January 17: What is disability?
Read: Longmore, Why I Burned My Book, introduction and ch. 1 & 7 (pp. 1-32, 131-146)
Then answer either question 1 or 2 below.
1) What term(s) for “disability” and “people with disabilities” do you think are most appropriate? Why? Can “people with disabilities” be described as a single group? Why or why not? Please engage with Longmore in your answer The point here is to think through Longmore’s arguments about the meaning of disability and the need for disability studies and whether you agree with him.
2) Alternatively, you can summarize in several sentences your “muddiest point(s),” that is, what important point(s) in Longmore you found most confusing.
Disabled is not the best term because it shows that one is not able to do. As shown in chapter 7 the way we define and treat persons with disabilities affects a society’s reactions and treatments towards those with a physical or cognitive impairment. It is better rather to say that someone has a disability than they are disabled, or a personal favorite is handicap-able. These terms are best because they do not demean or restrict someones abilities or disabilities. No they should not be all described in a single group, as represented in chapter one people with all types of disabilities are grouped together and expected to be treated all the same (especially when legislation is being passed). This is a very dangerous thing to do because there are so many types of disabilities that all need very particular needs and/or assistance.
The conceptual notion of “disability” seems to be fraught not only with complications, but also with paradoxes. There is more than one point within this subject, and the readings, which I am confused by. I find the term “disabled” to be somewhat paradoxical. Modern scholarship within the field of Disability Studies defines the “disabled” as a capable and whole, rather than broken and inferior, group. This definition though is directly at odds with the actual definition and meaning of the word disabled. It seems like a better term to replace “disabled” would be “challenged,” if we are maintaining the position that the disabled person is not actually incapable. But does “challenged” adequately describe the reality? Certainly it’s a kinder, mildly more accurate term for some cases, suggesting the ability to overcome with great effort. But is it perhaps too broad? For, depending on the circumstances, I could be considered physically challenged, even though I am not considered disabled. Is it merely our language that restricts our understanding, or is it instead our perception of the “disabled” that limits our insight?
Authors like Longmore seem to advocate for the “disabled” on one hand, while on the other, they study them as a socio-cultural group within the context of larger societies and cultures. They maintain that to view the “disabled” as inferior or in need of help or rehabilitation demonstrates one’s own prejudice and fear of the “disabled.” Yet Longmore simultaneously asks “How much can society afford? What do disabled people have a right to expect?” Doesn’t this duality represent a contradiction? Either the “disabled” are in need of help and their society ought to provide the assistance they require, or the “disabled” are equal with the rest of society and need neither help nor rehabilitation.
I believe that the term differently abled best describes people with disabilitiesBecause it focuses on what they can do instead of their limitations. Also, I do not believe that these differently abled people should all be classified as one group. As stated in Longmore’s introduction people who do not have a disability treat the differently abled as one group because they are afraid to discuss the issue of disability.
I believe that the access issues and stereotypes discussed in the readings stem from an ignorance about people with disabilities. For example, one of the films Longmore uses to illustrate stereotyping is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. In that film the dwarf Dopey is mute and seems by our standards to be mentally challenged. However, at that time the term disability had not even come to be used in common language. Also I believe that Dopey is seen as more comical than disabled. In addition, I agree with Longmore that people do not understand the accessibility issues faced by people with disabilities because non-disabled people only know what they can see. They see the visibly handicapped and try their best to accommodate them through legislation that requires ramps on public buildings and paratransit services, but all these measures do is comply with the law. Sometimes there is more that need to be done, especially because as discussed in class not all disabilities can be seen.
The term “disability” is too broad to be able to apply to everyone who is classified as “disabled.” It implies that certain groups of people are less capable of functioning with “normal” people. This is not always so. I prefer the term “handicap” because it can also mean a disadvantage. People who have “handicaps” have a disadvantage compared to others who do not because of the way society is set up.
The term “disability” is too broad because it attempts to describe several people who all have different disadvantages. As Longmore said on page 11, “Disability experiences are not homogeneous.” Someone who is partially deaf may only need to ask others to speak up, whereas someone who is partially blind may need someone to guide them from place to place. Both are considered “disabilities,” but they have vastly different effects on everyday living. I disagree with Longmore on the terms he uses, but I do agree that disability studies are important. How else will the distinctions between the different disadvantages that people have be made?
Since I have taken some social work classes we have discussed the terms that people may prefer over the label as disability. One term we have discussed is handicapable because people can do everything that other people do they just do it differently. They do not see themselves as being disabled because they live their life just like everyone else. Personally I do not like to be labeled as a disability because people look down on me for being stupid because I have problems learning. I did not get diagnosed until my third year in college. Since I never knew about my problems I just worked extra hard in order to do well in school. Even though I barely made it out of school I learned ways that would help get me as far as I could go. Just like me everyone else is capable of doing everyday tasks and they have learned how to do them with what they have.
In the book Longman suggests that people with disabilities is a single group trying to get more access to everyday tasks. I believe that they cannot be put into a single group. Each person with a disability has different needs that need to be taken care of. For example someone who is in a wheelchair may not know what someone who is blind may need. Each group can voice their needs for that specific group because they know exactly what that group needs.
It becomes difficult for a person to accurately describe an “appropriate term” for any group in which they are not a part of. For one to decide an injured war veteran be named disfigured, or that a paraplegic can concretely be labeled as crippled seems to elevate the idea that one element of a person’s life ultimately defines who they are and where they belong. In essence, this is why I agree with Longmore’s application of a two part definition to people who experience a way of life different from my own. Longmore’s medical definition of disability characterizes it as a personal ailment, which seems necessary if only for medical applications, however he furthers the definition by including the social problems that this selection of individuals consistently face. This notion supports the conclusion that “people with disabilities” in fact comprise a numerous amount of groups, separated by an immense amount of differences. Severity of ailment, level of assistance, minority/majority status, and economic resources all help to either alienate or include an individual and allow for the extremely fluid and interchanging concept of “disability” to continually mature.
I, personally, do not feel that there needs to be a term. If one were to describe a person, they could use their diagnosis as a description much like one would say a girl with black hair or a boy with freckles. I think adding a term to people dehumanizes them and socially segregates them. It seems that Longmore does not have a position on the terms used to distinguish “disabled” people from others, but rather what social and emotional connections are tied (through the actions of society as a whole and evident in the unwillingness to accommodate and media depictions) to these terms. Throughout the assigned chapters, he switches from “people first,” to “disabled,” and even once says “paraplegic teenage fashion model.” I also think that the term used to label people differs from person to person. Just as some “typical” people may have an issue with being labeled as certain things and others not be bothered by it, people with disabilities prefer to be labeled specific ways or not at all.
As to them falling within a specific group, I think it fits only for certain situations. As far as government and social agencies, I think that’s fine, but as Longmore states time and time again through examples, the needs are different and the people are different. I think that to look closer into a group of people marked as disabled, one will see different sects/cultures that have evolved within that umbrella, just as humanity (as a whole) has different sects.
No term in the current lexicon adequately replaces disability regardless of how frayed and worn that concept may be. The term, of course, implies a lack of ability which has been proven untrue, yet all other such terms for disabled persons do much the same thing. Handicapped implies the same impairment, while terms such as “differently abled” still rest on the notion of separating the disabled from society at large. A myriad of other terms exist, some obviously offensive (i.e. crippled) and other insidiously so (i.e. special). None of these adequately captures the concept of disability. Furthermore, using specific medical terminology has its own set of difficulties and pitfalls. As Longmore addresses in the text, the psychological and physiological characterizations of disability remain untenable because they fail to address the issue as a social construction. A society defines normal based on their mores, folkways, and culture while maintaining disability as antagonistic and separate to those beliefs. Furthermore, doing so poses the danger of characterizing people as their disorder rather than as individuals.
At the broadest level, “people with disabilities” might be considered a cohesive group. Longmore details the growth of the disability rights movement in the latter half of the twentieth century which seems to suggest a broad-based movement with policy objectives. This implies at least some measure of a cohesive, collective identity with its own intellectual tradition and culture. Again, the danger lies in defining the disabled experience as common to all people of all disabilities. Doing so largely ignores the complexity of people with disabilities as well as the movement itself which has a great deal of nuance that cannot be cleanly described a linear progression with all forces working toward one goal. Taking these caveats into account, people with disabilities can be looked at as a group even if not always clearly defined, and disability itself serves as an incredibly useful category of analysis.
I honestly think that using the word “disabled” is not the most appropriate term for people with disabilities, but I must agree that it is one of the most common terms. A better term is to simply say a “person with a disability” to respect them and not take their “voice” away. One of the most important factors that I found in working with people with disabilities was that they love to be independent. In addition, people that have a disability should not be grouped into one group. There are a variety of disabilities like hearing impairments and a loss of vision that are may not be physically visible. In addition, Paul Longmore describes in his introduction “Disabled people have often been considered unqualified to speak for themselves, to interpret their own experience” (p.7). Longmore continues with how they are invisible to a large part of society because they are “disabled.” The correct term is “a person with a disability.” One of my favorite points that Longmore mentions is society is taught certain stereotypes about people with disabilities when in reality they are nothing like what we assume them to be. A nondisabled person has their own individual story so why must society group people with disabilities? Most are capable of doing things that a nondisabled person would be able to, but society relies too much on the stereotypes.
One of the “muddiest” points i could not take my mind off of was how the media portrayed the disabled to society. I may be a tad bit biased (for a lack of better word) in all aspect of the disabilities topic because i have a brother with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, which is a form of Muscular Dystrophy. He has wheelchair bound his entire life and never once have i seen him portray any of the aspects that the media makes a handicapped individual out to be. Longmore states that “Giving disabilities to villainous characters reflects and enforces… three common prejudices against handicapped people: disability is a punishment for evil; disabled people are embittered by their “fate”; disabled people resent the non-disabled and would, if they could, destroy them” (134). First,, just because you have a disability does not inquire that you obtained it from being evil. Kyle was born with his disability (as are most), soo that would be like saying that he was born evil. Secondly, i truly and honestly believe that, no matter your disability, your fate lays in your own hands. Which ever path you choose to take, and goals you set for yourself are entirely up to you. Lastly, although some people wish they did not have their disability, they don’t resent us for what we have (at least not enough to kill us). In all reality, non-disabled humans are the ones who have issues dealing with the handicapped.
From what i have noticed growing up around my brother, people try to make sense of what they do not understand. Sometimes situations are misconstrued, like the media has done with disabilities. “People with disabilities and people with out disabilities often perceive disabilities in very different ways” (Longmore, 7). When the media misconstrues information, though, the society tends to take whatever they see as how things truly are.
When speaking in terms of everyday usage, “people with disabilities” would seem to be one of the most appropriate in that it is difficult to come up with a term to describe persons who are different from others (mentally, physically, etc.) without at the same time disenfranchising the group of persons too much, though to an extent using any term does. People with disabilities can in one sense be described as a single group in that there is something different than could be expected if that person were entirely healthy in every sense possible to a point that any deficiencies are beyond what the majority of the population may experience. However, and this is Longmore’s weakness in these readings, emphasis may then often be placed on more readily apparent forms of disability, such as those requiring a need for a wheelchair, that thoughts of accommodations are considered to be more structural in nature. A person on the autism spectrum for instance, may have many complications that make their life difficult, just as a person who has some level of paralysis that necessitates the use of a wheelchair, but since there is not the same visual marker, the need for accommodation may be looked at less sympathetically.
The need for disability studies outside of the traditional range of medical discourse was certainly well-argued by Longmore, to the point that Longmore appeared to at odds with the idea of disability being defined by medical discourse, “scholarship and advocacy must struggle against the entrenched power of the medical model to shape thinking about ‘disability’(Longmore, p. 8).” While advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities to speak actively on their own behalf, it would seem from these initial readings, that a broader perspective can be gained when it is acknowledged that there are some problems that can be “fixed” to some level, notwithstanding any ethical issues or preferences aside. The reading could have been expanded upon with a fuller discussion of the role of medical discourse within the broader field of disability studies intersects with other viewpoints in the field at large.. As it is, however, by showing that persons with disabilities are a marginalized group in the field of academia as a field of research and study, the need for a broad field of study can plainly be seen.
I personally do not believe that there should be a specific term used to describe people with disabilities. In my opinion a person with disabilities should be considered a normal person like everyone else. The idea of labeling someone because they are in a wheel chair or have difficulty hearing in my opinion is morally wrong. In today’s society we tend to label people quite a lot and that labeling leads to stereotypes, which later turns in to discrimination.
Longmore stated that often times people with disabilities find it hard to get a job and even if they do it’s more likely to be a part time job and at the same time their rate of pay is significantly less than that of someone without disabilities. This is clearly discrimination! And I believe that our society should refrain from labeling someone as “disabled,” or “handicapped.” I think that our society should pay more attention to the wellbeing of people with disabilities. I don’t think that we are doing enough to prevent the discrimination and the negative image that we portray on people with disabilities.
I am not sure what terms are best to describe people with “disabilities” and I am hoping that is some thing that I will learn in this class. I think that when the term disability is used that it creates a stereo type that people within this categories are not capable of preforming daily task. Longhorn does an great job in chapter 7 showing that the way people with physical deformities are presented to the public within the entertainment industries and how that carries over to the way the general public treats these individuals. It makes the world see them as less able people and often the “disability” does not prevent them from completed those task, it is the world around them that is not able to make changes to accommodate their personal needs. As described in chapter 1, there is an idea the doing this will cost large amount of money and companies/businesses have a opposition to making the needed changes.
I do not think that people with “disabilities” can be lumped into one group even when trying to study them. The verity of “disablities” that are covered make it difficult for one persons needs and experanicence to be similar enough to another persons. Even the idea that a person with a physical “disability” be studied with all others would prove to be difficult. When studying you have to take into account all factors and define several groups of individuals with the same needs and experiance inorder to study that group accurately. I think that “disabilities” needs to be studied because the general population needs to be more educated and I feel that would help people understand that those individuals are being excluded and how that is happening. I believe that education on all topic is an important processes in preventing discrimination.
I don’t really agree with the word “disabled”, handicap is a much better way to categorize it,but I also agree that we really shouldn’t have a term that categorizes everyone because everyone doesnt belong in the same category. Having a category for all a Handicaps really is not fair there are so many different areas. One of the reasons I believe people just lump everyone with a handicap together is the lack of knowledge,