Understanding occupational justice from the concept of territory: A proposal for occupational science

ABSTRACT

This article was developed based on dialogue and reflections during the First Occupational Justice and Social Inclusion Symposium in Chile, in 2016. It is intended as an invitation to discuss the relationship between territory and occupational justice. As a first step we review the concept of occupational justice and the forms of occupational injustice described to date. Subsequently, four elements of Gilberto Giménez’s (1996, 1999, 2005) concept of territory are introduced and their potential application in occupational science are explored from an occupational justice perspective. Building upon this, we propose a new form of occupational injustice, which we have named occupational displacement. Additionally, we suggest a potential use for this concept in the situation of campamentos or squatter settlements in Chile. In our opinion, an understanding of the situational basis of occupation can help delve deeper into the phenomena that underlie numerous situations of occupational injustice.

KEYWORDS:

• Occupational justice
• Territory
• Place
• Identity
• Migration

TAMBIÉN PUBLICADO EN ESPAÑOL:

• https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2018.1487262

View translated version:

Entendiendo la justicia ocupacional desde el concepto de territorio, una propuesta para la ciencia de la ocupación

This article is an invitation to discuss how the notion of territory can inform understanding of occupational justice/injustice. It stems from a dialogue held by the authors during the First Occupational Justice and Social Inclusion Symposium¹ in Chile in 2016. In that meeting and following a round table presentation², we discussed the relevance of introducing the concept of territory to the analysis of the political, economic, cultural and social contexts underlying occupational justice/injustice. This reflection led to a proposal to discuss a new form of territorial occupational injustice, which we have called occupational displacement.

Thus, this paper discusses the relationship between place and occupational justice and invites the readers to both explore the concept of occupational displacement as a new form of occupational injustice and to identify its potential contribution to occupational science. For this purpose, firstly we review the concept of occupational justice and then briefly introduce the forms of occupational injustice described to date, suggesting a relationship among them based on our analysis. Secondly, we explain the concept of territory from the perspective of the Latin–American scholar, Gilberto Giménez, discussing the relationship between place, territory and occupational justice. Then, we suggest a dialogue concerning the concept of occupational displacement. Subsequently, to illustrate the concept, we suggest an application of occupational displacement based on the findings from a project conducted in Chile, to then present the final reflection.

Occupational Justice/Injustice

The term occupational justice was proposed in the mid 1990s based on the work of Ann Wilcock (occupational health perspective) and Elizabeth Townsend (client–centered practice), and was further enhanced through dialogue with groups of occupational therapists, occupational scientists, sociologists, and social workers, among others, in the context of workshops held in Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Portugal, Sweden and the United States (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004; Wilcock & Townsend, 2000). The authors suggested that meaningful occupations of individuals and communities are a requirement for human health and development and, therefore, access to them is crucial in just societies. Therefore, the concept of occupational justice is understood as “equitable opportunity and resources to enable people’s engagement in meaningful occupations” (Wilcock & Townsend, 2000, p. 85).

Other authors subsequently discussed and developed the concept of occupational justice. In this regard, Durocher, Gibson and Rappolt (2013) highlighted the increasing presence of the concept in literature and its applicability in the discussion about social change. According to Thibeault (2013), however, within the mainstream discourse of occupational justice authors tend to have polarized views of the occupational setting as a site of struggle between governments, or multinationals, and social actors subjugated by the system. As a result, Thibeault points out, understanding of the social processes at play are limited and fail to capture the complex nature of the situation. Accordingly, she calls for accurate usage of concepts, preventing indiscriminate application.

The concept of occupational justice makes visible situations in which the opportunities of individuals and communities to participate and engage in occupations necessary and meaningful are infringed (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). That notion made it possible to theoretically address numerous phenomena that impact occupational participation, with the concept itself subject to change depending on the different contexts in which breaches of occupational justice take place. The concept of occupational justice, therefore, is constantly being observed and under construction (Durocher et al., 2013; Whiteford, 2000). To date, five forms of occupational injustice have been described, namely: occupational deprivation, occupational alienation, occupational imbalance, occupational apartheid and occupational marginalization (Durocher et al., 2013).

Based on our analysis, each form of occupational injustice can be interpreted as denouncing a specific sociopolitical and cultural scenario. Hence, more than the arrangement of strict categories with fixed limits, each of these forms have been subject to different emphases. Given the complexity and diversity of occupation, the limits of these forms are flexible. Therefore, we argue that the forms of occupational injustice identified until now draw attention to those aspects that occupational justice fails to achieve. In this sense, some situations of occupational injustice can include other forms that may occur simultaneously.

Occupational deprivation is the most frequent form of occupational injustice in literature (Durocher et al., 2013). It has been defined by Whiteford (2000) as “a state in which people are precluded from opportunities to engage in occupations of meaning due to factors outside their control” (p. 200), resulting in impacts to the health and well-being of individuals and communities. These outside factors can include social, environmental, economic, geographic, historical, cultural, political or interpersonal aspects (Whiteford, 2000; Wilcock, 2006). The emphasis placed on this occupational injustice circumstance, based on what has been posited by Whiteford (2000), is found precisely in the complex conditions and forces beyond the control of the individual that preclude his/her participation. In this sense, it is understood that deprivation is not due to factors internal to the individual. This is the case of incarcerated individuals who are prevented from engaging in occupations which they carried out outside of prison, something that limits their participation (Falardeau, Morin, & Bellemare, 2015; Molineux & Whiteford, 1999).

Occupational alienation refers to “prolonged experiences of disconnectedness, isolation, emptiness, lack of a sense of identity, a limited or confined expression of spirit, or a sense of meaninglessness” (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004), which is not necessarily due to a lack of material resources. In turn, the focus is placed on the limitation of choices to participate in experiences of meaning and enrichment. In this sense, since this concept focuses on experience, the same occupation might lack meaning for one individual while providing a meaningful experience to another (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). On the other hand, this concept reveals the impact of alienation over the construction of individual or collective identity (Durocher et al., 2013; Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). Additionally, this can imply the consolidation of modified occupational patterns that generate occupational dissatisfaction and involve a health risk factor (Durocher et al., 2013). Thus, emphasis is placed on the impact of contextual factors upon the meaning of the occupation and its effects. For instance, the challenges to a meaningful practice for health care professional, such as occupational therapist, that found tension between their ethic of care and the constrains of a system focused on a neoliberal health care agenda (Durocher et al., 2016).

The concept of occupational imbalance refers to the unequal distribution of paid employment, its benefits and outputs among the population, which is a justice–related issue (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). This is related to the lack of opportunities to promote, through occupation, a state of health and well-being in line with the culture and needs of each community (Wilcock, 2006). At the individual level, occupational imbalance involves “a state that occurs because people’s engagement in occupation fails to meet either their natural health requirements for physical, social, and mental exercise or rest or their unique doing, being, and becoming needs” (Wilcock, 2006, p. 170), with resultant negative impacts on their health and well-being. Hence, overemployment or underemployment can be considered occupational imbalance. The concept, however, not only refers to having too much or too little occupation but also to the advantages and privileges associated to occupations (Durocher et al., 2013; Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). Based on the above, the emphasis of the concept of occupational imbalance lies in the distribution of occupations in time, in accordance with limited opportunities to choose and engage in a variety of occupations that are required for good health. For instance, in the case of a group of disabled women described by Jakobsen (2004), self–care activities –particularly searching for and using health care services– were highly time–consuming, which constituted a major occupational imbalance.

Occupational apartheid refers to the impact of inequality on the status and value of a person in relation to others, in terms of occupational engagement. This inequality is associated with systematic circumstances, often intentional, that generate and sustain stratification systems which maintain unfair situations (Kronenberg & Pollard, 2005). Thus, according to Kronenberg and Pollard, opportunities to participate in society and engage in occupations are granted to some individuals and restricted to others, based on categories such as sex, race, age, economic status, among others. Another characteristic associated to this concept is the institutionalization of occupational injustice –through the explicit expression of differences– in the form of policies and norms that sustain inequalities (Durocher et al., 2013; Kronenberg & Pollard, 2005). Therefore, the emphasis of this concept is placed on the systematic, explicit and institutionalized nature of occupational injustice. This is the case, for instance, of immigrant, non–native English speaking physicians in New Zealand, who are restricted by law from exercising their profession; this means raising occupational barriers and results in emotional consequences (Mpofu & Hocking, 2013).

Finally, occupational marginalization refers to the invisible circumstances that restrict the power of individuals and groups to make occupational choices. This situation is sustained in the “normative standardization of expectations about how, when and where people ‘should’ participate” (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004, p. 81). Thus, it does not involve written laws or social policies but rather informal rules within a sociocultural arrangement. In other words, habits, traditions and expectations about behaviors which restrict the participation of certain individuals or groups (Townsend & Wilcock, 2004). In this case, the emphasis is placed on the invisible forces that restrict engagement in occupations, which are embedded into cultural aspects. This is the case in Galvaan’s study (2015), of the limitations in occupational choices of youth living in a South African community associated with social inequity, structural underdevelopment and occupational risks. In that context, youngsters tend to reproduce patterns of restricted occupational choices, which in turn tend to reproduce inequality.

Territory and Occupational Justice

Numerous studies have addressed the relationship between inhabited spaces and occupation. Among them is the migration phenomenon in a globalized world (Gupta, 2013; Huot & Rudman, 2010); the experience of political refugees (Whiteford, 2005); the case of homeless people (Marshall, Lysaght, & Krupa, 2017); the relationship between indigenous peoples and their land (Frank, 2011; McNeill, 2016); experiences in segregated areas (Galvaan, 2015); and changes in occupations associated with the transformation of the district where people live (Fritz & Cutchin, 2017), among others. All of these cases have implicit or explicit implications for occupational justice.

Additionally, there is a growing consideration of the situated nature of occupations (Galvaan, 2015; Kantartzis & Molineux, 2014; Prodinger, Rudman, & Shaw, 2015). Which relates to a transactional perspective of occupation inspired by John Dewey’s arguments (Cutchin & Dickie, 2013). Drawing from these ideas, situated occupation can be understood as “the ways occupation is shaped within, and contributes to the shaping of, economic, social, cultural, political and other contextual factors” (Prodinger et al., 2015, p. 73). Within this framework, Frank (2011) highlighted the transactional relationship between occupation and place, describing how the transformations of the place inhabited by indigenous peoples in the United States have impacted their occupations, which were directly related to such places.

At the same time, Huot and Rudman (2010) suggest that place–identity–occupation are intimately related. Their argument is based on the insight that place is a concept that goes beyond mere space or the idea of environment, understood as something other than the environment. Based on this, Huot and Rudman understood place as a social construct, referred to a specific space with meaning where everyday routines happen.

Underpinnings of place and occupation

This paper explores the relationship between place and occupation based on the concept of territory described by Gilberto Giménez (1996, 1999, 2005). Giménez suggests a transdisciplinary approach that brings geography and social science studies together, interlinking the understanding of space, time and social context. In this framework the concept of territory is consistent with that of place, described from an occupational perspective, in the sense that both address space and its relationship with the symbolic aspects that are required for social life and, why not, for occupations. The concept of territory –as will be described in the paragraphs below– brings other perspectives that help to delve deeper into the relationship between place and occupation, at the same time favoring a dialogue with occupational justice. Thus, our goal is to reflect on the implications of the concept of territory to satisfying the occupational needs of individuals and communities.

Territory can be understood as the “appropriate space for a social group to ensure its reproduction and satisfy its basic needs, which could be either material or symbolic” (Giménez, 2005, p. 9). Territory, understood as such, is a space of cultural imprinting which acts as a distribution framework of institutions and cultural practices, as well as a space for attachment and belonging (Giménez, 1999). Based on this, we highlight four aspects of this approach, expecting to unpack the phenomena which are at the core of occupational injustice situations. These aspects are: the multilevel nature of territory; the axes of space appropriation; power relationships that cross them; and the relationship of territory with identity building.

Occupational justice and territory

The multilevel nature involves an understanding of the different levels in the geographical scale that can be considered a territory. These levels are built historically and are closely intertwined (Giménez, 1999). Local, regional/subnational, national, multinational and global levels have been described (Ramírez Kuri, 2009). With such an approach, a person or group can belong to different territories at the same time –corresponding to diverse levels– such as his/her house–home, district, region, continent, etc. (Giménez, 2005). From the perspective of occupational justice, this implies considering the different belonging levels that converge in the occupational needs and opportunities of an individual or group. In this approach we include a distinction between the northern and southern hemispheres, as well as between east and west, considering the differences and tensions between them which are associated with colonization processes and North/West hegemony, both ideologically and politically (Galheigo, 2011; Galheigo & Simó, 2012; Phelan & Kinsella, 2009).

The relationship between the multilevel nature of territory and occupational justice is apparent in the situation of refugees of the Taiskinchen camp, Austria (Steindl, Winding, & Runge, 2008). The authors discussed how the occupations of women living in that camp were disrupted, not only because they were separated from their family but also due to restrictions on leaving the refugee camp and the characteristics of the areas and dwellings within the camp, where co–habiting with strangers led to important privacy restrictions. In this case, we consider that occupational barriers emerged in at least three levels of the territory, namely: distance from their home country; being confined to the refugee camp, and living in shared facilities.

Concerning axes of space appropriation, Giménez (1999, 2005) suggested that the ownership and valorization of a given territory tends to be predominantly utilitarian–functional or symbolic–expressive. The utilitarian–functional axis refers to the material need relationship of/with the space. From this perspective, territory is understood as a means of livelihood or for exchange, an area to be controlled either by the military or politically, a refuge, among other aspects. On the other hand, the symbolic–expressive axis is associated with the meaning of territory as a sacred space, ecological reserve, typical landscape, roots of a social group, source of history or other forms of symbolic imprinting (Giménez, 1996, 1999).

Both axes are relevant for occupation, as shown in Mcneill’s (2016) description of the Tapuika, Māori tribe in Aotearoa New Zealand who share an epistemology that understands well-being based on a holistic relationship with the world, where nature, humanity and Gods are all interlinked. Similarly, they have a strong relationship with the river, so that life and occupations are organized around it. This reasoning addresses both the symbolic–expressive axis of the territory and its utilitarian–functional one, as life near the river supports survival, including farming, fishing and the collection of medicines, among other occupations. With European colonization, the Tapuika were estranged from most of their ancestral lands and, subsequently, the area was destroyed and polluted, with ensuing loss of occupations related to life by the river; currently, attempts to recover this lifestyle are being made. This case points to the close relationship between the experience of territory and occupational justice, producing disruptions in occupations and well-being because of being separated from a certain territory.

The case of the Tapuika people clearly reveals power relations between the New Zealand Government and the tribe, and its impact on how territory is experienced. In this regard, Giménez suggested that the constitution of territories is crossed by power relations that take different forms from one human group to the next. These relations control how to organize the distribution of the things that can be owned within the territory. At the same time, power relations configure hierarchical organizations as well as a territory’s production, regulation and protection actions (Giménez, 1999, 2005). This way of understanding a territory emphasizes that its configuration is not neutral but driven by the vested interests of those who exercise power³. This is apparent in many situations in which the lack of opportunities to exercise power constrains the occupational engagement of people or groups in a given territory. Another example of this is the case of the Austrian refugee camp described above (Steindl et al., 2008).

Finally, territory is understood as a source of individual and collective identities, as well as of relationships based on symbolic-affective bonds linked to a specific culture. Thus, through socialization processes, people who belong to or get a hold of a territory develop a sense of ownership and a socio–spatial status which is at the base of this identity (Giménez, 1996, 2005). From this viewpoint, territorial identity implies a construction framed within the ways the territorial dimension defines the structure of the collectivity and the organization of people within it. Notably, while identity–related aspects have taken new shapes in globalized societies, evidence suggests that they are still present and that humans still establish a bond with their territories (Giménez, 2005; McNeill, 2016). This is reflected in phenomena such as migration, which results in an interruption or change of identity due to the transformation of everyday routines, the loss of meaning of occupations and having to leave familiar places behind (Farías & Asaba, 2013; Gupta & Sullivan, 2013; Nayar, Hocking, & Giddings, 2012). In this regard, Huot and Rudman (2010) addressed the relationship between identity and international migration, understanding identity as a flexible and dynamic phenomenon that emerges from an interdependence between individuals and structural aspects that are reflected in occupations and their meanings. Thus, they suggested that occupations should be understood as “doing identity in relation to place” (Huot & Rudman, 2010, p. 68), which may change in the face of migration.

In this respect, the impacts that territorial changes can have on territorial identity and collective occupations are highlighted, particularly in the case of indigenous peoples who have been conquered throughout history. For the Mapuche people (people of the land) in Chile, their territory involves their world view, culture, community and territorial identity or tüwun, so that the mapuche world is embedded into the mapuche country (Tricot, 2009). After the Spanish invasion, the Mapuche country or Wallmapu was broken up and modified during a long economic and political process that is still occurring today (Bello, 2002; Tricot, 2009) In this context, since the 19^th century there has been an exodus to the city associated with economic needs related to the degradation and reduction of communal lands, experienced by many as a defeat (Bello, 2002; Zapata Silva, 2006). This has resulted in changes in the relationship of migrants with their original lands; a symbolic and material relationship is maintained, which apparent in the imprinting of a common culture, family bonds and the economic support that a large number of migrants send to their communities of origin. Thus, migrant Mapuche can be understood as part of an extended community whose identity is still linked to their home territory (Bello, 2002).

This example shows different aspects of the territory experience, which can be understood from the perspective of occupational justice. The multilevel nature of territory is apparent in at least two levels: the Wallmapu area and Chile as a country. Additionally, both axes of space ownership are identified, which leads to a relationship that includes economic and symbolic aspects of the territory. At the same time, the situation of the Mapuche people reveals the power relations developed in Wallmapu, concerning the intervention of the Chilean state. Finally, the example also refers to the construction of a collective and individual identity concerning territory. These aspects have implications from an occupational justice perspective, associated with difficulties maintaining occupations related to ancestral lands and the need to develop new occupations and reconfigure self–identity. From this standpoint, stresses can be identified between experiences in Wallmapu and life in the city, with the need to abandon aspects of the symbolic-affective axis due to the deterioration of the utilitarian–functional axis associated with colonization.

Occupational Displacement

Based on the emphases found in the review of the various forms of occupational injustice and discussion of Giménez’s concept of territory, we identified a new form of occupational injustice that we consider worthwhile exploring; Occupational displacement. We propose that occupational displacement is the lack of opportunities for occupations related to territory and its impact on people’s lives from the perspective of occupational science. This concept is expected to be relevant to delving deeper into phenomena that impact occupational justice, consistent with the work of Giménez (2005), who called for rediscovering of meaning of the space-time context, preventing “social sciences from turning around in a void and dimensionless space” (p. 8).

Based on this, we suggest an initial definition of occupational displacement as a phenomenon in which an individual or group is forcibly removed, dispossessed or displaced by reasons beyond his/her immediate control, leaving behind territories that had occupational/cultural/economic significance, and resulting in impoverishment or limited opportunities for meaningful and ecologically significant occupations. Thus, occupational displacement relates to the negative impacts on the occupational life of an individual or group uprooted from an appropriate territory. This has different implications related to the diverse territory elements (see Table 1).

Table 1. Diverse Elements of the Territory and Implications for Occupation

Element	Implications for Occupation
Multilevel nature of territory	Occupational displacement can occur at several levels and at different moments, or in parallel. Examples: Refugees, indigenous peoples subject to forced displacements, or dispossessed of their land, incarcerated people, among others.
Utilitarian–functional axis	Missed opportunities associated with utilitarian and functional characteristics of the territory which sustain occupations and family and everyday performance. Examples: Lack of access to institutions and resources (schools, health services, markets, employment), which can additionally contribute to the ghettoization of territories.
Symbolic–expressive axis	Transformation or loss of the symbolic–expressive aspects of the home territory, either individually or collectively, leading to the decline or shift of occupations embedded in the place of origin. Examples: Deterioration or loss of ancestral lands; being away from the home territory.
Power relations that cross the territory	Power rationales that cross the production, maintenance and structure of territories can limit or modify occupational engagement of individuals or groups. Examples: Forced displacement (Castaño Pineda, 2015); refugee camps.
Relationship of the territory with identity building	Impact on individual and group identity due to being away from the home territory. Building an occupational identity associated to the repetition of practices framed in the symbolic configuration of the territory, perpetuating inequality.

An Example: The Case of Chilean Squatter Settlements

Below we discuss an example which, in our opinion, could represent a case of occupational displacement. This case was developed based on urban studies conducted in Chile about the phenomena of squatter settlements⁴ and residential segregation⁵. In Chile, “campamentos” or camps are informal squatter settlements which the Chilean Ministry of Housing and Urban Development seeks to remove through the relocation and establishment of squatter households to formal social housings (Brain, Prieto, & Sabatini, 2010; MINVU, 2011). These camps, however, are considered a residential condition that refuses to disappear, something that could be explained by their advantages in terms of location and by a flexible structure that facilitates social organization (Brain et al., 2010; Skewes, 2001). In this sense, while living in a squatter settlement involves substandard housing conditions in terms of sanitation, electric power and more, it also entails advantages for occupational engagement. Aspects such as the interaction among neighbors, group encounters, mutual protection and community organization of daily life occupations are, therefore facilitated (Skewes, 2001).

In terms of urban development and space, leaving the campamento can involve changes in these families’ lifestyle, leading to challenges and difficulties for occupational engagement. While moving to social housing means access to improved conditions –solid dwellings, washroom and kitchen inside the house, formal sanitation and electric power– questions have been raised concerning the quality of such dwellings, including design, size and construction (Hidalgo, 2007; Skewes, 2001). At the same time, relocation usually involves moving to the city’s outskirts, away from more consolidated districts and where land has lower prices. This translates into a residential segregation to the edge of the city with the ensuing impact on access to services and other resources, including safety, health, and assets. Additionally, these individuals have difficulties accessing employment and education opportunities and see their primary and secondary social fabrics broken (Hidalgo, 2007; Mallea, 2009; Sabatini & Brain, 2008).

Thus, territorial relocation and establishment bring with them impoverished and/or limited engagement in occupation. This has strong impacts on various types of occupation, including production, education and labor, with high school dropout and unemployment rates. Likewise, it involves reduced collective occupations with neighbors associated to the breaking up of family bonds, mistrust and fear of public spaces, as well as time-consuming commuting (Hidalgo, 2007; Sabatini & Brain, 2008). These changes are associated with social disintegration, leading to the impoverishment or social decay of those who become isolated from urban centers. In this sense, the current policy of residential segregation is leading to social breakdown and ghettoization processes that are associated with increasing crime rates, school dropout and drug use. This is understood to be the result of a process that begins with reduced opportunities (Hidalgo, 2007; Hidalgo, Urbina, Alvarado, & Paulsen, 2017; Sabatini & Brain, 2008).

Along these lines and in spite of government efforts to remove squatter settlements, they continue to appear near urban centers which concentrate occupational opportunities, including labor and services (Brain et al., 2010). This suggests that, in spite of the precarious living conditions in squatter settlements, there are more opportunities associated to the instrumental-functional axis on account of being closer to services and resources offered by the social interaction built in these spaces, as mentioned above. At the same time, the symbolic-affective features of the campamentos, such as solidarity networks, highly valued community engagement, and flexible organizations, also open occupational opportunities which tend to disappear after the displacement to the suburbs (Brain et al., 2010; Skewes, 2001). Conversely, the lack of safety and the social issues associated to the ghetto experience that have been described in social housing complexes is an additional symbolic element that discourages settling in formal dwellings (Brain et al., 2010).

From the point of view of occupational justice, it must be distinguished that both the loss of the appropriate territory –the squatter settlement– and the instrumental and symbolic features associated to the new territory, create a risk of occupational injustice. This risk, directly related to the territory–occupation relationship, could be considered as a type of –local– occupational displacement. While displacement from the squatter settlement is not necessarily forced, it is associated with existing inequalities that actually force people to abandon their place of origin.

Final Reflections

In this work we have discussed the relevance of considering the concept of territory to understand phenomena that lie beneath occupational injustice. This suggestion emerges from a contextualized space-time understanding of phenomena that shape the foundations of occupation. In addition, this is related to a situated approach to occupation which reveals a transactional relationship with place. At the same time, introducing the concept of territory from the point of view expressed herein provides new insights for an analysis that also considers cross-cutting and complex developments.

Acknowledging the relevance of territory for occupation can contribute to understanding of occupational justice as it reveals the impact of territory on inhabitants’ engagement opportunities, as well as its influence on health and perceptions of well-being. In this sense, it implies an understanding of the appropriate space that exceeds instrumental characteristics and encompasses the construction of individual and collective meanings that cross people’s occupational lives, with consequences on the experience of territory at their different interlinking levels. At the same time, the discussion supports a reflection about occupational identity and construction of everyday life as phenomena with a strong territorial basis.

From this point of view, when the experience of the territory breaks down due to an imposed relocation or dispossession process, access to these opportunities and occupational engagement venues is disrupted, becoming a risk of occupational injustice. This results particularly concerning in populations where missed opportunities lead to social disintegration and marginalization, as is the case of the squatter residents’ relocation in Chile. In this respect, we consider that this imposed relocation can take several forms. On one hand, it can take the form of open forced displacements, like a bank–ordered eviction, exile or armed conflicts that force people to seek refuge in other countries. On the other hand, it can be associated with situations that could be considered free choice but which are based on inequalities that force people to abandon their territory to overcome economic hardships, discrimination or abuse.

In this framework, we suggest exploring occupational displacement as new form of occupational injustice. Our aim is to contribute a new concept that can inform the debate within the occupational science sphere, consistent with the call made by occupational scientists such as Kantartzis and Molineux (2014), Reed and Hocking (2013) and Rudman and Huot (2013), to address the situational nature of occupation and its meanings. With this in mind, we extend an invitation to develop the concept of occupational displacement in order to further understanding of the complexity of territory-related occupational phenomena. In doing so, we expect to contribute to the construction of situated knowledge from the perspective of occupational justice.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad Austral de Chile, for the support given to the Symposium that inspired this paper. To Lilian Magalhaes, for her guidance and kind words. This work was supported by a grant provided to the first autor by the National Commission of Scientific and Technological Research (Chile), [grant CONICYT-PFCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2017-21171279].

ORCID

Eugenia Pizarro http://orcid.org/0000–0002–5787–7642

Gail Whiteford http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6136-1844

Notes

1 Event held at Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, on August 25 and 26, 2016.

2 The presentation dealt with a dissertation titled: “Construction of a land-based occupational identity of youth between 13 and 18 years old living in the Alto Guacamayo quarter in the city of Valdivia, Chile, 2016”, written by Silvana Estrella, Fernanda Figueroa, Francisca Helmke, and Claudia Pontigo with Eugenia Pizarro as their supervisor.

3 This issue has aspects in common with the concept of occupational apartheid. From the current perspective, however, emphasis is placed in the relationship between power and territory.

4 In Chile, squatter settlements are called “campamentos” or camps (T.N).

5 Several studies that are part of a growing group of investigations concerned with phenomena associated to the country’s housing policies were reviewed. Some of the most outstanding research lines are those by Isabel Brain, Francisco Sabatini and Rodrigo Hidalgo (2007, 2008, 2010, 2017).