I used to be absolutely certain that disability was biological and factual and these things needn't be questioned.
Now I am absolutely certain I was wrong.
Meekosha's article on Intercategorical Analysis explores the necessity to include disability in contemporary social, cultural and political theory. Meekosha believes it has been ignored so far because it hasn't made it into the category of the 'socially constructed'. Meekosha makes it rather obvious that just as gender and race were once considered to be biological and therefore fact, disability is still stuck in that kind of medical framework. Instead we should understand disability as a "socially generated system of discrimination" (Meekosha 2006, p. 163) that is built upon impairments (functional limitations of an individual). Similarly gender was - and distressingly still often is - understood to be biological.
I remember taking a philosophy class that touched on the topic of disability. The lecturer used an example of a community where the majority of the population was hearing impaired so everyone knew sign language. In this case would you consider a hearing impaired individual to be disabled? Another example was of an individual in a wheelchair. If ramps are always available as well as stairs can we still say that the individual is disabled?
These are quite simplistic examples however they can help us to understand the way impairment, physiognomy and sex are different to disability, race and gender. Just as impairments can be made disabling by society, sex and physiognomy also become disabling when gender and race are socially constructed into hierarchies.
I strongly agree that an impairment can me made to be a disability by the attitudes and actions of member of society.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of this talk:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/aimee_mullins_the_opportunity_of_adversity
You can certainly turn these 'functional impairments' into strengths. In point of fact, overcoming the disadvantages that an impairment may present can be greater strength than the impairment itself and offer a range of insights, abilities, perspectives and opportunities unavailable for people unhindered by it.
Hi Chrissie. If you are going to be writing an essay on this topic you might be interested in the work of my friend Anna Hickey-Moody: http://golds.academia.edu/annahickeymoody
ReplyDeleteOne thing to do with people with disabilities is that their sexual identity is brushed under the carpet . . people with disabilities are assumed to have no sexuality.
ReplyDeleteVery well written Chrissie. I'm not an expert on the subject but your arguments very coherent and it reads well.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone. Lucian, I'll check out your friend's work.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to people with impairments and their sexual identity, Meekosha emphasized the importance of "Intercategorical analysis", in particular the intersection of gender and disability. She stated that "Disability is also a gendered concept. People with impairments operate in worlds where gendered roles apply and gendered expectations abound. Disability modifies the way in which gender may be read and affects life opportunities. Disabled women have their sexuality and their reproductive rights interrogated and their fitness to reproduce questioned... Disabled men similarly face questioning of their masculinity and often experience constraints imposed on their sexual access and wider social participation." (Meekosha 2006, p. 169 - 170)
Intersections between race and disability, and class and disability among others are also important areas that need further research.
Perhaps I should have written my blog post on this instead.
Good points Chrissie and important discussions. Careful not to inadvertently conflate gender, sexuality/sexual identity, sexual activity and biological sex - they are distinct, though obv interrelated. There used to be a show on channel 31 about disability, sex and sexuality; it talked about issues such as those raised above.
ReplyDelete