Category: Disability Theory

Psychological effects of disability

“Dealing with anger, self-loathing and daily experiences of rejection and humiliation are among the hardest aspects of being a disabled person.” (Shakespeare et al, 1996 p 42)

The psychological effects of disability are considered some of the most difficult to cope with. Not only does the individual have to deal with the impairment itself (often this is something that has come about, since as Siebers (2001) has indicated, only 15% of disabled people are born with their impairments), but there are also the stigmatizing effects of society, which includes the attitudes of those family and friends, colleagues and health professionals in direct contact with the individual (often this is compounded with the individual’s own negative stereotypes of disability that had been formed prior to the onset of disability). Continue reading “Psychological effects of disability”

Disability and identity politics

Identity politics is a general idea that some groups are oppressed within society, or more specifically, that one’s identity makes one more vulnerable to discrimination, exploitation, marginalisation, even violence. This would seem to be particularly relevant to the disabled body and issues surrounding the social construction of disability coupled with the hegemonic myth of normalcy. Continue reading “Disability and identity politics”

Disabled identity

One of the problems associated with disability is the fact that the impairment becomes the primary focus of identity, eclipsing all other aspects. As such, although an individual may belong to or identify with other groups (ethnic, gender, class, etc), the disabled identity becomes the salient one. McTigue (2007) observes that this may lead some to resist being labelled disabled for fear that the ‘absolute concept’ of disability will render them ‘wholly disabled’, effectively obscuring their other traits and abilities. Continue reading “Disabled identity”

Defining disability

“The category disability is not fixed and absolute, but can be, and indeed has been, defined in a variety of different ways throughout history, within particular societies and in any given social context. The fact that definitions of disability are relative rather than absolute have led some sociologists in particular to conclude that disability can only be properly understood as a social construction.” (Oliver, 1989, p 6)

“The term ‘disability,’ as it is commonly and professionally used, is an absolute category without a level or threshold. One is either disabled or not. One cannot be a little disabled any more than one can be a little pregnant.” (Davis 1995a, p 1)

Disability has been used as a rational pretext to justify discrimination against and exclude minority groups from mainstream activities throughout history. Continue reading “Defining disability”

Disability Studies – the medical and social models

As Lyotard pointed out, “narratives allow the society in which they are told, on the one hand, to define its criteria of competence and, on the other, to evaluate according to those criteria what is performed or can be performed with in it” (1984, p 20). The 19th century narratives that measured, identified, categorised and segregated abnormal ‘deviant’ types continue to inform institutional policy and discriminate against disabled people to this day, and according to disability theorists deserve to be challenged in much the same way as similar discriminatory narratives concerning gender and ethnicity have been. Continue reading “Disability Studies – the medical and social models”

History of disability as social issue

Disability scholars such as Michael Oliver (1990) and Vic Finkelstein (1981) trace the roots of disability as a social problem back to the rise of capitalist economy. According to their interpretation, in the period before the Industrial Revolution the majority of the population were rural and disabled people were not segregated since they could make some contribution, however minimal, to the production processes, which were largely agricultural or small-scale crafts. Continue reading “History of disability as social issue”

Terminology

Since I am going to be doing a lot of writing and translation on the subject, and dealing with specific case studies, I need to get my terminology right. I looked briefly at this when I analysed the work of Jim Ferris, but I wanted to make sure of a number of things. Although the terms ‘idiot’, ‘imbecile’ and ‘moron’ are now definitely pejorative, when Hine used them they were actually the medical terms used to describe adults with mental ages of < 2, 3-7, 8-12 respectively, while the term ‘feeble-minded’ was an umbrella term that referred to “[P]ersons who may be capable of earning a living under favourable circumstances, but are incapable from mental defect, existing from birth or from an early age: (1) of competing on equal terms with their normal fellows, or (2) of managing themselves and their affairs with ordinary prudence.” Continue reading “Terminology”

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started