What is Disability?

An analysis using quotes from the following two readings:

Disability Definitions: The Politics of Meaning by Michael Oliver

"As far as disability is concerned, if it is seen as a tragedy, then disabled people will be treated as if they are victims of some tragic happening or circumstance...if disability is defined as social oppression, then disabled people will be seen as the collective victims of an uncaring or unknowing society rather than as individual victims of circumstance" (Oliver, 167)

and

A World of Their Own by Liza Mundy

"Because they don't view deafness as a disability, they don't see themselves as bringing a disabled child into the world. Rather, they see themselves bringing a different sort of normal child into the world. Why not bring a deaf child into the world? What, exactly, is the problem? In their minds, they are no different from parents who try to have a girl. After all, girls can be discriminated against. Same with deaf people" (Mundy 174)

      These two articles discuss perspectives as they relate to the concept of "disability". The former article addressing the abhorrent fact that as a society, we deem disabilities as travesties, and the latter article contradicting this conjecture by giving an example of a justifiable argument. 

      

      The first article touches upon the negative connotations that we give to those with "disabilities"and highlights the salient and impactful nature that definitions have when used to identify people. As the quote exclaims above, one of the main arguments in this reading is that as a society, we have deemed disabled individuals as not only different in accordance with societal norms, but we have also degraded them to a level described as those who are "less fortunate" or "worse-off" than others. This unjust fact is proven later in the reading, when describing the types of questions that were asked in a 1986 census survey attempting to accurately identify "disabled" people; some questions included: "Can you tell me what is wrong with you?", "Do you have a scar, blemish or deformity which limits your daily activities?", and "Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to a hearing problem?". Analyzing these questions, it is evident that we were clearly belittling folks with disabilities, as we were blaming problems they may face in society on the fact that they had some sort of disability. One of the most enlightening contrasts to these questions were the questions formulated later on in the article that address the ultimate cause of disability as due to the social and physical environments within society. Some of these questions read: "Can you tell me what is wrong with society?", "Do other people's reactions to any scar, blemish or deformity you may have, limit your daily activities?", and "Are your difficulties in understanding people mainly due to their inabilities to communicate with you?". The restructuring of these questions further justifies the need to change our preconceived notions that disabilities are a problem with the individual, we should instead recognize that societal views, reactions, and accommodations are the true problems...

      The second article delves into the lives of two deaf women who desire to have a baby, but not just any baby, they express their wish to have a deaf baby. This article opens up an entirely new perspective as it shows that what could be desirable differs from family to family. As seen in the quote above, one of the main points in the article is the fact that these two parents want to bring a child into the world that is normal according to them - not what society deems normal.Throughout the reading, the author describes what their lifestyle has been like already having one child that is deaf, and why they desire to have another. The article discusses the fact that there is a community of people that individuals who are deaf belong to, there is a rhythm and a way of life that is very different from those who can hear. These two women want to have a child that will "fit" into this same community (this larger family as is it often referred to), and grow up with the same lifestyle as they have now. From their perspective, it will be easier to raise a child in an environment that they can all share together; just as a new parent faces the trouble of discerning whether or not they are actually doing a good enough job, this task is exponentially more challenging if the parent does not have the same experiences as their child. One of the most powerful statements in this article can be seen at the end, when describing their baby boy's results of his hearing test. Although he is not entirely deaf, it is decided, and understood that he is in fact certainly "deaf enough" to belong to the community with which these two women had desired him to be in. This reading truly hones in on the fact that there are many different communities within our world, none that should be considered better than another, just different. 

      These two articles pose a powerful flip in one's though process as it relates to feelings of disability and belonging. I found the first article truly inspiring, due to the fact that as I was reading the questions from the census, I felt that society was persecuting those individuals, and I was hoping for a change. As I was reading, I found myself understanding more and more about how easily it is to place people in a category that is "below" yourself without even knowing that you had done so. I was frustrated to see more examples of how, as a community, we tried to identify the "bad/wrong" things that people had, rather than the ways in which we can accommodate them, or not react negatively toward them. While reading this article, I couldn't help but introspectively analyze the fact that whenever I would see somebody who is wheelchair bound, or cannot walk, or cannot speak, I inherently began to feel bad for them. It's definitely important that I am establishing an awareness for this, and that I consciously act to change it... 

      With regards to the quote from the second article, the most powerful aspect is the statement reading "a different sort of normal". The thought of disability is like most issues of diversity, very ambiguous, and thus open to subjectivity. Definitions of "normal" differ from one person to the next dramatically as I began to realize once I finished reading this article. As an avid listener of music and moderately-professional DJ for 4 years now, I immediately thought of the hindrances associated with not being able to hear, and in the beginning, had thought that what they were doing to the newborn baby could be considered wrong or unethical. It somewhat reminded me of the debacle that some parents face when choosing the sex of a child who is born a hermaphrodite. Who is to say that the baby wouldn't want to hear and experience life different from the choices of his mothers? After finishing the article though, I realized that they would in fact allow their child the ability to hear if he desired in the future, and that they weren't necessarily being selfish, but instead trying to bring someone into this world that would be able to have the same experiences as them. I also realized that it isn't the most horrible thing to not be able to hear, and that instead of my myopic view of missing out on music, these individuals obviously live very happy lives. The comparisons that the reading made to people choosing whether they want a boy or a girl, or any of the other aspects contingent on the different specifications that can be requested from a sperm donor, really made me question what the difference in this situation was anyway...They have a truly valid point - just like their quote says above - what's the problem...why does it matter? They do not feel that they are missing out on life, just living a different lifestyle. It's this pragmatic switch in perspective that really is amazing in my opinion, and I look forward to reading more articles like this one.

      One powerful situation in my life that directly relates to these articles took place a couple of years ago, when I was helping run an exercise called "Target/Non-Target". This exercise involves having people stand on one side of a line corresponding to different prompts given by the facilitator. The group started out as male on one side and female on the other, and as the risky exercise entails, the categories delved deeper in both meaning and risk factor. At one point, the facilitator said "I consider myself fully-abled" (while pointing to one side), and "I consider myself not fully-abled" (pointing to the other side), and everyone's attention, as well as their physical body language, shifted towards the one male student who was in a wheelchair in our class...He quickly moved over to the side that was designated for "fully-abled" folks, and the room was floored. Everyone stared at him while quickly attempting to hide their astonishment, and to those that were on the other side, whether it was for the fact that they had glasses, or had learning "disabilities", they stared at him as well - in awe. After the exercise concluded, and we debriefed, (this debrief being the only time that the students could talk during the entire exercise), the class was eager to hear this one student's "justification". He simply stated that he may be in a wheelchair, but he does not consider himself to be "disabled". He claimed that he could still live the life that he wanted...I was really excited that this happened, as one of the major points of the exercise is to gain a better understanding of everyone and to challenge preconceived notions and conditioned responses due to societal "norms"...

      I enjoyed these articles very much, as I found them to be truly enlightening...I think that gaining an understanding of people's different perspectives, giving you an empathetic experience is the only real way to somewhat understand what life feels like for that person...