminishing of resources specifically for ued this co-operation. The Culture for All ser- deaf and disabled people within a broader op- vice, run by the Finnish National Gallery, ad- erational framework. ministers a website and mailing list, and each As one of its information-based guidance year a different museum in a different Nordic measures, the Ministry of Education and Cul- country takes responsibility for appointing a ture finances an information service for pro- contact person and updating the information. ducers of cultural services. Since the Finnish Currently, nearly 50 museums have signed up National Gallery has built up experience and as members of the network, wishing to provi- shown interest in promoting the accessibility de and share information about their services. of the arts over several decades, the service is The network was under the management of based in its Department of Communication Sweden in 2008 and in 2009 Iceland will have Relations and Development. Key actors in the the coordinating role. The objectives of close museum field have cooperated with the Fin- communication, easy exchange of experiences nish National Gallery in producing this ser- and better information resources are being re- vice. alised slowly and by a fairly small network as The service’s task is to enhance cultural ac- commitment to the network is low and other cessibility through the establishment of net- priorities tend to take precedence. Individuals works and communication contacts, needs as- with an interest in access issues are most acti- sessments, training and production of materi- ve, suggesting that museums as institutions do als. The information service provides tools, not prioritise this work. There is also a ten- guidelines and expertise to support cultural dency to avoid anything controversial and fo- service producers. An important channel for cus more on information rather than debate. sharing information is the Culture for All This is also mirrored in the accompanying list, website,8 which also acts as a central anchor which despite a growing membership of about for the accessibility network of Nordic mu- 260 individuals (November 2008) continues seums described below. to have very low activity. Only Finland regu- larly posts information on the list and discussions are rare. Finland’s more active role in the NORDIC MUSEUMS FOR ALL network is largely because the initiative origi- The ‘Nordic Museums for All’ project ran bet- nated there and also because of individuals ween 2000 and 2003 and launched coopera- who have assumed responsibility for this area tion among museums around the questions of of work. accessibility. Participators in the project inclu- The issue of availability and deployment of ded various Nordic museums and representa- resources is also important. The Nordic coun- tives from different groups of deaf and tries have not embraced the inclusion para- disabled people. The key outcomes were an digm to the extent that, for example, the UK Accessible Museum Guidebook for museum has. Therefore, the swathe of jobs relating to staff, an accessibility evaluation tool for use in access and outreach activity within the mu- ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 38

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

38 seum sector that has so defined the last decade naged small museums carried out by the Fin- in the UK has not been mirrored on the other nish Museums Association in 2008, 31 of the side of the North Sea. Access has a lower pro- respondents said that their exhibitions inclu- file within the museum sectors, though there ded tactile objects, and only 15 of the mu- are signs that it is emerging. Arguably, inte- seums could provide unobstructed access to grating access into all aspects of museum acti- all their facilities. Fortunately the situation is vity is a far more effective way of achieving more encouraging in larger professional mu- inclusion with responsibility not contained seums, but even there results are disappoin- within specific posts; but this has to be alig- ting. The way in which museums relate to ned to clear strategic objectives for a cultural disability issues in Finland can be characteri- shift to inclusion within the whole organisa- zed as quite traditional. Efforts have been tion. The devolved approach al may thus mean made in recent decades to develop the acces- that sector initiatives are not easily adopted by sibility of museums to disabled audiences, individual museums, leading to a position of but the question has not been tackled with good policies being largely unimplemented. sufficient dynamism when it comes to con- The role of the individual as an agent of tent. Interestingly attitudes have traditional- change is therefore crucial at this time, as are ly been positive towards deaf and disabled the voices of deaf and disabled people them- people than other oppressed minorities in selves. Finland due to the huge number of causaliti- There are several recent studies in Finland es in the Second World War (2.5% of the po- that have asked museums about their work pulation became disabled),9 and this has with access or inclusion. The Finnish Ministry continued to contemporary times. However of Education and Culture conducted a survey museums centring on war history tend to of the accessibility work of the 134 museums deal with disability as a medical issue and the receiving state subsidies. In 2007 the mu- general history of deaf and disabled people is seums had engaged in more cooperative pro- seen as a natural part of the development of jects with deaf and disabled people than with social welfare. other ‘minority’ groups (particularly ethnic Salovaara (2007) assessed the impact of a and sexual). It is also interesting that some of project grant allocated to museums in Finland the museums stated that they had not paid and asked ‘Who has access to the museum?’ any attention to questions of accessibility, The studied state subsidy was aimed at deve- even when their staff included representatives loping accessibility, enhancing multicultura- of minority groups. lism and tolerance and cultural heritage edu- A majority of Finland’s 1000 museums are cation. The study pointed out that the addi- small, local cultural history museums, and of- tional resource enabled new and experimental ten do not have any permanent staff. These activities, but the museums were not very in- museums, frequently based in old, non-acces- novative about who they cooperated with or sible buildings, have very rarely known how to how much they put emphasis on the recogni- make use of the possibilities they have; for ex- tion of the minorities within their projects. ample, to offer audiences tactile material. In Another problem with project based activity is another survey among non-professionally ma- its short duration, which makes it hard to as- ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 39

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

sess how purposeful and sustainable the posi- physical and to a lesser extent sensory access to 39 tive impacts are. All in all the study showed buildings and exhibitions (Walters 2008). that the museums wanted to reach out to deaf However, in the aforementioned countries the and disabled people as visitors but rarely ad- process of opening up museums to deaf and dressed any related historical or contemporary disabled people is underpinned by legislation, issues in their displays. Equally, deaf and which in the case of the UK continues to be disabled people were rarely employed and ex- strengthened.11 In responding to this, and hibitions and collections did not draw out through a general process of audience deve- hidden histories. lopment, museums have begun to adopt a de- Rajavuori (2008) is researching the perspec- finition of access to include issues of represen- tive of Nordic museum professionals on pro- tation and hidden history; though one possi- moting accessibility. She points out that even ble consequence of this is that it may allow though society steers the museums with legis- museums to undertake a more traditional mu- lation and policy programmes, what actually seum role based in collections and exhibitions happens in the museums still largely depends rather than actively working for empower- on individuals, on their level of interest and ment of deaf and disabled people through awareness. partnerships based on contemporary issues around discrimination. In the Nordic countries, the process in this area is less developed. DIVERSE APPROACHES, DIFFERENT Projects tend to be focused more on practical OUTCOMES solutions rather than any paradigm of inclusi- Inevitably, there are differences between the vity supported by material culture. However, Nordic countries in terms of trends and levels there are signs that interest in representation of activity in the field of disability and access. issues is growing. Kaitavuori (2008) from the This section describes some examples of initi- Finnish Museum of Contemporary Art, Kias- atives taken in some Nordic museums, and ma, states that it is time to put more emphasis there are many more. The existence of the on participation. According to her, museums Finnish National Gallery and the leadership need to be seen as a public space and the idea role taken there means that there is an impres- of participation gives a new dimension to ac- sion of more activity in that country. The Nor- cessibility: wegian Archive, Library and Museum Authori- ty10 (ABM utvikling) is embracing disability There is a clear difference between the approach of more and more within its core activity. Howe- producing programmes and events for an audience ver, the museum sectors as a whole have not and the approach of giving space for an audience to championed disability as a discreet issue and make their programme. In the first case people (or the levels of professional development and under- target group) are considered audience, in the latter standing are also quite low. Generally, it is fair they are actors or users. In the participatory approach to say that the emphasis has been far more on the people outside the museum are seen as mature ci- areas of physical access to buildings. This is in tizens who have opinions and things to say about the line with developments in the US and the UK museum, and who have their own relationship with where the main focus of change began with the content of the museum, as well an understanding ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 40

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

40 about the meaning of the museum in their own life paintings by the children and photographs and in society. (Kaitavuori 2008: 7). school premises by an Icelandic photographer (Ingólfsson 2007). Arguably, Finnish art museums have been lea- The positive aspect of the project, from the ding innovative approaches to disability issu- perspective of the disability movement, is that es. In past decades, many art museums around the photographer featured the children as the country have organized exhibitions and strong personalities in different emotional sta- events connected with deaf and disabled pe- tes. There was no room for stereotypes, and ople and art. What these museums have had the children were strongly visible and close to in common has been the pedagogic capacity the viewer in the pictures. In the writings pu- and interest of the staff to cooperate with, for blished in the book, the children’s parents spe- example, organisations for deaf and disabled ak of daily life and compare, for example, the people or individuals or groups representing advantages and disadvantages between special disabled artists. The Hyvinkää Art Museum, education schools and ordinary schools. Ex- for example, has held various exhibitions fea- pression is given to the right of all children to turing the art of people with intellectual decent life and Mark notes in the book that disabilities and mental health care clients, in- she does not want to embellish the fact that cluding discussions and workshops. Also, the life can also be hard. The one thing missing in Ateneum Art Museum has received interna- the project are comments from the children tional acclaim for the film festivals it has orga- themselves, quoted opinions, since surely nized together with an organization for many of them had their own perceptions of disabled people since 1997, which deal shar- the project or of being at school, which could ply with questions of disability; they also host have been expressed in writing. The book an international short film competition. could also have included the thoughts of deaf In Iceland, museums have gradually started and disabled adults. It would have helped to to cooperate and gain experience in promo- shake off the impression that the book was ting accessibility. One of the forerunners in made about disabled “others”. the field has been the National Museum of A Swedish example, from 2003, shows how Iceland. For example, the museum carried out disabled people’s voices can create an exhibi- a project together with the renowned US pho- tion discourse that reveals often uncomforta- tographer Mary Ellen Mark in 2005-2006. ble testimony and compels visitors to question Mark is known for her striking portraits and their attitudes. The exhibition, entitled ‘Tänk photojournalism with a strong social message. Om?’12 encouraged deaf and disabled people She photographed the everyday lives of chil- to record aspects of their daily lives rather dren with intellectual disabilities, especially in than focussing overtly on exclusion or discri- two special education schools. The photo- mination. The result was to make the narrati- graphs were compiled into a travelling exhibi- ves more powerful; daily experiences of indivi- tion and copies of them were included in the duals formerly institutionalised or outside of museum’s collections. The museum also pu- mainstream ‘normal’ society highlighted the blished a book on the project, which combin- obvious inequalities in a country that prides ed Mark’s photographs, various writings, itself on its egalitarianism. The exhibition was ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 41

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

one of a series of small shows prior to the ope- becomes part of an agenda of cultural human 41 ning of the World Culture Museum in Got- rights. henburg in 2004. One hope of the organisers of Tänk Om CONCLUSION was that the experience of the exhibition might be carried forward into the culture of Nordic museums are on average poorly prepa- the organisation generally. However, this did red to treat disability in an interesting manner, not happen to any real extent. Deaf and reflective and fresh perspectives being the ex- disabled people continue to encounter barri- ception. Museums need the expertise of deaf ers in a new museum building and issues of and disabled people and engagement with the representation have not been furthered. Wit- disability movement in developing initiatives. hin the museum, diversity does not appear to As is so often the case, the emphasis on physi- extend to deaf and disabled people beyond cal aspects of accessibility narrow the possibili- physical access. ties of more creative developments. Despite More recently, Vasa Museum in Stockholm the relative economic benefits of the Nordic redesigned its main education room to provi- countries, and arguably higher levels of inte- de an integrated accessible experience for the gration, deaf and disabled people remain lar- children using it. Done in partnership with gely absent from museums and the business of the Karolinska Institute, the room integrates access is not undertaken within the paradigm rehabilitation with active learning and inte- of empowerment. The emphasis on material gration. Called ‘All Onboard’, the room inclu- aspects of daily life relegates heritage and cul- des tactile surfaces related to marine archaeo- ture to the sidelines, as an aesthetic experience logy, an accessible lift that works as a steering for consumption by the few. This is a general mechanism for a ship and a wheelchair acces- criticism of the Nordic model per se but for sible ‘upper deck’ where disabled and non deaf and disabled people the exclusion is in- disabled children collaborate to drive an ima- tensified as neither the expectation nor the ginary boat. Principles of universal design ability exists within the museum sector to any have been adapted to create a multi-functional great extent. There are some excellent excep- space that is integrated, educational and fun. tions to this where individuals, often with li- Many other individual examples of access mited support, or project funding have influ- related work exist across the Nordic countries, enced a shift in perspective. However, the but it is the general lack of strategy that is Nordic museum profession, generally, does most obvious. Norway and Finland seem to not see disability as an aspect of equality, and be moving more quickly in this direction, alt- deaf and disabled people remain largely mar- hough there are signs that disability is emer- ginalised. ging onto the cultural agenda elsewhere. A worry is that this may not be sustained, and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS that initiatives still rely too much on individuals. Other agendas and priorities may emerge The authors wish to thank Susanne Berg and before commitment to inclusion for deaf and Peter Davis for their helpful comments. disabled people goes beyond the practical and ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 42

DIANA WALTERS AND SARI SALOVAARA

42 NOTES Cooper, S. (2006) ‘Scandinavian Irony: Socialism Meets Liberalization’, The Freeman: Ideas on Li- 1. Health and Medical Act, §3 and §18 (Hälso- och berty , vol. 56, no.7, pp. 29-33. sjukvårdslagen). Cornwallis, G, Bain, C, Hannigan, D, Harding, P. 2. Formed in 2006. (2003) Lonely Planet Scandinavian Europe, Lone- 3. See http://www.nsh.se/in_english.htm ly Planet Publications Pty Ltd. 4. Aktuellt i Norden - Från projektpolitik till en in- European Commission. (2007a) Towards common kluderande kulturpolitik? Translated by the aut- principles of flexicurity, More and better jobs hors. through flexibility and security, retrieved Novem- 5. Från Patient till medborgare – en nationell hand- ber 10th , 2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/em- lingsplan för handikappolitiken. Translated by the ployment_social/employment_strategy/flexicuri- authors. ty%20media/flexicuritypublication_2007_en.pdf 6. See the Danish Accessibility Association website, European Commission. (2007b) Study of compilation http://www.godadgang.dk/gb/main.asp of disability statistical data from the administrative 7. http://www.godadgang.dk/gb/main.asp registers of the member states. Retrieved November 8. See www.cultureforall.info 8th, 2008, from http://ec.europa.eu/employ- 9. See http://www.vammaishistorianseura.fi/histo- ment_social/index/comp_disb_final_en.pdf ria.htm Hvinden, B. (2004) ‘Nordic Disability Policies in a 10. See http://www.abm-utvikling.no/?set_langua- Changing Europe: Is there still a Distinct Nordic ge=en Model?’ Social Policy and Administration, vol.38, 11. For example, the Disability Equality Duty No.2, pp 170-189. (2006) amendment to the Disability Discrimina- Hytti H. (2008) Disability policies and employment. tion Act (1995) requires museums as public bo- Finland compared with the other Nordic Countries. dies to state how they will promote equality for 62/2008 Social Security and Health Research: disabled people. Working Papers. 12. ‘What if?’ Authors translation from the Swedish Ineland, J. (2005) Logics and discourses in disability was curated jointly by Susanne Berg and the Mu- arts in Sweden: a neo-institutional perspective, in seum of World Culture, Gothenburg; Diana Disability and Society, Vol.20, No.7, pp. 749- Walters (co author) and disability consultant Mi- 762. chéle Taylor produced the text. Ingólfsson, E. (2007) Extraordinary Child. Disabled children in Iceland. Photographs by Mary Ellen Mark. The National Museum of Iceland. Kaitavuori, K. (2008) From accessibility to participa- BIBLIOGRAPHY tion – museum as a public space, Making Cultu- Anderson, T, Holmström, B, Honkapohja, S, Kork- ral Heritage Truly Common, Culture for All Ser- man, S, Söderström, H & Vartiainen, J. (2007) vice, Finnish National Gallery, 2008, pp. 5-8. The Nordic Model. Embracing globalization and Ministry of Education (2004) Taide tarjolle, kulttuuri sharing risks, The Research Institute of the Fin- kaikille. Vammaiset ja kulttuuri – toimikunnan nish Economy, Helsinki. ehdotus toimenpideohjelmaksi. Opetusministeri- Broberg,G & Roll-Hansen,N. (1997) Eugenics and ön julkaisuja 2004: no.29. Helsinki. the welfare state, Michigan State University Press. Ministry of Education (2006) Taiteen ja kulttuurin ST_109.qxp 02-06-2009 11:58 Side 43

REVISITING THE NORDIC WELFARE MODEL

saavutettavuus. Opetusministeriön toimenpideo- Traustadóttir, R. (2004) Disability studies, a Nordic 43 hjelma 2006-2010. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja perspective, Disability Studies Conference Lancas- 2006: no. 6. Helsinki. ter, retrieved November 10th, 2008 from Nordic Centre of Excellence (2008) Combating exclu- http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:_bQQQBw sion, the case of people with Disabilities, retrieved r_MgJ:www.disabilitystudies.net/dsaconf2004/fu November 8th from llpapers/traustadottir.ppt+nordic+model+%2B+d http://www.reassess.no/index.gan?id=14524&su isability&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2 bid=0 Walters, D. (2008) Attracting Zealots: Responses to Nordisk Råd, Ministerråd (2005) Norden som global disability in museum collections and practice in the vinderregion. På sporet af den nordiske konkur- early 21st century, PhD thesis, Newcastle Univer- rencemodel. Huset Mandag Morgen. Nordisk sity. Råd, Ministerråd, ANP 2005, no. 777. Nordic Cooperation on Disability – NSH (2004) Aktuellt i Norden. Från projektpolitik till en inklu- derande kulturpolitik? Petrén, F, Oderstedt, I, Wi- *Diana Walters is programme director for Inter- klund, L (eds). Solna. NSH - Nordiska samar- national Museum Studies MA at Gothenburg betsorganet för handikappfrågor. University, Sweden. She has a PhD from New- Olsen, A. (2008) Can Universal Design challenge ossi- castle University in museums and disability and fied attitudes and structural discrimination? Reha- has worked extensively in the field of museums bilitation International Conference, Quebec. and access. Retrieved from November 17th 2008 from http://www.shdir.no/deltasenteret/ kan_univer- Address: International Museum Studies, sell_utforming_rokke_ved_strukturell_institu- Göteborgs Universitet sjonell_diskriminering__236644 Box 111, 405 30 Rajavuori, T. (2008) Pohjoismaisten museoiden saavu- Göteborg, Sweden tettavuushankkeet – museotyöntekijän näkökulma. E-mail: [email protected] M.A. thesis (in progress), University of Helsinki. Regeringens Proposition, 1999/2000, Från Patient till medborgare – en nationell Handlingsplan för *Sari Salovaara is based at the Finnish Natio- handikappolitiken, retrieved July 10th 2008, from nal Gallery, Finland. She has an MA in ‘Who http://www.dhr.se/showFile.asp?objectId=11269 is allowed in a museum, a study of the effect of Salovaara, S. (2007) Kuka pääsee museoon. Museovi- governmental financial support aimed to pro- raston jakamat avustukset innovatiivisiin hankkei- mote equality in museums’. siin kulttuurisen yhdenvertaisuuden edistäjänä. M.A. thesis, University of Jyväskylä. Address: Finnish National Gallery SOU. (1994) Report from the government commission Kaivokatu 2 on building and planning, Allmänna Förlaget, FI-00100 Helsinki Stockholm. FINLAND Swedish Institute. (2006) Swedish Disability Policy, E-mail: [email protected] retrieved July 25th 2008 from http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/FactSheet 13508.aspx